1 comments about Lincoln and the Radicals.

1. I first read this book in graduate school twenty-five years ago, and while recently rereading it I was impressed anew with its scintillating but remarkably dated analysis. T. Harry Williams argued a very interesting thesis about Abraham Lincoln in this benchmark work in the historiography of the subject. He found that in spite of his personal antipathy toward slavery, Lincoln was moderate in his public statements because he could not afford to compromise his questionable popular base of support as president. Lincoln recognized that his administration's ability to hold the rest of the nation together in the wake of southern secession was dependent upon his walking a narrow path of acceptability to a coalition of factions with sometimes divergent beliefs upon the slavery issue, that without enough support his position as president would be undermined and he would never be able to accomplish anything worthwhile. In spite of personal desires, it was a question for Lincoln of first things first. In the end Lincoln was prompted to end slavery by executive order by radicals within his own party who pressed for emancipation.
   
   Lincoln demonstrated, according to Williams, a spirit of pragmatism. To demonstrate this he once compared government to a machine. If something goes wrong with the machine, what should one do? The reactionary might say, "Don't fool with it, you'll ruin it?" The radical might say, "It's no good, get rid of it and find a new one." The pragmatist would try to fix the machine, to remove the defective part and add a new one, but only after carefully scrutinizing the situation to ensure that his action was correct (T. Harry Williams, "Abraham Lincoln: Pragmatic Democrat," in Norman A. Graebner, ed., "The Enduring Lincoln: Lincoln Sesquicentennial Lectures at the University of Illinois" [University of Illinois Press, 1959], pp. 26 27).
   
   In this book Lincoln's moderation is very much admired by Williams, while the radicals were "Jacobin" revolutionaries intent on destroying the fabric of the nation. This position essentially embraces the larger thesis present about the Civil War in the 1930s and 1940s; that it was a "repressible conflict" that could have been avoided had extremists on both sides been willing to compromise. Williams viewed the radicals as dogmatic and inflexible in dealing with a significant problem in American history, while Lincoln was a pragmatist. Such people as the radicals in Congress, led by old antislavery Whigs such as Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, argued for a ruthless prosecution of the war and a punishment of the South for its rebellion. They established a Committee on the Conduct of the War that pressed Lincoln daily about the aggressive prosecution of the war with Republican rather than Democratic Party generals and punishment of the South. They were all opposed to slavery but the manner in which it would be eliminated--gradually or immediately, with owners paid off or not, and the status of the freed slaves--were hotly contested. In this book Lincoln is very much a pragmatic hero and the radicals very much obstinate ideologues.
   
   More recent interpretations of Lincoln's relationship to the radicals in his party are quite different from what Williams believed. Hans L. Trefousse argued in "The Radical Republicans" (Alfred A. Knopf, 1969) that they were Lincoln's vanguard for racial justice. They served as lightning rods for the antislavery agenda that Lincoln and all members of his party agreed upon. Having been elected to Congress from districts supportive of their aggressiveness, the radicals served as "blocking backs" for Lincoln and made it possible for him to move out on the abolition of slavery more readily than he would have been able to do otherwise. This is an interpretation that is more in keeping with recent trends in the historiography rather than Williams's more than 60-year-old study, but it also deserves continuing revision as new documentary materials and new perspectives on the era emerge.

No comments about The Commanders of Chancellorsville: The Gentleman vs. The Rogue.

No comments about Planting The Union Flag In Texas: The Campaigns of Major General Nathaniel P. Banks in the West (Red River Valley Books).

2 comments about Confederate General of the West: Henry Hopkins Sibley.

1. I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the Civil War in the Southwest. Understanding Sibley is the key to understanding the successes and failures of the invasion of New Mexico. This book provides a great deal of detail on the invasion, the centerpiece of Sibley's career and the high point of a mediocre military career.
   
   There are a number of typos and poorly worded passages that lead me to believe this book was never thoroughly edited, but they are minor and the reader can overlook them. The narrative flows easily and the book is organized mostly in chronological fashion.
   
   I found myself wanting to know more when I was finished. The author was very thorough in most respects but some small questions were left unanswered - why it took 70 years for his grave to get a headstone - what was the resolution of his lawsuit against the government for residuals on the sale of the Sibley tent and whether his family ever got any money from such a settlement - why Sherman was so involved in helping Sibley later in life (it was never made clear if they were close before the Civil War or if they served together for any significant period).
   
   But these unanswered questions do not detract from the excellent job the author did in portraying Sibley. I feel a greater sense of sympathy for him now because I understand more about him - the author brought him to life.



2. General Sibley was in charge of the Confederate Army that invaded New Mexico in 1862. He drank a bit! This bit of Civil War history never makes it into the books. This book is very informative and is very good reading. In "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" this is the Civil War campaign that the film is based around.

2 comments about The Death and Resurrection of Jefferson Davis (American Crisis (Rowman & Littlefield)).

1. Jeff Davis, beloved by many in the South and known as the president of the Confederacy during the Civil War died from heartbreak and mistreatment and looked old in his coffin on Dec. 5, 1889. His funeral train was as popular as Lincoln's removal to his home state of Illinois and much later FDR's train trip back from Georgia to Washington, D. C.
   
   When his body was laid in state in New Orleans, the prominence of the U. S. flags illustrated his burial as an officer in the American Army prior to his notoriety during the Civil War. He was first buried in a tomb of the Army of Northern Virginia in Metairie Cemetery.
   
   In May 28-31, 1893, after it has been displayed in the rotunda of the state capital in Raleigh, North Carolina, it was sent on to Richmond, Virginia. The route of the Jefferson Davis funeral train left New Orleans, stopped in Beavoir, Mobile, Montgomery, Alabama, Atlanta, Georgia, Charlotte, Greensboro, also stopped in Danville, Virginia. The funeral carriage was a remodeled artillery caisson with the U. S. flag prominently displayed. His remains were transferred to Hollywood Cemetery, The Third National Flag of the Confederacy decorated the head of his final resting place, with the Battle Flag at the foot. There is a bronze statute on his grave in the Davis Circle family plot at the Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond, Virginia.
   
   Much maligned after the South lost the war, he was imprisoned in shackles and chains at Fort Monroe. His life and reputation has sunk to a seemingly unredeemable low. During the first three years after his death, his public image was ressurrected to a state of near adulation, and his fellow Southerners recognized him as one of their most important sons. He remains so today.
   
   The reburial three and a half years after his death demonstrated that Southerners increasingly were growing more overtly proud of the Confederacy. On June 3, 1907, a remarkable monument designed by Valentine and Noland was unveiled on what would have been his 99th birthday. It still stands in the park named in his honor in Memphis. It included the Confederate flags and symbols. Let by a group of University of Tennessee professors from the North, they are trying to have his memorial park renamed and the statue removed.
   
   It was a great American and did what he thought was best for the South, his beloved countryside. It's too bad that his life following the Civil War was so harmful to his health and what he had stood for. The flag has been removed from South Carolina's state flag, and Maryville College here in Tennessee can't keep their Rebel flag. What on earth is going on? Do those Northerners want another Civil War? It is best to leave dead dogs buried and the prejudices along with them. We natives of the South will always love Jeff Davis and what he stood for; the flag will never die. Resurrection is at hand.
   
   This historian has also written WAR CRIME OR INJUSTICE? GENERAL GEORGE PICKETT AND THE MASS EXECUTION OF DESERTERS IN CIVIL WAR KINSTON, NORTH CAROLINA and AN UNQUIET TIME: ALABAMA AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, 1950-68, among many other Southern history.



2. I have read many books on the War Between the States and very rarely come across a topic which is new. This book covers a subject that is little known by even culture concious Southerners. A very good read about an event that was pivotal in post war Southern History. If you are a Southerner this is a must. If you have any interest in the post war treatment of the personalities on that conflict, you will enjoy.
   
   Winston Churchill wrote - "Poor is a nation that has no heroes. Poorer still is one that has them and forgets them."
   
   This author has presented us with a way of remembering one of our Southern heroes. I think many readers will be surprised by this work.
   
   Highly recomended to Southerners and anyone who has an interest in the human experience.

2 comments about The Military Memoirs of General John Pope (Civil War America).

1. Peter Cozzens and Robert Girardi provided an excellent service to Civil War scholars by assembling the collected newspaper essays that General John Pope wrote in way of reflecting on his Civil War career. Best known for his stunning defeat at Second Bull Run and his bravado, a very different Pope emerges here. Often witty, Pope left excellent sketches of President Lincoln (an old friend of the family), Edwin Stanton, as well as numerous commanders of both the North and the South. Pope is excellent in capturing the chaos and incompetence of John Fremont's command in Missouri in the first days of the war. His scathing attack on Henry Halleck's torturously slow move towards Corinth reveals the extent of this wasted opportunity. But Pope is best known for two battles: Island Number 10 and Second Bull Run. His account of Island Number 10 is a bit rushed though certainly through. While Pope does an excellent job of describing the layout of his forces at the start of the Bull Run campaign, he relies on official records a bit too much and seems willing to let the matter slide. That is understandable, after all Pope was humiliated by Lee at Second Bull Run. The problem is that the Second Bull Run campaign was Pope's moment in the sun and he has little to say on it. With the large exceptions of George McClellan and Fitz John Porter, who Pope believed deliberately undermined his command, there is little bitterness. Even Nathaniel Banks, who picked a fight at Cedar Mountain against Pope's orders and was mauled by Stonewall Jackson, comes off relatively unscathed. It seems as if all of Pope's fire was being saved for McClellan and Porter, as can be seen in the memoirs as well as in a correspondence with the Comte de Paris which is included in an appendix. The memoirs reveal Pope to be much more intelligent and witty than his traditional blowhard persona would indicate though the bile is still there certainly in the cases of Porter and McClellan. One can see from these memoirs why so many men, including Grant and Sherman, seemed to like and respect Pope and while others had no use for the man. All in all, an interesting and revealing memoir to some long neglected parts of the war though be warned the main course, Second Bull Run, remains a bit bland.



2. Peter Cozzens rightly compares General John Pope's memoires with those of U.S. Grant and W.T. Sherman. This is a highly readable account from one of the participants in some of the least-understood episodes of the Civil War.

   Of course, Pope's writings are not "new." As Cozzens relates, the entries which make up this book appeared in the National Tribune and other Reconstruction-era publications. However, they have spent the last century forgotten by the general public. Cozzens and his colleague, Gerardi, have done a great service both to Civil War scholars and to the casual Civil War buff by bringing Pope's reminiscences and analyses to life.

   What is most surprising is the humor, candor and generosity of a man who has gone down in history as a narrow, bitter mediocrity. For example, devotees of General Lee, whose comments largely consigned Pope to history almost as a barbarian, will be surprised to read Pope's poetic evocation of the beauty of Virginia and the nobility of its citizens.

   In a similar vein, readers will benefit from a "fresh" take on a wide range of issues -- such as the relationships between Lincoln, Stanton, Halleck and McClellan -- from a player very much in the know, but whose views have gone largely unremarked.

   My only cautionary note would be that an appreciation of this volume depends upon a basic understanding of the events of the war, and perhaps also upon an introductory familiarity with the post-war debates on those events.

2 comments about Compelled To Appear In Print: The Vicksburg Manuscript of General John C. Pemberton.

1. "Compelled To Appear In Print, The Vicksburg Manuscript of General John C. Pemberton" was a work-in-progress for the past 137 years. David M. Smith brings it to the light of day with the justice it deserves. His views and those of Edwin C. Bearss, Historian Emeritus, National Park Service will secure this work among the finest written on the Confederacy for years to come. Let's hear more from him!



2. This book is built on a newly-discovered, never published manuscript by Confederate General John Pemberton, commander at Vicksburg when it surrendered to Grant. The manuscript itself is substantial...85 pages in this book's format. To position the manuscript, Dave Smith has written an excellent summary of the Vicksburg Campaign. Further, he adds a chapter on the conflicts and issues in the relationships among Pemberton, General Joseph Johnston (Pemberton's superior), and Confederate President Jefferson Davis. After the manuscript, he adds a chapter on his conclusions from his study of the Pemberton manuscript.

   Pemberton wrote the document in the late 1870's before his death in 1881, to respond to Johnston's autobiographical NARRATIVE OF MILITARY OPERATIONS. Even after 120 years, the anger and hurt comes through. Johnston had essentially placed the blame for the loss of Vicksburg on Pemberton, citing his incompetence and disobedience of orders. Pemberton takes each of Johnston's eight charges, and argues his side of the case. Smith has made this more understandable for the reader by inserting (in easily distinguishable font and italics) the specific exerpts from the Johnston book to which Pemberton was referring; many of Pemberton's points would have been lost to me without those insertions.

   Another specific contribution which Smith made to the manuscript itself was his description of a visit by Davis and Johnston to Pemberton and Vicksburg in December, 1862 (before the Vicksburg Campaign would escalate in the spring and culminate on July 4th). Given the fact that Davis, Johnston, and Pemberton seemed only a few weeks later to have no agreement or common thinking on their strategy, one wonders what they talked about during their several days together. Certainly, they MUST have talked about whether Vicksburg must be held at all costs....but in the spring, Johnston seemed to think not while Davis and Pemberton certainly thought it must. Perhaps they never considered what to do in a siege....but, if not, what were they really expecting Grant to do? He certainly had given no indication of giving up easily! This lost opportunity for strategic alignment echoes through the Pemberton manuscript, as I read it.

   For me, Pemberton presents his case in a compelling, convincing, and interesting manner. To my (amateur) reading, he does not often imply that he knew in 1863 everything that he would know when writing in the late 1870's. However, on one occasion, he did allow himself to refer to Johnston as "the great master of retreat", taking advantage of the reputation Johnston would get during his portion of the Atlanta Campaign in 1864.

   Johnston does not come out of this book in very good shape. In fact, the picture of Johnston is very reminiscent of that in Jeffrey Lash's DESTROYER OF THE IRON HORSE. In fact, one of Lash's primary examples of Johnston's misuse of the railroads occurred during the Vicksburg Campaign, when he lost of large quantity of Confederate rolling stock and engines by waiting too long to order their movement to safer locations. Smith summarizes Johnston's failure to take any action to relieve Pemberton in Vicksburg by saying that he "either had no intention of acting or was incapable of mustering the courage and energy to face the situation". Personally, it seems to me to have been the latter. The puzzling, frustrating impact of Johnston's inertia comes through clearly in the Pemberton manuscript.

   This is an excellent book, very readable and quite interesting. Smith's background chapter will assist the reader who is not familiar with the Vicksburg Campaign to understand it well enough to follow Pemberton's discussion. That understanding is aided by several simple, clear, excellent maps. One does not need to be a military history scholar to appreciate this book. However, as Ed Bearss' introduction makes clear, even the elite class of military history scholars will likely also find this book worth their while.

No comments about Lincoln's Resolute Unionist: Hamilton Gamble, Dred Scott Dissenter And Missouri's Civil War Governor (Southern Biography Series).

4 comments about Patriots in Disguise: Women Warriors of the Civil War.

1. I enjoyed this well-researched book even though I'm not a history buff. I found it light on Confederate stories with a pro-North undertone, but was pleased with what seems to be a fair reporting of facts. The stories were interesting and the book was an easy and very interesting read.



2. In Patriots in Disguise by Richard Hall, I learned about all the roles the women played in the Civil War, from nursing, serving as patriotic leaders, and some even would go so far as to dress in male attire to serve their cause. The book mainly focuses around the stories of a few important figures: the nurse Anna Etheridge, and soldiers-in-disguise Sarah Emma Edmonds (aka Frank Thompson) and Loreta Janeta Velazquez (aka Lieutenant Harry T. Buford). In a time when women had limited rights, the only way that these courageous figures could serve was in disguises of military uniform, a big difference from the hoops skirts and corsets that they had previously worn. It was a major step in women's rights and the fight for gender equality.
   I enjoyed the topic of this book, women's roles in the Civil War, but I continued to wonder exactly how the women could pull off male disguises without being known. I did find it amusing at the end of the book to discover that some women were caught when they had babies and even one was discovered after trying to pull her pants on over her head. This book didn't exactly give me more information about the Civil War itself, but I liked that the roles of women was mainly told through the tales of the women who had done them. Before I read this book, I never really had thought about how courageous these women were to risk their lives and take the secret of their identity to their grave, all because they wanted adventure and they believed in their cause or wanted to support their home state, and feel like a true patriot. They could take action in the war, instead of just staying at home and helping the wounded troops, but by helping fill their ranks.
   I didn't exactly enjoy the writing style of the book because it read more like a history book without one specific plot line, but it wasn't too long of a book, so I was able to finish it quickly and get it over with. I don't think that I would recommend this book as either a book for pleasure or even as a book that you should choose when needing to read about the Civil War. On the other hand, I wouldn't say that it is the worst book ever as long as you are at least interested in women roles in the Civil War, but the information given is only satisfactory.



3. Not wildly scholarly, but reasonably useful discussion of women who were on the battlefield in the Civil War. This is structured around descriptions of specific women such as the nurse Anna Etheridge, the soldier Franklin Thompson, the whatever-she-really-was Loreta Janeta Velazquez. There isn't much theoretical discussion here, nor is there much explanation of how women's disguises were able to work--and, despite the title, much time is given to vivandieres, nurses and the like.



4. We might think that women in the military is a modern day phenomenon, related somehow to the Women's Lib movement. But, SURPRISE, Richard Hall paints a colorful historical picture of many patriotic and dedicated women who, in a period in our country's history dominated by hoop skirts and constricting corsets, secretely traded their hoops and corsets for military battle uniforms. Disguised as men -- the only way for these women to serve in our country's Civil War military campaigns -- they served in disguise, discovered as women only when they were injured and required medical care in field hospitals! Author Richard Hall has researched these women's lives extensively, and the many pages of actual Civil War-era photographs and engravings included in the book bring these women's stories to life in vivid detail.

2 comments about Joseph E. Johnston and the Defense of Richmond (Modern War Studies).

1. given the title of the book, I thought the author would spend a bit more time on the Battle of Williamsburg - one of Johnston's few battles he fought before his woudning sent command over to Lee.

   Given Williamsburg is a topic of interest I was taken aback by several very poor inaccuracies made by the author. For example the author stated on page 136 "...neither he nor McLaws knew the exact locations of all the forts (at Williamsburg)." This is a terrible inaccuracy as McLaws oversaw the building of the fortifications and had his command based in Williamsburg for 6 months form 61-62. This fact really makes it questionable Johnston pulling him out of the defensive line he constructed and knew better than any other commander in the army in lieu of Longstreet. The Author takes much of the OR reports regarding this battle - especially Longstreets at face value which is a mistake. The map included in the book is a borrowed one from anotehr publication (one on cavlary skirmishes on May 4 between Williamsbur and Yorktwon and major flaws - the 6th Cavalry moved up on the East not West side of Fort Magruder on May 4th, Emory did not move up to Williamsburg on the Hampton Road on May 4 and Grier was with Gibson's guns not separate as shown. The author does not even mention who or what Grier's force was. He credits Stuart as keeping Johnston "informed of the advance of the union cavalry," when in actuality Stuart managed to get cut off and nearly captured. Johnston was so uninformaed that the redoubts at Williamsburg were not even manned whent eh Union vanguard arrived. With regard to Stuarts near capture and forced march through the tidal pools of the James River the author characeterizes this as being "resourceful in every extremity in detouring..." i could go on. It is details that are needed and really impact his revisionist take on Johnston and if the book contains as many imperfections as the section on Williamsburg one should read it with much caution when determine credibility.

   This is fast history based on OR accounts - a scratch of the surface with a new twist.




2. Professor Newton has written a readable account of the generalship of Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston for the period from February 1862 until General Johnson's wounding at the battle of Seven Pines on May 31,1862. The book begins with a brief discussion of (1) the deteriorating trust between Johnson and Jefferson Davis; (2) the Department of Northern Virginia; and (3) the process, including both political and military factors, used in making the decision to move Johnston's army from Centerville, Virginia to be closer to Richmond. The decision and the details of withdrawal are well documented after which the author covers the Peninsula Campaign, the Battle of Seven Pines and ends with an interesting assessment of Johnston's campaign.

   Some scholars and Civil War buffs have questioned the expenditure of resources to defend Richmond and speculate that a capitol located in the interior of the Confederacy would have been preferred as being easier to defend. Professor Newton outlines the strategic importance of Richmond stating that it was a critical manufacturing, transportation and financial center. The Tredegar Iron Works alone justified the defense of Richmond. In addition, the city had four major banks, had five railroads lines and was a flour-milling center . Having established the strategic necessity of defending Richmond, the writer proceeds to document General Johnston's defense of the city.

   The writer objectively narrates the involvement of Lee in the decisions during this period noting areas of agreement and differences between Johnston, Lee and Davis. While Professor Newton openly states ". . the tenor of this work is pro-Johnston in terms of my assessment of the general's handling of his army" he favorably reviews Joseph Johnston's performance without engaging in "Lee bashing" the approach often used by revisionist historians to support their thesis. He gives credit and/or blame where it is due in his

   opinion. This makes for interesting and provocative reading.

   Professor Newton gives a balanced evaluation of General Longstreet's performance. Longstreet is depicted as neither a hero nor a villain. The writer may well have summed up Longstreet's Civil War career in one sentence when he wrote ". . that Longstreet, though undeniably talented, was incredibly willful, and his cooperation in operations of which he did not approve was notoriously poor."

   The narration of the Peninsula Campaign and Seven Pines is well worth the price of the book. Especially interesting is his description of Johnston's reaction to Federal transports reaching the mouth of the Pamunkey River and the Union gunboats ascending the York River following the Confederate evacuation of Yorktown; a situation Johnson both anticipated and feared. The author observes that at Seven Pines Johnston ". . totally abdicated his responsibility for the overall conduct of the battle when he led Whiting's division down the Nine Mile Road . ." and then makes the interestingly observation that this was a similar failing of almost all Civil War commanding generals, Confederate or Union, in their first offensive battle.

   The last chapter is an assessment of Johnston's campaign. Here the author states that Johnston's retreat from Williamsburg was a skillful maneuver with strategic insight. Professor Newton correctly states that Joseph Johnston did in fact successfully defend Richmond. In view of the strategic importance of Richmond in 1862 this was a significant accomplishment. The last chapter is insightful and well worth reading.

   The lack of a sufficient number of maps is the book's major shortcoming.