Some Thoughts on Free State of Jones

I am in no way, shape or form a movie buff, but as a student of the Civil War, I wanted to see Free Story of Jones when I heard about it and, surprisingly, have already seen it, only a few days after its release. I did not even see Lincoln until a couple of months after it came out, so this was different.

I enjoyed this movie. It was entertaining and seemed reasonably believable, not like a fairy tale or total fabrication. I will discuss it here a bit, with the disclaimer that I do not watch a lot of movies and am not an experienced reviewer of them, even ones based on historical occurrences. I won't discuss acting, cinematography or anything like that. 

This may end up as more of a "discussion" than an actual review, as I try to explain the thoughts I had during and after seeing it. I do not intend to give any sort of "spoilers" in this discussion but I make no promises, so anybody who does not want to read about parts of the storyline may want to read this post later. I imagine I will get into some specific scenes for which I had some thoughts or ideas.

I also admit that I have not read the book on which the movie is based, nor studied the situation in Mississippi much, so I cannot opine on how accurate the details of the movie are. I will just do my best to describe the thoughts and reactions that the movie provoked in my mind.

The intensity of the movie surprised me. The intensity (the best word I an think to use) began with the excellent (and surprising) opening scenes. Whoever decided to open the movie like that made a very good call . Not all of the movie was at that same level, but much of it was, which I thought made the whole movie better. 

I like that the movie has both action scenes and more "talking" scenes instead of all of just one of those. Another movie I watched the same day was almost all action and fighting. It was a decent film (seeing it in 3D helped) but all of the action kind of blended together. That really did not happen in Free State. 

The portrayal of Newton Knight as a soldier and how he became disillusioned with the Confederacy seemed reasonable. The reality of battle, his nephew's death, the tax-in-kind on common citizens and the 20 Negro rule all were part of the script. The common line "rich man's war, poor man's fight" also was spoken as part of his developing dislike towards the cause for which he had enlisted.

His escape from the Confederates who were trying to catch him seemed a bit too good to be true to me. Even when the dog caught him and delayed  him, the rest of the party did not catch up to him or see exactly where he went, even as he limped forward.

Once he was in the swamp with a few escaped slaves and an increasing number of deserters, the remaining Confederates came across as silly, almost stupid, repeatedly going down what appeared to be the same road in the woods only to be ambushed by Knight's men multiple times without seeming to try a different route or strategy. Did it really happen like that?

When the story needed to show the increase in the number of Confederate deserters, it simply flashed "July 1863, Vicksburg is surrendered. Desertion increases" on the screen. I guess that was a good way to tell of increased desertion in a timely manner, but thought the movie could have at least indicated that Vicksburg was also in Mississippi, like the rest of the story. Any non-Civil War students may not have realized that and I do think that would have helped at least a bit.

Also at this time, two images of the damage caused by war flashed on the screen. I did not recognize one of them, but the other was the famous image of the Dunker Church at Antietam. My first instinct was to ask why use an image from such a far battlefield, but this really does not matter. That level of detail was probably insignificant; I suppose the picture used was good enough to make its point.

A couple other items I wish to mention include the "hanging" scene. I thought it was very good overall, especially the lead-up showing the emotions involved - the fear and sadness were very clear - but thought it could have been more powerful or intense had they shown the bodies dropping and jolting to a stop. That may have, however, been a bit too much for the intended audience, so I cannot complain much about it.

The role women played in this movie was noteworthy too. The moment I especially noticed it was when the women were sitting and shucking the corn while the men were picking it and carrying the baskets of corn to be shucked. There was an unmistakeable separation of gender roles in that scene, but in earlier and later scenes the movie showed women running the household while men were gone, directing slaves to help refugees and even carrying arms to defend their homes. A later scene even showed women firing guns at Confederates who were trying to capture Newton and his men. This movie did portray mostly traditional roles for men and women (men in the army, women at home) but still gave the women some strength and determination. They were not helpless victims at all.

I thought the same showed for the African-Americans who joined Knight's group, though I thought they disappeared for a while. When Knight went into the swamps, he was with a small group of escaped slaves but as the movie showed the increasing amount of army deserters joining Knight, the ex-slaves did not seem to be as present for a while, before re-emerging as strong characters towards the end of the film. I thought the various scenes showing some parts of African-American life as slaves and immediately after the war added a lot of meaning to the movie. The characters "Rachel" and "Moses" were especially important ones.

This added meaning especially showed up in the Reconstruction scenes. Having a section on Reconstruction was a great, perhaps brilliant, idea, providing valuable perspective on some of the difficulties African-Americans faced during this time and the legacy of the war. This is a lesson many (most?) American can use. 

I did find the Reconstruction section, as valuable as it was, to be a bit disjointed. There were frequent captions on the screen to provide information on what was happening or on what the movie could not show. It seemed to me that the movie writers had a lot to say in this part of the film, but did not have enough time, so they had to pick and chose some storylines to include while omitting others. The final product turned out well, but perhaps could have been smoother, though that may be easier said than done. Even a long movie like this has limits.

The voting scene, including the showing of the actual vote count, with only two Repiublican votes being counted, was very effective.

One nit I do wish to pick here was that the Reconstruction piece of the film began with a quick showing of a portrait of Abraham Lincoln to represent his passing. I felt that an image of the actual assassination would have been more powerful in showing the change of leadership.

In addition to the war and Reconstruction storylines, the  various court scenes about the challenge to Knight's descendant's attempted marriage were powerful as well, showing how the legacies of the war and reconstruction (and the importance of race and racial roles) were still around Mississippi in the 1940s, so many years later. This was tied in to the movie's depiction of the relationship between Knight and Rachel, giving these scenes a connection to the rest of the story.

One thing that I noted and thought was interesting about the entire film is that the words "Confederacy" and its derivatives ("Confederate," etc.) were barely mentioned. I only remember seeing it in a couple of the captions and am not sure if any characters uttered such words. If so, it was not frequent. I wonder if this was intentional and if it actually means much or was just a natural part of the story's flow. 

Overall, I really enjoyed this movie, despite the few small quibbles I mentioned. It is a long movie, but tells several different stories about the war, Recinstruction, race relations and family ties. There is quite a bit of intense action throughout it, as well as a mix of more peaceful scenes of thought and discussion. It features several characters who earn the viewers' sympathies, as well as a few "villains" who are less likable. I certainly believe that anyone interested in the Civil War should find time to go see it and that even those not particularly interested in history should as well. I may even go see it again, which is not something I often do for movies. (I'm not sure I have ever watched the same movie twice in a theater.) It is a good, enjoyable film with plenty of action, stories and characters to catch the viewers' interest and tells a story of the Civil War era perhaps unlike any other in popular media. 

Review: Lincoln's Confederate "Little Sister:"Emily Todd Helm by Stuart Sanders.

Stuart Sanders, the author of three books  (Perryville Under Fire; The Battle of Mill Springs, Kentucky; and Maney's Confederate Brigade at Perryville) has produced another high-quality work, a long-form essay entitled Lincoln's Confederate "Little Sister," Emily Todd Helm. It came out about a year ago and I finally found the time to read it and am glad for it. It is available at Amazon.com. 

The basic story of this essay - the challenges facing a woman who was a sister of Mary Todd, sister-in-law of President Lincoln and wife and brother of Confederate soldiers - should be well-known to most who study the Civil War, but this essay goes beyond the basics and recounts her life story on a deeper level, providing details that may be less familiar. 

The essay starts with a scene of Emily in her later years, before the story goes back in time, even before her birth, to explore the Todd family background and influence in Kentucky. It describes Emily and Mary's father Robert Todd and how he raised two families after the unfortunate death of his first wife. 

Sanders discusses Emily's childhood and the development of her close relationship with her older half-sister Mary and brother-in-law Abraham Lincoln. He then discusses her marriage to Benjamin Hardin Helm, who also had influential family ties to the state and its government. Their affection for each other was very strong.

This sets up the story of the split and misfortunes that the Civil War created for her family. Eight members of the Todds supported the Confederacy while six remained loyal to the United States. During the war, Emily lost her husband and two brothers and took each loss very hard.

The biggest and most famous controversy of her life, first mentioned at the start of the essay, was her trip to Washington .D.C. in late 1863. This essay does an outstanding job of describing her visit from its origins with Emily's refusal to swear an oath of allegiance to the United States to a less-than-friendly encounter with a Senator and to the President's attempt to offer her assistance as she returned to Kentucky. The discussion of her strong bond with Mary and how both had endured personal tragedy (Emily losing a husband, Mary a son) during the war is especially poignant and makes it more understandable how the widow of a Confederate general was allowed to visit the White House during the war. Biologically, they were half-sisters, but in real life they were much closer.

The ending of the relationship between Emily and the Lincolns is another powerful piece of this tale. 

The essay then describes her long, sometimes contradictory, life in the years after the war. She was a beloved widow of a former Orphan Brigade leader, yet also a family representative at events commemorating the life of President Lincoln; she was proud of her Confederate ties, refused to take the oath of allegiance, yet accepted a Government appointment to help support herself and her family and adopted a spirit of reconciliation.

This is an informative and well-written essay, with a writing style that is easy to read. Having it in this format also makes for a quick read. Despite its relative brevity, however, it tells an intriguing story of this woman and how the war affected so many of her closest relationships. Her enjoyment of genealogy and wish to protect her family legacy were noteworthy and perhaps even ironic given the sadness to which her family ties contributed so much.

Though her name and much of her story may be familiar to Civil War students, Stuart Sanders' work provides a more detailed account of her life's story, making this a very worthwhile read. I highly recommend adding it to any e-library or reading list. 

Book Review: Lincoln's Sanctuary

Lincoln's Sanctuary: Abraham Lincoln and the Soldier's Home

Matthew Pinsker

copyright 2003 (National Trust for Historic Preservation)

Oxford University Press

Another interesting book from a few years ago that finally found itself in my hands, Matthew's Pinsker's work is informative, interesting and very readable. It is a very good book that explores a different perspective on President Lincoln and his time in the country's highest elected office. 

I apologize for resorting to such a cliche, but since it is so true in this case I must do so - with as much as  has been written about Abraham Lincoln, his life, his career, his family and other aspects of his life, it is surprising to find something different or new. Pinsker accomplished this difficult task,  thoroughly researching this book about the small summer home that President Lincoln and his family used during Lincoln's time in office. 

On the outskirts of Washington D.C., this cottage was on the same land as a home for disabled soldiers who had no other place to stay. A few similar cottages were also located on this ground, a much more scenic area than the main areas of the city. During the summers of 1862, 1863 and 1864, Lincoln, his wife and their son Tad spent several months at this retreat, which had better ventilation and was much cooler than the more crowded areas around the White House.

Pinsker describes how Lincoln would ride into work every day on horseback, describing his most likely route. He also shows how the military eventually developed more plans for the President's security, including stationing troops around the cottage grounds and providing an escort for Lincoln, even though he did not always appreciate the need for such practices. Some of the men who helped guard or escort the President developed close relationships with him and these trips sometimes gave him the chance to discuss the issues of the day in a more relaxed manner. Some also wrote their observations down, providing some of the new sources Pinsker found in his research.

The author also demonstrates that Lincoln was frequently alone at the cottage, enabling him to use it to do work, as well as thinking about major decisions he had to make. Mary and Tad often took trips to the northeast during the times they had moved to the cottage, and their eldest son Robert did not frequent the cottage or spend much time with his father. Lincoln's family life and relationships are a nice secondary plot (for lack of a better term) of this story.

During these months at the cottage, Lincoln was considering major issues, such as emancipation and how to deal with General McClellan, and this sanctuary, as the title labels it, may have given him enough peace and quiet to reach the decisions he made.

Lincoln also conducted meetings at this cottage, and also hosted many different guests who found his somewhat hidden retreat. 

Besides the actual story that Pinsker tells, I also appreciate the way he did so. His writing flows very well, making the book readable, but what stood out to me was how he discussed some of the sources he uses. Frequently, he would mention a story or report, describe the source it was from and then describe how accurate that source may be. This practice, a sort of historiography, is one I've often seen in end notes or in books specializing on the study of history, but seldom within the text of a work like this. Pinsker blends this analysis into the flow of the narrative very well, and it adds a lot to the book. 

One example that I marked was on page 65 when the author discusses two sources that claimed that Lincoln wrote the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation while at the Soldier's Home, as his sanctuary was known. He reviews a story from painter Frances B. Carpenter as well as one by Rebecca Pommroy, who often worked with the Lincoln family, particularly with child care. The analysis he provides and the conclusions he reaches about these sources do add to the credibility of the book, showing that the author did not simply believe and repeat every story he was able to uncover. This is something I have not seen often in such a book, but I really appreciated it and felt it was one of the strong points of the book. It was nice to see that within the text, without having to flip to the back and try to find the proper end note to see if it provided such information.

Overall, I found this book to be a pleasant read, as well as an educational one. Matthew Pinsker provides a new perspective on President Lincoln and his daily life, including the President's professional and family duties and experiences. It is common for authors to describe Lincoln and his career in the White House, but Pinsker shows that the President spent nearly an entire year at the cottage on the grounds of the soldiers' home and that this sanctuary did give the President time to make decisions, meet important visitors and spend at least some time with his family, while avoiding the crowds surrounding the White House. It was also a more scenic and comfortable home during the heat of Washington summers.

This cottage truly did provide sanctuary for the President, and this is a part of Lincoln's Presidency that deserves more attention. He spent significant time there and pondered (or even made) significant decisions while away from the White House. I unhesitatingly recommend this book to students of Lincoln or the Civil War as a different perspective on Lincoln and his life as President. 

Book Review: Lincoln Lessons

Lincoln Lessons: Reflections on America's Greatest Leader

editors: Frank J. Williams and William D. Pederson

copyright 2009

Southern Illinois University Press

Here is another Abraham Lincoln book from the celebration of the centennial of his birth and another that I have just recently read. I actually finished it a few weeks ago but have not found the time to review it until now. Because of that delay, I am not sure this review will be as long as many of my other ones, but this is a fine book and I do wish to note at least a few thoughts on it. 

This book contains 17 brief essays by various scholars, discussing how studying Abraham Lincoln, his life, politics, family and/or career has influenced their lives and even careers. The essays selected provide a good diversity of viewpoints; on one hand, all do discuss Lincoln's influence in a positive way on their lives, but their careers and experiences are each unique and provide a different perspective than the others. 

While I was reading this book, a question occurred to me: "What would my Lincoln Lesson be?"  I did not come up with an answer and still have not, though it is something I would like to ponder a bit more. If I needed to write an essay for such a book, what would I say? As much as I enjoy studying Lincoln's life and career, I should be able to come up with some sort of insight into how my reading has affected or influenced me. Perhaps that's a new level of scholarship or study I need to reach, but it is an idea that has remained in my mind since I read this book. It may be the subject of a future blog entry (or entries.) Or maybe I can adjust the concept and question to be about "Civil War Lessons" or "Siege of Cincinnati Lessons" or other such concepts. Why do I study what I do and how does it benefit me? Surely (Hopefully?) it is for something more than enjoyment.

I hesitate to single out any individual essay from this book as they all deserve attention and I cannot give each of them the time it deserves, but I must say I was a bit sad while reading A View from the Lincoln Museum by  Joan Flinspach about her experiences at the Lincoln Museum in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Throughout the essay, as she discussed the museum's exhibits and future hopes and plans, I had a nagging, sad thought and this was confirmed by an editor's note at the end of the essay - the museum closed down in 2008. I did feel sad for her about that, especially as the museum had made some ambitous plans for the future, but I appreciate the editors leaving this essay in the book, providing the views of a museum professional. 

I did enjoy this book and each essay in it. Each has its own author, so that naturally leads to different writing styles, but the editors did a great job in putting together a good and thought-provoking book with different perspectives. Just look at the third paragraph of this review to see its effect on me. If a good book is one that leads to further questions, study and thought, then this book certainly qualifies as a good  book, at least from where I sit.

The Thinker, courtesy wikipedia

Book Review: One of Morgan's Men

One Of Morgan's Men: Memoirs of Lietuenant John M. Porter of the Ninth Kentucky Cavalry

Editor: Kent Masterson Brown

copyright 2011

University Press of Kentucky 

For students of John Hunt Morgan, Civil War cavalry and/or the western theater, this book, though only 204 pages of text (not including notes) is a very good resource that gives many details of what happened during various cavalry raids and scouting expeditions and how the men handled their jobs.

Written in the early 1870s, it of course raises questions about how the author remembered as many details as he did, even a few years after the war, and that question should remain in the reader's mind, but Brown did a masterful job of editing it. He even used many different sources such as census records to confirm the names Porter mentioned. Brown added additional information about these people and families in the very in-depth notes section - readers should be sure not to skip over this part of the book, which also includes modern references to the areas Porter traveled, including current road and town names. His research certainly adds to the credibility of the text.

This is an enjoyable, informative and well-written, well-edited book. Porter was a lieutenant, but this is not a memoir of an officer, but, rather, of a soldier following orders and doing his duty. Little is mentioned of grand strategies or even tactics - Porter sticks to telling what he and his comrades did, how they obeyed orders, the actions they undertook, and how they accomplished all they did, sometimes in challenging conditions or areas.

This is the story of night scouting expeditions, of travel through dark and rainy conditions, often in territory with Yankees around, of trying to find food and shelter for man and horse and of a man who clearly believed in his cause. Several times throughout the book, he emphasizes what he perceives as the correctness of the Confederate cause. He tries to avoid bragging about his own accomplishments, but is not afraid to describe the bravery and courage of his comrades and the units under Morgan's lead. He clearly believed that he and his fellow Confederates were fighting for the side of the right and that they were determined to give their all to achieve victory.

One of Morgan's Men also serves as a small sample of the story of Kentucky itself during the war. One fascinating aspect of the narrative is Porter's descriptions of how the scouts found so many friendly citizens to help, house and/or feed them throughout the Commonwealth, but especially the central and west-central parts of it. Though they had to be careful not to catch the attention of Union supporters or soldiers who were frequently in the same areas, they still found help when they needed it. This is another example of the split loyalties of what was still technically a Union state, even though that was not the intent of the writer or his book.

This work does include a nice selection of photographs and a few maps/drawings, which do add to to the quality of the work. The editing, with the information in the notes, and selection of the illustrations, deserves much praise for making this a better work, not just a word-for-word retype of Porter's manuscript.

Porter's writing (with some assistance from the editor) is easy to read, with a nice flow, and provides a fascinating perspective on the operations of Confederate cavalry, especially under Morgan's command. Most of the story takes place in southern Kentucky and Tennessee, but they did make their way to eastern and Central Kentucky too. Porter was captured prior to the Indiana and Ohio portions of Morgan's last great raid, but he provides many anecdotes and details of the raids and expeditions in which he took part.

This is a very good, interesting and valuable book. It gives gives a good look at the small, often forgotten or unrecorded aspects of war incidents that do not always make it to newspapers and major studies about the war. Those interested in the Civil War generally know of the reputation of Morgan and his men, but the details of their riding during the night and resting during the day, or of locating friendly civilians for rest or shelter are often missing from the official reports of such activity. This book provides some of those details.

John Hunt Morgan and his men caused a lot of chaos for Union soldiers, supporters and supply lines in the region during his reign, and John M. Porter's memoirs provide a very fascinating insight into the whats, wheres and hows of these various actions. This is a high-quality book that I highly recommend.

"Thunderbolt" by John Paul Strain

Book Review: The Battle of New Market Heights

The Battle of New Market Heights: Freedom Will Be Theirs by the Sword

by James S. Price

The History Press

copyright  2011

One of the many blogs I follow and enjoy is Jimmy Price's The Sable Arm blog. His research and writing are very informative and valuable to Civil War scholarship. I really enjoy his writing on that blog and ever since he announced he would have this book published I have been anxious to read to buy and read it. I finally achieved that goal recently and admit that I am happy to have done so.

Throughout the text, he shows some of the challenges African-American soldiers faced in the Union Army, and how controversial general Benjamin "Beast" Butler became one of their biggest supporters. Butler gave them opportunity to show their mettle and he was quick to recognize their bravery and reward it by personally financing the Army of the James Medal. Even though the War Department never formally recognized this award, it was still a great honor to the men who earned it.

This book further describes how the units that ended up fighting in this battle were formed and discusses some of their early experiences as they became soldiers in the United States Army.This is very nice background information about this new source of manpower for the Federal forces.

As for the fight itself, Price describes the days leading to the battle, the many obstacles the soldiers faced on the actual battlefield, and how poor decision making by several of their leaders made their chore even more difficult. Among these obstacles were various entanglements of trees and branches, such as chevaux-de-frise. Additionally, the Confederates became motivated and even angry when they realized that the troops attacking them were African-American. The Union troops fought bravely and took many casualties, but they eventually managed to overcame these challenges and achieve success on the field.

This is a very well-written and enjoyable work. The narrative is very readable, and I especially enjoyed the many pictures and maps (by noted cartographer Steven Stanley) spread throughout it. These illustrations greatly add to the understanding of the text and the story it tells.

I do wish the author had spent more time refuting some of the arguments about this action not being as important as reputed. It is great that he showed that point of view, but I would have liked some more comments and views differing with that perspective and arguing for the importance of this battle and the justification for the awarding of the 14 Medals of Honor. I do not know why, but this section of the book left me wanting for more, though this admittedly is a small criticism of a book that I truly enjoyed. 

The final section on the book, concerning attempts to preserve the land that made up the battlefield, is especially fascinating, exploring the many frustrations and few successes that preservationists have experienced through the years and decades. We hear many stories these days of preservation triumphs, but the land around New Market Heights and Chaffin's Farm is not, unfortunately, one of those great stories.

The Battle of New Market Heights is a very fine book, telling the tale of an important battle in the Union campaign to defeat Robert E. Lee's troops. African-American soldiers made valuable contributions to the Union war cause and Price's book tells the tale of one of the lesser-known fights in which their valor came to the forefront. It is a very good book for any Civil War student or enthusiast to have and I gladly recommend it.

Book Review: The Civil War at Perryville: Battling for the Bluegrass

The Civil War at Perryville: Battling for the Bluegrass

Christopher L. Kolakowski

copyright 2009

The History Press

Civil War Sesquicentennial Series 

Yet another post on Perryville here, but it's not really a coincidence, as I did want to do some reading before my recent trip to the historic site.

This is a concise, but informative and well-written book that starts with a description of the campaign that culminated in the major fight among the Chaplin hills. I found it to be really enjoyable and it was easy to read. The flow of the writing helped make it a quick, fun book and especially helpful to me before my trip to the battlefield.

I really liked the many pictures and maps  throughout the book. This review, from a blog and blogger I enjoy, criticizes the quality of these illustrations. I did notice some text cut off on one of the maps, but the photographs seemed fine to me and really added to the quality of the story Kolakowski put together. The portraits on pages 108 and 110 especially caught my eyes as they are of 2 soldiers who died on the field, and the captions tell where. This allowed me to stand in the area where they had died and look at their portraits at the same time. This may be only important to me due to my trip, but these two pictures really added to my view of the what happened on the Open Knob and Starkweather Hill. They added a human touch to my tour.

(As I look more closely at the various pictures, I can understand the criticism in the other review, but I did not notice any of that while reading the book. I focused on the text and on the subjects of the illustrations, so perhaps that's just a different reading style than the previous reviewer employs. I still feel the number of illustrations was very nice and a positive aspect of the book.)

In hindsight, I wish I had read this book before reading Stuart Sanders' Perryville Under Fire (the link goes to my review of it) but they both are very good and added to my understanding of the battle. With my interest in the biggest battle in Kentucky and my recent trip to the field, these books both attracted my interest even more than they normally would have, and perhaps that has influenced my review, but I thought Kolakowski did a fine job of describing both the campaign that led to this battle, the battle itself and even a little bit of the post-battle happenings (at which point Sanders' work does an excellent job of telling the affects of the battle on the region.)

If anyone is looking for a quick, readable and enjoyable look at this major western Civil War battle, this book is a fine choice and will prove to be very helpful. I enjoyed it very much.

Book Review: Cain at Gettysburg: A Novel

Cain at Gettysburg: A Novel

by Ralph Peters

copyright 2012

Forge

A Tom Doherty Associates Book

 A few weeks ago, I mentioned the possibility of trying to read more Civil War fiction, in order to try to gain a different perspective on the war and memory of it. Thanks to the folks at TOR/Forge, I just received a chance to do that, with this new book from New York Times bestselling author Ralph Peters.

When starting this book, I did not know what to expect or how I would like or react to it. It's "fiction," not the stuff I am accustomed to and not really "history." At least that's how I've usually thought of such works, but I attempted to put that mindset aside as I took on this new volume.

This is an enjoyable book. I liked it. There is no reason to hide the fact that I enjoyed reading this book and often times just wanted to keep reading and reading and reading it. Some parts were more enjoyable than others, but I appreciated how the author changed scenes and "characters" showing Union and Confederate, Generals and privates, success and failure. Some times I wished he would stay with a certain scene longer, a testament to how well-written those scenes were, but the next section would end up being just as fascinating or better.

In the "author's note" section, Mr. Peters opined that a book like this "must demonstrate war's horror and appeal, while depicting the complex humanity of those who shoulder rifles or lead armies." 

If that was his target, he he it a bulls-eye.

I think it was his ability to explore the humanity of George Meade, James Longstreet, Thomas Blake and others that appealed to me. Meade and Longstreet come across as the most sympathetic figures throughout Peters' narrative, as he explores his vision of their mindset and thoughts during the period of June 28 through July 3. The doubts, fears, hopes, plans and ideas of not only these leaders but of the other men who appear in the book make this such a compelling story. The descriptions of the horrors of war are vivid and make for great reading, but I really enjoyed how he painted the bouts of self-doubt or self-confidence that these men experienced, the ebbs and flows of emotions. Daily actions that all people take (i.e. bathroom breaks) never appear in ordinary history books, but do show up in this story. It's not a pleasant thought, but if "reality" or "truth" is a desired aspect of a book concerning history, it does not get more real than those scenes.

I do wonder if my feeling that Longstreet was a sympathetic character was because of my knowledge of how the battle turned out. Maybe others will view Lee as the great leader, struggling to get an insubordinate Longstreet to follow his orders and to stop stalling and waiting around. Did my preconceived notions of the outcome of Gettysburg influence how I interpreted this book? 

Throughout the story, one character began to question his faith and aspects of his life  before another one suddenly gave him a fresh perspective on this topic. This part of the story was especially fascinating, especially when it reached its zenith. This was the story of "Cain."

A couple brief excerpts that I especially found fascinating and remembered to mark for notation include one on page 257, during the story of July 2, when the author's describes Meade's thoughts amidst the chaos in Union lines: "Grimly, Meade told himself that the Confederate plan was doubtless running like clockwork. Lee's veterans would never succumb to the confusing plaguing the Army of the Potomac." 

Of course, in his narrative, Peters had already shown that not to be the case, but such was Lee's reputation that such a mindset among his enemies seems very plausible.

Peters' descriptions of Longstreet trying to convince Lee to change his plans was a constant theme, and I thought the scene on page 329 was powerful, especially the line "No one would ever tell the truth to Lee" which came across as a realistic portrayal of how the old warhorse might truly have thought during his solo attempts to convince Lee to try a new strategy while others, officers and enlisted men, often seemed in awe of the Confederate hero.

The other instance I noted also involved Meade, on page 352: "The ghosts and hobgoblins of error plagued him." The phrase "ghosts of error" really stuck with me, especially given the struggles the Army of the Potomac had been through to this point in the war. It is just a very appropriate and descriptive phrase, showing a very possible insight into the type of internal struggle Meade was facing during this battle. That might be a phrase I keep in mind for my own writing or thoughts in the future.

The author even managed to add new figures to the story in the last sections of the book, such as Confederate General Dick Garnett and Union soldier Daniel Francis Gallagher, among others. After such a long story involving so many others, this came across as a pleasant and well-done surprise, with new personalities and perspectives tacked onto this tale.

This book covered the days leading up to the battle and the three days of fighting, and touched on many of the legends of Gettysburg, some more than others - Henry Heth's search for shoes, Lee's health issues, JEB Stuart's absence, Longstreet's uncertainty (or slowness, depending on your perspective) and the Dan Sickles-George Meade dispute. Pickett's Charge was featured, with James Pettigrew finding his place in the narrative also, but Joshua Chamberlain's fighting on Little Round Top was not and the absence of Stuart was a fairly minor topic.

I liked that it included a couple of maps of the positions of the contending armies and at times I wished it had included more maps and illustrations, like many non-fiction books do.

As I attempt to review this book without giving away too much or going on too long,  I really must admit this work of fiction did make me think much more about the humanity of the men who met at Gettysburg. I have read many of their writings and reports, their memoirs and biographies and have seen or heard countless hours of analysis of their decisions and though I know this book is based on one authors visions and perspectives of the various personalities in the book, perhaps I need to give more consideration to the human side - the fears, foibles, weaknesses, convictions - of these men, no matter how great or small their reputations are. I did start to develop emotional attachments to many of these men while reading this book, which is a compliment to the author's writing. I do not claim that this book contributed a lot to my quest to understand the memory of the war, but maybe I can think in a new way about the decisions and actions of men so long ago and to see them in a different light, as actual men and women, not just soldiers and historical figures.

For anyone interested in Civil War fiction, this book is an excellent place to start. Granted my experience with this genre is not long, but I have read many enjoyable books and this is certainly one of them.

Disclaimer: I did receive a review copy of this book for no cost. Despite this, the comments in the review are my honest and true thoughts and nobody at the publisher attempted to influence this review.  

Book Review: Perryville Under Fire

Perryville Under Fire: The Aftermath of Kentucky's Largest Civil War Battle

by Stuart W.Sanders

copyright 2012

The History Press

The Battle  of Perryville on October 8, 1862 was one of the fiercest fights of the Civil War, particularly in the Western Theater, according to reports from many of its participants. Thousands of men, Confederate and Federal, were killed, captured and/or wounded during the fight among the hills in west-central Kentucky.

In this book, Stuart Sanders, professional services administrator at the Kentucky Historical Society, briefly describes some of the basics of the fighting but chooses to focus on how the battle affected the town of Perryville and other towns in the region. It is richly illustrated with photographs, though I wish it included a map of the state to show the locations of these other towns in a more visual sense.  Sanders does describe where these towns are, but seeing it on a map may have been beneficial to those not familiar with Kentucky geography.

The author clearly consulted many different sources and that thorough research is evident throughout the book, with the detailed information it provides. This book describes how the fighting caused physical harm to to the town, but when the battle was over, Perryville and other local areas witnessed their churches, schools, homes and civic buildings used for hospitals. Some of these were occupied for several months after the battle ended.

Dead bodies littered the ground and had to be buried; this task fell on the hands of many local citizens. Union troops buried most of their own men, but refused to bury most of the Confederate corpses, leaving this task to civilians.

People not only had their homes and other local buildings used and damaged by the armies, but lost much of their winter food supplies, their clothing and even their furniture. Split-rail fences became firewood for troops on both sides, and livestock became meals for the armies.

Much of the discussion in this book is familiar to discussions of what happened after other battles, as the citizens of the area experienced what many others throughout the continent also suffered during the war years, but this was the first in-depth discussion I had seen of the specific aftermath of the battle of Perryville and I really enjoyed this look. It was really informative to see how this battle's effects were felt throughout Kentucky, into Southern Indiana and even as far away as Wisconsin when residents there learned of this fighting. No other major battle in the west was so close to the "Old Northwest" states such as Wisconsin, Indiana and Illinois, and no other battle allowed residents of those states to visit the battlefield so soon after the fighting ended to try to find their wounded (or killed) relatives.

This battle even spread its effects south as some Confederate soldiers died as their army retreated from Kentucky into Tennessee and were buried along the route.

This book is not long, only 156 pages including the index, but is very informative and well-written. The narrative has a good flow to it and the many illustrations contribute significantly. It does not include a bibliography, but does have a very detailed notes section that shows the many sources consulted by Mr. Sanders.

I am happy to recommend this book to students of Perryville, of Kentucky history, or of the Civil War in general. It is a good book that provides an important and new perspective about how this fierce fighting in a small Kentucky town had long-lasting effects, even on non-combatants.

Disclaimer: I have met the author on a few occasions and have corresponded with him in his professional role on several times. Despite this, I have attempted not to allow this pre-existing relationship to affect my review, but do feel it is important for readers to know of it.

Book Review: Plenty of Blame to Go Around

Plenty of Blame to Go Around: Jeb Stuart's Controversial Ride to Gettysburg

by Eric J. Wittenberg and J. David Petruzzi

copyright 2006, 2011

Savas Beatie
StuartsRide.com 

When I first discovered the Civil War blogosphere a few years ago, among the first blogs I found was Eric Wittenberg's Rantings of a Civil War Historian. I probably discovered it through the Civil War Trust's website, but I soon started reading it and enjoyed his stories about Civil War Cavalry, unknown cavalrymen and commentary on Civil War related news. He also discusses his own writing projects, which include several books, and this led me to wanting to read his work and see how I liked it. 

Well now I finally have done so.  Plenty of Blame to Go Around, co-authored by Mr. Wittenberg and another well-known Civil War Cavalry expert J. David Petruzzi, (see Hoofbeats and Cold Steel) is an examination of both Jeb Stuart's famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) cavalry ride at the end of June of 1863 as the Gettysburg campaign was heating up, and the controversy that this ride created. 

Let me start by simply stating: this is a really good book. The writing has a good flow, making it readable and enjoyable, and it contains a lot of information and analysis. The authors clearly did a lot of research through many sources; this thoroughness comes across as they describe and analyze Stuart's ride and the decisions he made. 

The book starts by examining Stuart's rider and the many incidents that occurred during this adventure, including battles, skirmishes, delays and other events. I really like how the authors are willing not only to tell what happened, but to point out future consequences of certain actions. One such example occurred on pages 63 and 64 when they mention a detour Stuart took. They followed that up with the ominous words: "The seemingly insignificant change of plans had far-reaching consequences no one could foresee at the time." 

As a reader, I find that a sentence like that really grabs my attention and makes me anxious to keep reading to see what those consequences are. The authors make similar statements throughout their description of Stuart's ride, showing when questionable decisions were made or actions taken (or not taken), instead of waiting to tell the story and then go back to explain when mistakes occurred. It is similar to how a work of fiction may include the tool called foreshadowing, though this was not at all subtle warning of what was to come. I really appreciated how the authors used that technique in this book. It definitely added to the understanding of the situations in which Stuart found himself and led me to look ahead to what was to come.

After detailing Stuart's ride and the various happenings on his trip that eventually ended at Gettysburg, the authors spend three chapters describing the controversy around Stuart's actions - how it began, continued, and how it still rages to this day. They use excerpts from official reports (some of them are quite long, but add greatly to the text), personal writings, books and other sources. Wittenberg and Petruzzi show how many fellow soldiers at the time criticized Stuart for disobeying orders or seeking glory, but also demonstrate that others defended the cavalry chief, arguing that the cavalier used the discretion that Robert E. Lee had given him and how unplanned circumstances (such as Union Army movements) led him to make the decisions he did. 

I like how they show numerous examples from both sides of the dispute, from the time of the war, throughout the rest of the 19th century, into the 20th century and onto today. They do not rely on just one or two sentences for most of these examples either - they reprint enough of the originals to tell clearly how the original writer felt. The book demonstrates how much controversy Stuart's ride created, but that there was (and still is) no clear consensus on who was responsible for Stuart's absence from the side of Lee.

The authors finish the text with a chapter describing their conclusions. They again use numerous examples from various reports and publications over the years and decades to show the arguments being made and they then analyze these reports and their effectiveness. It comes across as a fair and balanced view, and their conclusion is effectively demonstrated by the book's title: Plenty of Blame to Go Around.

After this chapter, they add appendices  that include information about the units under Stuart's command during his ride, the orders of battle for the battles they fought on the ride and Stuart's entire official report of this time period, including the ride, the battle at Gettysburg and the retreat back to Virginia. They end the book with a driving tour of Stuart's ride. 

The book does include photographs and maps spread throughout the chapters, which is a fine touch and I enjoyed getting additional tidbits in the notes section as well.

This is a very good, informative, in-depth examination not only of Stuart's ride, but also of its aftermath and the controversy it stirred.  It is well-written, thoroughly researched, and shows why and how Jeb Stuart's ride in the days before the battle of  Gettysburg became so controversial that debate still continues over it even almost 150 years after it happened. I gladly recommend this book.

Book Discussion: Antietam Crossroads of Freedom

Antietam: Crossroads of Freedom: The Battle that Changed the Course of the Civil War

James M. McPherson 

copyright 2002

Oxford University Press

 

When I buy a book, I usually read it, then place it back on my shelf. Occasionally I will grab a book to try to find a phrase or claim I remember in the book or to clarify my memory on some subject, but very rare is the book that I read a second time.

Antietam: Crossroads of Freedom became one of those rare books. I read and enjoyed it a few years ago, but have now just re-read it as part of the "Let's Talk about it: Making Sense of the American Civil War" series I have mentioned here before. 

As expected, this book is very readable and informative, written in a style as most of McPherson's books are. It is only 156 pages long as well, so it is a quick read too.

I've entitled this post as a "discussion" instead of a review as I expect this to be more of an exploration of my thoughts of the message of the book than of a more traditional review. I'll try to keep it at a reasonable length and not touch on most of the many other points that can contribute to these thoughts. (I'm even leaving out any talk of  Gettysburg as the turning point - please pick yourselves up off the floor after reading that if the shock overcomes you.)

My main question about this book is if Antietam is truly the turning point of the war as McPherson contends. He does a good job of showing the mood in the north in the months before the war, with the great concern after the failure of the Peninsula Campaign and the route of Second Bull Run. Some leaders in Great Britain and other European countries were watching events closely and momentum seemed to be favoring either recognition of the Confederacy by those countries, or intervention into the war. 

Then Lee's army invaded Maryland. That should have been no way to improve Northern morale.

At this point, the book describes the action of the battle itself, from the famous "lost orders" to George McClellan's equally famous lack of aggressiveness. McPherson shows how that, even before the battle, the Union forces had experienced a sudden improvement in their morale, and were ready for the challenge of a battle on what they considered their territory. This contributed to the ferocity of the fighting, and after the fighting ended, many Union survivors were ready to pursue their enemy and try to inflict even more punishment on them.

McPherson then presents his arguments about Antietam's importance to the outcome of the war, and they are familiar - the Confederates returned to Virginia, Lincoln had the opportunity to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, and foreign recognition of the Confederacy suddenly became unlikely, if not impossible.

They are good, strong arguments, but I'm not sure I agree with them. 

For one, the war was only one-and-a-half years old when this fight took place, yet lasted two-and-a-half years more afterwards. Can it be a turning point if the event lasts longer after it occurs? 

I suppose that raises the question of what is a turning point, as well as the difference between A turning point and THE turning point. 

Also, if Antietam is a turning point because it ended the hopes of foreign recognition of the Confederacy, that implies an assumption that the Confederacy could only win the war with such recognition. Though time proved the Confederates did not get such recognition and did not win the war, I am not convinced that the failure to obtain such recognition doomed the Confederacy. I believe they still had the possibility of gaining victory without foreign intervention. During the summer and early fall of 1864, the Confederates had inflicted many casualties on Union forces in Virginia and had frustrated their foes elsewhere, particularly in the Union's attempt to approach Atlanta. Europe did not offer recognition, but the Confederate armies still bogged the Union armies down and the lack of progress on the part of the Northern forces frustrated and aggravated people at home. Doubt about the war's outcome began to build, and even President Lincoln looked unfavorably at his chances of re-election.

I can understand listing Antietam as one of many turning points in the war, though perhaps that cheapens the importance of whatever is meant by "turning point." In the discussion of THE turning point, my interpretation is of THE moment or event after which Union victory was inevitable. In that regard, I turn back to the middle and end of 1864, and contend that Lincoln's re-election in 1864 was the key event in showing that the Union would prevail. William T. Sherman's capture of Atlanta certainly aided Lincoln's re-election and I have often thought that event was the key, but now I believe the actual election result was the symbol and sign that the northern people were not succumbing to war-weariness; they did not elect a candidate whose party favored peace at almost any cost; they decided to continue fighting until success came.  This spirit displayed by the Northern people dismayed many in the south, and destroyed Southern hopes that the Confederacy could win simply by outlasting the north. The supposed "mechanics" "hirelings" and "wage slaves" of the North had shown a more persistent fighting spirit than their enemies had expected.

That - the failure to injure Northern morale badly enough to convince Northerners to give up on the war - was more important than the failure to get European of the Confederacy as a separate nation. Or at least it was as important, but it was not, at least in my understanding, less important to the Confederacy's chances of victory.

Of course, the "turning point" issue is one of the many questions that will in all likelihood always spur debate on the Civil War and McPherson's book does add to that discussion. It may create new thoughts and perspective too. In high school, I bought the "Gettysburg as the high-water mark" turning-point view, have sometimes accepted the points McPherson makes in his book about Antietam and its aftermath, and have also given thought to Sherman's Atlanta campaign as the so-called "turning point" before settling (at least for now) on Lincoln's re-election as the true key "moment" that demonstrated how the war would eventually end. 

Although I may not agree now  with McPherson's arguments, I thoroughly enjoyed this book and his analysis. I'm glad I read it again and look forward to the discussion it creates at our next "Let's Talk About it" session tomorrow night.

Book Review: Our Lincoln, edited by Eric Foner

Our Lincoln: New Perspectives on Lincoln and His World

Edited by Eric Foner

copyright 2008

W.W. Norton & Company

As the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth approached in 2009, many new books exploring his life, times and legacy came out and I purchased several of them.

Among them was Our Lincoln, a collection of essays edited by Eric Foner, yet somehow this book sat on my shelf until late in 2011, three years after it was published. 

This collection consists of four parts, which are the major topics of the book, and eleven essays, each by a distinguished Lincoln scholar. The sections are "The President," "The Emancipator,' "The Man," and "Politics and Memory." 

The book starts with four essays about Lincoln's role as president. James McPherson describes Lincoln's role as Commander-in-Chief of the Union military forces and how he as a non-professional military man, was able to exert his leadership and influence on the American army and navy during the war.

Mark Neely Jr.  then explores civil liberties under Lincoln's administration. One idea I found fascinating was his description of the well-known controversy over Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus and Judge Roger Taney's opinion that this suspension was unconstitutional. Neely mentions the possibility that Taney's ruling may not have been totally constitutional either, based on at least one reading of the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Sean Wilentz contributes a discussion of Lincoln's political beliefs if relation to his beloved Whig party, the hated Jacksonian Democracy and how these worked together for Lincoln the Republican. He claims Lincoln was not only just a Whig, but that he used theories and practices that Andrew Jackson had espoused as well, despite the Whigs' dislike of "King Andrew." He shows that just because a person like Lincoln accepted a political party as a home did not mean that this person could only understand or believe in one line of political thought, especially with so many issues being vital to American politics.

The next essay, by Harold Holzer, does a fine job of describing how Lincoln controlled his image through the use of the new medium of photography. This section also does a remarkable job of showing how photography worked with and for existing artistic media such as sculpture and painting to shape the President's image. Artists of each of these styles frequently used the others to help them accomplish their goals, such as using photographs to complete a painting or looking at a painting to complete a sculpture. This was an especially educational chapter for me. I had understood how Lincoln had used photography to establish his image, but the inter-relation of the different ways of creating his image was new to me.

In part two, Lincoln's role in emancipating the slaves and his beliefs in race relations are the topics. James Oakes begins it with a discussion of the various types of rights that people at the time, including Lincoln, belidved existed. He shows how Lincoln believed African-Americans deserved "natural rights" (such as described in the Declaration of Independence) and "citizenship rights" (being treated as a citizen of the country, or at least of a state) , but that the concept of "political rights" (such as voting, holding office and serving on juries) was a state's choice. In this case, he argues, Lincoln supported "states rights" and if a state decided not to enfranchise African Americans, that was the state's choice and Lincoln did not oppose it.  I admit I struggled with this concept as it struck me that by denying the so-called "political rights," states could in effect prevent African Americans from enjoying their natural or citizenship rights. Perhaps this is one essay I will need to read and study again.

Eric Foner then contributes his own essay to this section, discussing Lincoln's long-held support of colonization,but also describing how this idea had taken hold in the United States and had quite a few supporters for many years. It is a good overview of colonization, the support it enjoyed at times, and some of the opposition this idea encountered, especially from African-Americans as well as many abolitionists.

Following that discussion comes a view of Lincoln and his relationships with abolitionists, especially black abolitionists, by Manisha Sinha. This essay describes Lincoln's evolution into a supporter of emancipation during the war, and shows how abolitionists helped lead Lincoln to this conclusion. It tries to focus on black abolitionists but I found it to be most effective in describing the role of abolitionists as a whole, not the smaller segment of black abolitionists. Black abolitionists were smaller in numbers and that seems to come across in this essay. Despite that, it is a good review of how those people (white and black) who favored a more immediate abolition of slavery worked with and influenced the President as he moved towards a policy of emancipation.

Part three begins with Andrew Delbanco's review of Lincoln's writing and the language he used, and how it compared to American writing styles that came before him. This was certainly an interesting part of this book. He describes the question of whether Lincoln's words carry the same weight to modern readers as they did to people who heard and read those words in Lincoln's era.

Richard Carwardine's essay Lincoln's Religion describes not just the long argument over what Lincoln actually believed and how he should be listed ( as a Christian or as a member of a specific denomination) but also on Lincoln's ability to understand the importance of religion to a large number of Americans at the time and how he shaped his language to communicate with them and get their support. Carwardine argues that the main instrument that aided the North in its ultimate victory was not just the amount of resources it possessed had, but, rather, its ability to maintain a patriotic spirit and avoid a war weariness that may have lead to a willingness to give up the fight. Many evangelistic Northerners and organizations played a role in maintaining this patriotism.

This section of the book concludes with Catherin Clinton describing the families of Abraham Lincoln - not only that consisting of his wife and children, but also a description of Lincoln's family as  a child, including his father, mother, step-mother and sister. This also includes a discussion of Nancy Hank's ancestry and how it may have influenced Abraham's development and beliefs, a point I had not read or considered before. (His relationship with his father is mentioned too, but that is a bit more common in Lincoln studies than the talk of his mother's background.)

The book concludes with its fourth part, a single essay by David Blight about the theft of Lincoln and his image in politics and memory. This started out as what I thought was a very good look about Lincoln's image is used commercially so frequently (a trend that was noticed in the 1920s" and how some modern writers have used Lincoln and his image and decisions as a basis to further their political agendas. It then evolved into a discussion of how the modern Republican Party has made attempts to use Lincoln and his memory to show this party as being in favor of Civil Rights. "The Party of Lincoln" is a phrase that he shows they have used (or variations of) to try to garner votes from African-Americans. At times, it appeared to me that the author made his own political beliefs a part of this essay, such as his use of the phrase "disaster in Iraq" on page 272 (instead of simply "war in Iraq), but as I read this more and saw how he was tying in Lincoln's image and the concept of memory (a concept which I would like to study more), I found that to be a minor issue. Blight uses several examples to show how certain conservatives have tried o use Lincoln's memory in their favor even when what he believed in may not be the same as what they believe. It is a very interesting essay, one I should ponder again, and a good way to end this book. 

Overall, this was a very good book, covering many aspects of Lincoln, his life and image, and how these factors influence our views of him today.  Our Lincoln is a book I certainly feel that students interested in our 16th President should consider reading and studying. 

Book Review: Year of Metors

Year of Meteors: Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and the Election that Brought on the Civil War

Douglas R. Egerton

copyright 2010

Bloomsbury Press

I had heard some very good reviews and comments about Douglas R. Egerton's recent book Year of Meteors, so it was with great anticipation that I finally grabbed this volume from my shelf and read it for myself. I was not disappointed.

In this work, Egerton discusses the 1860 Presidential election, discussing the many candidates, parties, platforms, hopes, wishes and goals involved in the long, controversial process.

This is a very readable and informative book. It describes this famous election as one expected to feature Stephen Douglas of the Democratic Party and William Henry Seward for the upstart Republicans. Things did not work out that way and Egerton shows how and why such changes occurred.

Discussing the motives of fire-eaters, particularly William Yancey of Alabama and Robert Barnwell Rhett of South Carolina, the author shows how the Democrats could not agree on one candidate, as the northern members of the party supported Douglas and his popular sovereignty and Freeport Doctrine beliefs,  while southern members believed those positions were too similar to abolitionist beliefs and fought for more stringent guarantees of and protection for slavery. Eventually, the party split and Vice-President John Breckenridge of Kentucky became the choice of the Southern Democrats, while Douglas ran under the banner of the Northern Democrats, both sides claiming to represent the national party's interests. For some party members like Yancey and Rhett, this was not a bad thing.

Such controversy did not affect the other parties in the race, at least not with the same intensity. Egerton discusses how Seward was viewed as too radical, even as he gave more conciliatory speeches as the year unfolded, and how the ability to win states like Indiana, Illinois and Pennsylvania convinced many Republicans that a different candidate was needed. Men like Salmon Chase and Simon Cameron had their names mentioned, but in the end some clever maneuvering by his campaign leaders led Abraham Lincoln to win the party's nomination and be the unexpected challenger to the Democratic party's choice.

Egerton also describes a new party that formed for this race. This was probably my favorite part of the book, and at least was the most informative to me, as he discussed how Kentucky Senator John J. Crittenden tried to find a compromise between the positions of the Republican and Democratic parties. This eventually led to the formation of what was called the Constitutional Union party, with John Bell as its Presidential hoperful. Egerton's descriptions of how this party tried to run without a platform and to virtually ignore the issues surrounding slavery and the territories was eye-opening to me. I knew this was a conservative party,but never realized that they basically wrapped themselves in patriotic images and symbols,  while paying no attention to the major political issues of the day, fearing that such discussion would only inflame tempers. Maybe they were right about the issues causing anger, but the description of their virtual "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" approach really makes this party seem out of touch with reality and it is hard to comprehend how they could consider themselves a serious party. (Of course, I've since read other information that indicates the Whigs used a similar strategy in 1840 and even 1848, so maybe it was not as unusual as I thought.)

Egerton discusses other minor parties and candidates as well, such as Gerrit Smith and the Free Soil party, but focuses on the four main parties that captured most of the attention. He shows that the break-up of the Democratic party was no accident as several of the fire-eaters wanted to ensure a Republican victory as they thought that would lead their states to secede from the Union. Little did they realize the amount of pain and suffering that the split nation would suffer in the upcoming years.

One constant throughout this book is the importance of slavery and how the government related to and/or controlled it. Slavery is the dominant issue in this book, with men like Rhett and Yancey offering demands for its protection (the Alabama platform) and even men considered more moderate, like Jefferson Davis, insisting upon the rights of this institution to exist. Some mentions of southern hopes to acquire more territory for slavery pop up in this book, and virtually every discussion of political argument mentioned here is on this subject.

I really enjoyed this book and found it to be well-written, with a good flow to it. It describes the many different perspectives of the election, bases on records of the men who established said perspectives and does an excellent job of telling the story of how this election unfolded, from each party's selection of candidates to the election itself. It is a very fine book and I recommend it highly.

Courtesy americanhistory.si.edu

Book Review: Carrying the Flag by Gordon C Rhea

Carrying the Flag: The Story of Private Charles Whilden, the Confederacy's Most Unlikely Hero

Gordon C. Rhea

Copyright 2004

Basic Books

In this fine narrative, Gordon C. Rhea describes the life story of a truly "common" Confederate soldier, with the battles and campaign that gave him the chance to go from "ordinary" to "hero" in a matter of minutes. 

Writing in a style of a story teller, Rhea tells of the frustrations that Charles Whilden experienced for much of his life, including in the early 1860s when his health issues kept him from being accepted into the Confederate Army. Whether at home in Charleston, in Detroit or in New Mexico, Whilden struggled to achieve success, personally (he never married, and racked up various debts) and professionally (not finding a satisfying job that rewarded him financially.) Eventually, Whilden got his break when Confederate manpower shortages allowed the 1st South Carolina Regiment to accept him into their ranks.

Rhea uncovered many sources to describe Whilden's life, and the regions in which he lived, and combined that with his knowledge and research of  two early battles in the 1864 Overland Campaign that exposed Whilden to the so-called "glories" of war, the Battle of the Wilderness, and the Battle of Spotsylvania. Rhea describes how the armies approached each other and met in ferocious combat in both battles, describing the intensity of the fighting and suffering the men did. He paints a grim picture of these early May days, in both locations, describing the sights and sounds that men like Charles Whilden saw and heard. The vivid descriptions of these scenes do a terrific job of letting the reader understand - as much as we can - the type of horror these men experienced.

I will not describe in this review the actions Whilden took to earn the name hero, as Rhea does that in the book much better than I can, but the story he tells is one I'm glad to be familiar with now and one that I certainly recommend others read. Even seemingly small steps can lead to big accomplishments and inspire other people. (Granted, the title of the book does give a big hint about Whilden's actions.) 

I do wish the book had included some illustrations or photographs and maybe a couple more maps. It did have one map each of the Wilderness and Spotsylvania at the front of the book, but some more detailed images of the areas would have been nice, especially later in the book when actions in these areas were being described.

Despite that minor criticism, I found this to be a very enjoyable, readable book that tells a wonderful story, illuminating a small, heroic-yet-unknown action that took place during one of the more terrible blood-lettings of the war. How many more heroes like Whilden made such courageous moves during the war, only to have their actions disappear into the fog of time and history? We may never know, but thanks to some surviving family papers, and Gordon Rhea's research and writing abilities, we can know realize and appreciate what Chalres Whilden did and the courage he showed in that one moment in May of 1864. This book does fine justice to Mr. Whilden's bravery.

Fighting for the Bloody Angle, courtesy nps.gov