Book Review: Shenandoah, 1862

In 2009, I went on a road trip to visit various Civil War battlefields. My route down to Tennessee (Shiloh and Chickamauga!) took me through the Shenandoah Valley. Driving down I-81, I passed easily dozens of Civil War Trails signs, and I even ended up stopping in Lexington, Winchester and New Market. And in that trip, I quickly realized...I didn't understand how the war unfolded in the Shenandoah AT ALL. It was a bewildering mystery of the Union advancing, the Confederates defeating and driving them back, possession of important points changing hands repeatedly, and all of the events of multiple campaigns were layered one on top of the other. I picked up a pamphlet that promised to clear up some of the mystery, but never got around to reading it, and have remained bemused ever since. More than that, I think I've actively turned a blind eye towards the Shenandoah campaigns, despite their importance, because that was easier than muddling through and trying to sort it all out. Yet I did want the veil lifted from my eyes, so when I spotted Shenandoah, 1862 by Peter Cozzens, I knew the time had come: this book would remove the fog of war and I'd have some better idea of what on earth had happened there in 1862. Cozzens' fine book didn't disappoint.

Book Review
Cozzens, Peter. Shenandoah, 1862: Stonewall Jackson's Valley Campaign. The University of North Carolina Press. 2008. 623p. Photographs, bibliography, maps, index. ISBN: 9780807832004.

In most works about the Shenandoah campaign of 1862, author's present a narrative of the brilliance of Confederate General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, and omit a detailed description of the point of view and activities of his Union adversaries. Peter Cozzens (independent scholar) seeks to overcome this deficiency by vividly and extensively describing both sides of the conflict in the Valley. Using exhaustive research, Cozzens helps the campaign to come alive in all of its elements - the marches and counter-marches, battles, maneuvers, and politics. The events in the Valley are set in context against the greater panoply of events at the time, especially the political atmosphere in Washington DC and the relationship between events in the Shenandoah and the advance of Union General George B. McClellan's Peninsula Campaign. The description of events on the Union side is particularly interesting and offers a point of view rarely encountered in other works on the topic. Union Generals Nathaniel P. Banks, John C. Fremont and James Shields are transformed from straw men set up simply for Jackson to knock down, and are fully described as actors in the drama that unfolds - given credit for their successes, acknowledged for the challenges they faced, and roundly condemned for their very real failings. The only negative of this fine book is just how dense and scholarly it is: it is so rich in details and replete with primary sources fleshing out the narrative that at times it is difficult to read.

For those who'd like a better understanding of the Shenandoah Campaign in 1862, with a fair and balanced description of both the Confederate and Union sides, one could not do better than Cozzens' work on the topic.

Rating: 4 out of 5.

Book Review: Grant and Lee

At the beginning of the year, you may recall that I read and reviewed Ulysses S. Grant: A Victor, Not a Butcher. In that work, the author discussed some works that he had used as sources, and I read this descriptive bibliography assiduously and made notes of books that I would like to read that he mentioned. One of those books was Grant and Lee, by JFC Fuller. Thus, I was delighted when I saw this work on the shelves at Shiloh when I visited there earlier this month. I didn't even hesitate before picking it up, and I read it almost immediately (mostly because I started and then was hooked!) I'm currently reading another of his books, The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant.

Book Review
Fuller, J.F.C. Grant and Lee: A Study in Personality and Generalship. Indiana University Press. 1957. 2nd Edition. 323p. Bibliography, maps, index. ISBN: 9780253202888.

Major General J.F.C. Fuller (British Army) began writing about the Civil War in the years after the first World War. Grant and Lee (first edition published 1933) grew out of research that he had done for his previous work, the The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant. When he started these works, he held the view common to many people of them - and, despite almost a century of debunking, the views of many people now - that Confederate General Robert E. Lee was a brilliant strategist, tactician and general, and that Union General Ulysses S. Grant was a careless hack who would have failed to win the war if not for the North's vast wealth of resources and manpower. By the time he had finished his research, though, Fuller had done a complete 180 on his views of these two men. In Grant and Lee, Fuller uses extensive research - primarily using the Official Records of the War, various memoirs and biographies, and other sources commonly available at the time - to demonstrate how skillfully Grant managed his troops, and at the same time how often inept Lee was when times called for a forceful, decisive commander. The events are described chronologically, and the stories of both commanders are told simultaneously throughout the course of the war, alternating between each narrative when the two are in different theaters. Fuller's work is justly a classic of the field: his arguments are incisive, his research extensive, his historiography strong, and his own expertise as a general and theoretician help strengthen the validity of everything he says. What makes the book a delight to read, though, is his witty writing style and no-holds-barred willingness to state his opinion of his subjects. For example, when describing the Confederate plan for the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg, Fuller says flat out, "this was a thoroughly bad plan," and then goes on to explore the reasons why. In an age when much scholarly writing hems and haws at making value judgements, tip toes around directness, or provides "just the facts" and leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions, it is thoroughly refreshing to read Fuller's down-to-earth writing style. For that, and for the value of his insights, I found this book to be a page turner, and I read it in three days flat - and was reluctant every time I had to put it down.

A classic for all the right reasons, this is the book to hand any body who tries to tell you that Grant is a thoughtless butcher or that Lee is the greatest general in US History.

Rating: 5 out of 5.

Book Review: Partners in Command

I consider the purchasing of this book one of my fortuitous discoveries in recent memory. See, I'm thinking about going back to graduate school to study 19th century US military history (ie, the Civil War!) and I've been looking at programs that specialize in that. As such, I've learned about some scholars in the field who I want to read more by, but money is limited just now. Last month, I sold some used DVDs to a place I go sometimes that specializes in media and Japanese used books. For kicks, while I was waiting for them to process my order, I looked through their small selection of US History books, and - low and behold - on the shelf was a book by one of the Professor's I wanted to learn more about! Used and cheap, no less! I was very excited, and promptly bought it, and almost as promptly read it!

Book Review Glatthaar, Joseph T. Partners in Command: The Relationships Between Leaders in the Civil War. The Free Press. 1994. 286p. Photographs, bibliography, maps, index. ISBN: 0029118174.

Without understanding the relationships between important figures in the Civil War, it is difficult to really grasp how events unfolded and why they unfolded as they did. There are a multitude of relationships that would be fascinating to scrutinize, and no way that any author could tackle them all in one book. Glatthaar doesn't attempt to draw broad generalizations or to analyze every important relationship in the war; instead, he isolates six specific interactions and writes essays on each one, linking them by drawing on common themes and pointing out which factors made the relationships successful or unsuccessful. These conclusions are supported by extensive research, and it's especially fascinating in each essay to see that there is always a turning point - when the relationship went from cordial to antagonistic, or from neutral to positive. Two of the essays focus on Confederate relationships: Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee; and Joseph Johnston and Jefferson Davis. The other four focus on Union relationships: Abraham Lincoln and George McClellan; Ulysses Grant and William Sherman; Grant, Sherman and David Porter; and Lincoln and Grant. All of the essays were interesting in their own ways, and which appealed to any given reader most would depend on their interests and focus of their studies. I was particularly fascinated by his analysis of Johnston and Davis' relationship, as I have an enduring fascination with Johnston. The essay on Grant, Sherman and Porter highlighted some very interesting inter-service issues and successes, and the psychological analysis of McClellan was very interesting to read and informative. The only significant downside to this book was all of the areas it didn't explore and cover, and the questions it left me with concerning other relationships - specifically, I wish there had been a discussion of the relationship between Henry Halleck and Grant, but there is fertile ground for essays on many other topics.

Not a book for someone looking for very in-depth analysis, Partners in Command assumes that the reader has a framework of knowledge about the war, and focuses immediately on the relationships in question with a loose, readable style that is almost conversational at points, while using extensive research to support the conclusions drawn about the relationships between the individuals discussed. The essays were thought-provoking, and left me wanting more - and what more can a book really hope for than that?

Rating: 4 out of 5.