2 comments about Champ Ferguson: Confederate Guerilla.

1. Champ Ferguson was one of those characters in the Civil War whose evaluation seems to depend upon which side is doing the 'evaluating'. Ferguson was hanged for murders he committed during the war in which he fought as a 'guerrilla' (Yankee definition) or 'partisan' (Confederate definition). The problem with most guerrilla/partisan fighters in Ferguson's theater of the war and also in the border states of Kansas and Missouri, was that private feuds often intruded into military actions. Hence, Ferguson's 'murder' of a wounded Union soldier is traced in several instances to attacks upon his family.
   
   But whatever the case, when the time came to hang the tall man, even some Yankees seemed to feel that Ferguson was being hanged for actions that were being 'overlooked' in other theaters of war, especially in northern Virginia where several partisan groups had been VERY active. Commanders such as John S. Mosby and Hanse McNeill had participated in the hanging of Yankee soldiers involved in the destruction of civilian homes in the Shenandoah and elsewhere. While McNeill died during the war, his son (who took over the command) as well as Mosby were not prosecuted afterwards although in Mosby's case, there was some evidence of a desire to have him tried after Ferguson's execution.
   
   The author gives a fairly balanced view of Ferguson's life. Unlike Mosby and other more educated commanders and/or the men who served under them, Ferguson left very little personal record of his thoughts and motives which means that those studying the man can only go by his actions and the evaluation of his contemporaries on both sides.
   
   Champ Ferguson, like Quantrill, the James boys and other 'bloodthirsty guerillas' of the era, is a worthy study for anyone who wishes to understand the tenor of the times in that fratricidal era.



2. Originally published in 1942, Sensing explored the terror of guerilla warfare in the border state area of south central Kentucky. The book reveals the complexitiy of living through the Civil War, and the dangers of choosing sides. Using trial testimony for the basis of his research, Sensing reveals Ferguson as a haunting character, dangerous,cruel, and legendary. This is a must have for Kentucky Civil War fans as well as Tennessee Civil war buffs. As a resident of the area where Ferguson committed most of his atrocities, I find it facinating look at our history's darker side.

No comments about A Commitment To Honor A Unique Portrait Of Abraham Lincoln In His Own Words.

3 comments about Three Years a Soldier: The Diary and Newspaper Correspondence of Private George Perkins, Sixth New York Independent Battery, 1861-1864 (Voices of the Civil War).

1. Although not a staple of Three Years a Soldier, the issue of white perception of race adds to the growing assurances that most northerners really were not abolitionists. Private George Perkins letters and commentary on slavery and blacks themselves rejects the popular elementary depiction of white Union soldiers liberating the slaves. Perkins reveals that he is against slavery not for its moral effects but rather its social implications. His letters consist of racist views and expressions thus perpetrating Perkins as antislavery but not an abolitionist.
   
   This diary and correspondence with the Middlesex Journal, the hometown newspaper of Woburn, Massachusetts, illustrate a soldier who joined as a patriot to fight for his country. However, the differences between Perkins's private thoughts and his public column bear additional attention. First, Perkins attitudes towards politics or public matters appear more frequently in the journal than his diary. The tendency to preach on the commitment to the cause and the moral superiority of those who act as the "defenders of our liberty [who] shall make our nation pure and Christian-like" reveal a man deeply committed to the ideals of a patriotic duty. (255)
   
   An interesting revelation in Perkins diary is his attitude towards officers, particularly when it comes to discipline. A republican who believed that he was morally and intellectually superior, Perkins saw his duty as a soldier as to question the commands and decisions of those above him in rank. Perkins did not subscribe to camp discipline and saw it as meaningless in the grand scheme of fighting for the Union. He desired officers who wanted to connect with their men, who shared their discomforts and tribulations. Interestingly enough is Perkins admiration for Major General Joseph Hooker, the much-maligned commander of the Army of Potomac during the Chancellorsville campaign. Perkins credits "Fighting Joe" commenting that his bravery, careful judgment, and treatment of common soldiers improved the army after Ambrose Burnside. Indeed, Perkins was high on Hooker but the general's political attachment to the radical republicans perhaps really illustrates Perkins affections for the man.
   
   This book adds to the ever-growing home front and community studies that illustrate the varying ideological perceptions of the common soldier. From political agendas to social commentary to racial attitudes, much can be gained using this work as an initial probe that could lead to larger texts. An outstanding introduction, which clearly puts Perkins's perspective in its proper place, this book is a great addition to a Civil War library.



2. Perkin's diary offers great insight into the daily life of an ordinary artilleryman during the Civil War. Men in the artillery were cross-trainied and Perkins did a little bit of everything from driving caissons and battery wagons to serving on the gun crew. Also the 6th New York Independent Battery was first used as foot artillery and then later was made into horse artillery thus providing insight from an artilleryman's perspective who served with both the infantry and the cavalry. Reading the diary you live every day with Perkins. He was no perfect soldier and was often given extra duty for various infractions, usually for being late somewhere. I was amused by the number of entries that stated he didn't have to stand guard duty because he couldn't be found. The diary refelcts the ups and downs in his morale, his occasional bouts with illness, and his very palpable grief at the lost of a brother.



3. The book, "Three Years a Soldier", by Richard Griffin, is one of the most interesting books on the Civil War that I have read in a long time. This book covers the three years of service by George Perkins of the 6th NY Independent Battery, Perkins being a great-grandfather of the author, Griffin. The book consists primarily of the Perkins journal and newspaper articles. George Perkins was clearly proud of his service and wanted posterity to read these documents.
   
   Many history books concentrate on "big picture" matters, such as wartime strategy, decisions made by leaders, etc. But an equally fascinating historical question is to understand the mindset of people of the time. Why did they do what they did, what was important to them, etc. Obviously this book falls into the second category and in a highly successful way. George Perkins is particularly of interest in this regard because he shares so many core values of his contemporaries in spite of having the education and background that could easily have made him much different. This only goes to show how deeply embedded these values were to Americans of the 1860s:
   
   - Patriotism. Perkins doesn't say much about why he joined the Army in Dec 1861, but a growing sense of patriotism shows itself in the course of the journal, particularly a resentment of those who had not joined the army.
   - Courage. George doesn't talk much about courage, but this was a core value that he obviously shared with his contemporaries. On a number of occasions, he mentions close calls with snipers or artillery while he was carrying out his battery duties under fire.
   - Religion. The Winter of 1863-64 saw a nationwide revival movement, especially in both Confederate and Union armies. George was an active participant in early 1864.
   - Individualism. George Perkins did his duty when in combat. But in camp or while training, he was a constant pain to his officers, consistently showing a resentment of authority and a feeling of superiority to those men placed over him. It is actually quite amusing to read of the various ways he flouted authority. To his credit he generally accepted, with few complaints, the punishment that almost always followed. George was certainly not the only soldier with this mindset.
   
   The most important things one can say about George Perkins are also the simplest. When his country needed him, he was there, and when the bullets were flying, he stood to his duty. I feel honored to read of his service and I recommend this book to all.

2 comments about Remembering Georgia's Confederates (Images of America).

1. Dr. Wiggins has assembled an outstanding collection of photographs, as well as commentaries on dozens and dozens of Confederate soldiers from totally unknown men of the ranks to well known subjects. Not only can the historian or reenactor gain much from the details of the uniforms and weapons but we all have the opportunity to look into the eyes of men long gone who marched off to a horrifically brutal war. Images of the men at reunions decades after the war show us old men who lived with the wounds, amputations and memories of what they had done in their youth. A remarkable book preserving these men for all time.
   
   Hugh T. Harrington
   author of: "Civil War Milledgeville, Tales From the Confederate Capital of Georgia," "Remembering Milledgeville, Historic Tales From Georgia's Antebellum Capital" and "More Milledgeville Memories."



2. Best collection of Georgians in their Confederate uniforms I have ever seen! The book features over 120 images of this type and another 100 or so of Georgians returning from the war. Very impressive!
   
   Good work for the younger reader who wants to know more about Georgia's Confederate heritage but also for the serious researcher.

2 comments about The View from the Ground: Experiences of Civil War Soldiers (New Directions in Southern History).

1. This excellent collection of essays moves away from the "grand man" approach to Civil War history which focuses too often on generals and politicians to refocus on the common soldiers who actually endured the war. The basic assumption of the collection's authors, according to editor Sheehan-Dean, is that "soldiers are real historical actors who have the potential to shape, not simply respond to, their environment."
   
   So, for example, the various authors argue (1) that Northern soldiers, disgusted by their firsthand experience of slavery as they moved southward and recognizing that slavery was a key point of Southern resistance, began to advocate for emancipation long before the Northern public; (2) that Southern soldiers grew in hatred for their Northern enemies as the war took on "total" qualities, and that tales of fraternization between Rebs and Yanks are much exaggerated; (3) that Christian soldiers on both sides were religiously ambivalent about their participation in the horrific killing of the war, often undergoing religious crises in their efforts to reconcile religious rhetoric encouraging holy war and Christ's commands to love one's enemies; (4) that after a certain point in the war, southern soldiers tended to be so trapped in their own horrible world of fighting, privation, and diminished hope that they misunderstood and resented civilians who complained about their own (very real)hardships; (5) that the voluntary nature of the northern and southern armies stamped many soldiers in the ranks with a self-confident autonomy that ill-tolerated self-important by-the-book officers; and that (6) the rough conditioning of the battlefield left at least some Northern troops with few inhibitions about calling for the exile or death of Copperheads.
   
   Now, all this is fascinating, and the essays that defend these theses are well-written and well-researched. But there seems a crucial tension in all this that I wish the authors had explored. Granted, Civil War soldiers were historical actors, not simply pawns. In fact, given the voluntary nature of the armies, they probably exerted more autonomy than any U.S. soldiers since. But at the same time, they were also the same men who allowed themselves to be slaughtered time and again by stupid or foolhardy or enraged officers who ordered them to make impossible or unnecessary assaults. What is needed is more thought on this unbearable tension between autonomy and powerlessness in the Civil War soldier's experience. I look forward to the authors in this collection taking on such a project.



2. As a non-American, my knowledge of the American Civil War is very limited. To be quite honest; I don't know a whole lot of it, besides that the two sides were the Union in the north with soldiers wearing blue uniforms, and the Confederacy in the south with soldiers dressed in gray. The slave issue wasn't the only matter fought over - even though it was obviously a very important matter indeed - and throughout the war several of the great battles of military history were fought, for instance the battle at Gettysburg, which also became the turning point of the war.
   
   This is, in a nutshell, basically all I knew and thought of whenever someone mentioned the American Civil War. (Okay, fine... I also thought of Patrick Swayze's character Orry Main from TV-series North and South. Well, actually, the one I really thought of was the lady he secretly dated. And especially her cleavage. But don't blame me, I was young and impressionable.)
   
   This highly limited knowledge - combined with the fact that when it comes to books about war and war history I find it much more stimulating to read about the ones who actually fought the war instead of what tactics the leaders used and the politics behind their decisions - resulted in me eagerly anticipating to get started on The View From the Ground.
   
   Because this book does indeed focus on the soldiers who were maimed and killed on the battlefields. The reader is invited to share the thoughts and feelings of these men about such issues as slaves and race relations, the image of the enemy, the conflict at large, the civilian population, and the multitude of religious and moral dilemmas that soldiers of faith had to deal with.
   
   At large, all ten contributions are highly interesting; especially since the reader realizes that the war wasn't exclusively about the issue of slaves and that many of the Union soldiers didn't care too much either about the non-whites. However, the two contributions that really stand out are David W. Rolfs' "No Nearer Heaven Not but Rather Farther Off: The Religious Compromises and Conflicts of Northern Soldiers" and Kent T. Dollar's "Strangers in a Strange Land: Christian Soldiers in the Early Months of the Civil War", two essays dealing with the bizarre compromise where faithful Christians were able to justify the ritualized and sanctioned mass-killings that active warfare, when it comes down to it, actually means.
   
   The book contains no photographs or illustrations whatsoever, and that's definitely most unfortunate.

No comments about One of Jackson's Foot Cavalry: His Experience and What He Saw During the War, 1861-1865 (Collector's Library of the Civil War).

2 comments about Wearing of the Gray: Being Personal Portraits, Scenes, and Adventures of the War.

1. This book is better used as a narcoleptic, as 10 pages in I was snoring like a buzzsaw. The material is presented in the accounts of Mr. Cooke who served in the Civil War as an aide to one of the great generals of the Confederate army. Mr. Cooke's views are understandably distorted by having served and fought for the South. Therefore, this book should not be considered if you are looking for a good first hand historical account of the Civil War. It's literary value is better described by the beauty of its prose - not it's historical context.
   
   If you enjoy 19th Century writing this book is for you. If you're looking for personal narrative of the Civil War there are better books available.



2. This is a contemporary source, a mixed bag of character sketches, fictionalized real events, and historical bits. Cooke isn't great on exact accuracy of dates and events, but he captures a certain mentality well. If you want the Virginian-plume-wearing-chivalry Thing, you'd better read this book. And he is entertaining, if turgid -- the character sketches of people like Stuart and Farley the Scout are the best parts, I think. A brief chapter on the siege of Petersburg stands out as well. The book does give a good idea of what scouts and detached cavalry units did, which I found useful.

   Thickly styled though much of this is to a modern eye (and perhaps a contemporary one, since Stuart himself apparently considered Cooke "a crashing bore", though he was too tactful to let on), it's still really a classic of the period. It represents a certain facet of Civil War mentality, and people interested in the period should certainly look at it.

No comments about George Stoneman: A Biography of the Union General.

5 comments about General George E. Pickett in Life and Legend.

1. I read the book and thought it was pretty good. That is, until I learned from a lecturer about its mistakes. There is a picture in the book captioned as being of Pickett when in fact it's another man altogether. You'd think someone who did their research and wrote a book on this man would at least get that right. In another part of the book there's a quote from one of Pickett's men. The author edited the real quote and ended up leaving the last part off trying to portray Pickett as a drunk. It seems as though the author had other motives than revealing truths when she wrote this book.



2. Until this book hit the shelves, the image of Confederate General George Pickett was one of heroism. Known mostly for his failed assault at Gettysburg, the flamboyant and curly haired Virginian was a symbol for the South's "Lost Cause" myth. Attributing to his heroic portrayal was the Turner picture, "Gettysburg" and the Michael Shaara book, "The Killer Angels."
   
   The reputation of LaSalle Corbell Pickett before Gordon's book was one of fondness for a wife of a famous general. The public generally believed her when she described her soldier as a champion of the South. Now, we can ascertain that LaSalle carefully and deliberately created a positive image of her husband in order to leave a lasting impression. Because of this, the story of George Pickett can be described as one of myth and confusion.
   
   The true story of this man is revealed here. Though Pickett was mostly a good soldier who did his job, his depiction cannot be similar to the previous impression painted by LaSalle and past historians. It was interesting to see how Gordon pointed out that LaSalle left out stories and facts that did not favor her husband. By doing this, LaSalle loses all credibility and any references to her work must be looked at carefully.
   
   Finally, Civil War scholarship is pushing towards the phrase "going against the grain," as it pertains to producing Civil War material. Rather than continue to generate work after work that does little to advance this field, scholars such as Gordon are a bright addition that will continually keep fresh perspectives on this time period. On a personal level, I very much look forward to studying under her as I begin my doctorate at the University of Akron in the fall of 2005.



3. George Pickett could be one of the biggest mysteries of the Civil War. After the war and then his death 10 years later his wife became a celebrated author. She wrote several popular books about the Civil War and specifically George Pickett including one that was suppose to be a collection of his letters to her during the war. The problem is Sallie Pickett's books were more fiction than fact. Creations of her imagination to glorify her husband.

   The result is in trying to write a proper biography of George Pickett one has to deal with Sallie Pickett and try to separate the truth from the fantasy. This problem is compounded by the fact that Pickett's actual wartime letters and other papers are locked away and not available to modern scholars.

   This is why it is so difficult for a biography of Pickett to be written. It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle with pieces from another puzzle in the box. Every time you pick up a piece you have to try and decide if it even belongs with the puzzle. That's the very difficult task that Lesley Gordon faced in trying to write this book.

   Gordon does do a decent job of weeding out the fiction from the facts. Her writing style is very good and the book is an enjoyable read. She holds no punches and is tough on Pickett when the need requires but also gives him credit for the good things. The problem is there simply are to many gaps in the story which cause her to literally skim over important parts of Pickett's life. His life after the war is barely even touched and Gordon skims over some rather important events, most likely because there is so little factual information available about Pickett concerning those times. Perhaps not Gordon's fault but we as readers are still left scratching our heads wondering what went on.

   Lastly due to lack of direct sources i.e. Pickett himself, Gordon is forced to use other indirect sources that aren't always reliable. For example in discussing his being wounded at Gaines Mill Gordon quotes Major John Haskill who accuses Pickett of cowardice. The problem is Haskill had a strong and well known dislike of Pickett and his story is so absurd that I was surprised Gordon chose to even include the account at all.

   I think the definitive book on Pickett is still to come. There are simply still to many gaps in his life. Perhaps someday in the future his actual letters and papers will be made available to scholars and then a true in-depth biography of the man can be made. In the meantime this will do.




4. Lesly Gordon does a well done bio on Pickett the General associated withh three of the greatest disasters of Lee's Northern Army of Virginia. Pickett is obviously associated with the great charge at Gettysburg but also the crushing disaster at Five Forks and within a week the final crushing blow at Saylers Creek where Lee lost over 6,000 soildiers. The bio covers Pickett's early years with the Mexican War where he takes the flag from a wounded Longstreet to bound up the steps at Chapultepec, his realtionship with an Indian maiden that may have included marriage and the son that he seemingly abandoned and left in the northwest. Picket also is involved with a virtual skirmish with England over islands in the northwest near Pugent Sound.

   But the best part of the book is Gordon's filling in of Pickett's Civil War career. After an early wounding during the Peninsula Campaign, Pickett's career stays on the back burner until Gettysburg. After discussion of Pickett's role and actions where he actually participates in 1/3 of the charge that holds his name Pickett has other assignments such as the retaking of North Carolina towns and his early defense of Petersburg where he holds back the Union forces with just a few thousand men until Beauregard arrives to take command. Pickett's miring in controversy is well brought out such as his decision to hang former Confederates that were captuted while fighting for the Union in North Carolina and his infamous part in the Five Forks battle where he was away from the fight eating shad and partaking in drink with Rosser and Fitz Lee while his command is virtually wiped out. The later is whispered but little known until after his death. His remnants of command are virtually captured at Sayler's Creek and Lee allegedly discharges him with Anderson and Bushrod Johnson days before Appomatox.

   Gordon's bio is fascinating as Pickett seems to be a brave and valiant soldier but one that is immature such as his leaving the lines in Suffolk to visit LaSalle`his future wife who lived a few miles in Chuckatuck, his stepping away from command to party behind the lines at Five Forks and his penchant for writing emotional and whinny battle reports. The latter is probably why Lee had Pickett tear up his Gettysburg report. LaSalle is revealed as a dedicated wife but one that fabricates history to enhance Pickett's reputation. Alleged letters from Pickett that she published are in many cases most likely written by her own hand and recent scholarship has shown gross plagerism and in some cases illogical history where the facts dispute her version of the truth such as Lincoln stopping by to see the Picketts in Richmond. A fascinating account of inconsistencies, Pickett stems the tide at Petersburg abnd fights well at Dinwiddie Court House against Sheridan but then relaxes too much at Five Forks in a very difficult and unsupported position which in the end results in the collapse of Lee's right wing. Gordon does well in removing some of the mystery about Pickett who today is burried near his men at Hollywood Cemetery but seemingly isolated from other Generals burried there.




5. Unlike the previous customer reviewer, and like the scores of accredited professional reviewers itemized in part in Amazon's own professional listings, I found Gordon's new biography to be first rate. It is meticulously researched and introduces new materials about the general's life heretofore unpublished. And if Gordon's interest in the role that Pickett's marriage played in shaping his 'life' is offputting to some reactionary types, then so much the better. Biography requires the evocation of an individual's entire cultural ethos, both on the battlefield and off, and Gordon's evenhanded work here help us round out the picture of an important, if enigmatic historical personage.

5 comments about Grant Wins the War: Decision at Vicksburg.

1. Arnold's book about a pivtoal campaign covers many details on many overlooked battles and raids in the Civil War: Champion's Hill (Baker's Creek), Big Black River, Jackson, Port Gibson, and Grierson's raid through Mississippi.

   Arnold's descriptions of the battles were interesting with notes on individual bravery without becoming too bogged down in details. Particularly interesting were the descriptions of the Union army's march on the Louisiana side of the Mississippi River and the Union navy's several attempts to pass by Vicksburg's siege guns.

   I also appreciated the author's balanced criticisms of leaders on both sides:
   1) Pemberton, the Confederate commander, was too vacillating and involved in the petty politics that doomed the Confederacy in the West. Conflict between Confederate leaders Johnston, Davis, and Beauregard further doomed Pemberton.
   2)Grant made the inexcusable mistake of leaving his own wounded on the battlefield after a charge on the Vicksburg works because of his faulty perception that to care for his wounded would be an admission of weakness.

   My main complaints were the lack of sufficient maps - while the maps in the book were well-drawn and sufficiently detailed, more were needed, particularly for a campaign such as Vicksburg.

   In conclusion, I recommend the book as an entertaining and informative read on an important campaign.




2. An excellent analysis covering the entire scope of Grant's tactical operations. However, this book reaches too far. Like the title, the author's military assertions and their subsequent impact on the Union's conduct of the war are a little too grandiose. Grant did not win the war on July 4, 1863. It would drag on for two more years. But just maybe Lincoln did.

   Grant's amazing victory was as much politically as tactically driven. From the point of view of Grant's career, he had to win, had to take unorthodox chances, because he was as close to being dead meat as any Union general ever came. For months and months he was bogged down before Vicksburg. We know Lincoln was so dissatisfied with Grant that he sent Charles Dana to Vicksburg as the President's special envoy to see what was really going on.

   General Banks, a Lincoln political appointee and very close friend, was driving north from Baton Rouge toward Port Gibson and Vicksburg. Banks stalled and Grant was ordered by Halleck (via Lincoln??) to assist Banks. Grant disobeyed this command from the then General in Chief of all Federal armies and went his own way. WOW! Big decision. What a way to make friends when you are under the looking glass.

   Last, placed within Grant's command structure is another Lincoln political appointee and friend, General McClernand, who Grant subsequently relieves prior to Vicksburg's capitulation. Is he thumbing he nose?

   At Vicksburg we see Grant's first inclination to tactically detach himself from direct supply and communication lines. But what caused it? Was it Pemberton's chauvinistic defense of Vicksburg and Grant's straight forward desire to defeat his foe? Or was it the internal pressure within the Union army and Grant's desire to save his career that forced Grant to do very, very differently from then current military principals, causing him to develop this amazingly different set of operational plans he would resort to again and again during the remainder of the war?

   Last, from the Confederate side there is Jeff Davis' incredible stupidity. Did Jeff Davis hang Joe Johnston out to dry? And lets not forget Pemberton's direct disobedience to his theater commander's, Joe Johnston's order: Save the army, abandon Vicksburg. Why did Jeff Davis never censure Pemberton not only for the loss of Vicksburg, strategically and psychologically important to the South as it was, but also the loss of an entire army, complete with thousands of men and irreplaceable stores, arms and ammunition? And why does Davis again relieve Johnston from command, not reinstating him until the final hours of the war?

   Seen simply from the viewpoint of the Union high command, i.e., a traitor in his midst (McClernand), a presidential spy at headquarters (Dana), an unwillingness to unite forces with a fellow field commander (Banks) and the disobedience of his direct superior's orders (Halleck's), Grant should be thankful for Lincoln's reaffirmed evaluation of him: "I cannot spare this man; he fights". Good for you, Charles Dana.

   Grant's military victory at Vicksburg IS amazing and this book is as good an account of it as there is. But the author fails to live up to his title's claim. Grant's political coup (Lincoln's willing recognition of his ability despite his incredible disobedience and non cooperation with Lincoln favorites) is even more incredulous than his military one. Had not Meade just beaten Lee at Gettysbury on the very same day that Vicksburg fell? Which would have been of more immediate importance: a captured Confederate army on the Mississippi River or a victorious Confederate army next door to Washington? If Lee had won at Gettysburg, Vicksburg would have been what it will always be, a spectacular feat of arms. But Union army and Northern political concerns aside, maybe, just maybe, Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee lost the war that fateful day when they made the conscious decision to risk swapping Vicksburg for Washington and lost their gamble on both counts.

   The most important item to come from the Vicksburg conflict was not Grant's victory as much as it was Lincoln's recognition of Grant as his next General in Chief. And in that vein it was not Grant's victory at Vicksburg but Lincoln's subsequent promotion of Grant over Meade that won the war.




3. An excellent analysis covering the entire scope of Grant's Vickburg's operations.

   But like the title, a little too grandoise in its assertions. Grant's amazing victory was as much politically as tactically driven. Here we see Grant's first indclination to detach himself from direct supply and communication lines. But what caused it? Was it Pemberton's chauvenistic defense of Vicksburg (and Grant's straight forward desire to defeat his foe) or was it the internal pressure within the Union army (forcing Grant to do very, very differently from then current military principals)that caused him to develop this amazingly different set of operational plans he would resort to again and again during the remainder of the War?

   Prior to this victory, Grant, as a general, was probably as much at risk to continuing his command as any time subsequent in his military career. He had horrifically bogged down at Vicksburg. General Banks, Lincoln political appointee and close friend of Lincoln's, is driving North from Baton Rouge. He is stalled outside Port Gibson and Grant is ordered by Hallack (via Lincoln??)to assist him. Grant disobeys this command from the then General in Chief of all Federal armies and goes his own way. WOW! Big decision.

   Also, within his command structure is another Lincoln political appointee, General McClernand, who Grant relieves prior to Vickburg's capitulation.

   Last, there is Jeff Davis' incredible stupidity (did he hang Joe Johnston out to dry)and Pemberton's direct disobedience to his theater commander's, Joe Johnston's order; save the army, abandon Vicksburg. Why did Jeff Davis never censure Pemberton not only for the loss of Vicksburg, strategically and psycologically important to the South as it was, but also an entire army, complete with thousands of men, stores, arms and ammunition? And why does Davis again relieve Johnston from command, not reinstating him until the final hours of the war?

   Seen simply from the viewpoint of the Union high command,i.e., a traitor in his midst, McClernand, an unwillingness to unite forces with a fellow field commander, Banks, and the disobedience of his direct superior's orders, Halleck's,he should be thankful for Linclon's non military, non political eveluation of him: "I cannot spare this man; he fights".

   Grant's military victory at Vicksburg is amazing. But his political victory (Lincoln's willing recognition of his ability despite his incredible disobedience)is even more incredulous.




4. Arnold's book is a good solid history of the Vicksburg Campaign. His descriptions of the battles and the strategic and tactical issues facing Grant and the Confederacy gives one an understanding of what problems faced the parties and how they were resolved. His description of the battle of Champion Hill is the best part of the book, as one can feel the bravery of the soldiers involved.

   The books limitation is Arnold's almost infatuation with Grant and the need to make Vicksburg the pivotal battle of the war. While the strategy that Grant utilized was daring and unorthodox that does not substantiate the comparison with Napoleon. There is nothing in the campaign that demonstrates that Grant's tactics were Napoleonic in nature.

   Whether Vicksburg was the pivotal battle of the civil was may be true. However, Arnold did not make the case that it was. A Union loss at Gettysburg surley would have had a dramatic impact on the Unions will to continue the war. While the issue of which battle was more important was not important to the Vicksburg story, once the issue was raised Arnold should have at least spent more than a moment discussing Gettysburg.

   As a story about the Vicksburg Campaign, the book excells.




5. Other than the fact you can never have too many maps this book was extremely well written. Great detail on brigade actions - specific but flowing pretty smoothly with the overall battle action. Really liked the summary analysis' throughout the book. Focused and, to me, impartial.