Who sent the following message to the Confederate commander at Fort Donelson: “I propose to move immediately upon your works”? Who wrote Preside Lincoln, “I beg to present you as a Christmas gift, the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition”? This Union officer, a son of Irish immigrants, started ou serving in Missouri, then di tinguished himself as an infantry brigade commander at Perryville and Stones River. He ended the war as commander of all cavalry in the Army of the Potomac. Who? The preceding officer moved from west to east. Just the opposite occurred wi this Federal major general. His mediocre leadership of Hooker’s cavalry in spring 1863 led to his being relieved; he was later reassigned to Sherman’s army in Georgia. In his raid toward Macon in July 1864, he was pursued and overwhelmed by Confederate cavalry, and forced to surrender himself and much of his command. Who? In May 1862 this Northern general was sent to New Orleans after Federal capture of the city. Southerner excoriated him, calling him “Spoons” for alleged thiever of silverware and “Beast” fo his famous “Woman Order.” Who? The arrival of this U.S. major general’s army during the battle of Shiloh is wide seen as saving Grant from defeat in April 1862. But he allowed Bragg and Kirby Smith to maneuver him out
of middle Tennessee later in the summer. After the battle of Perryville, Ky., on Octob 8, 1862, Bragg retreated, bu this officer failed to pursu Within two weeks he was canned. Who? his Virginia-born career U.S. Army officer earned the famed nickname “Rock of Chickamauga.” Who? his intellectually brilliant Union general commanded Federal forces from St. Louis early in the war. Afte Shiloh he assumed command of Grant’s Army of the Tennessee, Buell’s Army of the Ohio and Pope’s Army of the Mississippi, some 110,000 men. But his advance to Corinth, Miss., was so cautious and lethargic th in July 1862 Lincoln kicked him upstairs to become general-in-chief in Washington. Who was this officer, nicknamed “Old Brains”? fter his lines were broken during the battle of Chickamauga, this commander of the Union Army of the Cumberland was later accused by James A. Garfield of having fled the field. Wh Recommended by Halleck and Grant, this Ohio-born officer was promoted to brig adier in August 1862 and to major general two months later. He led the XVII Corps at Vicksburg and the Army of the Tennessee in Sherman’s Georgia Campaign until his death near Atlanta. Who?
e Davis is the Civil War New Review Editor. an be contacted by email at:
Custer Loves War and the Ladies! Custer: The Making of a Young General. By Edward G. Longacre. Maps, bibliography, notes, index, 276 pp., 2018.
Unfortunately for his legacy, George Armstrong Custer is best known for his death in 1876 at the battle of Little Bighorn against the Lakota and Arapaho Tribes in Montana Territory. The general public knows much less about Custer’s exploits and accomplishments during the Civil War of 1861–1865. Edward G. Longacre, who has focused much of his research and writing career on Civil War cavalry commanders and operations, undertook to clarify and expand upon the historical record of George Custer’s service in the Union army—primarily as a cavalry officer. This is th first of a planned two-part seri Longacre laid the groundwork for his current study with prior pub cations, including The Cavalry a Gettysburg (1986), General John Buford: A Military Biography (1995), Lincoln’s Cavalrymen (2000) and Lee’s Cavalrymen (2002). In this current work, Longacr proposes “to identify and correc the myths, misconceptions, and misinterpretations about Custer the man.” He also intends to “ad depth to the Custer narrative” b including substantial detail abo his life and career. The author introduces the Ohi native George Armstrong Custer as an impulsive youth, born in 1839, whose hero was General Winfield Scott of Mexican War fame. Custer’s penchant for engaging in pranks and telling jok was in evidence during his years as a cadet at West Point. His be havior and lack of dedication to
the curriculum came within a whisker of ending his status as a cadet, and he graduated last in h class in 1861. Longacre points out that, depending on their geographic origin, hostility developed between West Point students prior to the Civil War. Yet Custer managed to maintain friendships with cadets from both the North and South.
Once he donned the uniform as a Union officer, he retained
amenity toward Southern friends and acquaintances—some of whom he met on the battlefield. Politically, he was more in tune with the South regarding lifestyl issues, including slavery, yet maintained an allegiance to the Union of states. The narrative describes battles in which Custer played a role either in a staff or line functio A paradox is evident concerning the mutual admiration between Custer, a daring young officer, and Maj. Gen. George McClellan, a slow-to-act army commander. Custer failed to find fault with McClellan even in ligh of the latter’s reluctance to act aggressively during the battle of Antietam and its aftermath. The author pays considerable attention to Custer’s relationship with young women, and his tenacious, and, at times, overbearing, pursuit of the hand of Libby Bacon—his future wife. While Custer’s social escapades are indicative of his personality Longacre also details Custer’s facility for maneuvering through the political morass to achieve promotion, as well as important assignments with the assistance of high-ranking military officers Indicative of his success in overcoming typical bureaucratic constraints, Custer received promotion from captain to brigadier general in the voluntee service just two years after graduating from West Point. His patron was Maj. Gen. Alfred Pleasonton, Army of the Potomac cavalry corps commander, who saw in this young officer, as wel as the fiery and reckless Hugh Judson Kilpatrick, the caliber of leader he wanted commanding his cavalry divisions and brigades. Longacre focuses in detail on Custer’s courageous performance against Stuart’s more numerous cavalry east of Gettysburg on July 3, 1863. Although not
Deadlines for Advertising Submissions is the 20th of
as famous as the charge named for Maj. Gen. George Pickett on that same date, Custer’s charge-while shouting to his Michigan horse soldiers, “Come on, you Wolverines!”—stymied Stuart’s attempt to break through Union defenses behind the main lines. I was an important contribution to
the Union victory at Gettysburg. To insure that Custer’s charac
ter and motivation in life are un derstood, Longacre quotes readily from Custer’s wartime letters. Prior to the retreat of Lee’s arm from Gettysburg, the author speculates whether Custer “must have wondered if the general commanding [Maj. Gen. George G. Meade] would be just as happy to see his antagonist escape.” Custer’s loss of patience with Meade’s cautious tendencies is seen in a letter he wrote not lon after the Gettysburg campaign, when both armies were back in the same location as when it began. In a compact, easy-to-read, well-documented narrativ Longacre fills in some blanks in George Custer’s story, and corrects a number of misconceptions. Maps and other illustrations help to keep track of event The author evaluates Custer’s performance as a West Point cadet, and as an officer in the Union army during the first two years of the war. His projected second volume “will cover the remainder of Custer’s Civil War service and his controversial sti in Texas during the early months of Reconstruction.” Given the sparsity of historical writings devoted to George Armstrong Custer’s service during the Civil War, Custer devotees as well as a more general audience will no doubt want to add Custer: The Making of a Young General to their collection
Thomas J. Ryan is the author of the award-winning Spies, Scouts, and Secrets in the Gettysburg Campaign: How the Critical Role of Intelligence Impacted the Outcome of Lee’s Invasion of the North, June-July 1863. His latest book, written with Richard R. Schaus, is titled Lee is Trapped, and Must be Taken: Eleven Fateful Days after Gettysburg, July 4-14, 1863 and is scheduled for publication by Savas Beatie later this Spring.
A Method Not For Everyone Decisions Manassas: at The Second Fourteen Critical Decisions that Defined
the Battle. By Matt Spruill III and Matt Spruill IV. Maps, photos, notes, index, 260 pp., 201 University of Tennessee Press,
In a lifetime, we have seen historiography of the Civil War morph continually as publishers try new ways to engage a readership flooded to their waists with words. Analytical works by academic scholars have always been the foundation of the hist ry business, but they often hav little appeal to the masses. Wi Freeman, Catton and Foote, narrative histories emerged as the dominant way the public engaged in its past. Then, in the 1980s beyond, a firehose of letters, ries and memoirs gave consumers new ways to engage the story of war. More recently, anthologies have become the thing, though the public seems little enthuse about them. The University of Tennessee Press has devised a new way for readers to engage the story
of key battles and events: a new series, “Command Decisions of the Civil War.” Matt Spruill
III and Matt Spruill IV—both retired military officers—have combined to produce the second volume of the series, Decisions a Second Manassas: The Fourteen Critical Decisions that Defined the Battle. The Spruills offer readers an adaptation of a military staff ri focused entirely on the decisions that they see as critical to the flow and outcome of the Second Manassas Campaign. The book makes no pretense to narrative. Instead, the authors parse fourteen moments, leading readers through what they perceive to have been the options available, the decision made, and the implication of that decision. The focu as the authors say, is less on wh happened than why it happened and why it mattered. We can surely argue number and nature of the critical decisi that shaped the campaign (and if we had more wordage available to us at the moment, we would). But most of the critical decision the authors identify are obvious and their analysis is useful and interesting: Halleck’s decision to have McClellan evacuate the Peninsula; Lee’s decision to send Jackson on his flank march and Jackson’s subsequent decision to initiate the battle with Pope on August 28; Pope’s decision to attack on August 30…and many more. The various options the authors present generally seem to be those most likely considered by the players on the ground at the time. Like a list of the 10 greatest lefties of all time, this book is tended to provoke, and that’s pre cisely what many readers will lik best about it. There is enough to argue about. The authors explore the decision to create the Union’
Army of Virginia but spend little ink on Lincoln’s critical decisio to place John Pope in command
of that army. (Indeed, the book little addresses the political co text of the campaign—this is military history in pure form.) They barely reference perhaps the most important decision of the campaign: Pope’s choice to engage Lee at all, instead of falli back behind Bull Run to merge his own army with McClellan’s Army of the Potomac without a climactic battle. In a few instances, the discus sion of the “critical” decisions presented seems to rely on presumptions that may seem reasonable, but are not necessarily supported by what’s known. The authors present the dilemma of Fitz John Porter on the morning of August 29 as if he had affirma tive, or at least knowable, order to attack Jackson, when in fact he did not. The authors’ analysis of the decision of Col. Nathan McLean to keep his brigade on Chinn Ridge and fight on the afternoon of August 30 rides on a thin foundation of source material indeed. We know almost nothing about McLean’s orders or thinking, or the limits placed upon him by superiors. Of course, these are precisely the sorts of arguments a book like this is intended to provoke. The Spruills’ writing is straight forward and clear. The maps are good and numerous (31 in all). In fact, in some cases, these are th best published maps available on certain phases of the battle The authors’ method won’t appeal to everyone, but for those a who looking for an examination of a military campaign through the lens of decision-making, as i on a military staff ride, this bo will intrigue and satisfy.
John Hennessy is the author of Return to Bull Run: The Campaign
and Battle of Second Manassas (1993), and The First Battle of Manassas: An End To Innocence July 18-21, 1861 (1989). Formerly historian at Manassas National Battlefield, he is presently the
Chief Historian at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Militar Park.
Battle of Chattanooga Decisions at Chattanooga: The Nineteen Critical Decisions That Defined the Battle. By Larry Peterson. Maps, appendices, notes, photos, index, 176pp 2018. University of Tennessee
Larry Peterson defines a crit cal decision as one of such magnitude that it shapes the succes or failure of a battle or campai He succinctly presents three pre-battle decisions, nine decisions during the battle, and sev decisions post-battle that might have altered the outcome of the Chattanooga campaign. From the Union perspective, Abraham Lincoln’s reinforcement of the Army of the Cumberland, Grant’s restructuring of the Union’s three western departments, the opening of the “Cracker Line,” and General George Thomas’ troops taking Missionary Ridge were the crucial decisions that ultimately led to Northern victory. For the South, Braxton Bragg’s disper-
sal of troops after Chickamauga to rid his army of malcontents, his poorly designed defensive lines, including the use of a to graphical crest line of defense, and Patrick Cleburne’s protec-
tion of the Confederate retreat stand out as the turning points for the South. While the first t Southern decisions led to the fa of Chattanooga, the third saved Bragg’s army from annihilation. The result was the South’s loss of Chattanooga, a critical rail supply depot and opening point on the road to Atlanta for Willi
T. Sherman. The author argues that these personnel, tactical an organizational decisions defined the result and perhaps sealed the Confederacy’s fate. The author includes an extensive driving tour to the location of all nineteen critical decision This is perhaps the most valuable inclusion in the book. To enhance this section, he includes narratives from battle participants to add an historical “I was there” perspective which creates the imagery for the tourist. An appendix also details both the Union and Confederate order of battle to clarify division and brigade placement and participation. While the nineteen critical decisions are clearly defined with options offered for each, any such analysis will be open to other possibilities that are equa ly valid. Likewise, there are a number of whys not examined. For example, why did Grant continue to promote Sherman, when his performance at Chattanooga was abysmal? How did James Longstreet’s personal ambitions overshadow his effective cooperation with Bragg? What led Grant to assign George Thomas a supporting role at Chattanooga? And finally, when options were chosen, how did they affect future decisions? The nineteen selected options did not exist in a vacuum but ultimately interacted in a we of actions that changed as the ba tle progressed. This cause-andeffect is inadequately addressed. This book certainly contains a number of interesting options that helped to shape the battle. Yet more comprehensive battle analyses by Wiley Sword, Peter Cozzens, Matt Spruill and David Powell, among others, address all of these issues in greater depth and comprehensiveness. Perhaps
this book’s greatest benefit is t travel guide for the visiting his
Emeritus at South Suburban College, Illinois, and the author of numerous Civil War books and articles, including Two Years Before the Paddlewheel: Charles F. Gunther, Mississippi River Confederate (2012), co-edited wit Bruce S. Allardice. He is current researching soldiers’ letters tha add a personal touch to the war.
Joseph Medill is in Lincoln circles bring him and his attention of Civil as well. In the mi century Medill was the Chicago Tribun ant Republican new 1861 his brother W in a 3-month caval Chicago; later tha came an officer in Cavalry. This book series of wartime various members of family, although m ters are from Will
glimpse into the e Union soldiers. William and Jose were both strong R
of Journa on Under etters and nd Joseph rgiann s, bibliog 2018. Kent s, kentsta
ll known his book w ily to the r enthusia ineteenth e editor o an importper. In iam enlist unit from ear he bee 8th Illi produces a ters to/fr e Medill of the le to Joseph
Union POW Camp who advocated for the destructi of slavery. Ironically, William also defended Union general George B. McClellan in the early months of 1862, although he would come to loathe “Little Mac” by the end of the year. Hi letters detail interactions wit slaves and white southerners an offer pointed commentary on the landscapes of Virginia. When he visited the site where Georg Washington had courted Martha Custis, he wrote, “Romance is written everywhere, and I wonde not that Washington’s heart was filled with love while stopped the [plantation]. Even I would tempted to make love to a handsome widow if I found one in such a delightful spot.” By the summer of 1862 Willia started to think about resignin his commission. He was “disgusted and disheartened” with the lack of progress by the arm as well as the way that Union soldiers were required to prote Confederate property. “Our generals will never put down this slaveholders’ rebellion by purs ing a proslavery policy,” he wr in June 1862. “We must knock away this great pillar of their ifice, else we shall never succ in putting down the revolt.” William finally tendered his ignation in August but his supe ors refused to accept it. He fo renewed joy in the army, though when his younger brother Samuel joined his regiment in Septembe “His initiation into the regime was on the morning of the great battle of Antietam Creek,” wrot William. “The regiment was moving forward at the time he arrived and in twenty minutes
after I shook hands with him, w were in advance of all the line
perienced.” William watched his little brother withstand “the f first-rate,” remarking, “I don’ think he was frightened much.”
Unfortunately, other health issues caused Samuel to leave the army within a few weeks. William’s correspondence includes personal reflections, accounts of military operations, and astute political observations. Some of the most telling passages offer details about how his regiment worked to free as many slaves as they could, and how William cared for a fourteen-year-old Virginia slave who had lost his family through slave sales. But the most touching part of the book comes at the end. William was mortally wounded on July 6, 1863, a few days after the battle of Gettysburg. Joseph rushed to the hospital to care for his brother and kept a detailed diary over the ensuing ten days, until William finally died on July 16. Joseph’s diary brings readers right to William’s deathbed in a way that few period sources do so vividly. A Family and a Nation Under Fire is an excellent volume that will appeal to readers interested in the military and political history of the Civil War. The book is ably edited and annotated, and the personal correspondence from this family of journalists makes for fascinating reading.
Jonathan W. White is the author or editor of 8 books about the Civil War, including Midnight in America: Darkness, Sleep, and Dreams during the Civil War (2017) and “Our Little Monitor”: The Greatest Invention of the Civil War (2018) with Anna Gibson Holloway.
Vol. 42, No. 3 Battlefield Of Franklin Land Pres By GreGory L. Wade FRANKLIN, Tenn. — What is considered the bloodiest acreage
the Nov. 30, 1864, Battle of Fran is now being reclaimed as part of evolving Carter Hill Battlefield Local preservation leaders recent
from owners Reid and Brenda Lovell after a months-long proces
of coordinating various funding sources for the critical 1.6 acre adjoin the Carter House, a major battle landmark. Details were recently provided a press conference led by Frankli
Charge board member Julian Bibb, who praised the “remarkable transition” of the Franklin battlefie
Franklin’s Charge is a coalition civic and preservation groups who joined together more than ten yea ago to purchase local battlegroun Over 150 years ago the Army of Tennessee stepped off in a series of charges to be virtually destro by Federals under John Schofield hopes of taking Franklin and late Nashville.
was open farmland on the outskirt of what was once a small Middle Tennessee farming community. Over time development covered much of the battlefield with houses, ligh dustry, and small businesses. All that remained of the criti area where the Confederates tem-
porarily broke the Federal line w the small farmhouse and a few acr known as the Carter House farm. The 1.6 acres purchased, which adjoin the southern boundary of t Carter House property, is compris of two lots. Today, they are occu
that were turned over to the City of Franklin Parks Department by Franklin’s Charge and the Battle o
Franklin’s Trust (BOFT), managers of the Carter House the nearby Car ton Plantation. The structures wil removed in coming months, possibly relocated for other use. The purchase is only the latest in a long and arduous effort to re
build the Franklin battlefield. “It had to be a miracle,” quipp Civil War Trust (CWT) President James Lighthizer, referring to the most recent acquisition. Local res ident Michael Grainger, long time
Trust board member and former chairman, said, “Local leadership has been incredible and will conti
ue to be a partner [with the CWT]. In 2005, after years of frustra attempting to preserve Franklin ba tleground, local preservationists cided it would have to be done the hard way, by buying properties, of ten with buildings on them. The largest parcel of land was originally a local golf course sla to be sold to a developer to build
of the Confederate attack north to ward the Federal lines just south the town. It was then that Franklin’s Cha came into existence. Funds have
chase from private donors, the CWT the City of Franklin and others. T
110-acre segment, now fully interpreted and known as the Eastern Flank Battlefield, is what got the preservation ball rolling in Frank Since that time nine other parc in proximity to the Carter House have been purchased and have been, or will be, turned over to the Fra
lin Parks Department, according t Bibb. But it was the land just south Carter House, long considered the
most bloodied ground in Franklin, and some say in America, that was the most coveted. BOFT Chief Executive Officer Eric Jacobson noted, “to not have this ground reclaimed and preserv would be like having Omaha Beach cut out of Normandy.” The most recent acquisition
evolved when Franklin’s Charge an the BOFT began discussions with t Lovells, who have a strong sense the history of the land, having g up in Franklin. “I was born and raised in Fran lin on ground many believe should have been a national park,” said Lovell. He recalled when visitors came to town and had to envision
what happened, not walk on ground where it transpired. “My great-grandfather, who fou here, and my parents would be pro
of what we are doing here today,” said at the press conference. The Franklin Board of Mayor and Aldermen voted unanimously in February to fund part of the
remaining debt on the Lovell property purchase. The previously
paid by the city on a non-interes basis over seven years. These funds will cover the bal now bridged by a local bank and w be derived from the city’s hotel-
tel tax. Local banker Chuck Isaac was instrumental in working out t
by his employer, First Farmers an Merchants Bank.
Confederate Prisoners at Fort Delaware: The Legend of Mistreatment Reexamined. By Joel D. Citron. Photos, endnotes, index, illustrations, ta graphs, bibliography, 238 pp.,
No prisoner-of-war camp is a pleasant place to be. No one would dispute that. However, fo many decades—since 1861 probably—Americans have argued about the relative conditions o Northern and Southern prisons. As important as the conditions themselves is the question of t cause. What led to the inhumane circumstances which created so much suffering? One commonly-held view is that the squali conditions in Confederate priso were due to a lack of resources while Confederate prisoners in the North suffered because of retaliatory measures adopted by the United States government. The late Joel Citron, a chemist
by profession, was a long-time volunteer at Fort Delaware Stat
“The goal of this study,” he writes in the preface, “was to find as many contemporaneous primary sources of information about what happened...and to an alyze what these primary sources reveal.” The author pored through over 20 diaries and the relevant documents in the Offic Records. In addition, Citron
found many unpublished and previously unused documents in the
National Archives that relate t the prison. The research led hi
The work includes a great dea of quantitative analysis related rations, death rates and medical care. It also includes descripti of the prison’s physical plant a Pea Patch Island on which the prison was located; the prison’s administration and the military bureaucracy which oversaw operations; and the daily life of prisoners and their guards. Citron concludes that the pri oners fared reasonably well at Fort Delaware; that the food, shelter and medical care were generally adequate; that camp discipline was not unduly harsh; that the death rates (the proof the pudding, if you will) were lower than at other Northern and Southern prisons. (The adjective and adverbs in the foregoing sen tence, and especially in the las clause, are employed with the understanding that we are talkin about a facility in wartime—and about events that occurred in th mid-19th century, when medical science and understanding of the causes of disease were primitive compared to the present. We must keep in mind that soldiers died of disease every day of the war, whether they were in prison or not.) Citron makes a strong case. However, in one way his methodology—his exclusive reliance on contemporaneous sources—is questionable. There is no doubt that contemporaneous sources are preferable in most circumstances, but should all others b dismissed wholesale? Shouldn’t they be consulted, compared to other sources, assessed and used with care to complete the
picture? One example is a 1905 Confederate Veteran article, wri
appear in Citron’s work. Moffett claimed that hanging prisoners by their thumbs was “a daily occurrence,” while Citron gives ju a few examples of this torture a then changes the subject. Should this allegation of dai torture be ignored? Moffett said that Fort Delaware was “infinite ly worse” than Camp Chase.
While Delaware’s commandant was a “Hessian brute,” the offic
in charge of Chase was “a soldier with gentlemanly instincts.
H POW Camp . . . . . . . . . . from page 41 to Camp Chase? Perhaps the judicious use of sources like this could add to our knowledge. The book is not an easy read. There are some stylistic issues that are distracting and in plac es the writing could be more spirited. These are minor matters, however. The main reason Confederate Prisoners at Fort Delaware is not a page turner is because it is not meant to be. I is a detailed analysis and requi work on the reader’s part. Citron explicitly limits his clusions to Fort Delaware and suggests that studies similar to be undertaken for other Northern prisons. He has already uncovered long-ignored boxes of records. Perhaps another researche could dig through them and see i there is something to learn abou Elmira, Camp Douglas and Point Lookout.
Gould Hagler is a retired lobbyist living in Dunwoody, Ga. He i a past president of the Atlanta Civil War Round Table and the author Georgia’s Confederate Monuments: In Honor of a Fallen Nation, published by Mercer University Press in 2014. Hagler speaks frequently on this topic and others related to different aspects of the Civil War and has been a regular contributor to CW since 2016. He can be reached at
Fresh Look at the Confederate March to Gettysburg
At the Forefront of Lee’s Within ten days and with Brig Invasion: Retribution, Plunder, Gen. Robert Rodes’ brigade in and Clashing Cultures on the lead, Confederate forces Richard S. Ewell’s Road had swept all Union forces from to Gettysburg. By Robert J. western Virginia’s Shenandoah Wynstra. Illustrations, maps, Valley, which included victories notes, bibliography, index, 352 at Berryville and Martinsburg. pp. Kent State University Press, By June 15, Ewell’s lead columns
visit to northern territory. Reviewed by Paul Taylor The Confederacy needed supplies for its depleted ranks. As with the Antietam campaign nine months earlier, one of Lee’s par amount concerns was feeding his always hungry army and perhaps more importantly, gaining diplomatic recognition from England and France. They were confident that one more victory, especiall on northern soil, might bring th recognition. Wynstra amply depicts the tactical maneuvering and the resultant skirmishing with norther militia. Five maps are included illustrating corps and division routes of march through Virginia Maryland and Pennsylvania. However, it is the Confederate supply demands and requisition tactics throughout Maryland and On June 4, 1863, the three Pennsylvania—and the civilians’ corps of General Robert E. Lee’s response to those ultimatums— Army of Northern Virginia began that form this book’s essence. marching northward from their The author describes how Virginia camps to begin what the Confederates’ reception by would become the second inva- Maryland residents was genersion of northern soil. This new ally more welcoming than in the work by Robert Wynstra focuses prior campaign; nevertheless, th on the march of General Richard soldiers’ desire for revenge ran Ewell’s Second Corps, which led deep. Consequently Lee issued the advance. explicit orders forbidding his
Ta p t o L i v e C i v i l Wa r M u s i Obser ve Medical Demonstrations
Interact in the Living Histor y Village Stroll the Military Camps View Mor tar Fire Demonstrations
Take Part in a Period Worship Service Enjoy the Food/Bevera ge Vendors
men to plunder or take private property of no military value, except by officers so designated to requisition necessary supplies How Lee’s senior officers strove to enforce the general’s edict against the army’s legitimate sup ply needs and some men’s longing for retribution is a core foc in this book. Those officers in charge of ga ering supplies confiscated whatever they needed, “paying” businesses and individuals for their booty in worthless Confederate scrip or receipts. They quickly realized they would be able to comfortably live off the land and off these confiscations while realizing that any local militia re sistance could be easily swatted away. As one Confederate soldier famously asked of the terrified northern civilians, “How do you like this way of our coming back into the Union?” Confederate officers reassured shopkeepers that if the South won the war, the Confederacy would reimburse their losses in gold. I the South lost, however, it would be up to the U.S. Government. In any event, few civilians or business owners ever saw the first nickel in compensation. Wynstra illustrates how the Confederates were well aware of the financial distress their confiscations plac on the northern population and were quite pleased by it. Confederate soldiers did not limit their spoils to foodstuffs, medicines, clothing, livestock, or other supplies of military
value, either. Any blacks they came across—allegedly slave or free—were rounded up to be sent back south into bondage. Such seizures were considered by the Confederates to be no different than confiscating horses or cattle and were carried out with the sanction and knowledge of their commanding officers. Meanwhile, southern slave catchers and owners followed closely behind the army in order to claim their “property.” The author utilized period newspapers as well as dozens upon dozens of manuscript sources from both northern civilians and Confederate soldiers to describe how and to what degree the southern soldiers confiscated what they needed. Many of these men were in awe at the rich bounty of food and supply all around them. Despite that material abundance, however, those same men often had little good to say with in their diaries and letters abou the local people who produced such wealth. This was especially prevalent within the German immigrant communities in south Pennsylvania. Instead, they derisively claimed the hated “Dutch” were merely part of a corrupted culture that placed monetary wealth above social refinement. Wynstra’s excellent book is not the first to cover the Confederat advance into Maryland and Pennsylvania. Jacob Hoke, a Chambersburg eyewitness, first penned The Great Invasion of 1863 in 1887. That was followed by Wilbur Nye’s Here Come the Rebels! over 75 years later in 1965. Both works are considered essential components of a Gettysburg bookshelf. John W. Schildt’s Roads to Gettysburg (1978) and Bradley M Gottfried’s Roads to Gettysburg: Lee’s Invasion of the North, 1863 (2001) are more recent additions to this small canon. Even so, with its rich use of u
common primary sources and insightful analysis, At the Forefro is a worthy successor to these previous volumes that covered the Confederate march to destiny: a four-week campaign that succeeded admirably at refitting and feeding Lee’s legions, but hardly compensated for the forthcoming devastation at Gettysburg. Paul Taylor is an award-winning author of seven books pertaining to the Civil War era. His newest
book is titled “The Most Complete Political Machine Ever Known”: The North’s Union Leagues in the American Civil War, published by Kent State University Press.
