analysis of the latest and most scholarship. Contact email: Book
An Immigrant Story. By Kenneth E. Burchett. Illustrated Index, Notes, Amity American Publishing, 2020, 167 pp., softcover. Amity America.
Henry Schaumann was a typical German immigrant who left a war torn Germany, migrated to the United States in the 1850s, and found himself shortly after an eager enlistee in th Union Army under Gen. Franz Sigel. Henry enlisted on October 14, 1861, two months after the Union defeat at Wilson’s Creek. He joined Captain Michael Laux’s Company A, 1st Regiment, Missouri Artillery, Reserve Corp Volunteers. Assigned to the District of St. Louis and later Rolla, Missouri, he was statione at Camp Hamilton and basically performed artillery garrison duties until one fateful day les than a year later when, carrying water back to camp, he stum-
bled into a ravine, struck a tre stump, and developed a debil-
itating femoral hernia. This led to his honorable discharge on Nov. 24, 1862. None of his war time letters apparently exist to
shed a more personal light on the otherwise sterile military records. Aside from his brief, unevent
ful military career, and his untimely death from cholera
e our readers with timely ificant Civil War research and
in 1866, public records catalogue his marriage in 1863 to Margareth and the birth of his son Henry shortly afterwards. The remainder of this book focuses on his widow’s nearly thre decades-long battle to receive a widow’s pension and a pension for his son. This effort ultimat ly failed, in large part due to confusion of names, dates, nature of injuries, and bureaucrat hurdles. Kenneth Burchett’s genealogical research is admirable and provides Henry’s ancestors with a valuable resource for pre serving their family heritage. The research is thorough, does not make unwarranted claims, and is readable and comprehensive considering the records available. However, a Civil War historian would find the paucity of war service, the lack of lett that could document a private soldier’s life, or accompanying editorial work about events in which his unit was engaged, as limiting its potential marketabi ity. For the genealogical enthusiast this book certainly provid an excellent template for how to do family research, but this als limits its value as contributing Civil War literature.
Wayne L. Wolf is Professor Emeritus at South Suburban College and the author of over twenty books on the Civil War including Two Years Before the Paddlewheel and The Last Civil War Scout. He is past president
Less about Grant and more about the Eastern Theater
Grant’s Victory: How Ulysses S. Grant Won the Civil War. By
Books praising Gener Ulysses S. Grant have developed into quite a cottage industry over the past forty years. In fa it is nearly impossible to perus a Civil War book selection without finding a number of works outlining Grant’s expertise and excellence. Most of these put forth similar claims, but author and ghost writer Bruce L. Brager veers off this path a bit to off a more nuanced and realistic portrayal of the general. Brager writes better than most authors and far better than most academics. While the work is entitled Grant’s Victory: How Ulysses S. Grant Won the Civil War, in real ity, the book is less a volume o Grant and more a study of the Civil War’s Eastern Theater, pri marily from the Union perspective. The bulk of the book (seven of eleven chapters) covers the Union’s many defeats in the East and injects merely a bit of Grant’s commentary. Only with Grant’s 1864 arriva in the Eastern Theater does the
book actually begin to focus on the title subject. In the four r
maining chapters, Brager chronicles the general’s struggle to defeat Lee’s Army of Northern
Virginia and thus destroy the Confederacy’s only successful commander and army. In
the end, Brager concludes that Grant was, indeed, the right general to put an end to the
It is hard to argue with Brager’s assessment. Grant did
defeat Lee and end the war. While the basic premise is true,
it does not present an adequate and comprehensive view of the situation. The 1864 Army of the Potomac should have beaten the Army of Northern Virginia. Lee’s army was half the size of the Union force and woefully undersupplied. The fact that Lee kept Grant at bay for more than a year is a testimony to hi skill as a general, not Grant’s. Moreover, the book’s dustcover states that “two of the great est themes of the Civil War are how Lincoln found his war-winning general in Ulysses S. Grant and how Grant finally defeated Robert E. Lee.” The author argues that while Union generals in the Eastern Theater had faced defeat after defeat, “In t West, Grant had been refining his art of war at places like Fo Donelson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, and Chattanooga.” Yet, we never see this development of Grant in the West, and there is no analysis o explanation of his many failures in the West. The author should have examined Grant in the context of his rout at Belmont, his surprises due to overconfidence at Fort Donelson and Shiloh, his many failed attempts at Vicksburg, and his accidental victory at Chattanooga that owed more to the Army of the Cumberland’s men’s valor than anything planned or executed by the general. The Grant we see
520 Folly Road, Suite 25 Charleston, SC 29412
emerging late in Brager’s story in Virginia is a formidable com
mander, and yet, is it not just willingness to take casualties a war of attrition that eventua wears down the Confederates? Here, Brager unapologetically departs from many academic historians to argue that the an swer to that question is “yes.” That is exactly how Grant won the war. This honesty is refres ing considering that over the past decades a forest of trees has been turned into paper with the purpose of recording how brilliant Grant’s generalship w when in reality it was based on the simplest of facts…he had more men and equipment. This is a popular history wr ten for a general audience of Civil War buffs. The footnotes are thin as is the norm with books of this type, although the bibliography is larger than those generally found in popular press works. I wish I could that the volume offers nothing new to the scholarly community. However, given that militar aspects of the war are being ne glected in the training of new professors, this volume could be useful to a wide audience. I sum, while it is another in a l line of hagiographical tributes to Grant, it is written better most, and its conclusions are sounder than most.
While many fantastic works of scholarship have appeared in recent decades examining the Civil War’s many dimensions, complexities, and importance, arguably no single book published in at least the past two decades packs as great a punch than this latest volume from one of the nation’s most distinguished, important, and accomplished historians, Gary Gallagher. This collection of seventy-three essays, all but three of which initially appeared in Gallagher’s regular column in Civil War Times dating back to early 2009, provide a sweeping examination of an array of topics related to the Civil War er Organized into six sections, th thought-provoking and magnificent collection addresses such broad themes as memory, generals, film, the importance of battlefields, the impact of various Civil War authors and historians, turning points, and ways to bridge the gap between academic and nonacademic historians. While this splendid collectio of essays can certainly serve as an introduction to an array of topics for someone with a freshly ignited passion for studying the Civil War era, one of this book’s most valuable el ements is that it compels individuals to reexamine aspects of the conflict that have become so engrained in the popular January 2021
consciousness of American society. For example, Gallagher’s es say “Gettysburg in Perspective” reexamines Gettysburg “as the great turning point of the Civil War.” While significant, Gallagh cogently argues, based on a crit ical analysis of primary sources “both sides saw it [Gettysburg] as an important but not decisive battle.” Similarly, Gallagh revisits the Gettysburg Address. Although the words Lincoln uttered at the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery on November 19, 1863, have today become legendary and oft-quoted, the speech that is acclaimed as one of the greatest in American history, made, as Gallagher convincingly contends, little impact on those at the moment. While Gallagher’s conclusions about such iconic moments might raise the ire of some, Gallagher’s point is not to diminish these moments, but to illustrate the value of placing historical moments into the context of how individuals at the time understood them. In addition to essays that en courage individuals to examine the Civil War through a contemporary historical lens rather than a modern one, some essays in this remarkable volume center around the theme of division. Sometimes the discord Gallagher examines focuses on aspects of the conflict’s memory, for instance the tension that existed in the postwar years between the editors of the Southern Historical Society Papers and the Southern Bivouac. While both publications dedicated their efforts to the Confederate story, Gallagher highlights how the two publications took different approaches to telling that history. The Bivouac, for example, took a much more critical approach to Robert E. Lee, something that Gallagher notes raised the ire of former Confederate General Jubal Early who chastised one of the Southern Bivouac’s co-editors, former Confederate General Basil Duke. Gallagher’s discussion of division extends beyond those who fought in the conflict and extends to a rift that has existed between academic and nonacademic historians as to what sort of Civil War history i most important. “Far too many nonacademic historians care for little beyond commanders and battles and soldiers in the
ranks, while almost all academic historians nourish a resolute dismissive attitude toward military history,” Gallagher notes. contends, and I enthusiastically concur, that all aspects of Civi War era history matter. If one i to gain a fuller understanding of the conflict Gallagher notes that “a diet of books” on the co flict’s military and non-militar aspects is essential. Additionally, Gallaghe makes the point in his essay “Battlefields as Teaching Tools, that battlefields are a critical element in that balanced diet. Despite, as Gallagher writes in the book’s introduction, the belief among “some skeptical academics” that battlefields are no worth preserving, because they view “them as sites that glorify war and cater to a militaristic streak in American society,” Gallagher convincingly argues that battlefields provide the ideal venue to bridge the gap between academic and nonacademic history. As someone who regularly makes use of the battlefields around Winchester, Va., with my students in Civil War Era Studies at Shenandoah University, I wholeheartedly agree with Gallagher’s assertion Battlefields are not only places to study a battle’s ebb and flow or its strategic consequences, but as Gallagher points out are “useful for exploring how the military and nonmilitary spheres intersected.” This outstanding and diverse collection of essays, has wide appeal, is well-written, soundly argued, and offers much food for thought about some of the conflict’s most significant moments and actors, assessments of various books and films, the war’s memory, and how individuals might consider approaching the study of the conflict. Furthermore, Gallagher’s exceptional essays serve as a useful reminder of the Civil War’s valu and the importance of examining its nuances and complexities through an objective lens.
Jonathan A. Noyalas is director of Shenandoah University’s McCormick Civil War Institute in Winchester, Virginia, a professor in Civil War Era Studies
Welcome Scholarship of the Siege of Vicksburg Vicksburg Besieged. Edited by Steven E. Woodworth and Charles D. Grear. Maps, photos, illustrations, endnotes, index. 182 pp., 2020. Southern Illinoi
Many will argue that the beginning of the end for the Confederacy was the siege and capture of Vicksburg, Miss., on July 4, 1863, by Gen. Ulysses S Grant. When the town fell, control of the Mississippi River w entirely in Union hands. This, effect, also split the Confeder States in two. Edited by Steven Woodworth, one of the leading experts on the War in the west, and Charles D. Grear, an expert on Texas in the Civil War, this book consists of eight essays that examine in minutia different aspects of the siege. Among the topics covered are Grant’s staff officers, the role of sha shooters, and the use of mines. Though all the essays are excellent, two in particular stan out. The first is by Scott L. S and Martin J. Hershock about the use of African-American sol diers during the siege, examining how their impact and story has been underreported. In ligh
of recent events, it is a very ly piece. The other is by Grear on the effect of the fall of Vicksburg on the Trans-Mississippi region. While the effects of the city’s capture on the east side of the river has been well documented, there has not been as much about how those west of the river reacted. Grear argues that after Vicksburg was captured, morale among soldiers from the western-most parts of the Confederacy serving in the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee fell dramatically. A major reason for t was the inability to receive ma from home. This and fears for friends and family led to mass desertions in the two armies. This book is a welcomed addition to the scholarship of on of the most important sieges in U.S. military history. Anyon with an interest in the siege o Vicksburg, or the Civil War in west in general should read thi book.
Tom Elmore wrote about the Army of the Tennessee in his 2012
Slim Volume but Packed with Inf Politician in Uniform: Genera Lew Wallace and the Civil War. By Christopher R. Mortenson.
Photos, notes, index, bibliogra phy, 283 pp., 2019. Norman: The University of Oklahoma Press.
Henry David Thoreau wrote: “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation”; not Lew Wallace. Reading Christopher Mortenson’s excellent treatise on Wallace’s army career during the Civil War, brought to mind the cliché. That is not to say Mortenson’s narrative is cliché ridden. On the contrary, it is fine example of taut, economical clarity of language. No, t worn out thought in reading Wallace’s “arc of history” brin to mind the obvious: “he was hi own worst enemy.” The author employ this phras only once in the conclusion (page 191). The most glaring, and in some respects, comical example was immediately after Shiloh, with his division still the field in late April. He was ited by “three well-dressed officers” who he didn’t know (his first mistake). He offered them his hospitality of “biscuits, w
key and cigars.” During the con versation, he managed to disparage Henry Halleck and then
discovered as the officers left return to their command, that
they were members of Halleck’s staff. Wallace had ridiculed Halleck’s “plans of operations, and he realized much to his regret and much later, that was n
Deadlines for Advertisin Submissions is the 20th of
“…and that is just what I did,” later wrote (page 73). He not only disparaged
Halleck, but practically everyone up and down the command chain, from Grant, to
Sherman, Brigadier General Charles F. Smith, Don Carlos Buell, Secretary of War Stanton, and Indiana Governor Oliver P. Morton. He aimed most of his vitriol at West Pointers. When he testified before the congressional Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, he criticize both Grant and Halleck for lack of energy and inept communications in the western theater (page 80). Although he was indeed a Politician in Uniform, his utterances were impolitic. Still, Mortenson more than adequately, reveals Wallace’s innermost political skills and attributes that served him well in his multidimensional life span and particularly in his army career. He performed admirably as commander of the Middle Department (Maryland primarily); played a role in the battl of Forts Henry and Donelson; saved Washington in 1864 by delaying Jubal Early’s troops at the battle of Monocacy; sat on the court that tried the Lincoln assassination conspirator headed the court that tried and executed Andersonville’s Henry Wirz, attempted to influence the Mexican/French entanglement, dealt with Billy the Kid after t war in the Arizona territory, an then authored Ben Hur. As tempting as it is to wande Mortenson sticks to Wallace’s career during the war. Of course the centerpiece is Shiloh. Grant according to some accounts, had been surprised by Albert Sidney Johnston’s and P. G. T. Beauregard’s attack the morning of April 6, 1862. Grant had ordered Wallace to bring his division down to Pittsburg Landing from Crump’s Landing.
the River Road, closest to the Mississippi and land in the mid-
dle of the Union line so that hi troops could be deployed left or
right or stay put in the center. Wallace, always the contrarian, took the Shunpike, farther west
and, by the time he reached the lines, he found himself on the
the Confederate left. Therein lay the problem that vexed our hero the rest of his life. Did he
misread Grant’s orders or did he willfully disregard them? At every opportunity, Wallace
persisted in explaining, describing, interpreting, depicting, and otherwise portraying his actions that day at Shiloh. That is the b ginning of the Wallace story and the central thesis of Mortenson’s argument, namely Wallace’s search for manly, military glory; a goal that eluded him during his civil war career. When he was sent back to Indiana after Shiloh the governor ordered, or asked him nicely, to travel the state recruiting, which he reluctantly did. He was sent to Cincinnati when Morgan’s raiders threatened the city and nothing happened; then there was his tour of duty with the Middle Department in Baltimore. He craved the action on the field and wanted a field command. Instead his political skills land him desk jobs. Even his attempt to claim some notoriety in the Mexican affair and his hope to broker a deal to end the war in the West fell through. His delaying loss at Monocacy brought him nothing but grief until it didn’t. Belatedly, Grant, Stanton and Lincoln realized that Early really was a threat to the capital and that Wallace’s fight at Monocacy bought just enough time, allowing Grant to move the VI Corps from the siege lines at Petersburg to reinforce the home guard at Washington. Mortenson has done an admirable job in sticking to the subject. This is not a biography, it is exactly what the title indi cates, a politician in uniform; Lew Wallace in the Civil War. Writers would do well to emulate Mortenson’s focus, exposition, clarity, and understanding of this complicated man. The chapters are few, ten; and only
conclusion, brings it all togethe nicely. This slim volume is a wel
come addition to the volunteer/ politician/soldier literature of
43 years in the museum field. He is the author of Upton’s Regulars
University of Kansas Press, 2009, and editor of The Selected Correspondence of General Emory
Maine at War, Volume I: Bladensburg to Sharpsburg. By Brian F. Swartz. Illustratio photos, chapter endnotes, bibliography, military units index general index. 2017. 471 pp. Maine Origins Publications, w w w. M a i n e. O r i g i n s
Printed originally between 2011 and 2014 as monthly articles in the Bangor Daily News, then continued as online blogs, this fascinating book consists fifty, thoroughly documented articles about Maine’s involvement in the Civil War. Brian F. Swartz’s love of history and attention to detail emanates throughout the book. Each entry builds upon the foundation laid by the previous one. Easy to read, and full of pe sonal stories of the men and women who served Maine throughout the war, Swartz
delves into the accounts of sacrifice and loss these individual endured. I particularly found th pieces about Sarah Sampson and Isabella Fogg, who with other female volunteers, treated the sick and wounded at home and in the field. Swartz’s detailed description of the Peninsula Campaign and the Seven Days Battles around Richmond filled in a lot of gaps in my knowledge. He also did excellent work with Maine’s role at Cedar Mountain. I particularl enjoyed his coverage of the 10th Maine in Antietam’s East Woods, a long-overlooked area of the battlefield that is now getting closer attention. Maine at War also details Maine’s home-front, local, and national politics. Swartz has an interesting account of the 6th Maine when “A little poor rum brought out all the baser passions” of the regiment and the drunken soldiers spent the night of July 16, 1861, in the streets Portland fighting and hell-raising while trying to dodge the city’s outnumbered police force. The brief chapters, ranging from four to fourteen pages each, make this a book an individual can read at leisure. As a searcher, this volume is packed with primary sources, making it a treasure trove of new material to explore. I am very anxious to see the following two volumes.
Mike Priest is author of Antieta The Soldiers’ Battle (1989) and Before Antietam: The Battle of
Reckoning With Rebellion compares and contrasts the American Civil War economically, militarily, politically, socially with other nineteenth century national conflicts; the 1857 Indian Sepoy Rebellion, the 1863 Polish Insurgency against Russia, and the 1850– 1864 Chinese Taiping Rebellion. Aaron Sheehan-Dean weaves an excellent story that shows how Northerners and Southerners were well aware of other global conflicts happening at the same time and used the messages and experiences of other nation states and insurgents to support their objectives of pre serving the Union, ending slavery, or attempting to establish new nation. This important modern study goes beyond traditional interpretations of the Civil War and Reconstruction by evaluating the international consequences of uprisings and conflict, a well as different points of vie concerning war, revolt, and establishing a new nation, establishing a wider historical fram work for the North American war. Sheehan-Dean makes a convincing argument throughout this slim volume that the Civil War cannot be completely comprehended without the
implications in a worldwide structure. In the years preceding the start of the American conflict, then as the North and South fought against each other, the world became smaller due to communication and news sharing. This allowed combatants in other struggles of national freedom to be aware of what was occurring in each other’s wars. Consequently, SheehanDean reveals that individuals i volved in these struggles under stood the commonalities and differences found among each. Furthermore, he makes the important point that events in on country, and their outcomes were characterized, grasped, and shaped what transpired in the others. While nations were diplomatically meeting with each other, they came to realize that their destinies were t together. This author’s purpose is to lighten readers with a non-trad tional approach for evaluating the American Civil War. He successfully includes many people from the nineteenth century who analyzed and commented on the four conflicts studied i this treatment. Sheehan-Dean’s extensive research allows students and scholars to not only agree or disagree with his conclusions, but offers opportunities for future study and research. He asserts that by comparing the four wars and the re sons why India, Poland, China, and the Confederate States of America lost in their attempts for nation-building, readers wi gain a better understanding of what external forces contributed to the victorious outcomes by Great Britain, Russia, Qing Dynasty China, and the United States of America. Reckoning With Rebellion’s first chapter; What Kind of War This, concentrates on the methods of fighting, what it meant to contest as an insurgent, and how this went against the difficulties involved in creating new functioning country. The second of three chapters; All Wars Are World Wars, focuses on the difficulty of each combatant’s legitimacy by evaluating what Great Britain, France, and Russia felt was important and how their goals as world powers formed their willingness to intervene in geo-political conflicts. Their fates rested not on their own successes but
on what happened with other groups fighting around the world. Finally, chapter three; The Center Holds, concludes with the relationship between sovereignty and power. SheehanDean contends that the countries in this work had an anxiou coexistence as well as shared experiences. He asserts that old guard countries viewed Northern success in the Civil War as proof of the order of law rather than the foolishness and confusion of separating from the Union. Finally, he makes the important point that ultimately, the pursuit of self-rule in late nineteenth century shifted authority from monarchs to the people and in the process advanced human freedom but saw it slowed or reversed in the world and in the United States. Sheehan-Dean makes important connections among countries in Asia, Europe, and North America that will surprise students when evaluating what is generally accepted concerning the Civil War and the USA’s and the CSA’s diplomatic relationships with other countries. His analyses provide readers with a different interpretation of th origins and problems of the Civil War and its relationship to global issues during the age of revolutions and spread of democracies. Reckoning With Rebellion: War And Sovereignty In The Nineteenth Century’s greatest strength is that it is very read able, provocative, impressively researched, approachable, and informative. This reviewer was not able to put down this monograph until finished. Highlights were the five insightful politic cartoons as well as the helpful bibliography, notes, and index. Overall, while expensive, Sheehan-Dean’s work is a positive contribution to the history of the time-period, and will make an excellent addition to the reading list of any serious student, including both those already knowledgeable or just starting to become interested with this important moment in United States and world history.
David Marshall is a high school American history teacher in the Miami-Dade School District for the past thirty-four years. A li long Civil War enthusiast, David is president of the Miami Civil
Seceding from Secession: The Civil War, Politics, and the Creation of West Virginia. By Eric J. Wittenberg, Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., and Penny L. Barrick. Illustrated, Appendices Bibliography, Index, Savas Beatie Publishing, 2020, 268pp,
In this volume three eminent constitutional lawyers combine their talents to produce an historical and legal analysis of the founding of West Virginia. Economically, socially, and politically, the counties west of the Allegheny Mountains were closer to Ohio and Pennsylvania than to Richmond, Va. In 1860 the counties comprising West Virginia today held only 18,000 slaves out of Virginia’s total o 490,000. The ethnic makeup likewise differed with English heritage dominating eastern Virginia while Scotch-Irish, Welsh, and German comprised a majority in the western counties. Additionally, the western counties believed they suffered political inferiority and oppres sive taxation. These differences led to a schism that the Civil W ignited and provided an opportunity for the western counties to demonstrate fidelity to the Union when they voted to secede from the Commonwealth of Virginia. This decision set up a legal nundrum for the Lincoln administration. Article IV, Section 3 the Constitution clearly states that the legislature of Virginia must consent to the secession of
Deadlines for Advertis Submissions is the 20th
its western counties. This obstacle was overcome when the 2nd Wheeling Convention, consisting of delegates from 38 western counties and five counties east of the Alleghenies, declared themselves the rightful legislature of Virginia and this fiction was accepted by the Lincoln administration. Abraham Lincoln decided the creation of West Virginia was a necessary war measure to protect Unionists in the western counties and to safeguard the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, a vital Union supply line. Thus, on June 20, 1863, West Virginia became the 35th state in the Union. But this did not stop Virginia from rescinding its “consent” to the formation of West Virginia. The Commonwealth voted to sue in the Supreme Court for the return of the western counties. After a lengthy delay, on March 6, 1871, the Court ruled West Virginia was legally created, ending the constitutional questions surrounding its founding. The authors have included several appendices that include the views of Lincoln’s entire cabinet on the constitutionality of creating West Virginia, the complete Supreme Court decision in the case of Virginia vs West Virginia, the 1911 Supreme Court case over the apportionment of the public debt between the two states, and finally, a 2020 legislative proposal by West Virginia to add Franklin County, Virginia, to the state. A the appendices allow the reader to appreciate the constitutional nuances surrounding the founding of West Virginia and are a valuable primary source for the scholar. This book is highly recommended for its readability, inclusion of primary source documents, accuracy, and relevance to contemporary America’s secessionist ideas that are still b ing proposed. Finally, the book is thoroughly researched, legally sound, and historically enlightening. Any Civil War scholar should add this book to their library.
Wayne L. Wolf is Professor Emeritus at South Suburban College, the past President of
