Charles M. Blackford was a distinguished citizen of Lynchburg who served in the Army of Northern Virginia; however, he did not participate in the battle or campaign of Lynchburg. A highly regarded speaker he delivered a speech in Lynchburg to a United Confederate Veterans Camp on July 18, 1901. This speech was published in Volume 30 of the Southern Historical Society Papers (SHSP) in 1902. In 1994, Mr. Peter Houck dusted off the talk and annotated it to present a modern text for people to use in this frequently overlooked campaign. It has been locally published and is not widely available.

I picked up this book on a visit to Lynchburg and determined to learn more about the Civil War in and around this city because my daughter had determined to go to school in that historic town. This book is not the definitive work on the campaign and is certainly lacking in many features that would make it useful. Indeed with a little effort one may get the gist of the book by going to the printing of the talk in the SHSP. Sadly, while Mr. Houck took on the thankless task of editing this work, his contributions are of mixed value and do not measurably aid in the understanding of the campaign, battle or legacies of the event. This does not suggest that the book is without value—it merely says that if one is to take on the responsibility for editing such a work it comes with significant expectations and those have not been met.

Having said this what parts of this book work? First, the campaign which peaks at Lynchburg has many interesting and important features which should be placed in context. General Hunter’s operation from Staunton, Virginia is tied to the battle of Piedmont, Trevilian Station and the battle at Lynchburg. I think the activities of Hunter in that two week period have not been studied nor are they understood. But we do get enough of a teaser from his report that we know he is not a very likeable character. Blackford does put events in general context and gives enough detail to satisfy people, like me, who want to go find out a bit more.

Blackford spoke for the purposes of honoring his neighbors and raising community pride in the stirring events that affected so many of them just 37 years in the past. Present at his talk were many veterans of the Civil War including those who had been present. So why Lynchburg? Why 1864?

Lynchburg was a key link within the Virginia rail system which led to Eastern Tennessee and the inner part of the Confederacy. With links to the Virginia Central, the Southside Railroad and the Orange and Alexandria, Lynchburg was a secure long term recovery area for the wounded and a stockpile area for food and materials sustaining southern soldiers. When General Grant assumed command of the Union armies his strategy called for cutting sources of succor for the south. The initial expedition under the command of General Franz Siegel ended in Union humiliation at the battle of New Market. Hunter replaced Siegel and pushed up the valley within three weeks after New Market. Now in early June 1864, Hunter was poised to cut the Virginia Central Railroad and interdict the lines of supply along the Kanawha Canal, James River and on the railroads.

What we learn from Blackford is that Hunter mismanaged the movement, a judgment that I already knew. What I didn’t know was how Hunter approached the city and what instructions he issued to his subordinate commanders. For example there was a move against the Tye River Bridge and Concord Station during a raid that failed. I also benefitted from his very personal relation of the positioning of the defending forces and the federals. I believe using his talk that it is possible to find significant landmarks and mark the battle. Indeed I will plan to offer a tour of the campaign as the director’s annual tour in 2014. I think connecting the dots is not only essential but now possible. When you go to Lynchburg many landmarks are marked by Virginia Historic Markers and other geographic locations such as Diamond Hill and the Lexington Pike (Rivermont Avenue) are the same today as then. Hunter’s main body moves to Lynchburg via the Peaks of Otter—another well known mountain pass.

Blackford also brought us many men and women whose names would have been lost to history. The devotion and response of the Home Guard and invalids under the temporary command of Major General Breckinridge soon to be replaced by Brigadier General Vaughan (who biography has been written by BGES member Charles Gordon). The reactions of the people, including his wife, who wrote to him helped him paint the presentation which is herein presented. That makes the book worth reading.

While I have been critical of Houck for his efforts and shortcomings, what he has done well is present scores of sidebar tidbits of information that enrich Blackford’s larger narrative. Although initially irritating in the layout—a page of text followed by a facing page of sidebar was disruptive. Yet as the 40ish page talk is presented the sidebars are relevant and once I reached a proper break point in Blackford’s presentation I was happy and indeed looking forward to reading the sidebar supporting that section of the talk. For that I salute Houck’s efforts.

Still the lost opportunity of this monograph is what wasn’t done. Aside from the failure to provide proper context, Blackford was so rich in his description I was sure that Houck would present a very cogent and meaningful historical tour—instead he gave us the standard monuments and houses tour. Just a little effort could have built a driving tour that incorporated the battles of Piedmont and Trevilian Station and some fascinating drives along the Federal routes of approach. Then within the city this relatively simple engagement could have been developed into a tour followed by the federal withdrawal. That is something I would like to have seen.

The Battle of Lynchburg is not significant and is not so much a Confederate victory as a Federal bug out. Much has been made of Jubal Early’s role but he really doesn’t play one. So why even care? Well we need to listen to the voices of the past and as Blackford sums up his talk several pull quotes tell us volumes about the people, places and times.

A remarkable incident happened in connection with the depredation of Hunter’s troops at Lexington. When the Corps of Cadets was ordered to leave the institution on the approach of Hunter, they deposited their trunks in the residences of neighboring gentlemen for safe keeping.

Young Mr. Carter H. Harrison, of Staunton, was then a cadet, and, with several others, put his trunk at Professor Campbell’s to save it. When the battle was over at Lynchburg and Hunter was gone, the cadets were not put in the chasing column, but were relieved from further active duty. Mr. Harrison with others of the corps, went to the battlefield, and during the inspection visited the field hospital where the wounded of the enemy were being cared for by our surgeons. He noticed one man who was badly wounded in the leg and whose pantaloons were ripped up that the surgeon might more easily dress the wound. As Harrison looked at the soldier he observed his own initials on his socks, and upon further investigation discovered that all the man’s underclothes were similarly marked and all belonged to him, and were part of those he had left in his trunk at Professor Campbell’s.

The man confessed that they had looted Professor Campbell’s house, and that the underwear was part of the booty.

Aside from the rich detail of the story as a former cadet of the VMI, I recall that in the seventies when I was there we too had our laundry numbers and initials on our underwear and other clothes—some things never change.

A second quote:

It is not our duty to weep over the past or to bemoan the fate which resulted in the final overthrow of the Confederacy; nor should we do anything to keep alive the bitterness of that strife. On the contrary, it is our duty to bow to the logic of what happened and to believe in the wisdom of the all-wise director of the affairs of nations and of peoples; but, it is also our duty to see to it that what is great and good be preserved, and that our children and children’s children keep green the traditions which will nerve them to higher courage and stimulate them to a generous emulation of the deeds of their forefathers.

This benediction tells us that the focus of the society was to honor the character of the men who suffered and died for their children’s future. He was speaking to veterans of that war and telling them to hold their heads high and walk proudly. They were the best of a great generation and now they had to pass the torch with honor. Of course by then, separate but equal was returning balance to the disrupted society. It was still a white male society with a legacy of white pride. This is not a values judgment but rather an unemotional peak back at a time in history. Douglas Southall Freeman had yet to write his first tome but southern identity was being shaped by the nature of the public presentations given in explanation of the events of the past. All were heroes—military and civilians.

I can’t tell you to run out and buy this book—it frankly isn’t very strong. There are other mediocre publications about Lynchburg that are better than this. Yet the book is not devoid of value and at $15 is not a waste of money. If you read it you will be better for it; but, you aren’t missing anything if you don’t.

Visit Hal’s new website, CWMaps.com to see 200+ maps available for free downloading, and a portfolio of his commercial services for custom maps. If you are writing a book or magazine article, or would like illustrations for a website or presentation, Hal produces a high-quality product at a reasonable price. Although any military mapmaking project is fair game, Hal has a deep familiarity with the campaigns, battles, tactics, and organizations of the Civil War, and has amassed a large research library to aid him in his work, so he can be an ideal partner for any Civil War historian.

Dr. Keith Dickson is a 1976 graduate of the Virginia Military Institute. As an army officer his successful career culminated in his selection to be the Commandant of Cadets at his alma mater. Here he worked for one of the most intellectual of VMI alumni, Lieutenant General Josiah Bunting, Superintendent of the VMI. Bunting, who had been a Rhodes Scholar, selected Dickson because of his sterling career. Now Dickson (who does not mention Bunting in his acknowledgments) has placed himself on the same intellectual plane. It is a position which any subsequent work can only solidify. I did not know Dickson, who was an underclassman, while I was a cadet and so those of you who know I too am a VMI graduate should accept this disclaimer when evaluating my critique. Dickson currently serves on the faculty of the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington, DC. Here he trains senior officers and civilians at the general officer level.

Dickson has bridged the gap from professional soldier to academic historian by following the torturous road demanded by professional historians in this contentious period. It seems that most intellectual centers that allow Civil War research in advanced degree programs demand some connection with the construct of “Memory” as a justification for the research. Regardless of the objectives of the mentors, it does not appear coincidental that the current series of Civil War related publications all seem to have some connection to “memory.” This book is part of the “Making the Modern South” series from LSU Press. This is an important distinction because it weighs upon the critique that follows.

Dickson writes in an intellectually dense fashion which is surely “brain salad” for intellectuals but at times is impenetrable to the otherwise serious student. Indeed the content and levels of argument are well above most people’s level of interest or attention span. That is a shame because the content and book turn out to be very rewarding if you can identify why you want to read it and receive the prose with that view. Indeed you can have an intellectually satisfying experience by reading this as a straight up biography of Douglas Southall Freeman.

Since the book is cast as a study of the composition of memory as a means of establishing contiguous Southern identity, I’ll address that element first. As an academic exercise the reader is immediately assaulted with the intellectually challenging arguments of the foundations of memory as a basis for understanding elements of unique cultural identity—specifically Southern identity. Academic rigor demands the elucidation of specific elements of individual memory as a component part of collective and or regional memory. This is important to Dickson’s argument because he is compelled or has elected to paint Freeman’s life into the framework of this intellectual discipline. Frankly, it nearly lost me before I ever got into the book. I read the introduction and preface three times before taking an aspirin and going to bed. But starting with Chapter 1, I began to reap the rewards of a traditional biography. The vast majority of the 215 pages which followed were intensely interesting and would appeal to any student of Civil War or Southern historiography.

The appendix concisely coagulates the point I want to make about the academic component of this dissertation. After all of this wonderful narrative of Freeman’s remarkable life we are reminded of the focus of the book in the form of a three page recap: “A Diagram of Collective Identity.” In that, we are reminded of the intellectual dimensions of “collective memory and its elements.” We discover it is a means for society to organize and understand its past. We are then given collective memory shapes and memory frameworks as a means of arriving at Memory-Truths. I am looking forward to getting together with my next group of “Civil War Field University” students as they argue Memory-Truths. I hope I have made my point. The academic theme obscures the true value of the book for vast readerships and steers it back to an intellectually focused group which by definition will reduce the impact of the book.

I think that the nomenclature of memory is unnecessarily obtuse as it seeks ways to explain things that are intuitively obvious to most serious students of the Civil War. In fairness to Dickson and those academics which believe the real value of this book is the sustaining argument of how Southern identity was shaped by Freeman, the book does provide excellent grist for serious intellectual discussion. Indeed, I found the strand of Southern white identity to be a clear and rational, albeit flawed, explanation of why segregation in the post war period was essential. The white southern identity first had to elevate the cause for which so many fought and died and then it served as a platform to justify the reconstruction of white southern society in the presence of the emancipated black society. As progressive a man as Freeman was he was a white man fully committed to validating the evolution of both the “post war South” and the New South.” He was fully committed to segregation and worked from a position of intellectual power as a newspaper editor for over 30 years to cast every aspect of southern identity in the context of the universal traits of integrity of character. On that pinnacle he placed Robert E. Lee and on the plateau surrounding him were all the legion of heroes both common soldiers and Lee’s lieutenants.

That intellectual place provides a comfortable destination for many memorialization and heritage groups today. Arguing that the Beauregard battle flag and related memorializations are merely expressions of pride in the fidelity of their honored ancestors sustains the faulty nature of Freeman’s and other early southern historians’ arguments.

What is absent in this recitation and a disappointing gap in the book is the context which causes such memorialization to touch upon raw nerves today. Writing nearly 60 years after Freeman’s death in 1953, neither Dickson nor his academic advisors feel compelled to address that gaping hole in modern historiography. So many well intentioned sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters and Southern partisans embrace the flawed argument suggesting that race had no role in the deification of Lee and other heroes of the “Lost Cause.” Reading Dickson’s book, we see the pervasive influence of the past on the identity and actions of a people actively practicing segregation and justifying it in their minds. It is surely a manifestation of the maturity of a society that is learning to assimilate reality and itself into present circumstances. It is understandable but still flawed in the perfect prism of hindsight.

The argument is convoluted and sure to present plenty of sides for everyone to take a grip and pull; but, the real benefit of the book is the inclusion of a very satisfying biography. Douglas Southall Freeman was not only an indispensable historian, he was a giant of an intellect who understood and articulated the very real virtues of “States Rights.” Son of a Confederate Veteran, Freeman was present for the dedication of the Lee Statue and other statues on Richmond’s famous Monument Avenue—he met and lived with the legacy of the honored veterans.

Freeman was well educated in Southern history having graduated from Richmond College. He received a three year post graduate scholarship and after receiving his doctorate from Johns Hopkins University, another bedrock of pro-southern historiographic interpretations, he returned to Richmond and embarked on a career of public service. He started working in the Virginia Department of Health as the publicity director. At the time hookworm was afflicting the public and he wrote public education pamphlets in an effort to promote improved sanitary conditions. Shortly afterwards he found himself giving lectures on behalf of the Virginia anti-Tuberculosis Association. Success here led him to be named the secretary of the Virginia Tax Commission with the charter of studying and recommending to the General Assembly a plan to equalize the burden on all taxpayers in the state. Having previously written some 33 editorials on the subject he was without peer in the state. The work was “progressive” and by standards of the time reflected a view that the state government’s role was to improve the lot of people by equalizing opportunity and obligations. His statewide exposure brought him to the attention of the Confederate Memorial Literary Society—the precursor of today’s Museum of the Confederacy.

The Society understood his background and qualifications were a Godsend—he accepted their invitation to catalogue their Confederate documents collection. The product was “A Calendar of Confederate Papers.” This work led to an invitation to edit the memoirs of WW Baker—a man who had served with the martyred Confederate Naval Commander, John Yates Beall. By 1911, Freeman was being sought as an analyst of Confederate papers—none more important than the confidential correspondence between Confederate President Jefferson Davis and his trusted general Robert E. Lee. By the completion of the project, Freeman had fallen under the aura of Lee’s presence noting that the dispatches demonstrated “the splendid character of the great man who wrote them.” By the age of 28, Freeman had become the indispensible advocate and analyst of the nobility of the Confederacy and its vaunted cause.

Freeman’s intellect and strong record of performance brought him the opportunity to become the assistant editor of the Richmond News Leader—it was a position he would hold for 30 years. All a while increasing his reputation for scholarship. He would win Pulitzer Prizes for his works on RE Lee and George Washington. His work, Lee’s Lieutenants was one of the most prized readings of senior leaders during World War II.

I earlier noted the dense information rich nature of Dickson’s book and it is simply overwhelming. Freeman’s achievements dwarf the men of his age and his influence in war and peace are intensely interesting. The manner in which he pursues and advocates truth in society displays his well considered research and analysis. A lifelong Democrat, he is an advocate of Woodrow Wilson and the promise of the League of Nations; conversely he detests the programs of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal which he believes to be an unwarranted intrusion into individual and state’s rights. As an isolationist, he cheers Chamberlin’s and Hitler’s Munich accord but later when he realizes Hitler is not to be trusted becomes a patriotic supporter of the war effort and the post war measures that provide the GI Bill. On the other hand, as a strong segregationist and proponent of “Separate but Equal,” he insists on absolute equality for the blacks while resisting the policies of Harry Truman to integrate at the Federal level. Eventually he encourages and then supports the election of Dwight Eisenhower as president.

Throughout this rich life, he finds parallels with the Confederacy and specifically Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia’s experience with the challenges and battles of the American armies in Europe and the Pacific. He views Patton as the Stonewall Jackson of the Second World War.
Freeman dies as he finishes Volume six of his Washington biography. He is buried with his beloved Confederate soldiers in Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond.

This is an intellectually rigorous book. As a biography it is first rate. Of the contending themes, I argue that the book title should have emphasized that this was a biographical work. It stands strongly against any other biography I have read. It is especially triumphant in its context—the reader not only learns who and what Freeman was, they also learn the context in which he lived and contributed. That the academic argument of “Southern Identity and Memory” dominates the title page pays tribute to the author’s primary intellectual effort; but, for me I finally got up close and personal with a legend and I am a much better historical analyst for finally understanding the man holding the pen.

Sadly, academic presses are tacking hefty price tags on short run books. If you think you are up to the mental challenge or you just want to get to know a great historian and a legendary American this book will reward you. It is not a casual read; but it is an important intellectual destination for people who expect and want more from history.

.

Gideon Pillow, yes I know the name, he was that guy who skulked away with John B. Floyd at Dover Tennessee and left the fate of the Confederate troops stationed at Fort Donelson to Simon B. Buckner and US Grant—a political general and the worst kind of pretender, totally without merit. Yes that is the name I knew until I read Hughes and Stonesifer’s book. So little interest did I have in Pillow that I acquired the book and had Hughes autograph it in January 1996 — I finally read it 16 years later. That was my misfortune.

Gideon Pillow was a man of substance—indeed one of the richest men in the south. A successful cotton planter his wealth in land, cash and slaves was impressive then and it is also so today. Pillow was a product of his central Maury County,Tennessee community having graduated from the University of Nashville in 1827 and becoming a successful attorney who was fully connected to the political network that started with Andrew Jackson at the Hermitage near present day Opryland.

As a young man of promise, Pillow immersed himself in the politics of the state and soon became the patron and kingmaker for James K. Polk. When Pillow planned and executed the Democratic party’s nomination of Polk for the presidential canvas in 1844, he earned a place in the fast track lane which resulted in his selection as a Major General in the Regular army during the Mexican American War and as the number 2 man in Winfield Scott’s march upon Mexico City. While Pillow earned accolades for his actions at Chapultepec he had many more failures and found himself an outcaste among a legend of heroes. Pillow had used his intimate connections with the president to the detriment of Scott and anyone who had gotten in his way. A self promoter of the first order, people who might have shared the glory found themselves wondering who was this “great war hero?” Indeed Pillow had engineered a heroic painting of the war with his portrait being prominent, had written self serving accounts of his successes under a pseudonym “Leonidas” and manipulated the history of the war written by a subordinate, Roswell Sabine Ripley. Most contemporaries, understandably, realized they were in the presence of a great self promoter.

When the wounded Pillow returned to Tennessee he expected to advance within the political network and when Winfield Scott sought the presidency in 1852, Pillow put his resources behind another “Dark Horse” candidate—Franklin Pierce. Pillow believed that his status as a “War Hero” and his patronage would secure for him the Vice-presidency or maybe even, using the same template as worked for Polk, the presidential nomination. If Pillow was not a King maker, he was certainly part of the royal entourage. Pillow’s ambition continued to burn bright and after declining a nomination for the governorship in Tennessee he eyed the prospects of Stephen A. Douglas and was active into the 1860 electoral campaign.

The Civil War history of Pillow is interesting but not dramatic. Pillow parlayed his political influence and military record in Mexico into the command of the Tennessee forces being organized. As a Major General of the Provisional Army of Tennessee (not to be confused with the Confederate army of the same name), Pillow demonstrated an extraordinary degree of organizational energy in bringing large numbers of forces to the field. Establishing his state headquarters at the famous Gayoso Hotel in Memphis—Pillow was disappointed when the Confederate government failed to honor the governor’s request to make him a Major General—instead Pillow was commissioned a Confederate Brigadier General—a rank he never exceeded despite numerous self serving efforts to rise in rank.

Pillow was integral in efforts to fortify along the Mississippi River, to the detriment of the river fortifications—most noteworthy those at Forts Henry and Donelson. Instead, Pillow devoted himself to alliances with commanders in Missouri and Arkansas to occupy key positions along the Mississippi River and to move on St. Louis. All such plans came to nothing and Pillow’s greatest contribution may have been to help draw his new commander, Leonidas Polk into occupying Columbus, Kentucky—a move of very poor political wisdom.

Pillow’s lack of military skill were displayed in the subsequent battle of Belmont and the Fort Donelson Campaign. Granted command authority by Albert Sydney Johnston, Pillow failed to properly prepare the fortifications and in the ensuing campaign led a successful breakout attempt on February 15th only to order his successful troops to return to the fort after having opened a route of escape to Nashville. As Grant closed in, Pillow refused to surrender but also refused to be surrendered and consequently abandoned his command along with General Floyd. As word of the abandonment leaked out both Floyd and Pillow were dismissed from command by authorities in Richmond.

Pillow labored mightily to clear his name and achieved modest success sufficient to be ordered to Braxton Bragg’s army at the battle of Murfreesboro (Stone’s River) when he arrived in time and was sent to John C. Breckinridge and placed in command of a brigade literally minutes before the January 2nd assault on McFadden’s Ford. Pillow acquitted himself well but was accused of cowardice—a charge that could not be substantiated. Following the battle, Pillow found himself again without a command and proposed to serve in a special assignment recovering deserters and other soldiers missing from the ranks. In this role he was exceptionally successful; however, again ran afoul of Richmond politicians. Each time Pillow proposed an area where he might serve he found little enthusiasm and yet in many of these bit pieces he was successful. A late war stint as a cavalry commander resulted in harsh criticism for a failed attack at LaFayette, Georgia and he was again dismissed. Even acting as the Commissary for Prisoners brought misfortune and when the war ended, Pillow returned to his home near Columbia.

Interestingly enough, Pillow was a survivor and his immediate efforts to restore prosperity to himself and his family met with some initial success; but, ultimately his various schemes and initiatives spread over a lifetime of wheeling and dealing brought him to grief and bankruptcy. His enemies found ample opportunity to pick at his assets and the broken barrister bit back even to the end. His will defiantly struck back at family and enemies.

The authors have performed an important service that should not be overlooked in this sesquicentennial commemoration. Gideon Pillow was an important southern leader—one whose life reveals a great deal about his society, the life of the wealthy cotton merchants and the power they wielded in their society both regionally and nationally. Pillow is not a man to be mocked or overlooked. The very strength of his presence and personality is impressive. He lasted the entire war because of that prewar power—he was not one who could be easily dismissed and he refused to be discharged. Pillow was not a young man—he was a little older that Robert E. Lee and was 55 years old when the war began.

Hughes and Stonesifer have done a wonderful job in this fair but critical biography. Pillow would not have approved but his rivals would have recognized the man. He was a conniving and manipulative man. He was self centered to the extent that it contributed to his success. He believed in himself and his intrinsic value to the people surrounding him. Indeed he believed that he had gifts that compelled him to a life of public service. He understood and wielded power as it was practical to do so and people found themselves holding him at arm’s length while never turning their backs on him or disregarding his missives.

Like many powerful men, he was insufferable—he wasn’t trusted or liked, perhaps feared and loathed are better descriptors. He was a man who but for the twists of fate could very well have been the 14th or 15th President of the United States. Indeed it is a mystery that he was not more significant in the political fabric of the Confederacy—perhaps that he never served in Washington is the only reason he was not one of the fire-eaters of the South. I found myself believing that he was such a strong personality that he was intentionally omitted from the power portals of Washington and Richmond—first by Polk who sent him to the army; then by Pierce and finally by Davis. I found it somewhat amusing but very revealing that after the war, Pillow became a strong advocate for reunion and that after having remarried (to a woman nearly 40 years his junior) he took his wife to Washington to call on President Grant—afterwards he wrote to Grant and proposed himself for a seat on the United States Supreme Court. Like so many of Pillow’s requests it went unfulfilled—still one has to admit this was a man of the times.

I recommend the book. It is not a hard read and yet I think if you are to understand anything about the upper South, it is essential.

Funded by the Blue and Gray Education Society, the award will recognize an outstanding public history project completed and made available to the public in 2011 that enhanced public awareness and understanding of the Civil War era, including the events leading to the war and its direct consequences.

Eligible projects include public exhibitions; media productions (including internet-based projects); public programs, events, and tourism initiatives; and preservation projects that include the interpretation of objects, documents, structures, or landscapes. Non-fiction and fiction books and other print publications are not eligible for the award.

To submit a nomination go to the Award for Excellence in Public History page on the Society of Civil War Historians’ website. Nominations must be made by January 31, 2012.

Gary Joiner is part of a new breed of historians populating the study of the Civil War. He is the nation’s leading expert on the Louisiana Red River Campaign and has given that region of the country a much needed anchor in Civil War historiography. Gary has become prolific in his publications, discharging years of research in a relatively brief period of time and he has recently undertaken a very prestigious editorial function with the University of Tennessee Press. He holds a faculty position at the Louisiana State University campus at Shreveport—his tours of the Red River in Louisiana are not to be missed.

Participants in BGES programs would recognize the narrative as a standard introductory briefing from historian Parker Hills. Both Joiner and Hills understand the role of the inland navy to the United States’ success in restoring the Union. This is an excellent primer that expertly and efficiently conveys the development and utilization of the inland water fleet from 1861 through the partitioning of the riverine geography into naval districts. The narrative introduces every major player and every vessel; but leaves plenty of opportunity for more detailed treatments. The presence of the navy in any number of battlefield operations from Fort Henry, through Shiloh, New Orleans and the Vicksburg campaign are not neglected.

The book is a lightweight at just 198 pages inclusive of photographs, end notes, an extensive bibliography and index. This is part of a series that originated with Scholarly Resources, a company that has subsequently been acquired by the current publisher. Unfortunately, the series is afflicted by the cumbersome baggage of a robust—indeed obscene price tag. The hardback at $70 is not likely to see a second printing and the soft back at $26.95 is fully priced for a book of such size. Having said that, the soft back is in the National Park Bookstores and selling well–it should. This is a good book.

It is a tribute to the author that in just 8 brief chapters, he is able to share so much. I knew most of the information before opening the book; however, I enjoyed the narrative and when Joiner reached the Red River Campaign, I was a naïve student learning about Joseph Bailey who received the Medal of Honor for his innovative and critically important execution of a damming project "The Bailey Dam" at Alexandria, Louisiana. Without Bailey’s innovation the Union fleet would have been lost in the low water of the Red River.

A second revelation was the insight he provided into Admiral David Dixon Porter. Porter is frequently misunderstood and has been labeled a braggart. Porter was an innovative and aggressive officer whose willingness to expose his vessels to destruction in support of difficult army land operations and objectives promised great results. His personality was well suited to the needs of US Grant and he was a significant contributor to Grant’s ultimate success. This is not one of Joiner’s conclusions but the evidence is clear—Porter and his Brown Water Navy was a force multiplier. Ellet’s Rams were an additional independent force—Chester Hearn has provided the definitive work on that aspect of the western fleet.

The war in the west was certainly complex and luck favored the daring. The innovation of officers from Captain J.P Rodgers to the engineers like James Eads and Samuel Pook made Lieutenant General Winfield Scott’s Anaconda Plan look prescient.

For people looking for a comprehensive overview of inland naval operations this book is a worthy special addition to studies such as Rowena Reed’s Combined Operations in the Civil War.

Editor Wendy Hamand Venet is a professor of history at Georgia State University who gave a lecture at a BGES symposium in Massachusetts about six years ago. She subsequently decided to join the BGES and has been an active member since them. In that time she has advanced in her profession having been promoted to full professor several years ago. She is not a military historian and her social interest provides a great prism for studying the war. Previous books such as Neither Ballots nor Bullets: Women Abolitionists and the Civil War and A Strong Minded Woman—The Life of Mary Livermore mark her as a person whose research should be reckoned with.

The challenge to historians in helping reveal an era is in recreating the experiences of the period to be studied. It is a task that is rarely done well—too many people, too many experiences and not enough documentation and that is often fragmentary. Thus we make much of an intact, comprehensive narrative because it rings of authenticity. The principal in this diary wrote religiously for 67 years. While Venet has limited herself to October 1860-August 1865, we get a sense of the man and his environment. There is a reassuring integrity to his standard entries. We get a sense of the tempo of life in his world.

Sam Richards is a draft dodger "I have been considerably exercised this week in getting an exemption certificate from the enrolling officer" -— a business man whose middle age initially exempts him from military service but whose fortunes change with the Confederacy’s as the war drags on. A book seller by choice he is flexible in his activities especially if it will sustain his exemption from service in the army “I was overhauled in the printing office a few days ago…Lieutenant Morgan a young whippersnapper questioned the legality of Mr. Toon’s claims, but, said if I could get a certificate of the editor of the paper published I could then get an exemption … Morgan saying I had left a large bookstore suddenly when I found the(conscripting) officer after me and had accepted a nominal position at the printing office just to escape conscription . Like many civilians he enlists in the local militia company hoping that level of commitment will take him out of the public eye and give him an opportunity to avoid conscription.

Richards is not an overtly successful merchant and the coming of the war has not simplified his challenges. Partnering with his brother he comes to Atlanta and sets up his business—we follow his cash flow and learn his views about the various protestant ministers and the themes of their sermons week after week. We also see the progress of the war through his eyes—if you remember Melanie and Scarlett in the streets of Atlanta following the battle of Gettysburg you get a real sense of information flow in these population centers.

I found myself enjoying the earthy reality of his observations to wit: Friday October 17, 1862, We have discontinued Dora’s medicine as I don’t think that she is or has been troubled by Worms … I will annex the receipt, a handful of garlic cut fine and steeped in a pint of whiskey with a teaspoon of gunpowder, dilute one half and pour a tablespoonful upon a teaspoon full of sugar and give before breakfast every morning. I don’t vouch for its efficacy myself.

Because it is a diary the daily entries move from robust to mundane "I am a cripple today by reason of a painful soft corn between my toes…We had one of our turkies today for dinner which is the second one we have had I think since we were married, so that the turkey race have not got much of a grudge against us ". However, any student of the war can gauge the mood of the populace by the items he chooses to highlight. As the war moves closer to home, Richards elects not to refugee but is evicted from Atlanta and sent North with his family—first to Louisville and then eventually to New York City.

The book is manageable at just 311 pages inclusive of an 11 page index. This is a book that would have profited from photographs—we have seen so many Atlanta photographs that it would have been nice to include some that may have shown the area where Richards and his wife lived. Venet’s lack of military orientation is noticeable but not important. In her role as editor she has opted for a minimal level of commentary. By letting Richards speak for himself she has left it to the reader to interpret as they see fit. That refreshing method keeps the reader in Richards’ life. Far too often editors feel the need to comment on or footnote every single entry. If the diarist is of questionable veracity that is helpful—on the other hand if the story flows well and the editor has selected the passages carefully then extra commentary is intrusive and unwelcome. The editor’s role is to keep the reader focused and in the moment—Venet does that well.

This is not Mary Chesnut’s Diary from Dixie or John Jones’ A Rebel War Clerk’s Diary. It is however an honest representation of life in Atlanta and the environment around there during the war. The reader will be better informed and empathetic for the effort. I may find myself watching Gone with the Wind again to see if Richards’ is there. I recommend this book.

I was given this book by Vicki and Jerry Spier following my heart surgery in 2008. I just finished reading it and found myself wishing that I had picked it up as soon as I received it. While there are no shortage of monographs on Abraham Lincoln in and around his Bi-centennial commemoration this book was refreshingly simple and informative. Indeed with so much analysis of Lincoln filling the bookshelves it was a relief to look at Lincoln in the context of his actual life.

The idea is not a particularly novel one—indeed two giants of Lincoln scholarship, David Herbert Donald and Harold Holzer most likely found this relatively easy lifting. The premise of the book is to parse Lincoln’s life in the public view as it was reported by one of the nation’s great newspapers—The New York Times. As the editors agreed on an outline for the book each segment was introduced by short essay from either Donald or Holzer. The historians had the abundant good sense not to over analyze and indeed they showed sophistication that did them credit. The newspaper reports were powerful enough to preclude competition from the editors.

Donald is one of the nation’s most venerated and important historians—Pulitzer Prize and Lincoln Prize winner, this Harvard Don needs no introduction to Lincolnites. Holzer is a highly visible official with the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City and was the vice chairman of National Lincoln Bi-Centennial Commemorative Committee. He is also a Lincoln Prize recipient and author of numerous Lincoln monographs.

This book traces Lincoln’s rise to power and his performance as President of the United States during the Civil War. The most surprising and important aspects of the book are the numerous reports of Lincoln’s significant correspondence and speeches. Aside from the expected high visibility events we are treated to detailed analysis of issues such as the implementation of a Federal Income Tax to fund the War; the great debate over Emancipation; an issue of regulation of the nation’s banking system; the controversy and public discontent with the draft and its relationship to the state levies; there are frequent and critical commentaries on Lincoln and his abuses of Civil Rights, last but not least are the end of war issues such as the Hampton Roads Peace Conference and Lincoln’s visit to Richmond.

Collectively these pearls are meaty and informative. None disappoint and each give a sense of the country and its mood as the Civil War matures and ultimately plays out. This constitutes about 60% of the book; but the best starts on page 240 with the assassination. For the remaining 162 pages the reader is rewarded with coverage akin to that given John F. Kennedy’s assassination and funeral. Every detail of the event, the perpetrators and the funeral farewell are detailed in sometimes graphic language that helps the reader experience the grief and fury of a nation in mourning. The access granted the reporters to both the remains and the funeral party gave us the detail of the art of the mortician and the handling of the body as it deteriorated. We see how the police handled the crowds and the level of planning that went into the funeral honors and various viewings.

The book ends with the detailed treatment of the conspirators and the events up to and through the trial, imprisonment, execution and burial of the convicted murderers. It is a powerful treatment that singularly justifies the price of the book.

This book is past its primary selling period and may be hard to find; however, you will not be disappointed if you take the time and purchase a copy. Of the many books that have been published on Lincoln in the past few years that which is simple may very well be the best. It isn’t an award winner; but, it is very effective. I highly recommend the book.

Reviewed by Len Riedel, Executive Director, BGES, February 12, 2010.

Bill Shea is no stranger to the Civil War community and is a respected historian that specializes in the Trans-Mississippi region. He has spent the majority of his academic career at the University of Arkansas-Monticello. To date his publications have been collaborative efforts with other respected historians such as Earl Hess (Pea Ridge) and Terry Winschel (Vicksburg). Those works are exceptional and the Pea Ridge tome remains the standard by which other works on that early campaign will be judged. Fields of Blood is his first solo effort—it shouldn’t be his last.

This book is noteworthy for its straight forward and readable prose. Few people understand the Trans-Mississippi and admittedly it is better understood if you have walked the fields. Shea has done that and I have been privileged enough to walk with him and to see him in action presenting this as a two day tour. That insight made this book an indispensable and easily understood narrative.

The Trans-Mississippi is the forgotten theater of war and this battle in December 1862 ensured that it was. The Federal success here followed on its victory at Pea Ridge (Elkhorn Tavern in March 1862) and it secured Missouri for the Union. The last hurrah in Missouri occurred later in 1864 as Missouri General Sterling Price engaged in a forlorn effort to recover the state for the Confederacy.

Tours of the Trans-Mississippi usually base themselves from Springfield, Missouri and devote a day each to Wilson’s Creek, Pea Ridge and Prairie Grove. Prairie Grove is the furthest from the base camp and it usually gets short service which belies its importance to the theater. Indeed it is a campaign that is integral to the control of Missouri. Pea Ridge is a disappointment to the Confederates—Prairie Grove is a crushing defeat.

Shea sets up the narrative with meaningful introduction to the antagonists: Thomas Hindman, Theophilus Holmes, James Blunt, John Schofield and Francis Heron. The relationships are well established and you immediately see the conflict between the ambitious Schofield and his subordinates and the aggressive Hindman and the cautious Holmes. The Wire Road is the superhighway of the war and operations along it will dictate the control of the region. The Boston Mountains are an impressive obstacle and screen which allow the Confederate army to loiter in proximity to any Federal forces in advance of the southern Missouri border.

Although I had walked he fields with Bill, I didn’t understand the interrelationship with the Federal forces at Cane Creek and those which moved to Prairie Grove. The failure of the Federal forces to unite nearly cost them the battle—still Hindman’s skill in keeping them separated merits admiration and study. On the other hand, the battle at Prairie Grove and the fight for the Borden House is superbly presented. The blood of the Iowans will forever consecrate the ground. The fierce counter attack of the Arkansans prevented a complete route; but, when Blunt arrived the Confederates were squarely between converging forces. Further engagements were futile and Hindman had to work to retire his forces in safety.

Shea understands that the reader needs closure and he completes the narrative with a meaningful and full description of the Confederate retreat. The finality of Federal success is punctuated with the Federal’s successful raid on Van Buren. The Confederates will withdraw to Little Rock leaving the Federals as the master of northwest Arkansas and Missouri.

Frankly, I cannot find any weaknesses with this book. I would ask Bill “What took so long?” He is an accomplished historian with a full mastery of his subject. This work finishes a fine series of books which define the war in Missouri. Combine this with Bill Piston’s and Rick Hatcher’s book on Wilson’s Creek and Shea and Hess’ book on Pea Ridge and you have a trilogy that should be read in sequence for maximum impact.

This is a love story describing the marriage of a Union General (Smith Dykins Atkins) to a Southern Belle, Ella Swain in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. The couple met during the final stages of the war as Atkins’ brigade under Judson Kilpatrick occupied Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Swain, the 22 year old daughter of Dr. David Swain, a three time governor of North Carolina and President of the University of North Carolina met Atkins as a result of her father’s prominent role in surrendering the state to General Sherman. Following a whirlwind romance the couple became engaged within two months and married two months after that. The relationship was widely disapproved of and caused a great deal of controversy within the defeated southern community.

The book follows the married life of Swain and Atkins and ends with their deaths. In the text we are treated to snippets of the couple’s life through letters and written commentaries of contemporaries. We experience the joys of birth and the despair of death within their families. We learn that a good portion of their married life is spent between Freeport, Illinois where he is the postmaster appointed by Abraham Lincoln and a succession of republican presidents and North Carolina. The book provides limited insight into reconstruction and the affairs of the University of North Carolina.

The author, Suzy Barile, is a direct descendent of the Swain family and the publication of this story had been an unrealized family goal prior to the completion of this 167 page double spaced book. Endnotes, an index and bibliography provide some contextual material to help evaluate the book. Barile is an award winning writer who has contributed to several historical compendiums. The letters are in her personal possession and the project took approximately 15 years to culminate in this book.

Undaunted Heart is an easy read with a useful set of photographs that personalize the players; however, the book is flawed in its construction which is disjointed and hard to follow. The role of an editor is to fold in connective material and to fill in gaps to provide a cogent narrative. This is sadly lacking. The reader drifts from episode to episode without knowing where they are or what is happening within the larger societal context.

Early on the book shows promise of a meaningful insight into history of the University of North Carolina and the Chapel Hill community. Opposition to the match fits the reader’s expectation of confusion and hostility in the wake of the collapse of the Confederacy. Knowing that the purpose of the book is to tell the story of the love of these two people, allowance can be made for that oversight but the book is less for its absence. Equally disappointing is the lack of a solid family narrative although it is hard to know if sufficient documentation exists within the family’s archives to support such a discussion.

Another lost opportunity comes with the family’s move and life in Freeport, Illinois. The central role of the letters lends credibility to the effort; however, there is no editorial support to hold each of these important letters in context. Clearly, Atkins is a man of considerable importance and intellect and his wife is an educated and intelligent woman—the letters are ample evidence of that. Thus it is puzzling why the more experienced readers credited by the editor did not take a more active role to assist Barile in creating a better narrative.

It is not fair to criticize the representation of historical facts and as far as they go—only one egregious instance was noted, the editor is clearly not a Civil War or military historian and they don’t pretend to be. As to more relevant analysis several examples are representative of the criticisms of this tome. Sadly, the mortality rate of the Atkins children was exceptionally high—in one instance the editor talks about “Second Summer Disease.” The description is rather shallow and with the benefit of 140 years of medicine since the child died the editor could have and should have consulted with medical specialists and provided a stronger analysis. The problem sounds very much like lactose intolerance; but, that is not mentioned.

The other frustrating trait of the book is the disorganized presentation of the births and deaths of individuals and children without any chronological perspective. In 18 pages Mrs. Atkins goes from age 26 to 38 and is dead—3 other people are born and 10 die or their deaths are discussed. Yet the first 120 pages of the book cover but 28 months of her married life and family affairs.

This book accomplishes its primary purpose of sharing the evidence of this important 19th century relationship. It could have been much more. As a general read I can recommend it; however, as a useful historical resource it is clearly wanting.