Vicksburg: 47 Days of Siege (review)

280CIVIL WAR HISTORY tablished were inadequately supplied and poorly coordinated. If field medical care was in fact a variable in the balance of the battle, the rout of the Federals at First Manassas is clearly understandable. Yet Cunningham 's description of the medical services in the Confederate ranks points out that they were no better. They had "no genuine ambulance service" and in many cases, the wounded relied largely on self-care. In the months following First Manassas, the Union Army made a conscious , if somewhat futile, effort to systematize the facilities and improve the personnel of its ambulance corps. The Confederate leaders also confronted the problem, but less intensively. When the two sides squared off again in August, 1862, there were few basic changes in evidence. Certain crucial modifications were being advanced, however, especially in the Union Army and these were enlarged upon in later battles. The "ordeal " at Manassas, then, is seen as the arena for the reform of field medical services. Civil War buffs should not be frightened away by the title of the book. Although his primary interest is with medical services, Cunningham rarely strays far from the concerns of military history. Battle plans are clearly drawn, regiments are in line, and exposed flanks are swiftly assaulted ! The social historian interested in medicine and public health, on the other hand, may also find something of interest here. For the simple fact is that this is a narrative in medical history which is not a panegyric to famous doctors—the usual fare for that field. Instead, the author is concerned with the distribution of health services, an approach broad enough to include other forms of health care in addition to those administered by the conventional physician. J. Thomas May University of Oklahoma Vicksburg: 47 Days of Siege. Edited by A. A. Hoehling et al. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1969. Pp. x, 386. $9.95.) Perhaps the descendants of the people who wrote the documents which comprise most of the material in this book, along with a few dedicated fanatics, will see value in the volume. Civil War scholars need not bother with it, and libraries with limited budgets would do well to buy something else. Editor Hoehling has dismembered various diaries and memoirs, reshuffled them into a single day-by-day account of the Vicksburg siege, and sprinkled in a few editorial comments and added goodies, which include an album of pictures and a glossary. Students of the campaign long have known about and used the most important of the documents, especially the diary by Mrs. Emma Balfour and the writings of Colonel Winchester Hall and Sergeant William H. Tunnard. The scholarly service of the project would have been increased immeasurably if Hoehling had reprinted the documents in their entirety, and included a lengthy introduction and editorial commentary on each one, plus an index. BOOK REVIEWS281 The editorial comment ranges from inane, to cryptographic, to trivial. The tone never rises after the second paragraph which begins: " 'Admirable for defense!' concluded General Grant, the bearded little bulldog." Is this a children's book? The reader soon learns that it is not: "A northern Mississippi supply base at Holly Springs was burned by the dashing Mississippi cavalry leader, Maj. Gen. Earl Van Dorn (killed the same year by an irate husband)." (3). Aside from an insufficient explanation, Hoehling's implication is that Van Dom himself had a husband! Obviously this is not what the editor meant. At times Hoehling displays the meticulous, if obtuse, knowledge that seems to concern some Civil War buffs so deeply. Hence we learn that Captain J. J. Kellogg did not see General Grant standing with a group of officiers late on the afternoon of May 22, 1863, as Kellogg wrote that he did, because, Hoehling says, "Grant was at the Jackson road at this time, not with this group," and that Kellogg was wrong to write that General Hugh Ewing's "colors" were "planted near the top of the rebel works," because, Hoehling says, "Actually, Ewing's headquarter's flag was planted on the superior slope of the work." (37). Otherwise, the editorial commentary does little more. For example, it informs...