The Gettysburg Nobody Knows (review)

BOOK REVIEWS229 From the outset ofthe secession crisis, Lincoln appeared to Booth as a menace of extraordinary evil. As the war went on and Lincoln refused to retreat from his course in the face of Confederate victories and growing domestic political opposition , and even expanded his central powers considerably through personal control of the war effort and his suspension of habeas corpus (especially in Booth's beloved Maryland), Lincoln became to Booth the aggregation of all villainies, a thousandfold more evil than the Caesar he had slain so often on the stage in his-favorite role of Brutus. As the intensity of his partisan emotions grew, Booth began neglecting the stage for clandestine Confederate espionage, a botched effort to kidnap and hold for ransom Lincoln with a ragtag band of unlikely co-conspirators, and finally the assassination of Lincoln at Ford's Theatre. For a century Booth was commonly dismissed as mentally unbalanced, primarily because of his heinous deed, incomprehensible to those of us raised to revere Lincoln, but also, one suspects, because he made his living as a stage tragedian, long thought to be the calling of madmen. This viewpoint has been placed in perspective by the writings of such talented historians as William Hanchett and Thomas Reed Turner and a steadily growing body of scholarship on Confederate covert operations. Booth was not a madman but rather an extreme southern partisan pushed past the brink of mental balance by the final collapse of his sacred cause. As sister Asia explained, "Wilkes Booth was not insane. . . . But the fall of Richmond rang in with maddening, exasperating clang ofjoy, and that triumphant entry into the fallen city (which was not magnanimous ) breathed air afresh upon the fire which consumed him." Despite the hype ofdustjackets and press releases, these two worthy volumes reinforce the viewpoints ofAsia Booth and a solid generation of revisionist historians. In short, these two volumes, splendidly edited and attractively priced, are truly welcomed additions to the scholarly literature of the brilliant but troubled Booths of Maryland and the untimely death of our greatest of presidents. Roger A. Fischer University of Minnesota, Duluth The Gettysburg Nobody Knows. Edited by Gabor S. Boritt. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Pp. xvii, $27.50.) It would seem at this time, one hundred and thirty-four years since the battle, that the title ofthis book is an oxymoron. Gettysburg remains the most studied, analyzed, and debated engagement in the annals of American military history. But here, under the guidance and editorship of Gettysburg authority and director ofthe Civil War Institute at Gettysburg College, Gabor S. Boritt, nine scholars present essays on different aspects of the battle and campaign. In any work of this nature, the essays range across a spectrum and vary in quality and insightfulness. The topics include an analysis of the campaign from the perspective of common soldiers in both armies, a study ofthe community's wartime experience, a reexamination of the roles of controversial figures— 230CIVIL WAR HISTORY Richard S. Ewell, RobertE. Lee, Jeb Stuart, George Meade, and Daniel Sickles— during the campaign, a portrait of Joshua Chamberlain, a speculation on Gettysburg's importance in the conflict, a description of Pickett's Charge from the ranks of the blueclad defenders, and a survey of the battle's image in our collective memory. The book's title implies that the essays offer much that is either new or unknown . But only two of the nine essays seem to warrant such a contention— J. Matthew Gallman and Susan Baker's description ofthe town and surrounding Adams County during the four years ofwar andAmy J. Kinsel's analysis of the cultural legacy ofthe three-day battle since its immediate aftermath to the present. Both essays touch briefly on subjects not usually examined in other works on the campaign. The bulk of the essays address familiar and controversial aspects of the Gettysburg literature. The authors offer interpretations that will add to the debate . Because oftheir stature as historians their writings deserve a careful reading . Harry Pfanz gives a thoughtful defense of Richard Ewell's performance on July 1; EmoryThomas asserts that an explanation for Jeb Stuart's conduct might lie in the cavalryman...