Decisive Battles of the Civil War (review)

434civil war history it to have been. He has let us see the clumsiness of the Richmond bureaus and has made plain diat, whatever die maltreatment it was an expression neither of Confederate poUcy nor of the popular mind. Much of it was due to a violation of die helpless by isolated and vindictive men, diemselves tortured to extremity, who were able to wreak their vüeness without sanction; and much of it was due to die imminent coUapse of die starving Confederate edifice; aU of it ran contrary to the wishes of most of the citizenry who knew of it. For almost a century the record of CivU War prisons, both north and soudi, has lain upon our national conscience as a paU. AndersonviUe has its corollaries in Point Lookout and Johnson's Island, and the facts and figures of necrology on both sides have been repeatedly juggled, along with bitter recriminations. On the eve of the CivU War centennial, it would be weU to dismantle our defense mechanisms and look upon die abhorrent of the period with a common abhorrence — just as we jointly hail the good, die heroic, and die noble under both flags. This is but one of many hopes which Mr. Kantor's novel inspires. It is a work of real magnificence, and we are grateful to him not only for a first-rate achievement in fiction but also for a cleansing of pride and prejudice long overdue. Carl Haverun BronxviUe, New York Decisive Battles of the Civil War. By Joseph B. Mitchell. (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1955. Pp. 226. $4.00.) "what we need," a dixte gentleman remarked recendy, "is a good impartial history of die CivU War from the Southern point of view." WeU, he now has it in this singularly mis-titled book — mis-titled because diere is nowhere in it any indication of why Colonel Mitchell considered the fourteen battìes to which he gives extended treatment decisive or what they decided. Indeed, die reverse: late in die volume he remarks diat die Battle of NashviUe was decisive, but it gets less than a paragraph. There may also be some criticism of a process of selection which omits Fort Donelson from the list of decisive battìes in favor of Shiloh, and which overlooks Cedar Creek to concentrate on die siege of Petersburg. But this is again a criticism of the title of a book which is essentially not a book of battles at all, but ratìier a brief history of the war, with longer chapters and detailed maps covering certain actions. The total space given to the "decisive battles" is a good deal less tìian that given the intercalary material between them. More serious to the total picture is the distortion introduced by the extremely Confederate point of view. The text is fuU of such statements as "the Army of Tennessee won a battle at Murfreesboro," which was certainly not the opinion of the Confederate soldiers who retreated from that place on the afternoon of January 2, 1863. Lee's analysis of his opponents is iUustrated by the statement that he "could take far greater risks against McClellan, Halleck, or Pope than he would against Grant," which perhaps pardonably overlooks the fact that Lee never opposed HaUeck in die field, but less excusably neglects die fact that Grant gripped Lee so tightly there was no opportunity for those risky flank marches. Book Reviews435 The concomitants of the legends of Soudiern patriotism are aU present The Union always has enormously superior forces; the relative populations are set down as twenty-two million against five million whites and three million blacks, which pushes Kentucky and Missouri completely into the Union camp. The pen portraits of generals are always those of Southern generals, and for some of diem diere is extravagant admiration — especiaUy N. B. Forrest to whom is given die major part of die credit for breaking up Grant's first advance into Mississippi, which most of us thought belonged to Van Dorn. It is also a case of once over Ughtìy. There is practicaUy nothing analytical in the book. The work of the Union artiUery...