"Black Jack": John A. Logan and Southern Illinois in the Civil War Era (review)

BOOK REVIEWS365 But it is the very human sense of humor that prevails tiiroughout Mrs. Sanborn's fascinating study of Robert E. Lee. In speaking of his son Rooney, Lee noted that he had grown so fast and was now "a big double fisted fellow with an appetite that does honour to his big mouth." Seekers of some sign of the greatness the man was destined to know might just possibly find one in the actions of the family dog, "Spec." Lee wrote, "I catch him sometimes sitting up looking at me so intendy that I am for a moment startled." Arnold Gates Garden City, N.Y. "Black Jack": John A. Logan and Southern Illinois in the CivÜ War Era. By James P. Jones. (Tallahassee: Florida State University Press, 1967. Pp. xv, 314. $8.50.) Illinois produced a great many fine Civil War generals, but Üiree of the earlier military leaders from that state were Grant, John A. McClemand, and John A. Logan. All diree men were Democrats when the war began. Grant was a West Point graduate who appeared to lack the political sophistication necessary to a rapid advancement in rank. McClemand was an old Douglasite who had a large portion of political savvy and an equal amount of military naivete. Logan was a rising young politician who, for a while, appeared to be undecided as to whetiier he would join Mr. Lincoln 's campaign to save the Union in 1861. Four years later the status of the three men had altered considerably. Grant had emerged as the savior of the Union, having conveniendy altered his political allegiance in 1862. McClemand, who remained an unswerving Union Democrat, had fallen by the wayside. Logan, by tacking with the winds of political change, had become not only a proponent of the "bloody shirt," but a cracking good general besides. As James P. Jones points out, Logan had a great deal going for him in the scramble for political and military prestige during the war. He was personally courageous and daring. He was far more colorful than either Grant or McClemand. He looked every bit the leader. "My, don't he look mean," a captured Confederate soldier was heard to say. And he could produce on any given signal the most flaming oratory any soldier was privileged to hear. Grant, by comparison, was a study in frozen immobility when it came to inspirational speechmaldhg. Grant had one advantage which Logan lacked, however. He was a West Pointer. This is not to say that Grant was not a great military leader, for he was. But he was part of that compact little group—Sherman, McPherson , Rawlins, plus a few others—who, by banding together, proved quite formidable in manipulating military affairs. "Clique" or not, they disposed of McClemand, picked Howard over Logan as leader of the Army of the Tennessee after McPherson's death, and even kept the noble George H. Thomas from winning the full glory he deserved. Author Jones deals with much of diis military infighting, always keep- 366CIVIL WAR history ing his eye on the main theme, which is Logan himself. His presentation is studious and serious. He attempts to deal with the important question as to whether Logan almost went "Soudi" in 1861 and, as might be expected , came up widi littie that is new. On the other hand, Jones does destroy the myth that Logan's slowness in relieving Thomas at Nashville was because of "Black Jack's" sympathy for The Rock of Chickamauga. There is little question diat a study of Logan was needed. One can make a few minor complaints about die book, however. The title is slightly misleading. Soudiern Illinois is woven into Jones's story incidentally , which makes die book a simple biography of Logan down to 1867. Yet, perhaps diat is what the author intended to do. Also, the style in which the book is written could use a little more of the Logan personality; die natural dash in his character, the lustiness of die West, and the more savory stories about Logan's real self. In other words, Jones has failed to do with Logan what southern biographers have done for such...