In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

94CIVIL WAR HISTORY ize on the refugees or their movements," she has confined herself largely to the presentation of facts illustrative of commonplace conclusions, some representative examples being: "Refugees going into a strange community did not always react to the people in the same way." "Just as some people refused to take strangers into their homes, others opened wide their doors to those in need." "The disease common to all refugees at one time or another was home-sickness. . . ." "Although the displaced people were never adequately cared for, they received less as the war continued." The illustrative information follows each such statement and, while often interesting, amusing, or pathetic, unfortunately it tends to engulf the actual refugees in a sea of their own examples. Some of the author's attention is indeed directed toward matters of larger scope— for instance, military and civil policy concerning refugees—but even here her observations contain little that is new. From an amorphous subject and amorphous materials, Professor Massey has made an amorphous book. Yet she has used great numbers of primary sources. Her bibliography lists about 130 manuscript items and almost one hundred newspapers. With this mastery of the sources, it seems too bad that she did not adopt a different approach. She might have selected several refugee families with typical problems and experiences and followed each through the war. Then perhaps the reader would have a clearer idea of what it meant to be a refugee. It is difficult, one discovers , to develop much empathy with a crowd. Ludwell H. Johnson College of William and Mary General George H. Thomas: The Indomitable Warrior. By Wilbur Thomas. (New York: Exposition Press, 1964. Pp. 649. $10.00.) All dedicated students of Civil War military history should read this volume, though this is not to say it is an outstanding biography or even a temperate examination of "Old Pap's" career. But it represents a viewpoint about Grant not adequately presented in recent literature, nor anywhere so boldly since Don Piatt wrote effusively in the last century. Sherman is linked with the culpable Grant in depriving Thomas of the vast reputation due him—that of the greatest general of the war, in this author's judgment. Grant and Sherman harped on Thomas' slowness when the trait was foreign to his makeup. Still, it is scarely correct to say, as is done on the jacket, that Thomas has remained a little-known, denigrated man" and that prior to this study scholars "have had but scanty and misleading information about his achievements." This ignores many past works and the excellent, well-near definitive biography by Francis F. McKinney, Education in Violence, published only three years ago, which Mr. Thomas does not even list in his bibliography. This volume is interesting reading, but like much current and otherwise scholarly history it is written to support a case. The contention is that BOOK REVIEWS95 Grant and Sherman were decidedly second rate generals alongside the less noticed but more skillful Thomas. Conceding that Grant has been overextolled and that Thomas has not been fully appreciated by many, nevertheless a devoted Thomas school has long recognized Old Pap's high talents and has understood the inappropriateness of the Grant-Sherman charge of slowness. The author records without comment that Thomas was known as "Slow Trot" at West Point. He was also dubbed "George Washington" by perceptive classmate Rosecrans, a comparison drawn from a portrait but which might imply celerity. Author Thomas' battle descriptions are in general accurate and some are entertaining, though the Chickamauga research does not appear to have been conducted in depth and some of the sources apparently followed closely—such as Boynton, John B. Gordon, and D. H. Hill—might be questioned. Chickamauga was one of Thomas' great battles, yet the author is so rapt in his subject's career he feels cheated because the name won there, "Rock of Chickamauga," does not do "full justice to that unexcelled general." The preliminaries of the battle of Nashville, with Grant's "heartless" harassment of Thomas and Schofield's efforts to undercut him, called "villainy," are convincingly presented. There is a tendency toward excesses , such as ". . . Chickamauga ranks second to...

pdf

Share