McDonough, James L. War In Kentucky: From Shiloh to Perryville. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1994
22 November 2016
Jacob Ryan Frazier
James Lee McDonough was born June 17, 1934, in Nashville, TN. Mr. McDonough is the son of James W. and Ora Lee McDonough. McDonough married Nancy Sharon Pinkston on May 28, 1957. McDonough and his wife Nancy have three children David, Sharon, Carla. Mr. McDonough received his bachelor degree at David Lipscomb College in1956. He then went on to Vanderbilt University to do his graduate work from 1958-60. McDonough received his master degree at Abilene Christian University in 1961 and at Florida State University in 1966 he received his PhD. He was a professor at Auburn University upon his retirement in 2000. McDonough has published many books including Five Tragic Hours: Battle of Franklin, Shiloh: In Hell Before Night, Stones River: Bloody Winter in Tennessee , Chattanooga: A Death Grip On The Confederacy, and War So Terrible: Sherman and Atlanta .He is currently 82 and resides in Lewisburg, Tennessee where he is 82 years of age. Through the whole book it is clear that McDonough believes that the defeat of the south was unavoidable and how important Kentucky was to the war with her waterways and railroads. The main thesis was the importance of the Western Theatre and the idea that 1862 was a decisive year in the war, The author states how the western battles got more recognition than
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Company Aytch, a memoir written by Sam Watkins, tells the personal tale of a lowly private fighting four long years in the American Civil War. Watkins was from Columbia, Tennessee, and was a part of Company H, 1st Tennessee Infantry. He recounts his military career in chronological order, from before the Battle of Shiloh in 1862 to the day the Confederacy surrendered at Nashville in 1865. Watkins is a humble writer, often reminds the reader that he is not aiming to provide a comprehensive account of the entire war, but rather a collection of personal stories. Military history books often recount the lives of generals and of great strategies, but this book insists that history should not exclude the common men who filled the ranks of the military.
The War of 1812 was fought between the United States and England. Ending in 1815 with the Treaty of Ghent, the war did not accomplish any of the issues it was being fought over. For the US, the War of 1812 seemed to just be one failure after another. Although the military suffered great failure during the war, these were the direct consequence of the failure of the citizens to unite for the causes of the war. Because of these failures, it is quite valid to call the War of 1812 "America's worst-fought war".
Michael Shaara&#8217;s fictional novel, The Killer Angels, is based on the Battle of Gettysburg in the American Civil War. The novel allows the reader to recognize the heart and courage of the more than two million men that fought in the war. Shaara focuses the reader to better understand the reason why these men fight and the meaning of the war. Ultimately, the reader observes that the war is fought on an individual level as much as a governmental level. These men are there to fight for what they believe is truly right. The Confederates fought for their rights to hold slaves, their freedom tyranny of the Federal Government, and their
In “Company Aytch,” Sam R. Watkins first wrote this book to describe his experience at the Battle of Franklin, Tennessee, in 1864. As a soldier in Company H of the First Tennessee Volunteer Infantry Regiment, CSA, Watkins witnessed the panorama of war in grand scale as he marched and fought with the hard luck Confederate Army of Tennessee across the Western Theater. His honest, vivid, and dramatic memoir, published in the 1880s, is a classic that conveys the horrors, humor, and realism of the Civil War, and the firsthand experience of being in this war
The book Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam, was written by James M. McPherson to argue why the Battle of Antietam was the battle that changed the cause of the Civil War. While McPherson argued this he also argues that the Civil War had many other turning points and was not settled by just one battle. McPherson’s targeted audience would have to be those interested in the Civil War and the events that led to it. McPherson wrote this great book which came to be an important contribution to our collective historical knowledge and understanding because this book explains the important arguments that took place and made the Civil War happen and stop.
In the Rusty Belt of America there a minority group of people whose income level has surpassed the poverty line. Inside the state of Ohio lies the poorest white American which describes themselves as hillbillies as they reside in the eastern Kentucky. In his personal analysis of culture in crisis of hillbillies, J.D. Vance tries to explain, in his memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, what goes on in the lives of people as the economy goes south in a culture that is culturally deceptive, family deceptive, and in a community, whose doctrine of loyalty is heavily guarded. Like every poor Scot-Irish hillbilly in his community, Vance came from being poor, like the rest of his kind, to be a successful Law graduate from Yale Law school. As result of this transition and being the only child in his family to graduate from a highly respected intuition in the country, Vance thought out to analyze the ostensible reason of why many people are poor in his community.
A border state, Kentucky attempted to remain neutral during the Civil War but was unsuccessful because of its strategic location and the divided loyalties of its citizens. Farmers who used the Ohio and Mississippi rivers for transporting their produce wanted access to both waterways and the international port of New Orleans. If the South separated itself from the North, this free access would be impeded. On the other hand, influential plantation owners and state rights advocates sided with the Confederacy. As a result, Kentuckians could be found in both Union and Confederate armies. What side was the State of Kentucky on and was she truly neutral in the beginning.
Civil War historians view the Battle of Chancellorsville as General Robert E. Lee’s “greatest and most remarkable” victory (Sears 1). Lee, facing an army twice his size, defies all military doctrine and divides his army multiple times in order to out-maneuver and surprise the Union forces. The daring maneuver succeeds and ultimately forces the Union’s Army of the Potomac to retreat. The victory was another major blow to Union troops, but it came at a huge cost to the Confederacy: the loss of General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson. By evaluating the battle through the lens of the mission command activities, one can see how Lee’s daring maneuver was actually very calculated and his only option for victory. Throughout the rest of this paper, I will describe the timeline of the battle and how General Lee used the mission command activities of understand, visualize, assess, and lead to ultimately achieve victory at Chancellorsville.
The antebellum era exposed the entirely different views and ways of life between the North and the South. These differences can be observed on the economic aspect. The North was industrialized enabling them to have functioning economy without the use of many labors; however, in the south, people relied on agriculture, and thus they needed a large number of slaved labors to help them work on the plantations. Such difference led to the main distinction which existed throughout the entire Civil War, the dependence on the slavery. These differences sparked conflict between the North and the South placing them in an indisputable position, eventually leading to the Civil War. The prosecution of the Civil War of North and South differed drastically. The North fought to preserve the Union which entailed abolishing slavery, enlisting the black in the army and also paying them proper wages, and the South fought to withdraw and preserve slavery and their agricultural lifestyle. These conflicting views did not disappear after the war. Although the North won the Civil War, they still wanted to unify the country, not only territorially, but also economically and politically by enforcing many new laws and amending the Constitution. And the South, even after the abolishment of slavery, people in the south remained hostile toward the freed people, saw themselves more superior than the freed people, and tried to resurrect the “Old South”.(192~198) To achieve the real union and realize the
The Battle of Antietam could have been a devastating and fatal blow to the Confederate Army if Gen. McClellan acted decisively, took calculated risks, and veered away from his cautious approach to war. There are many instances leading up to the battle and during the battle in which he lacks the necessary offensive initiative to effectively cripple and ultimately win the war. This paper is intended to articulate the failure of Mission Command by GEN McClellan by pointing out how he failed to understand, visualize, describe and direct the battlefield to his benefit.
Sears uses language that most all of us can understand, and clearly it is a very well researched work. He supports his claims in the book with a copious amount of facts and yet still keeps the course of the book moving forward. He draws on a variety of sources including diaries and letters of the participants to produce, arguably, his definitive work. Sears thesis is actually two-fold; one that McClellan missed countless opportunities to defeat Lee and two that McClellan was an incompetent commander who missed several instances to take initiative and win the battle decisively. The young Napoleon, as McClellan was known, often waited an inordinate amount of time before making a movement with his troops. For me, reading the details (with heavy emphasis to the Union story) was captivating. No recon, no communication, egotistical leadership, timidity, and procrastination all combined and helped the Union snatch defeat (or, at the very least, a draw) from the jaws of victory. This battle, like others before and after it, could have really shortened the Civil War.
Legendary Jones County, Mississippi is the setting for one incredible story about Confederate deserter Newton Knight and his band of rebels. Newt’s story has endured the tests of time. Sadly, many of the sources on Newt’s life are biased, exaggerated, or wholly inaccurate. After ten years of taxing research, Dr. Victoria Bynum wrote one of the most well received books on the topic, The Free State of Jones. In it, she presents factual evidence to narrate the Newton Knight story with as much integrity as possible. She used accounts not just from Newt, but also from other families in the county, to tell the story of the Knight Company as a community uprising against the Confederacy. In State of Jones, bestselling journalist, Sally Jenkins, and historian, Dr. John Stauffer wrote a much more interesting and exaggerated version of the same story. By taking the narrative approach, Jenkins and Stauffer tell a loosely based account of Newt’s story. The real story of Newt Knight never places him at the Battle of Vicksburg, nor does it imply that Newton left his white wife because she was sour-faced and homely (as opposed to the “mesmeric” Rachel, Newt’s black wife ). Furthermore, the real story of Newt Knight never claims that he was a Unionist and an advocate of racial equality both before and during the Civil War. However, Sally Jenkins and John Stauffer make all of these claims. Good historians know that when sources do not exist, the gap becomes part
Death; destruction; crawling, bloody men without jaws; and a child in the middle of it is just a glimpse of the grotesque short narrative “Chickamauga” by Ambrose Bierce. Chickamauga Creek is an area near Chattanooga, Tennessee and northwestern Georgia, plagued by war, suffering, and bloodshed from the Civil War (Bohannon). Bierce served in the Union Army during the American Civil War (Campbell). Many Americans then, and today, romanticize war with glory, heroism, and patriotism. Bierce defied literary status quo, creating graphic accounts of war, in an age of sentimentalism and melodrama (Morris). Lesser publicized were the perspectives, thoughts, and realities of the soldiers after serving and surviving in the civil
“Battle Cry of Freedom; The Civil War Era id a work of such vast scope necessarily emphasizes synthesis at the expense of theme. If there is a unifying idea in the book, it is McPherson 's acknowledged emphasis on “the multiple meanings of