In the work, And Keep Moving On, Mark Grimsley presents a study on the Virginia Campaign that is both pleasant in readability and substantial in material. While numerous historians and enthusiast have covered the Civil War, Grimsley’s work offers clear and distinct coverage that assists the reader in identifying the political backdrop to the conflict and a play-by-play report of military tactics. He remains fair to both Grant and Lee as he takes the scholar through Battles such as Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor and The Wilderness. As this is one book in a collection, Great Campaigns of the Civil War, dedicated to the war as a whole, Grimsley’s focus remains set to a short period of six weeks beginning in May of 1864. Grimsley’s main thesis rests in the ultimate dance of the Generals and the overall …show more content…
In the Battle of the Wilderness, he describes, Rebel troops that could produce entrenchments and palisades that were impressive in both scale and build time. In that same skirmish, Grant was described as exasperated by his subordinates who, because of the reputation that followed Lee, were somewhat overly jumpy in their desire to know Lee’s next move. Further, aside from the descriptive analysis of in-war feats and failures, Grimsley also covers the political emotions felt by the American citizenry. Northern reactions fluctuated. When the match at Mule Shoe took place, for example, the tone within accounts bounced from elation to dejection. Southern war responses, according to the volume, “remained upbeat throughout the campaign.” Whether giving account of the war efforts, the political atmosphere of the war, or of civilian reactions, Grimsley paints a picture that generates a sense of coexistence with these national ancestors. His work is thoroughly researched and he provides personal glimpses into the minds and thoughts of those who influenced or were touched by the war through newspaper articles, letters and diary
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.
McDonough, James L. War In Kentucky: From Shiloh to Perryville. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1994
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.
On July 4, 1865 in Savannah, Georgia, the 22nd Iowa mustered out of federal service after a reading of the Declaration of Independence and Emancipation Proclamation. That afternoon, in the aftermath of this explicitly patriotic commemoration of the new improved United States: the encapsulation of the Republican ideal of the conflict as a struggle to reassert the promise of the Revolution, Taylor Peirce, the fervent abolitionist, watched as a mob of townspeople and drunken Union soldiers, some of them perhaps his own comrades, assault the city’s black fire brigade as it paraded in celebration of the nation’s triumph. Once hopeful for his dream of a new South,
The Battle of Gettysburg was fought for three days from July 1 to 3. The Army of the Potomac, led by General George Meade, repelled the attack of the Confederate’s Army, led by General Robert E. Lee. The purpose of this paper is to examine General Lee’s effectiveness by analyzing his utilization of the mission command, and its principles.
After fighting their way southward from Illinois and northward from Gulf of Mexico. Until by late summer of 1862, only Vicksburg and Port Hudson appeared to be major constraints to the Union of the two posts, Vicksburg was by far the strongest and most important. Setting high over looking a bend in the river, protected by artillery and dangerous swamps. So far the city had defined Union efforts to force into submission. (Williams 1)
James M. McPherson, author of For Cause and Comrades, uses more than 25,000 unaltered letters and closely 250 private journals from Civil War soldiers—both Union and Confederate—in his attempt to explain what possessed these men to endure the roaring, gruesome chaos of war. What better way to express the motivation behind fighting than words straight from the pens of the men who were physically there and experienced the Civil War to its fullest? I personally feel as though McPherson succeeded in his explanation of the different driving forces that kept each man going during these difficult years of battle. The Wall Street Journal describes McPherson’s work as “an extraordinary book, full of fascinating details and moving self-portraits.”
William Freehling in his book argues and displays how the Union overwhelmed the Confederacy. By studying the activities of the two large and populated
The reason for writing this book from McPherson’s point of view was because out of all the material out there about President Lincoln the vast majority of it is about other topics besides his role as Commander in Chief. McPherson believes that this is surely unthinkable due to the sheer amount of time and energy Lincoln had to put into being the commander of our army throughout the four long years the Civil War reigned. This book, in the eyes of James McPherson, is a long overdue explanation of Lincoln in his main role as Commander in Chief. He tells of numerous occasions when Lincoln must make important decisions that could make or break the union army. These
This paper will examine the British and American Southern Loyalist defeat in the Battle of Kings Mountain and discuss the assumptions the British made including loyalist support, logistic support, and terrain advantage.
James McPherson was born on October 11th 1936, he is an American Civil War historian. He received the 1989 Pulitzer Prize for Battle Cry of Freedom, his most famous book. McPherson was the president of the American Historical Association in 2003, and is a member of the editorial board of Encyclopedia Britannica. In his early career McPherson wanted to leave a legacy as being known for the historian who focusses on more than one point. Through skillful narrative in a broad-ranging oeuvre of essays and books, McPherson has succeeded in telling both stories, combining social, political, and military history to reach a broad scholarly and popular audience, emphasizing all the while that the Civil War constituted a “second American Revolution.” Examining thousands of letters and diaries written by soldiers to gather a better insight and understanding, McPherson argued that deep political and ideological convictions about liberty, slavery, religion, and nation were the fundamental reasons that men on both sides enlisted and fought. McPherson’s views on the Civil War are broad in comparison to many other writers, he believes there are multiple causes to the war but that the underlying cause was slavery and that Southern states used the saying “States’ Rights” to justify their actions of slavery and secession. It became a psychological necessity for the South to deny that the war was about slavery that they were fighting for the preservation, defense and
No other war seems to hold our focus like the Civil War. Scholars have chosen to make it their life's work, authors have written reams about it, and we all feel some kind of connection to the Civil War. This paper was created to highlight some of the major battles that took place during that conflict. Major battles usually marked a drastic change in the momentum from one side to the other or led to massive losses of troops. These battles and their results all played a huge part in the outcome of the war.
The Civil War of America has been discussed as the first modern war of the new industrial age. Army’s of such a large size had yet to meet head on, face to face in the battle field with weapons of such mass destruction and deadly force. America had not yet seen casualties of this magnitude to
“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
In the Last Stand, written by Nathaniel Philbrick he discusses a big leader in the Civil War, George Armstrong Custer and how he led his troops with reckless courage. Philbrick wrote this book which can be viewed in many ways: a bloody massacre that is a big part of American history, or a tale of crazy arrogance and even unmatched bravery. One way that this book can be viewed as is the Last Stand being viewed as an account of a well-known battle that encapsulates the treatment of Native Americans during the “Indian Wars.” The next option is that the Last Stand is a retelling story of a history that does not glorify the United States Army in the Indian Wars, but shows the hubris and reckless of the leaders and army. Finally, the Last Stand can be viewed as a double meaning, both the last stand for Custer and the Last Stand for the Sitting Bull and the Lakota Sioux. In this essay, I’m going to discuss the ways in which Custer leads his troops and how he was a powerful leader during this time.