Book Review - In Their Own Words, Civil War Commanders

• Author: Major Michael E. Klein
• Pages: 06

1998] BOOK REVIEWS 245

IN THEIR OWN WORDS, CIVIL WAR COMMANDERS1

REVIEWED BY MAJOR MICHAEL E. KLEIN2

A historian who relies primarily on the words of his subjects to present the historical fact, without embellishing or spinning their words, may ultimately render the role of historian irrelevant. Thankfully, historian T.J. Stiles has embraced such peril in presenting a study of the American Civil War through the words of the men who commanded the forces that fought those epic battles. His masterful presentation enhances historical understanding and does not detract from his role as historian.

In Their Own Words, Civil War Commanders, is a collection of first-person accounts of many of the most significant battles fought during the Civil War. Written by the Union and Confederate commanders who commanded nearly three million men,3 these accounts provide an unembellished, though not necessarily unbiased, record of the events which defined this most critical juncture in American history.4 Stiles' role in presenting this fine collection is more akin to the hunter and gatherer-who searches out and captures that which is available-rather than to the cook, who is chiefly concerned with preparing something palatable from the ingredients provided. With the few exceptions addressed later in this review, Stiles is content to allow the words of the participants to speak for themselves, ungarnished by comment or critique. This is not to say Stiles is a passive bystander. Indeed, the structural framework he provides and the deft economy of his gap bridging from one battle to the next are integral to the work's success.

Stiles states the goal of this book in the opening sentence of its preface when he says it "aims to bring the drama of first-person accounts of Amer-

ican history into the hands of today's readers."5 He continues by noting that "[t]he words of the actual historical actors, as they share their thoughts and observations, make historical events personal, immediate, and real."6 Stiles both achieves his goal and is on the mark with his assessment of the virtue of the first hand account. The judge advocate knows well that Stiles' preference for a first-hand account is recognition of the value of direct evidence of a historical fact vis a vis reliance on hearsay. Judgments made, be they in a courtroom or classroom, are undeniably more reliable when based on direct evidence from the participants involved in the action, rather than from one who learned later of the events. Of course, this assertion presupposes that the credibility of the direct evidence participant can be verified. As will be discussed, Stiles alerts the reader to the portions of various accounts that should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism and which thus may not be entitled to the supposition of accuracy and reliability.

The author provides a structure for this work that greatly enhances critical analysis of Civil War battles. He uses a chronological progression

of significant battles as his framework. Starting with The First Battle of Bull Run in 1861, the reader learns of a tremendous Confederate victory in tactical detail that only the Confederate commander General P.G.T. Beauregard could possibly relate. The war's first real measure of soldiership and generalship is crystallized through the intimate knowledge that only Beauregard possesses. Similarly, an "After-Battle Report" written in the sobering days following the battle serves as the basis for observations by a Union brigade commander at Bull Run named William Tecumseh Sherman. General Sherman poignantly conveys a Union commander's perspective upon his first encounter with "cannonballs strik[ing] men...