Men of Fire: Grant, Forrest, and the Campaign That Decided the Civil War by Jack Hurst
(Basic Books, 2007)
Hardcover, 11 maps, photos, notes, bibliography.
ISBN=978-0-465-03184-9
$27.95
Jack Hurst can write. His writing is lively, vivid, and entertaining. His research, though not as in-depth as I would like, was adequate. Hurst’s narrative style is easy and fun to read. He is telling you (the reader) a story, but one grounded in research; this is not fiction. His 450+ page study of Grant’s Forts Henry and Donelson campaign is welcomed — even if somewhat flawed.
Grant is a historical figure who I rarely get enough of; new and refreshing biographies of course. But this book follows along with the recent trend to take one campaign, one year, or one event, and look at it in detail. So much the better!
The themes are endless: Grant’s struggle to be a part of a great and desperate struggle so he might make a name for himself. Halleck’s insatiable desire to promote himself, and then there’s Forrest, who never really seems to fit in.
Though Forrest becomes a fairly important figure during the Civil War, it takes an awful lot of bending and shaping and primping to make him Grant’s equal at this time.
Hurst’s goal, I think, was to create a kind of protagonist and antagonist narrative where two strong and determined men face off. This never materializes as Hurst failed to give Grant that worthy foe who can narratively hold his own during the winter 1862.
In fact, this would have been a far more interesting story had Hurst focused on Forrest and his part in wrecking Grant’s plan to attack Mobile in 1864. Forrest’s continual havoc wreaking in Grant’s rear contributed to the untenable consideration of taking Mobile before 1865. During 1864, Sherman would call Forrest “the very devil.” And call for his destruction… that would have made for a drama that Hurst ultimately sought but failed to reach.
I am always suspect of this type of book (which appear all too often), in which the title claims that such and such was THE battle that changed the war, or “saved the Union,” or “doomed the Confederacy.” That kind of thing. It is fine for an author to make a claim of a battle’s importance, but to resort to hyperbole is disingenuous.