Had the opportunity to read the latest issues of a couple of my favorite Civil War magazines and found, as usual, some excellent content. First, in the January 2008 issue of Civil War Times, historian and author Timothy B. Smith has an excellent article on Lew Wallace and the battle of Shiloh.
Though I do not believe any serious Civil War historian would argue that Wallace was delinquent in his duty that day, but in case there was any doubt, Smith dismantles the myth that is Wallace’s supposed poor performance. What I liked most was Smith actually taking the time to hike the same trails that Wallace passed over and document results (timing the walk on his own) which shows that Wallace did a heck of a job covering the terrain with his army.
As for his orders, Grant screwed that up as much as anything. Finally, the only true “hindsight” criticism would be, had Wallace continued on his original march down the Shunpike and over Clear Creek and onto owl Creek, he might have struck the Confederates at the rear near Hardee’s division, and that could have spelled disaster for the attackers.
Finally, Steven H. Newton article’s article, “What Kind of War?” in this year’s #3 issue of North & South is an interesting and perhaps flawed attempt to re-address or re-direct the questions surrounding the nature of the fighting during the war and whether or not it might have approached Total War?
He contends, “whether it is the extend and magnitude of noncombatant death and suffering which crosses the border into the realm of total war or the intent of formal policies of suppression.” (24).
The backwoods bushwhacking and guerrilla warfare that took place all across the border states, and the lack of military intervention, according to Newton, points to a deliberate neglect on the part of military officials to intervene in atrocities aimed at civilians. This “intent” was to allow the in-fighting among the civilians to be “played out,” to use a term of the times.
I like Newton’s logic, though his approach (starting with Kit Carson and his campaign against the Navajo and attempting to connect it with the fighting east of the Mississippi) is misguided I felt, however his arguments are strong.
I have attempted in the past to argue that the intention of the belligerents was as “total” as it could get for situation and time. This was a culture and society of chivalry and honor, two opposing cultures that did not have racial animosity towards the other, and could not have directly took part in wholesale slaughter of civilians and other non-combatants. It simply could not have happened as it did against the Indians and in Europe where racial superiority reigned.
I think Newton does a good job with his thesis and I think there is still wiggle room for making the argument that in their own way the Civil War approached, if not partially enter, the realm of totality.
