Tim Smith

Tomorrow Tim Smith will be speaking at the Rocky Mountain Civil War Roundtable.  We've developed a bit of a friendship (kinda hard to be really good friends when live a thousand miles apart) over the years of Shiloh study so I'm always glad to see him.

I was reading through my new Civil War News this weekend when I happened upon an article announcing he had won the Richard Barksdale Harwell Award from the Atlanta Civil War Roundtable.  Then I noticed that below his article was my review of the book that he won for, Shiloh: Conquer or Perish.  I knew I'd written the review but it was kinda cool to reappear there again.

Congratulations to Tim, well deserved.  I look forward to seeing him Tuesday.

Untold Story of Shiloh

The Untold Story of Shiloh: The Battle and the Battlefield by Timothy B. Smith.

The best way to describe this book is as a collection of the overlooked things of Shiloh. Smith has chapters on the historiography of the battle, persistent myths of the battle, Alexander P. Stewart's Brigade, the role of the US Navy, the siege of Corinth, the national cemetery, dedication speeches through the years, David W. Reed and DeLong Rice.

I've seen some of these chapters in other publications, most notably his chapter on the myths of the battle. I'm glad to say that on the 10 myths Smith presents I only believed in one. How many do you believe? The ten myths are:
1) The Union was surprised

2) Prentiss was the hero
3) Lew Wallace was lost
4) Buell was the savior
5) The Navy was not important
6) The Hornets Nest was pivotal
7) The Confederates would have won if the final attack had not been called off
8) The Confederates would have won if Johnston had survived

9) The sunken road was sunken

10) Johnston died at the tree marked on the field (or that used to be marked)

The only one I didn't agree with was the the role of the Navy. Smith says its impact was more physiological which I can see. I don't think the Navy contributed much in the way of firepower but completely agree with Smith that the Navy did a ton of logistical work. Logistics are a very important part of battles but usually do not get much press. I'm not sure if that's because its a somewhat dry topic or if the source material is thinner, but it is generally an overlooked part of battles. So I guess on that myth I only think of the Navy doing little when it came time to expend powder.

This Great Battlefield of Shiloh

This Great Battlefield of Shiloh: History, Memory and the Establishment of a Civil War National Military Park by Timothy B. Smith

This book covers the formation of Shiloh National Military Park from its formation in 1894 to its transfer to the Department of the Interior in 1933. This is a very important time for the battlefield as this is when the park as we know it takes shape. By 1933 nearly all the plaques, markers and monuments are in place. The park landscape had been returned to its 1862 appearance as best as possible (the biggest change being that the fields had changed over the 32 years before the battlefield became a park, although roads and homes had been added).

My primary complaint with the book is that it stops in 1933. I wanted to know more, I wanted a complete history of the park's administration up to the present day. Perhaps Smith will write a second volume down the road that finished the story.

The other thing I wish this book had more of is the various controversies that regiments had about the placement of their lines. Some of these were relatively minor while some, like the 81st Ohio's complaints were much larger events that involved high ranking members of the War Department. I find this sort of thing fascinating and I know of no other book that covers these controversies at Shiloh. There are certainly books that discuss the conflicts over monument placement at Gettysburg but I know of none for Shiloh.

Smith does a good job of explaining David W. Reed's impact on the historiography of Shiloh. Reed was the chief historian, he later served as superintendent, and was the voice of the park. Reed was not an unbiased observer, he had served in the 12th Iowa which fought in the Sunken Road. The Sunken Road begins to take a prominent spot in Shiloh historiography during the 1890s and Reed certainly helps make it that way.

All in all this is a very good book that covers all aspects of the first four decades of the park.

Prentiss and the Hornets' Nest

In the December 2008 issue of Civil War Times Tim Smith has an article that examines how Prentiss came to be the hero of Shiloh. How despite commanding roughly 12% of the Hornets' Nest defenders he became the general chiefly associated with this defense in the stories of the battle.

I thought it was a very good article, I wished it had been longer but that's just my Shiloh bias speaking. Basically Smith focuses on why Prentiss got the credit and not on an examination of the fighting in the Hornets' Nest (perhaps he will do that in a future article).

To crudely summarize the article Prentiss became the synonymous with the Hornets' Nest primarily because his chief compatriot WHL Wallace was mortally wounded during the battle. Prentiss gives Wallace credit in his report but as time progresses people seem to forget about Wallace. The cyclorama that was painted in 1885 features Wallace and Prentiss though Prentiss is more prominent. Later paintings tend to leave Wallace out and only show Prentiss. This extends to writings, contemporary and modern historians have mostly given the credit to Prentiss. Perhaps the oddest oversight comes from the park service which features Prentiss prominently in the orientation movie as well as on the iron tablets that dot the battlefield. This iron tablets also minimize the efforts of Everett Peabody whose early morning reconnaissance revealed the Confederates' presence. The tablets simply state that a reconnaissance patrol from Prentiss' division started the battle and does not list the brigade commander directly responsible.

All in all I thought it was a good article although I'd have preferred more Hornets' Nest details. But as far as a dose of Shiloh writing in the major magazines this will admirably fill the void. Since originally publishing this post on Battlefield Wanderings in October I have learned from Tim Smith that the article originally had much more on the fighting in the Hornets' Nest. In fact the article was originally abour 4 times as long but had to be cut down for the magazine. Perhaps we can convince Civil War Times to run an all Shiloh issue in April that would have the full length article. Otherwise I think we'll have to wait for Tim Smith to publish a Shiloh book with this article as a chapter. Either way I'll be happy.

The Battle of Shiloh and the Organizations Engaged by David W. Reed

The Battle of Shiloh and the Organizations Engaged by David W. Reed

Reed was the first Shiloh park historian and this is the history of the battlefield he created. Enough said. Buy this book.

Oh wait you want more information? Okay. Reed's book is one of the single most detailed resources on Shiloh you can find. And until recently you really couldn't find it. Reed's first edition came out in 1902, followed by a revised edition in 1909 and the final revision in 1913. Very few copies of the book were printed and finding one is a rare feat. I saw one on ebay a few years ago and held one in the special collections section of a Wisconsin library many years a go. Luckily though it wasn't quite that scarce. Every (Northern) state that had a Shiloh monument commission included a copy of Reed's story in their book, so I own 3-4 copies of it and have looked at many others. But now the book is readily available to anyone.

One of the huge benefits of this edition (a copy of the 1913 version) is that the four maps are included on a CD in pdf format. In the various copies I own or have seen the maps are always in sad condition as they were usually folded many times and in a pocket at the back of the book. Folding and unfolding over the last 90 or so years has made them very brittle. Now though with the CD you'll always have a nice copy. Plus you can print them out and make notes on them, carry them into the field and generally do things you'd never have been able to do otherwise. This was a very wise decision.

If you've been to Shiloh you have read Reed's story; its on the iron tablets that dot the field. Reed wrote the text for those too. In many respects it is hard to experience Shiloh without having Reed influence what you see, read or do.

Timothy B. Smith has provided an introduction that helps explain Reed's influence on the various schools of historiography of Shiloh. In brief Reed was the first to highlight the actions in the Sunken Road and make that one of the main stories of the battle. It is no coincidence that Reed was in the Sunken Road when he fought at Shiloh. Later schools of thought have tried to shift the focus to other events but Reed's original thrust has dominated. When Smith was at the Rocky Mountain Civil War Roundtable's symposium in April he said that the Reed map on the wall of the visitor center has spots that have been touched by enough visitors as to be rubbed off. These spots are the areas Reed highlighted, Sunken Road and the Hornets' Nest, plus obviously Shiloh Church and Pittsburg Landing. Johnston's death site or Sherman's fighting at the Crossroads have not been rubbed off, though there are scholars that support those areas as key to the battle instead of the Sunken Road.

This is a wonderful book that now everyone can use to better track the movements of units around the battlefield. As I said at the beginning of this post, buy this book. You won't be disappointed.

PS: If you've ever wanted one of those old monument commission books you can find them on ebay relatively cheaply. The Pennsylvania and Ohio editions seem to be the most plentiful. I've never paid more than $50 for one and have lucked into some bargains too, I got my Pennsylvania copy for about $10. The commission books for Chickamauga are even more plentiful while I've hardly ever seen a Vicksburg copy. Of course Antietam and Gettysburg are out there too but I've never bid on those.

Shiloh and the Western Campaign of 1862

Shiloh and the Western Campaign of 1862 by O. Edward Cunningham. Edited by Gary D. Joiner and Timothy B. Smith.

Cunningham wrote this book as a PhD dissertation in 1966. Until this past year it has remained unpublished. I had earlier gained a copy through interlibrary loan and a ton of xeroxing. I've never sat down and read it cover to cover before though because my copy was so ungainly to hold and read. The dissertation has a wonderful reputation among serious students of Shiloh as one of the best examinations of the battle.

This new edition has been edited by Gary D. Joiner and Timothy B. Smith. I'm familiar with Smith's previous works but not Joiner's, and a better choice for editing a Shiloh book could not be made in Smith. They did a great job of adding their own footnotes and comments into Cunningham's work without it being distracting. Besides using the footnotes to clarify points or discuss new sources, they also used them to compare and contrast Cunningham's conclusions with Larry Daniel, Wiley Sword and James Lee McDonough (the three other modern examinations of the battle). I enjoyed this as I didn't have to remember exactly what those three authors had said. Plus page citations were given so that I could check exactly what they wrote in each instance.

My only problem with the footnotes was there were times that the editors would say that Cunningham's original text had said something that is pretty clearly incorrect and that they changed the text so that it read better. Perhaps this "error" was because Cunningham's work hadn't gone through the extensive review process that books go through now (and you could assume that if he was alive now to publish his dissertation the peer review process would have fixed those things). Or maybe its not really an error and further research might show Cunningham was right. I'm still not sure where I sit on this issue. In some respects I wish the new book was a faithful reproduction of the dissertation, warts and all. In other respects I think its good that obvious mistakes were edited out. In other sections the editors did mention that Cunningham's interpretation differs, the text was left alone, just a foot note added to indicate the interpretive differences. And that is a great thing. I'm still have not decided if I like the minor corrections or not.

The one problem I had with the dissertation is a complete lack of maps. Thankfully that has been fixed in this new edition. But the maps seem a little busy at times with too many of the trails shown. Also the maps typically show brigade sized units (some do show regiments) and I'd prefer if they had all shown regiments. But that's only a minor point and does not detract from the worth of the book. Just a personal preference, I'm sure there are other readers who would prefer only brigades shown.

The claim made often about Cunningham's book is that his interpretations were well ahead of their time. I'm not sure about that. There was nothing I read that was a real surprise to me, but I'm not exactly new to studying Shiloh. I think it is an important book that can now be read by everyone and sit proudly on the shelves with Sword, Daniel and McDonough. I highly recommend it to all. If I only was going to have one of those four Shiloh books I think it would be Daniel's (then again I have 3 copies of Sword's book so I'm not the best judge of only having one book) but Cunningham's would be my second choice and only because I think Daniel did a better job of showing Shiloh's place in the war. Cunningham is a strong second place though.