The American Civil War: an English View: the Writings of Field Marshal Viscount Wolseley.

Edited and introduced by James A. Rawley. (Mechanicsburg, Pa.: Stackpole Books, 2002. Pp. [xxxviii], [228]. $26.95, ISBN 0-8117-0093-3.)

This volume is a collection of disparate Civil War essays by a career soldier who rose ultimately to command the British army. Born in Ireland in 1833, Garnet Joseph Wolseley lost an eye fighting in the Crimea and served in India during the Mutiny. Not yet thirty years of age, he was sent to Canada during the Trent crisis. He subsequently visited General Robert E. Lee's headquarters and published his observations in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, a journal with a pointedly pro-Confederate bias. In the second chapter of this book, Wolseley expounds on his earlier sketch of Lee from the perspective of the 1880s. The remaining seven selections are Wolseley's reviews of the four-volume Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, which had been published in 1887. His judgments and opinions naturally matured over the years, but Wolseley always remained a devoted admirer of Robert E. Lee.

Without apparent irony, Wolseley noted in a reference to George B. McClellan's inflated reputation that "[h]ero-worship seems to be inherent in human nature" (p. 32); but he unabashedly reported that "General Lee is regarded in the light of infallible Jove," and Stonewall Jackson "is loved and adored" by his troops (p. 36). Wolseley approvingly repeated Winfield Scott's calculation that Lee was worth "20,000 men" to the southern cause (p. 34). The Union government and President Lincoln, by contrast, were scathingly characterized as a "military despotism ... under the dictatorship of an insignificant lawyer ... " (p. 48).

Writing a quarter of a century later, Wolseley's estimation of Lee knew no bounds. Not only was the southern commander the greatest military leader of his era, but "the most perfect man I ever met" (p. 53). In fact, Wolseley again "quoted" Scott, but this time to the effect that Lee was "worth fifty thousand men" to the Confederacy (p. 58). To be sure, Lincoln had grown in Wolseley's eyes as well, into a "far-seeing statesman of iron will" (p. 55). Supporting the emerging "Lost Cause" argument, Wolseley concluded it was only the "sheer force of numbers" that forced Lee's surrender at Appomattox (p. 68).

In his later writings Wolseley's judgments were tempered by hindsight but remained no less opinionated. Jefferson Davis "was a third-rate man" (p. 76). James Longstreet, one of the few former Confederates openly critical of Lee's military strategy, was derided as a "carping lieutenant" (p. 154). Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton and General Henry W. Halleck, in particular, bore the brunt of Wolseley's brutal criticisms. Ulysses S. Grant's conduct at Shiloh was "not militarily defensible" (p. 82), although "the Vicksburg campaign was both original and brilliant in conception ... " (p. 180). Once Grant joined the fight in Virginia, however, "Lee simply and completely out-generalled" him (p. 197). Perhaps the chief military lesson to be learned from the American conflict, according to Wolseley, was the significance of joint amphibious operations.

This reprint of a book first published in 1964 during the Civil War centennial contains James A. Rawley's astute introduction and concise chapter notes, but wisely his editorial intrusions are minimal. Wolseley clearly was capable of drawing his own conclusions.

WILLARD CARL KLUNDER

Wichita State University