What do you think?
Rate this book
Civil War America
Wilson's Creek: The Second Battle of the Civil War and the Men Who Fought It
In the summer of 1861, Americans were preoccupied by the question of which states would join the secession movement and which would remain loyal to the Union. This question was most fractious in the border states of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. In Missouri, it was largely settled at Wilson's Creek on August 10, 1861, in a contest that is rightly considered the second major battle of the Civil War.
In providing the first in-depth narrative and analysis of this important but largely overlooked battle, William Piston and Richard Hatcher combine a traditional military study of the fighting at Wilson's Creek with an innovative social analysis of the soldiers who participated and the communities that supported them. In particular, they highlight the importance of the soldiers' sense of corporate honor--the desire to uphold the reputation of their hometowns--as a powerful motivator for enlistment, a source of sustenance during the campaign, and a lens through which soldiers evaluated their performance in battle.
<!--copy for pb
In the summer of 1861, Americans were preoccupied by the question of which states would join the secession movement and which would remain loyal to the Union. This question was most fractious in the border states of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. In Missouri, it was largely settled at Wilson's Creek on August 10, 1861, in a contest that is rightly considered the second major battle of the Civil War. In an in-depth narrative and analysis of this important but largely overlooked battle, William Piston and Richard Hatcher combine a traditional military study of the fighting with an innovative social analysis of the soldiers who participated and the communities that supported them.
-->
In providing the first in-depth narrative and analysis of this important but largely overlooked battle, William Piston and Richard Hatcher combine a traditional military study of the fighting at Wilson's Creek with an innovative social analysis of the soldiers who participated and the communities that supported them. In particular, they highlight the importance of the soldiers' sense of corporate honor--the desire to uphold the reputation of their hometowns--as a powerful motivator for enlistment, a source of sustenance during the campaign, and a lens through which soldiers evaluated their performance in battle.
<!--copy for pb
In the summer of 1861, Americans were preoccupied by the question of which states would join the secession movement and which would remain loyal to the Union. This question was most fractious in the border states of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. In Missouri, it was largely settled at Wilson's Creek on August 10, 1861, in a contest that is rightly considered the second major battle of the Civil War. In an in-depth narrative and analysis of this important but largely overlooked battle, William Piston and Richard Hatcher combine a traditional military study of the fighting with an innovative social analysis of the soldiers who participated and the communities that supported them.
-->
432 pages, Hardcover
First published March 27, 2000
14 people are currently reading
139 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
May 28, 2021
I was impressed with Wilson's Creek: The Second Battle of the Civil War and the Men Who Fought It. Piston and Hatcher produced a book that is well-researched and reveals a scholarly bent, but includes enough first-hand accounts and anecdotes to retain a reader's interest. The cast of characters is impressive: the strange and fanatical Nathaniel Lyon, the conniving politician Claiborne Jackson, the proud but only marginally-competent Sterling Price, the old Texas ranger Ben McCullough – in way over his head – and other figures familiar to Civil War devotees such as Franz Sigel, Samuel Sturgis, John Schofield, and Louis Hébert. The authors give a thorough background to the battle and the units involved, a reliable blow-by-blow account of the engagement itself, and a capable assessment of the aftermath. Any reader with an interest in the Civil War in the Trans-Mississippi arena should pick up a copy. It earned a strong Four Stars from me.
June 12, 2023
This book aims to tell two stories in one, and each story by itself is compelling. As a whole, though, while I've seen plenty of positive reviews here, this felt to me like two different books stitched together - and the seams were often showing.
The main focus of the book is spelled out in its title, as it aims to tell the neglected story of the first major battle in the trans-Mississippi theater of the Civil War. But that’s not all - consider the beginning of the penultimate chapter, which distills the essence of the book into a couple of sentences: "The Battle of Wilson's Creek was part of the complex military and political events of the first summer of the Civil War. But it also occurred within the context of the implicit social contract between the soldiers who fought there and the communities that had raised and supported them." Those two sentences speak to the somewhat awkward juxtaposition of the two separate themes they describe. One is accessible, one is complex. One is a popular history-style narrative, one is a scholarly examination of soldiers' motives in war. So the book is about the battle, but it's also about the soldiers, it's just not necessarily about the soldiers during the battle.
The book’s early chapters adequately set up the conflict and the key players at the heart of the story, as border-state Missouri teetered on the edge between the Union and Confederacy in the days and weeks after the Civil War began in earnest. Northern forces aimed to support Missouri’s Unionists, while Southern troops headed north to support the state’s secessionists and secessionist-leaning state leaders, all at a time when most of the nation’s attention and most of the war’s action was taking place back East.
This setup is then followed by chapters upon chapters examining the experiences, motivations and profiles of individual soldiers as they slowly make their way to Missouri. What made these individuals willing to fight, the authors ponder. They conclude that the soldiers were not only inspired by a devotion to their side and their cause, but by the expectations of their communities and the sense of duty they felt as a result.
But this insight is contained within a dizzying array of names and biographical details about individual soldiers, the jobs they had in civilian life, the weapons they used, the uniforms they were issued, and the hardships they experienced along the way as each far-flung force from neighboring states marched toward Missouri. The details are interesting in their own right, but every time it appears we’re finally going to make some progress in the overall plot, the narrative circles back to provide more of the same on more individual soldiers and their experiences. There are frequent mentions of the battle to come, and specifics of said battle and how it played out, as though we already know all the particulars. But I felt at this point in the book, it should have been explained more thoroughly what exactly the Battle of Wilson’s Creek was and why it was important. This should be a dramatic story of what was essentially the Confederates’ first invasion of Union territory! Instead, it all comes across as an overlong wind-up, with references to an impending battle we still know nothing about yet.
I felt the book finally started coming together about halfway through, when the stories of the individual soldiers finally converge and the drama to come is finally laid out: "For approximately two months, units from as far away as Iowa, Texas, and Louisiana had traveled hundreds of miles by foot, horseback, steamboat, and rail to reach southwestern Missouri. Some seventeen thousand soldiers were on a collision course.”
Given the attention thus far to the individual soldiers’ stories, the battle itself as it unfolds is very much described in tactical terms and from the perspectives of the commanders. This is not necessarily a bad thing, though it feels somewhat incongruous with the rest of the book - one might have expected at this point to hear more about the soldiers’ experiences in battle, since they've been the main focus up to this point. That said, the tactics and maneuvers are described very understandably for the lay reader, so it’s easy to follow the progress of the fighting without getting bogged down in esoteric military strategy and troop movements.
When the battle is over, though, the book returns to, and ultimately concludes with, the themes of honor, soldiers' sacrifice for their communities, and how officers and soldiers alike were praised and remembered back home. I thought at this point that the book could have done more to place the battle in the context of the war for Missouri, and in the wider Civil War itself. The battle itself was not told from the perspective of the foot soldiers, so why is the aftermath mostly just about them?
"The Battle of Wilson's Creek did not save Missouri for the Union," the authors acknowledge, but the soldiers' individual communities praised their contributions, which "reflected a glory on the whole town that would be passed down for generations." But would it? Those who fought in major battles that today we know by name - Bull Run, Shiloh, Antietam - became part of national legend. Those who fought at Gettysburg were immortalized. But what of the soldiers who fought in a largely forgotten battle in a little-remembered theater of the war? Why was their sacrifice important, what impact did it have on the outcome of the broader conflict, and why should we remember and honor their contributions today?
I learned in this book why soldiers fought, how the battle played out, and how the soldiers were honored by their communities. But I wish I had learned more about the impact and importance of the battle itself, and why this lesser-known part of the well-studied Civil War mattered and should be told. Instead, much like the battle itself, I was invested in this book as it played out - but it’s likely to leave little lasting impact as it fades into memory.
The main focus of the book is spelled out in its title, as it aims to tell the neglected story of the first major battle in the trans-Mississippi theater of the Civil War. But that’s not all - consider the beginning of the penultimate chapter, which distills the essence of the book into a couple of sentences: "The Battle of Wilson's Creek was part of the complex military and political events of the first summer of the Civil War. But it also occurred within the context of the implicit social contract between the soldiers who fought there and the communities that had raised and supported them." Those two sentences speak to the somewhat awkward juxtaposition of the two separate themes they describe. One is accessible, one is complex. One is a popular history-style narrative, one is a scholarly examination of soldiers' motives in war. So the book is about the battle, but it's also about the soldiers, it's just not necessarily about the soldiers during the battle.
The book’s early chapters adequately set up the conflict and the key players at the heart of the story, as border-state Missouri teetered on the edge between the Union and Confederacy in the days and weeks after the Civil War began in earnest. Northern forces aimed to support Missouri’s Unionists, while Southern troops headed north to support the state’s secessionists and secessionist-leaning state leaders, all at a time when most of the nation’s attention and most of the war’s action was taking place back East.
This setup is then followed by chapters upon chapters examining the experiences, motivations and profiles of individual soldiers as they slowly make their way to Missouri. What made these individuals willing to fight, the authors ponder. They conclude that the soldiers were not only inspired by a devotion to their side and their cause, but by the expectations of their communities and the sense of duty they felt as a result.
But this insight is contained within a dizzying array of names and biographical details about individual soldiers, the jobs they had in civilian life, the weapons they used, the uniforms they were issued, and the hardships they experienced along the way as each far-flung force from neighboring states marched toward Missouri. The details are interesting in their own right, but every time it appears we’re finally going to make some progress in the overall plot, the narrative circles back to provide more of the same on more individual soldiers and their experiences. There are frequent mentions of the battle to come, and specifics of said battle and how it played out, as though we already know all the particulars. But I felt at this point in the book, it should have been explained more thoroughly what exactly the Battle of Wilson’s Creek was and why it was important. This should be a dramatic story of what was essentially the Confederates’ first invasion of Union territory! Instead, it all comes across as an overlong wind-up, with references to an impending battle we still know nothing about yet.
I felt the book finally started coming together about halfway through, when the stories of the individual soldiers finally converge and the drama to come is finally laid out: "For approximately two months, units from as far away as Iowa, Texas, and Louisiana had traveled hundreds of miles by foot, horseback, steamboat, and rail to reach southwestern Missouri. Some seventeen thousand soldiers were on a collision course.”
Given the attention thus far to the individual soldiers’ stories, the battle itself as it unfolds is very much described in tactical terms and from the perspectives of the commanders. This is not necessarily a bad thing, though it feels somewhat incongruous with the rest of the book - one might have expected at this point to hear more about the soldiers’ experiences in battle, since they've been the main focus up to this point. That said, the tactics and maneuvers are described very understandably for the lay reader, so it’s easy to follow the progress of the fighting without getting bogged down in esoteric military strategy and troop movements.
When the battle is over, though, the book returns to, and ultimately concludes with, the themes of honor, soldiers' sacrifice for their communities, and how officers and soldiers alike were praised and remembered back home. I thought at this point that the book could have done more to place the battle in the context of the war for Missouri, and in the wider Civil War itself. The battle itself was not told from the perspective of the foot soldiers, so why is the aftermath mostly just about them?
"The Battle of Wilson's Creek did not save Missouri for the Union," the authors acknowledge, but the soldiers' individual communities praised their contributions, which "reflected a glory on the whole town that would be passed down for generations." But would it? Those who fought in major battles that today we know by name - Bull Run, Shiloh, Antietam - became part of national legend. Those who fought at Gettysburg were immortalized. But what of the soldiers who fought in a largely forgotten battle in a little-remembered theater of the war? Why was their sacrifice important, what impact did it have on the outcome of the broader conflict, and why should we remember and honor their contributions today?
I learned in this book why soldiers fought, how the battle played out, and how the soldiers were honored by their communities. But I wish I had learned more about the impact and importance of the battle itself, and why this lesser-known part of the well-studied Civil War mattered and should be told. Instead, much like the battle itself, I was invested in this book as it played out - but it’s likely to leave little lasting impact as it fades into memory.
September 5, 2024
This book is generally regarded as the best modern study of the titular battle and I finally read it in preparation for visiting the battlefield on an upcoming vacation.
Wilson's Creek was a relatively small battle and the fighting only covers about a hundred pages. The aftermath of the battle gets three chapters. Much of the beginning and end of the book focuses on the second part of the subtitle, examining various companies on both sides that fought at the battle, from their formation onward. The authors emphasize the important of local communities and thus companies rather than regiments as the key level of identity - at least among the early part of the war.
Political, strategic, and logistical concerns are covered, but the emphasis is the human interest side - more Noah Andre Trudeau than Earl Hess and William Shea. Everything surrounding Camp Jackson seemed skimmed over. However, while it wouldn't be my choice, I can see why, with this being the first major battle in the Trans-Mississippi and the second true battle of the war at all, I can understand the focus. The authors (and presumably also some research assistants) apparently put in a lot of effort combing newspapers for published letters soldiers had written home.
The authors hold a negative opinion of Lyon, Sigel, McCulloch, and Price. It found it a bit ironic they are so interested in the motivations of the common soldiers while seeming to scorn Lyon's zealous hatred of secessionists.
Much like First Bull Run, one of the things that make Wilson's Creek particularly interesting is how many officers are present that will go on to be significant figures over the course of the war. In particular, the Union side includes future generals Schofield, Sturgis, Granger, Steele, Osterhaus, Carr, and Stanley.
There are a number of similarities with Bull Run: clever but perhaps too complex Union offensive tactics, initial Union success, oppressive heat, green troops, confusion from both sides wearing a mix of blue and gray. On top of that is a factor that will remain crucial through Pea Ridge, Prairie Grove, and Steele's 1863 and 1864 campaigns in Arkansas: the extreme logistical difficulties of this theater.
It's a university press battle study so as you'd expect there are an order of battle, endnotes, bibliography, and index. There are many photos of figures mentioned in the text, seemingly all from what at the time of publication was a private museum adjacent to the battlefield (apparently acquired by NPS about a decade ago). The battle maps are okay, but dated in style and sorely lacking in elevation indications.
Worth the read for most Civil War buffs, especially those interested in the Trans-Mississippi Theater, and for military history readers particularly interested in the "common man" experience.
Wilson's Creek was a relatively small battle and the fighting only covers about a hundred pages. The aftermath of the battle gets three chapters. Much of the beginning and end of the book focuses on the second part of the subtitle, examining various companies on both sides that fought at the battle, from their formation onward. The authors emphasize the important of local communities and thus companies rather than regiments as the key level of identity - at least among the early part of the war.
Political, strategic, and logistical concerns are covered, but the emphasis is the human interest side - more Noah Andre Trudeau than Earl Hess and William Shea. Everything surrounding Camp Jackson seemed skimmed over. However, while it wouldn't be my choice, I can see why, with this being the first major battle in the Trans-Mississippi and the second true battle of the war at all, I can understand the focus. The authors (and presumably also some research assistants) apparently put in a lot of effort combing newspapers for published letters soldiers had written home.
The authors hold a negative opinion of Lyon, Sigel, McCulloch, and Price. It found it a bit ironic they are so interested in the motivations of the common soldiers while seeming to scorn Lyon's zealous hatred of secessionists.
Much like First Bull Run, one of the things that make Wilson's Creek particularly interesting is how many officers are present that will go on to be significant figures over the course of the war. In particular, the Union side includes future generals Schofield, Sturgis, Granger, Steele, Osterhaus, Carr, and Stanley.
There are a number of similarities with Bull Run: clever but perhaps too complex Union offensive tactics, initial Union success, oppressive heat, green troops, confusion from both sides wearing a mix of blue and gray. On top of that is a factor that will remain crucial through Pea Ridge, Prairie Grove, and Steele's 1863 and 1864 campaigns in Arkansas: the extreme logistical difficulties of this theater.
It's a university press battle study so as you'd expect there are an order of battle, endnotes, bibliography, and index. There are many photos of figures mentioned in the text, seemingly all from what at the time of publication was a private museum adjacent to the battlefield (apparently acquired by NPS about a decade ago). The battle maps are okay, but dated in style and sorely lacking in elevation indications.
Worth the read for most Civil War buffs, especially those interested in the Trans-Mississippi Theater, and for military history readers particularly interested in the "common man" experience.
August 9, 2017
This book is part social history and part classic battlefield text. The authors discuss the origins and the regiments and motivations, including slavery, localism, and honor. The battle itself does not occur until nearly 200 pages into the book. The narrative of the battle is solid, although not as lively as Catton, Sears, or Daniel. I do applaud them for dealing with politics, strategy, and society. The battle itself was bloody, but one of the more indecisive engagements of the war; it merely kept Southern hopes of reclaiming Missouri alive, which were dashed at Pea Ridge. As such, discussing the communities that sent these men to war, and the importance of community, was a welcome departure from more classic battlefield accounts.
September 18, 2015
On a recent trip to visit three Civil War battlefields in Kansas, Missouri and Arkansas I stopped at the Pea Ridge gift shop and bought three books which cover different battles in what was known as Trans-Mississippi Theater. I suggest that the three be read as a three volume set. They are "Wilson's Creek" by William Garrett Piston & Richard W. Hatcher III, covering the 1861 campaign and battle of Wilson's Creek, Missouri, "Pea Ridge" by William L. Shea & Earl J. Hess covering the 1862 Campaign and Battle of Pea Ridge, Arkansas, and "October 25th and the Battle of Mine Creek" covering the raid of Confederates under Sterling Price into Missouri and Kansas in 1864 and the final battle at Mine Creek, Kansas.
If you plan to visit the three battlefields (Wilson's Creek, Pea Ridge and Mine Creek, though in separate states, are not located far apart and Fort Scott, Kansas, is also well worth a stop.
"Wilson's Creek" began with a detailed account of where the troops who fought in the battle came from, their reasons for becoming involved, the atmosphere of the towns they came from, the support they had from home and the training (of lack of same) they had. Wilson's Creek is just south of Springfield, Missouri, and was fought for control of that town and southwest Missouri. The troops were raw, the weapons were whatever each soldier could bring to the fight and the fighting was really brother against brother as the people involved were from the same towns just fighting in different units on opposing sides. Confederate General Ben McColloch and the Missouri State Militia (Confederate) was camped just south of Springfield while the forces under Union Commander Nathaniel Lyon were camped in the town itself. Both generals were spoiling for a fight but Lyon attacked first. Violating a basic rule of war to never split a force in the presence of the enemy,Lyon allowed one of his subordinates, Franz Sigel, to take part of the army and attack the Confederates from a different direction. The move was too complicated for untrained men in 1861, Sigel was far from a competent commander, disaster resulted, Lyon paid the price and lost the battle (and his life).
After the Wilson's Creek, the Confederates settled in at Springfield while the Yankees retreated to Rolla, Missouri. This is where the book "Pea Ridge" takes up the story. In 1862, Union troops under General Samuel Curtis drove the Confederate forces under Confederate Earl Van Dorn out of southwest Missouri and into northern Arkansas. The Confederates were somewhat taken by surprise as it was still winter, it was freezing cold and the Confederates thought that no one in their right mind would begin a campaign in conditions like that. Van Dorn made his stand at Pea Ridge and Curtis attacked him there. Inexplicably, Curtis made the same mistake as Lyon and allowed Sigel to take a large part of Curtis' force to attack the Confederates from a different direction. As before, it ended in disaster for Sigel but Curtis' force fought hard and drove the Confederates from the field. The retreat for the Confederates was a disaster as Van Dorn left a lot of his troops behind to fend for themselves in a kind of every man for himself situation. "Pea Ridge" details all that occurred excellently.
The Confederates did not mount another large scale military action in the Trans-Mississippi until 1864 when Earl Van Dorn, in the command of a large force invaded Missouri in an attempt to seize St. Louis. He failed in that attempt and his force was harried by Union forces the entire campaign. Finally, he was trying to get his force across Mine Creek in Kansas when a large pursuing force under his Pea Ridge nemesis Samuel Curtis caught him there. As the Confederates desperately formed lines at the approach of the Yankees, a force of Union cavalry under Alfred Pleasanton caught them there. It was the largest cavalry charge of the Civil War and the Confederates were routed. Van Dorn retreated as he had before, leaving his men to their own devices and the Confederate efforts in the Trans-Mississippi was over. In addition to a great account of the raid, its several battles and the final Battle at Mine Creek, "October 25th and the Battle of Mine Creek" also covers the partisan fighting and atrocities committed by the two sides against each other in the Kansas-Missouri border areas from which people living in those areas still hold grudges today.
The three books are an excellent primer on the Civil War in the west, an area which generally gets neglected (I didn't even know there was a battlefield in Kansas). Each book is a great read alone but even better when read together.
If you plan to visit the three battlefields (Wilson's Creek, Pea Ridge and Mine Creek, though in separate states, are not located far apart and Fort Scott, Kansas, is also well worth a stop.
"Wilson's Creek" began with a detailed account of where the troops who fought in the battle came from, their reasons for becoming involved, the atmosphere of the towns they came from, the support they had from home and the training (of lack of same) they had. Wilson's Creek is just south of Springfield, Missouri, and was fought for control of that town and southwest Missouri. The troops were raw, the weapons were whatever each soldier could bring to the fight and the fighting was really brother against brother as the people involved were from the same towns just fighting in different units on opposing sides. Confederate General Ben McColloch and the Missouri State Militia (Confederate) was camped just south of Springfield while the forces under Union Commander Nathaniel Lyon were camped in the town itself. Both generals were spoiling for a fight but Lyon attacked first. Violating a basic rule of war to never split a force in the presence of the enemy,Lyon allowed one of his subordinates, Franz Sigel, to take part of the army and attack the Confederates from a different direction. The move was too complicated for untrained men in 1861, Sigel was far from a competent commander, disaster resulted, Lyon paid the price and lost the battle (and his life).
After the Wilson's Creek, the Confederates settled in at Springfield while the Yankees retreated to Rolla, Missouri. This is where the book "Pea Ridge" takes up the story. In 1862, Union troops under General Samuel Curtis drove the Confederate forces under Confederate Earl Van Dorn out of southwest Missouri and into northern Arkansas. The Confederates were somewhat taken by surprise as it was still winter, it was freezing cold and the Confederates thought that no one in their right mind would begin a campaign in conditions like that. Van Dorn made his stand at Pea Ridge and Curtis attacked him there. Inexplicably, Curtis made the same mistake as Lyon and allowed Sigel to take a large part of Curtis' force to attack the Confederates from a different direction. As before, it ended in disaster for Sigel but Curtis' force fought hard and drove the Confederates from the field. The retreat for the Confederates was a disaster as Van Dorn left a lot of his troops behind to fend for themselves in a kind of every man for himself situation. "Pea Ridge" details all that occurred excellently.
The Confederates did not mount another large scale military action in the Trans-Mississippi until 1864 when Earl Van Dorn, in the command of a large force invaded Missouri in an attempt to seize St. Louis. He failed in that attempt and his force was harried by Union forces the entire campaign. Finally, he was trying to get his force across Mine Creek in Kansas when a large pursuing force under his Pea Ridge nemesis Samuel Curtis caught him there. As the Confederates desperately formed lines at the approach of the Yankees, a force of Union cavalry under Alfred Pleasanton caught them there. It was the largest cavalry charge of the Civil War and the Confederates were routed. Van Dorn retreated as he had before, leaving his men to their own devices and the Confederate efforts in the Trans-Mississippi was over. In addition to a great account of the raid, its several battles and the final Battle at Mine Creek, "October 25th and the Battle of Mine Creek" also covers the partisan fighting and atrocities committed by the two sides against each other in the Kansas-Missouri border areas from which people living in those areas still hold grudges today.
The three books are an excellent primer on the Civil War in the west, an area which generally gets neglected (I didn't even know there was a battlefield in Kansas). Each book is a great read alone but even better when read together.
September 22, 2012
"Wilson's Creek" could have been yet another narrative of an American Civil War battle. Luckily, the authors recognized the opportunity given by the unique features of that engagement and wrote a book that provides not only an excellent analysis of the battle itself, but also a fascinating insight into political and social reasons for outbreak of the conflict in Missouri and its neighbor states.
In first part of the book, the authors try to explain the situation and environment immediately prior the battle at Wilson's Creek. Main personalities are described in great detail, giving the reader an understanding of how their views and actions affected the course of events. A lot of space is also dedicated to descriptions of individuals and their units, which almost without exception were locally raised militia and state companies. Piston and Hatchet spend a lot of time on examination of this fact and how it affected those who participated in the battle as well as their communities. I found this part of the book especially touching - private letters and articles from contemporary local newspapers are frequently cited by the authors to accentuate the "local" nature and tragedy of that battle, but in extension also of the war itself.
The battle itself is described in clear, analytical and objective style. Also here, the authors take the full opportunity of the fact that Wilson's Creek was a relatively small battle when compared with later massive engagements and often describe actions of individual companies. By doing this, they provide once again an insight into "nukes and crannies" of an American Civil War battle seldom seen in other similar books. Unfortunately, same level of detail isn't maintained in the maps that are included in the book. Sure enough, there are a few of them and they are most helpful in understanding how the battle developed. However, they are completely devoid of topographical information, which definitely detracts from their usefulness.
Nevertheless, even with this small blemish, "Wilson's Creek" must be regarded as an excellent book that should be acquired by anyone with interest in American Civil War.
In first part of the book, the authors try to explain the situation and environment immediately prior the battle at Wilson's Creek. Main personalities are described in great detail, giving the reader an understanding of how their views and actions affected the course of events. A lot of space is also dedicated to descriptions of individuals and their units, which almost without exception were locally raised militia and state companies. Piston and Hatchet spend a lot of time on examination of this fact and how it affected those who participated in the battle as well as their communities. I found this part of the book especially touching - private letters and articles from contemporary local newspapers are frequently cited by the authors to accentuate the "local" nature and tragedy of that battle, but in extension also of the war itself.
The battle itself is described in clear, analytical and objective style. Also here, the authors take the full opportunity of the fact that Wilson's Creek was a relatively small battle when compared with later massive engagements and often describe actions of individual companies. By doing this, they provide once again an insight into "nukes and crannies" of an American Civil War battle seldom seen in other similar books. Unfortunately, same level of detail isn't maintained in the maps that are included in the book. Sure enough, there are a few of them and they are most helpful in understanding how the battle developed. However, they are completely devoid of topographical information, which definitely detracts from their usefulness.
Nevertheless, even with this small blemish, "Wilson's Creek" must be regarded as an excellent book that should be acquired by anyone with interest in American Civil War.
April 25, 2020
I have to say, this is how any American Civil War history should read, particularly books on single battles. This being one of the first battles of the war, much attention is paid to where the soldiers came from, community ties, and the soldiers motivations for going to fight. It is a well written account of the campaign, starting with raising the regiments through the end of the battle. It was nice that the authors threw in an epilogue following the careers of some of the participants. The book has a good deal of notes for those that want more, and a very detailed order of battle, including numbers for strengths and casualties.
The story of the battle is interesting, and has a really good flow to it. The battle maps are well done and easy to follow. That is something I find to be important in any military history. If there was anything that could improve this for me, it would have been maps of the army movements prior to the battle. Other than that is is a wonderful book on an early battle in the war. Highly recommended.
The story of the battle is interesting, and has a really good flow to it. The battle maps are well done and easy to follow. That is something I find to be important in any military history. If there was anything that could improve this for me, it would have been maps of the army movements prior to the battle. Other than that is is a wonderful book on an early battle in the war. Highly recommended.
October 12, 2022
Dr. Piston takes a different approach in this book. It is very much about the social contract of the men who fought the battle with their home towns or regions and how that affected them and their approach to the battle.
The description of the actual battle events didn't start until about 1/2 way through the book, and seemed to be less important to the overall topic then soldiers individual motivations.
It was a well written book, and worth reading, but if you just want to know what happened in the actual events of the battle, this book may be more than you are looking for.
The description of the actual battle events didn't start until about 1/2 way through the book, and seemed to be less important to the overall topic then soldiers individual motivations.
It was a well written book, and worth reading, but if you just want to know what happened in the actual events of the battle, this book may be more than you are looking for.
May 28, 2022
Well researched and informative. However, the framing of company and identity and clamping it into a book about a battle felt like a project that never fully congealed.
July 10, 2023
The account of the battle so far has been great. One of the best battle accounts I have ever read. The attempt to humanize the battle is there, but suffers from a strong Southern slant. On one hand they claim to be dispelling great man theory history, but on the other they only talk about the better known names. When it comes to criticism of said people's characters is where the bias comes out strong. Each pro-confederate person is presented in the shining light of romanticism. It gives the allure of they were only doing what they though was right despite any moral implications. Those who lie in the middle were shown to be in over their heads. Those who were pro-union are protrayed as manipulative, wrathful, or self aggrandizing.
The account of the battle has been the most neutral part in the book. As a Missouri Civil War history enthusiast it's nice to see that one of our most important battles has been given the same treatment as the likes of Bull Run, Antietam, or Gettysburg. The battle account is mostly from the side of the Union, but that is due to information availability.
Overall so far a good book, but falling short of great. The first 1/2 of the book feel like a lost cause narrative of the war in Missouri and Arkansas. However, it's coverage of troop movements and campaign strategy are exemplary. This is great book to pick up if you want to learn more about the fight over Missouri in 1861, or if you want to up your knowledge on the battle its self. I'm reading this book ahead of my second trip to Wilson's Creek and I'm using it to help make a guide for my visit.
The account of the battle has been the most neutral part in the book. As a Missouri Civil War history enthusiast it's nice to see that one of our most important battles has been given the same treatment as the likes of Bull Run, Antietam, or Gettysburg. The battle account is mostly from the side of the Union, but that is due to information availability.
Overall so far a good book, but falling short of great. The first 1/2 of the book feel like a lost cause narrative of the war in Missouri and Arkansas. However, it's coverage of troop movements and campaign strategy are exemplary. This is great book to pick up if you want to learn more about the fight over Missouri in 1861, or if you want to up your knowledge on the battle its self. I'm reading this book ahead of my second trip to Wilson's Creek and I'm using it to help make a guide for my visit.
March 30, 2021
As a chronicle of a Civil War campaign and battle, I thought it was good. I’m probably spoiled by Shea and Hess’ book about Pea Ridge, which was excellent and neutral in tone, but “Wilson’s Creek” still met my main desire of providing context to troop movements in the campaign and the battle and sorted out the varying accounts to provide a coherent timeline of events. I also thought the exploration of “corporate honor” and community expectations being motives for volunteering to fight on both sides was compelling, but I was disappointed that the authors didn’t flesh out the examples they provided of Southern Unionists. A deeper comparison between the sense of honor and loyalty to community that they often referenced with the honor and loyalty to country that they only briefly touched on for the Southerners who fought for the Union would have been interesting. Finally, my overall impression of this book is marred by what I would describe as a marked pro-Confederate bias in the sections about unit/community backgrounds.
May 23, 2018
Richard Hatcher and William Piston's book "Wilson's Creek: The Second Battle of the Civil War" and their companion book "Kansans at Wilson's Creek" we're guide books for my tour of the Wilson Creek battlefield and troop movements. The companion book contains soldier letters from the campaign that gave Federal control of Southwest Missouri. (P)
January 27, 2013
Very much liked Piston and Hatchers focus on the company formation histories, and the close bonds that they had with their communities. Too often the Civil War histories focus on the generals, or stories as told by individual soldiers. But this one focuses on the company, and how "word got back home" on how individuals performed and were regarded in the regiment.
April 8, 2013
Certainly the definitive study of this Civil War battle, but the most interesting parts of the book to me were those that dealt with the larger social context of the campaign- especially the ties between the soldiers & their communities.
August 25, 2025
Off to Wilson’s Creek Labor Day! Can’t wait! August 2023.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews