What do you think?
Rate this book
River Run Red: The Fort Pillow Massacre in the American Civil War
The fullest account ever written on the Civil War tragedy that stunned a nation
On April 12, 1864, 3,000 Confederate cavalrymen under General Nathan Bedford Forrest stormed the much smaller garrison of Fort Pillow on the Mississippi River, slaughtering hundreds of white Unionists and re-enslaving some sixty former slaves in uniform. Andrew Ward vividly recounts, as never before, the horrors of guerrilla warfare and the pent-up bigotry and rage that found release that bloody April day, producing a detailed and complex portrait of an event that continues to spark controversy.
On April 12, 1864, 3,000 Confederate cavalrymen under General Nathan Bedford Forrest stormed the much smaller garrison of Fort Pillow on the Mississippi River, slaughtering hundreds of white Unionists and re-enslaving some sixty former slaves in uniform. Andrew Ward vividly recounts, as never before, the horrors of guerrilla warfare and the pent-up bigotry and rage that found release that bloody April day, producing a detailed and complex portrait of an event that continues to spark controversy.
560 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
8 people are currently reading
157 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 - 14 of 14 reviews
July 1, 2016
Slavery was both the cause and conclusion of the American Civil War. Despite this, African Americans have long been relegated to understudies in their own story. They have been shunted to the sidelines by the intense focus on individual Civil War battles, their existence fleetingly mentioned if at all.
There are two major exceptions to this generality.
The first, known by even casual students of the war, is the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment. This was the black unit who made the heroically doomed assault on Battery Wagner, outside Charleston. Their courage earned them laurels (a sergeant earned the Medal of Honor), a famous monument by Saint-Gaudens on the Boston Common, and eventually a movie (Edward Zwick’s Glory).
The second, widely-covered at the time, is less remembered today: the Fort Pillow Massacre. On April 12, 1864, some 3,000 Confederate cavalrymen under the command of the infamous Nathan Bedford Forrest invested the Union garrison, which occupied a bluff in western Tennessee some forty miles north of Memphis. There were approximately 600 Union troops stationed in the fort. 350 of these men belonged to the 14th Tennessee Cavalry (U.S.), a white contingent. The rest were black soldiers, most serving with the 6th U.S. Heavy Artillery.
Nathan Bedford Forrest. Great at commanding cavalry. Questionable at humanity
After some initial skirmishing, during which time the fort’s commander, Major Lionel Booth was killed, General Forrest called for a truce to deliver surrender terms. There is some evidence that Forrest also used this ceasefire to improve the positioning of his soldiers. William Bradford, who had taken command from the deceased Booth, refused Forrest’s demand. The Confederates attacked with ferocity. While sharpshooters kept the garrison pinned, other troops scaled the embankments and entered the fort. (The Union troops could not fire over the parapets without being exposed. This allowed the Confederates to find shelter at the base of the walls). Union resistance collapsed. Much of the garrison threw down their arms and began a headlong retreat towards the Mississippi River.
Up until now, the engagement at Fort Pillow had been a battle. As Andrew Ward explains in River Run Red, that changed in a hurry. “[A]s the surrendering Federals threw down their weapons, waved their white flags, and begged the rebels for mercy, the attack on Fort Pillow mutated into murder.” Hundreds of Union troops were killed trying to escape or surrender. Some 60 black troopers were captured and re-enslaved. The surviving whites were marched off to Andersonville.
Overly dramatized depiction of the Massacre at Fort Pillow
Fort Pillow is a neglected episode of racial violence that does not fit neatly into the mythologized narrative of the Civil War. For that reason alone it bears study. I doubt I’m going to find a more thoroughly researched or comprehensive treatment than that supplied by River Run Red.
That is not to say this is the easiest read. Comprehensiveness comes at a cost. There is a lot of granular detail here, and the beginning is slow. I flatter myself with the belief that I’m a pretty dedicated Civil War buff. I first learned of Fort Pillow when I was 8 years old, as attested by an illustration I drew on the back of a Norwest Bank form my dad brought home from work. But even I had trouble keeping up with the unfamiliar characters and obscure units that coalesced around this drama. Ward devotes the first 150 pages to setting the context. This includes chapters on General Forrest, slavery in Tennessee, and even the Indiana and Iowa troops who first garrisoned Fort Pillow, who were gone before the massacre took place. (General Sherman had ordered the fort abandoned; General Stephen A. Hurlbut disobeyed that command, initially allowing its use as a recruiting station, before reinforcing it with black artillerymen).
I appreciate detail, and I would’ve felt cheated without these sections. However, it takes a bit of persistence and concentration to wade through it. That said, things pick up dramatically with Ward’s account of the battle, the massacre, and the aftermath. Ward is meticulous in his use of primary sources, and he quotes from them freely. He has a lot to work with, since the Congressional Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War immediately came to Tennessee to investigate and take statements. This provided a trove of contemporary accounts taken while the memories were still fresh. Pro-southern and pro-Forrest partisans would later try to deprecate this investigation, but everything we know about human memory says that these accounts – untainted by reflection or outside sources of information – are as close to accurate as memory gets.
Ward is very evenhanded in his presentation of the evidence. He is willing to step in and explain while this or that account might not be true, or is uncorroborated. He is a careful parser of sources, and does so within the text.
Since that fateful day in 1864, controversy has embroiled Fort Pillow. This controversy centers on the question of whether the Confederate victory was a “battle” or “massacre.” Ward’s ultimate conclusion – unsurprising given this book’s subtitle – is that a massacre took place. This is not a paradigm-shifting interpretation. It was the conclusion of the Joint Committee who talked to survivors. Almost all modern historians who have studied the evidence agree. A massacre did take place. That is a fact woven into the fabric of the world, attested to by dozens and dozens of primary source accounts from first-person eyewitnesses, white and black, Union and Confederate.
When we talk about controversy, then, we aren’t talking about whether or not Confederate cavalrymen slaughtered black soldiers as they begged for mercy. They did. The controversy is whether General Forrest ordered the annihilation. Ward presents the debate and concludes that he did not – at least, there is no evidence that he did.
It is not an unexpected conclusion. General Forrest was not the stupidest man who ever lived; therefore, he did not write out an order saying “Kill them all” and then distribute said order to his underlings. There is no smoking gun, as the saying goes, a reality shared by other mass murderers who are nevertheless held accountable for their crimes.
I am not as sanguine about General Forrest’s innocence in this matter as Ward. Forrest’s offer of truce concluded with the hard-to-misinterpret threat that if his demands were not met, “I cannot be responsible for the fate of your command.” I don’t care if you’re secretly bluffing or not. Once you put that out into the universe, there are no take-backs. Moreover, it’s pretty standard for the commander of an Army unit to bear responsibility for the actions of his troops. (In the same manner he gets all the credit for their successes). Forrest was on the field of battle – he had horses shot from beneath him – and he was aware of what occurred in that small, deadly space. There are no reports that Forrest – like Montcalm at Fort William Henry, pleading with the Abenaki – attempted to stop the remorseless killing. To the contrary, he was initially very pleased with himself. Only after public opinion proved against him did he start covering his tracks.
One way to stop a massacre: Montcalm at Fort William Henry
I understand that General Forrest has his backers. I’ll probably get hate mail from them, just like I received after I dared to impugn Stonewall Jackson. I don’t pretend to understand why. Even if we stipulate that General Forrest was innocent of any wrong at Fort Pillow. Even if we pretend he was as pure as driven snow, as blameless as Christ come down off the Cross, we still have to contend with these nagging facts: That Nathan Forrest was a slave owner. That he was a slave trader. That he was a slave catcher. That he was a Grand Wizard in the KKK. That he used the n-word with the frequency of a teenager saying “like.” None of this screams out heroic-figure-deserving-of-veneration.
Advertisement for Nathan B. Forrest's Human Selling business
Fort Pillow is worthy of attention because it underscores the role of slavery and race in the American Civil War. This is an overwhelming reality that people are still, to this day, attempting to subvert with revisionist nonsense about State’s rights and Lost Causes. Fort Pillow – and the treatment of black soldiers in general – demonstrates the hollowness of the subversion. (A century of Jim Crow provides the exclamation point). River Run Red needs to be a part of your Civil War library. This is part of the history of a war that divided a nation. This is part of the history that divides us still today.
There are two major exceptions to this generality.
The first, known by even casual students of the war, is the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment. This was the black unit who made the heroically doomed assault on Battery Wagner, outside Charleston. Their courage earned them laurels (a sergeant earned the Medal of Honor), a famous monument by Saint-Gaudens on the Boston Common, and eventually a movie (Edward Zwick’s Glory).
The second, widely-covered at the time, is less remembered today: the Fort Pillow Massacre. On April 12, 1864, some 3,000 Confederate cavalrymen under the command of the infamous Nathan Bedford Forrest invested the Union garrison, which occupied a bluff in western Tennessee some forty miles north of Memphis. There were approximately 600 Union troops stationed in the fort. 350 of these men belonged to the 14th Tennessee Cavalry (U.S.), a white contingent. The rest were black soldiers, most serving with the 6th U.S. Heavy Artillery.
Nathan Bedford Forrest. Great at commanding cavalry. Questionable at humanity
After some initial skirmishing, during which time the fort’s commander, Major Lionel Booth was killed, General Forrest called for a truce to deliver surrender terms. There is some evidence that Forrest also used this ceasefire to improve the positioning of his soldiers. William Bradford, who had taken command from the deceased Booth, refused Forrest’s demand. The Confederates attacked with ferocity. While sharpshooters kept the garrison pinned, other troops scaled the embankments and entered the fort. (The Union troops could not fire over the parapets without being exposed. This allowed the Confederates to find shelter at the base of the walls). Union resistance collapsed. Much of the garrison threw down their arms and began a headlong retreat towards the Mississippi River.
Up until now, the engagement at Fort Pillow had been a battle. As Andrew Ward explains in River Run Red, that changed in a hurry. “[A]s the surrendering Federals threw down their weapons, waved their white flags, and begged the rebels for mercy, the attack on Fort Pillow mutated into murder.” Hundreds of Union troops were killed trying to escape or surrender. Some 60 black troopers were captured and re-enslaved. The surviving whites were marched off to Andersonville.
Overly dramatized depiction of the Massacre at Fort Pillow
Fort Pillow is a neglected episode of racial violence that does not fit neatly into the mythologized narrative of the Civil War. For that reason alone it bears study. I doubt I’m going to find a more thoroughly researched or comprehensive treatment than that supplied by River Run Red.
That is not to say this is the easiest read. Comprehensiveness comes at a cost. There is a lot of granular detail here, and the beginning is slow. I flatter myself with the belief that I’m a pretty dedicated Civil War buff. I first learned of Fort Pillow when I was 8 years old, as attested by an illustration I drew on the back of a Norwest Bank form my dad brought home from work. But even I had trouble keeping up with the unfamiliar characters and obscure units that coalesced around this drama. Ward devotes the first 150 pages to setting the context. This includes chapters on General Forrest, slavery in Tennessee, and even the Indiana and Iowa troops who first garrisoned Fort Pillow, who were gone before the massacre took place. (General Sherman had ordered the fort abandoned; General Stephen A. Hurlbut disobeyed that command, initially allowing its use as a recruiting station, before reinforcing it with black artillerymen).
I appreciate detail, and I would’ve felt cheated without these sections. However, it takes a bit of persistence and concentration to wade through it. That said, things pick up dramatically with Ward’s account of the battle, the massacre, and the aftermath. Ward is meticulous in his use of primary sources, and he quotes from them freely. He has a lot to work with, since the Congressional Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War immediately came to Tennessee to investigate and take statements. This provided a trove of contemporary accounts taken while the memories were still fresh. Pro-southern and pro-Forrest partisans would later try to deprecate this investigation, but everything we know about human memory says that these accounts – untainted by reflection or outside sources of information – are as close to accurate as memory gets.
Ward is very evenhanded in his presentation of the evidence. He is willing to step in and explain while this or that account might not be true, or is uncorroborated. He is a careful parser of sources, and does so within the text.
Since that fateful day in 1864, controversy has embroiled Fort Pillow. This controversy centers on the question of whether the Confederate victory was a “battle” or “massacre.” Ward’s ultimate conclusion – unsurprising given this book’s subtitle – is that a massacre took place. This is not a paradigm-shifting interpretation. It was the conclusion of the Joint Committee who talked to survivors. Almost all modern historians who have studied the evidence agree. A massacre did take place. That is a fact woven into the fabric of the world, attested to by dozens and dozens of primary source accounts from first-person eyewitnesses, white and black, Union and Confederate.
When we talk about controversy, then, we aren’t talking about whether or not Confederate cavalrymen slaughtered black soldiers as they begged for mercy. They did. The controversy is whether General Forrest ordered the annihilation. Ward presents the debate and concludes that he did not – at least, there is no evidence that he did.
It is not an unexpected conclusion. General Forrest was not the stupidest man who ever lived; therefore, he did not write out an order saying “Kill them all” and then distribute said order to his underlings. There is no smoking gun, as the saying goes, a reality shared by other mass murderers who are nevertheless held accountable for their crimes.
I am not as sanguine about General Forrest’s innocence in this matter as Ward. Forrest’s offer of truce concluded with the hard-to-misinterpret threat that if his demands were not met, “I cannot be responsible for the fate of your command.” I don’t care if you’re secretly bluffing or not. Once you put that out into the universe, there are no take-backs. Moreover, it’s pretty standard for the commander of an Army unit to bear responsibility for the actions of his troops. (In the same manner he gets all the credit for their successes). Forrest was on the field of battle – he had horses shot from beneath him – and he was aware of what occurred in that small, deadly space. There are no reports that Forrest – like Montcalm at Fort William Henry, pleading with the Abenaki – attempted to stop the remorseless killing. To the contrary, he was initially very pleased with himself. Only after public opinion proved against him did he start covering his tracks.
One way to stop a massacre: Montcalm at Fort William Henry
I understand that General Forrest has his backers. I’ll probably get hate mail from them, just like I received after I dared to impugn Stonewall Jackson. I don’t pretend to understand why. Even if we stipulate that General Forrest was innocent of any wrong at Fort Pillow. Even if we pretend he was as pure as driven snow, as blameless as Christ come down off the Cross, we still have to contend with these nagging facts: That Nathan Forrest was a slave owner. That he was a slave trader. That he was a slave catcher. That he was a Grand Wizard in the KKK. That he used the n-word with the frequency of a teenager saying “like.” None of this screams out heroic-figure-deserving-of-veneration.
Advertisement for Nathan B. Forrest's Human Selling business
Fort Pillow is worthy of attention because it underscores the role of slavery and race in the American Civil War. This is an overwhelming reality that people are still, to this day, attempting to subvert with revisionist nonsense about State’s rights and Lost Causes. Fort Pillow – and the treatment of black soldiers in general – demonstrates the hollowness of the subversion. (A century of Jim Crow provides the exclamation point). River Run Red needs to be a part of your Civil War library. This is part of the history of a war that divided a nation. This is part of the history that divides us still today.
March 23, 2024
This book starts off a bit confusingly for a reader like me, someone who knows a bit about the Civil War, but is relatively unfamiliar with the Battle at Fort Pillow. To begin with the author mentions dozens and dozens of people by name in the first hundred pages; it left me wondering who the key actors were. I could have benefited from a cast of characters. Also a decent map. This might be a pet peeve of mine, but I almost always wish history books had better maps. This one has only one map, and a fairly uninformative one.
That said, it was a good read. I learned about the massacre at Fort Pillow, motivated primarily it appeared by race-hatred for the black troops stationed there, as well as hatred for the "home-grown yankees"--that is, Tennesseans who had sided with the Union against their southern brothers like General Nathan Bedford Forrest, the leader of the attack on Fort Pillow.
Forrest is an amazing fellow, and this book ends up being more about him than Fort Pillow. Although he had no formal training, Forrest is one of the most admired generals of the Civil War. Shelby Foote, famous historian who helped narrate Ken Burns' Civil War film called him one of the two geniuses produced by the Civil War. The other being Lincoln.
However, Forrest's blatant racism is contemptible--even by 1860's standards. Not only did he conduct (or condone---there still seems to be an argument) a massacre at Fort Pillow, he made his pre-war money by slave-trading and then joined the Confederacy to defend that institution. After the war he became one of the leaders of the KKK.
He's still very admired in the south. I can attest to that. As it happens we recently took a trip through Mississippi and stayed at one of the restored mansions in Natchez, MS. The rooms were named after confederate generals and ours was the Nathan Bedford Forrest room. I'd like to read more about this guy.
That said, it was a good read. I learned about the massacre at Fort Pillow, motivated primarily it appeared by race-hatred for the black troops stationed there, as well as hatred for the "home-grown yankees"--that is, Tennesseans who had sided with the Union against their southern brothers like General Nathan Bedford Forrest, the leader of the attack on Fort Pillow.
Forrest is an amazing fellow, and this book ends up being more about him than Fort Pillow. Although he had no formal training, Forrest is one of the most admired generals of the Civil War. Shelby Foote, famous historian who helped narrate Ken Burns' Civil War film called him one of the two geniuses produced by the Civil War. The other being Lincoln.
However, Forrest's blatant racism is contemptible--even by 1860's standards. Not only did he conduct (or condone---there still seems to be an argument) a massacre at Fort Pillow, he made his pre-war money by slave-trading and then joined the Confederacy to defend that institution. After the war he became one of the leaders of the KKK.
He's still very admired in the south. I can attest to that. As it happens we recently took a trip through Mississippi and stayed at one of the restored mansions in Natchez, MS. The rooms were named after confederate generals and ours was the Nathan Bedford Forrest room. I'd like to read more about this guy.
August 23, 2012
I was disappointed in this book. The detail was so overwhelming that it it took away from the flow of the story. The author felt compelled to give a complete biographical background of seemingly every player in the story...I mean EVERYONE! Throwing in some interesting facts about the more general characters from time to time is a great way to liven things up...but, I personally, am not overly concerned about where "Joe" grew up and went to school and married when it has no bearing on the story line. It saddens me because this could have been amazing had Ward not felt the need to stretch this book into 390, mind-numbing pages. Like N.B. Forrest himself...it just kept going on, and on and on. On a positive note, I found the effects the massacre had on the country both immediately and further into the future very interesting.
April 27, 2024
I appreciate an author researching and writing about Tennessee history - I especially appreciate an author writing on one of the most controversial events in the career of one of the Civil War's more controversial figures.
In my view, one of the strengths of this book is that Ward spends a significant portion of the book providing context for the factors that helped drive events at Ft. Pillow and the importance of its legacy following the battle. In the lead up to the description of the battle, Ward helps the reader understand the different aspects and transitions between slave, contraband, and US soldier; and the recruitment of Tennesseans and Kentuckians into the US army, creating a number of dynamics. Ward also discusses the use and outcomes of ultimatums by Forrest and his commanders in conducing his campaign in Western Tennessee.
Ward's account of the battle doesn't end with the resolution of the battle. He discusses the treatment of prisoners, wounded, captured black US soldiers and follows them through different routes - to places like Andersonville, enslavement, escape, and rescue.
A significant part of this book is examining the shaping of the legacy of Ft. Pillow - the US investigation of the treatment of prisoners and the publicity of the battle and its aftermath; how it shaped the attitudes of Confederate and US troops; and how its legacy represented one of the culture wars of the Lost Cause movement.
One thing that detracts from this book, in my view, is Ward's sometimes odd language choices. One of Nathan Bedford Forrest's nicknames was the Wizard of the Saddle, and Ward made the decision to use Wizard and Forrest interchangeably through the narrative creating odd sentences like "the Wizard sent his men north to attack..." Artillery embrasures have become portholes in Ward's telling. His definition of sharpshooters is more expansive than any I've seen. There also is the odd report of 3.5 pound Parrot gun.
In my view, one of the strengths of this book is that Ward spends a significant portion of the book providing context for the factors that helped drive events at Ft. Pillow and the importance of its legacy following the battle. In the lead up to the description of the battle, Ward helps the reader understand the different aspects and transitions between slave, contraband, and US soldier; and the recruitment of Tennesseans and Kentuckians into the US army, creating a number of dynamics. Ward also discusses the use and outcomes of ultimatums by Forrest and his commanders in conducing his campaign in Western Tennessee.
Ward's account of the battle doesn't end with the resolution of the battle. He discusses the treatment of prisoners, wounded, captured black US soldiers and follows them through different routes - to places like Andersonville, enslavement, escape, and rescue.
A significant part of this book is examining the shaping of the legacy of Ft. Pillow - the US investigation of the treatment of prisoners and the publicity of the battle and its aftermath; how it shaped the attitudes of Confederate and US troops; and how its legacy represented one of the culture wars of the Lost Cause movement.
One thing that detracts from this book, in my view, is Ward's sometimes odd language choices. One of Nathan Bedford Forrest's nicknames was the Wizard of the Saddle, and Ward made the decision to use Wizard and Forrest interchangeably through the narrative creating odd sentences like "the Wizard sent his men north to attack..." Artillery embrasures have become portholes in Ward's telling. His definition of sharpshooters is more expansive than any I've seen. There also is the odd report of 3.5 pound Parrot gun.
June 4, 2025
20 years on from this books initial publication and it is clumsy in its dealings with race and the Confederacy. I imagine at the time, with the height of W. Bush and that brand of conservatism that took lost narratives as unquestionable facts, this book pushed back on the prevailing trends in the historiography. However, now, one finds themselves wanting much more. time for a new book on this massacre that unflinchingly condemns the confederacy for its hate and destruction.
August 20, 2023
I must say, I was quite impressed with this book. I went from knowing nothing of the Fort Pillow incident to being pretty comfortable with many of the facts involved. This book did great describing the details of Fort Pillow's military presence, the battle, and the aftereffects of that very battle. There were many details about the injuries, military behaviors, and the endeavors of the propaganda of the day that help really help one to understand the general atmosphere of those times. I also enjoyed how the author went into a little detail about Nathan Forrest and how he grew up, and how he became the villain he is in history.
Honestly, this book is a must read for anyone delving into American history. The only thing that stops this from being a 5 star book is different parts where the author seemed to inject a tiny bit of his personal opinion of the person/event. Like I get the material may be divisive, especially in todays world, but let the reader come to their own conclusions rather than hinting at how much disdain you have. Lastly, as a Christian, I thought that it was weird how the author made reference to a bible story and instead of calling God, well God, they decided to call Him yahweh, a word only recognized by a particular sect of Christians that doesn't jive with actual bible verses or translations. Normal people won't care, but it's just a thing I scratched my head at. Usually, people writing about history are very generalized and stray away from their own interpretations of bible scripture just so the average Joe can pick up their book without being confused. But again, it's a personal preference that doesn't affect the book as a whole.
Honestly, this book is a must read for anyone delving into American history. The only thing that stops this from being a 5 star book is different parts where the author seemed to inject a tiny bit of his personal opinion of the person/event. Like I get the material may be divisive, especially in todays world, but let the reader come to their own conclusions rather than hinting at how much disdain you have. Lastly, as a Christian, I thought that it was weird how the author made reference to a bible story and instead of calling God, well God, they decided to call Him yahweh, a word only recognized by a particular sect of Christians that doesn't jive with actual bible verses or translations. Normal people won't care, but it's just a thing I scratched my head at. Usually, people writing about history are very generalized and stray away from their own interpretations of bible scripture just so the average Joe can pick up their book without being confused. But again, it's a personal preference that doesn't affect the book as a whole.
September 29, 2024
A very comprehensive book about Fort Pillow. So comprehensive that I'd almost say it was not about Fort Pillow but so much more about Nathan Bedford Forrest. A good book for sure--well researched and taking a neutral, scholarly approach.
May 16, 2021
I did not know much about Fort Pillow. This gave e great account of the Fort Pillow Massacre. A must read for Civil War enthusiasts.
January 3, 2011
Excellent book about the Fort Pillow massacre. The first person accounts are chilling--brutal. The author ends the book by reporting that in 1995, a gigantic statue of the massacre's leader, General Forrest, was erected at "Confederate Flag Park" in Brentwood, Tennessee. No, not 1895. "Historian" Shelby Foote claimed in Ken Burns's Civil War series that "Forrest had been not only a kindly slave trader but a force for moderation in the Ku Klux Klan." WTF? Fact check, please...Oh, and this gem, " The day that black people admire Frrest as much as I do, is the day when they will be free and equal, for they will have gotten prejudice out of their minds as we whites are trying to get out it of ours." SERIOUSLY?
February 19, 2008
I was, frankly, expecting something more exciting, along the lines of one of Coyle's novels about the American civil war.
This book is not a novel but a history, and a detailed one at that. The author has evidently performed considerable research and gives a lot of detailed information on the background, the people, the locale, etc.
Unfortunately it was rather too dry for my taste. OK for a scholar interested in the period, but not for someone hoping for a gut-wrenching war story.
This book is not a novel but a history, and a detailed one at that. The author has evidently performed considerable research and gives a lot of detailed information on the background, the people, the locale, etc.
Unfortunately it was rather too dry for my taste. OK for a scholar interested in the period, but not for someone hoping for a gut-wrenching war story.
October 17, 2010
Everyone knows that I dislike books that expand the focus way beyond the subject matter for the sake of fattening the book. The first person accounts are enough to make this a rich, albeit shorter, text. An editor would have been lovely. Also, the reference to NBF as the "Wizard" off/on throughout the book drove me crazy.
September 4, 2015
Feeling about blacks ran high on both sides during the American Civil War. The capture of Fort Pillow by Confederate forces led to unchecked killings of Union troops. The author condemns military leaders on both sides exposing their weaknesses. This is an enlightening read of the Civil War.
December 23, 2008
Own
Read parts needed for a PowerPoint project.
Read parts needed for a PowerPoint project.
August 4, 2011
Comprehensive and convincing.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews