Lee's Maverick General: Daniel Harvey Hill

by Leonard Hal Bridges, Gary W. Gallagher (Introduction)

Among the high-ranking gray uniforms Daniel Harvey Hill caused a stir as a sash of red in a bullpen would. Hot-tempered, outspoken, he stormed his way through the Civil War, leading his soldiers at Malvern Hill and Antietam, and sometimes stepping on the toes of superiors. But he was much more than a seemingly impervious shield against Union a devout Christian, a family man, a gloomy fatalist, an intellectual. Lee’s Maverick General makes clear that he was often caught in the crossfire of military politics and ultimately made a scapegoat for the costly, barren victory at Chickamauga. Hal Bridges, drawing on Hill’s unpublished papers, offers an outsider’s inside views of Lee, Jefferson Davis, Braxton Bragg, James Longstreet, Stonewall Jackson, and others up and down the embattled line. In his introduction, Gary W. Gallagher rounds out the portrait of the controversial Hill, whose reading of military affairs was always perceptive.

Genres: Civil War, Biography, History, American Civil War

323 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1961

Reviews

[Sean Chick · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a military biography, so nearly every failure is excused and all critics are pilloried. Hill was such a caustic man that his critics were legion. In fact, one will be hard pressed to find a high ranking Rebel general not named Jackson or Hill who comes in for praise. Bragg, Polk, and Davis are skewered as they often are. Longstreet comes under fire as a self-serving liar of average talent. The real interest is in the portrait of Lee as talented but nothing more. Coming in before the current anti-Lee vogue (as I write his New Orleans statue is being considered for removal) it is interesting. Bridges is a bit more restrained in discussing Lee. Today he would no doubt be blunt.

The book is aided by solid prose and mostly good research. It falls apart a bit in the last few chapters, where Bridges has trouble defending Hill's pettiness over rank. In the end, Bridges thinks Hill was one of the war's best commanders. I was not quite so convinced. He came off as brave, a good tactician, shrewd strategist, but completely failing to understand men. The later is crucial in all human endeavors. Bridges knows this but is not as forthright in this regard.

As with most biographers he fell in love with his subject.

That being said, I would have loved to see Hill in action, because he is the Stannis Baratheon of the CSA: gloomy, brave, dutiful, and arrogant.

[Lloyd · Rating 5 out of 5]

This biography of Confederate General Daniel Harvey Hill (“D. H. Hill”) provides very insightful information about the Southern High Command and its inner workings. It provides information that seems to be largely ignored or sidelined in most literature about those commanders. This biography truly emphasizes the fiction that existed in the command structure and how that friction impacted results on the field of battle. All of this information is well documented in the footnotes. Mr. Bridges certainly did his homework when he researched General Hill’s military career. Petty jealousies and perceived slights of honor (pride) took up much of the time and energy of the officer corp. These were prideful men and men very concerned with their personal reputations. Those concerns led to many time-consuming arrests, charges preferred against one another, challenges to duel and courts of inquiry.
General D. H. Hill is presented as a very capable and able leader of men in battle as well as a man of great personal bravery. However, he is also presented as a man who didn’t suffer fools graciously and wasn’t shy about expressing his opinion of those “fools”. Surprisingly to me, Hill even had the audacity to criticize Robert E. Lee contemporaneously as events occurred. Few Southern Generals ever criticized Lee while he still lived let alone at the time the war was in progress. Most such criticism did not occur until after Lee’s death in 1870.
Hill’s forthright opinions certainly did railroad his own military career as General Braxton Bragg and President Jefferson Davis unfairly and spitefully made General Hill the scapegoat for the hollow Confederate victory at Chickamauga. Their primary reason for making Hill the scapegoat was his unequivocal and honest criticisms of Bragg’s performance as Commander of the Army of Tennessee. President Davis especially comes off as a vindictive liar primarily interested protecting the reputations of his personal friends, Generals Bragg and Polk, who were both clearly poor performers as military men. In particular, Bragg received much contemporary criticism as well as criticism from future historians for his performance during the Civil War.
All in all, this is a very interesting biography of a Confederate General whose contributions as a military leader hasn’t received as much attention from historians as he deserves based upon his accomplishments during the Peninsula Campaign, the Seven Days, Antietam and Chickamauga to name a few

[Iain · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bridges's work here is a master class in the historian's art. I suspect he was one of the first, modern historians, when he wrote this back in the 50's.

He doesn't take the word of the major historical personas for granted, rather he questions their testimony. Using letters, journals, and records left by participants both major and minor, he builds a case vindicating Harvey Hill.

And he's so adept at his art, it's a joy to read.

In the end, the reader is left with a greater appreciation for DH Hill's service while Longstreet, Davis, and yes, even the mythical Robert E Lee are seen in a unflattering light.

[Christian Larsen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very personal and great bio of an often forgotten general

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

In history, it's often the victors who decide how it's written, but it's also often certain powerful cliques of people. While the American Civil War is remarkable partly for how much the losing side shaped the historical narrative, one thing the Confederate side of Civil War history making shared with the Union side was cliques. On the Union side, anyone who wasn't part of the Grant-Sherman-Sheridan crowd was pushed aside to burnish the stars of those war leaders. On the Confederate side, anyone who ran afoul of Robert E. Lee was bound to be marginalized. General D.H. Hill had the misfortune to cross not only Lee, but also Jefferson Davis, Braxton Bragg, and other influencial Southern leaders.

Daniel Harvey Hill is a somewhat difficult subject. As a military leader, he was courageous almost to the point of ridiculousness, he was industrious, and tactically skilled. As a man, he was highly intelligent and he lived with integrity and strove to exemplify the principles he stood for by his conduct. D. H. Hill was also sarcastic, touchy, stubborn, and all too willing to express his opinions and criticisms with regard for the feelings of others or consequences to himself.

Hal Bridges does a great job capturing the complexities and sometimes contradictions of Hill. While obviously sympathetic to the general, he is also scrupulous in pointing out Hill's flaws and errors. Bridges does a service to Civil War enthusiasts by bringing an important, but lesser known Civil War general's career to light. He also plumbs the depths of the controversies that followed Hill through his career as a Confederate general, examines the all of the possible explanations, and looks at Hill's disagreements and rivalries with other prominent Confederates.

Bridges' narrative is an easy, pleasant read, and is relatively brief. While he does touch on Hill's antebellum life, and his life and career after the Civil War, this is primarily a military biography. If you're interested in the Civil War, I can't recommend it enough. This book provides an interesting side to the Confederate story outside that of the Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis cliques. If you're not terribly interested in Civil War history, while this is an excellent biography, it may hold limited interest for you.

[Jimmy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Almost entirely focused on the general's Civil War career. The author does a good job describing Hill's role in the war, while also providing many quotes from his letters to show his personality. However, there are several minor things which pushes this book's rating towards three and a half stars: While there are a half dozen maps, all of them simply show the general area of the campaign being discussed in the text; none actually show the movement of units under Hill's command. The book also wanders off-topic in a couple places (for example, most of chapter eight is a detailed analysis of what Lee actually did at the Battle of Shepardstown, even D.H. Hill played a very minor role in the engagement). The four month Carolinas Campaign was covered in a single (extremely brief) paragraph with Hill's activities covered in a single sentence, only that he "was ordered to field duty". His role at Bentonville was ignored completely.

[Kacie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I used this book to write my Master's thesis about DH Hill. It is a book about his military career and I focused on Hill, the man, but it is great for details of his military tactics and battle information, as well as getting a greater look at the kind of warrior he truly was.

[Avis Black · Rating 2 out of 5]

Harvey Hill is an interesting subject, but this biography is both very out-of-date and biased. Unfortunately, it's also his only biography.