BOOK REVIEWS
The Life and Times of Daniel Lindley
(1801-80): Missionary to the Zulus,
Pastor of the Voortrekkers, Ubebe
Omhlope. By Edwin W. Smith. (New
York, Library Publishers, 1952.
xxx+456p., illustrations, end-paper
maps, biographical table, glossary, and
index. $5.50.)
This is a record of the colorful and
adventurous career of one of the first
American missionaries in South Africa.
The name of Daniel Lindley has
been perpetuated in the name of a town
in South Africa, and a large airplane
has been christened in his honor. His
name "rings lovely in the ears of
Afrikaners." Seventy years after
his death this first biography has been
published, which should make his name
better known in his native land.
Daniel Lindley was born at Ten Mile
Creek in Western Pennsylvania
in 1801. His forebears had been pioneers
in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
In 1803 his father, Jacob Lindley, moved
to Waterford, Ohio, near
Marietta. Five years later he became
professor and first preceptor of Ohio
University and minister of the
Presbyterian Church at Athens. Daniel
graduated at Ohio University in 1824 and
the same fall entered the
theological seminary at Hampton-Sydney
College, which before his gradua-
tion in 1831 had become the Union
Theological Seminary. After graduation
he accepted a call to the Presbyterian
Church at Rocky River, North Carolina.
In 1834 he resigned a highly successful
pastorate there to volunteer for
the mission field in the service of the
American Board of Commissioners
for Foreign Missions. In December of
that year he sailed with his wife of
a few weeks, the lovely Lucy Allen, and
five other missionary couples bound
for South Africa. They arrived six years
before the advent of David
Livingston on the dark continent. Three
of the couples, including the
Lindleys, trekked inland for over one
thousand miles by ox wagons across
burning deserts, over treacherous
mountain trails, through fertile valleys,
fording swollen rivers, and suffered all
the hardships of the trail. They
reached Mosega in February 1836 and
there began the building of a mission
among the Matebele. Daniel Lindley had
considerable influence with their
great chief Mzilikazi, and for a time
the prospects for the mission were
encouraging.
The arrival of the American missionaries
in South Africa almost coincided
with the beginning of the Great Trek of
the Boers. As the warfare between
the Boers and the native tribes
threatened the safety of the mission, the
192
Book Reviews 193
missionaries felt it prudent to
withdraw. They made the trek south into
Natal with the Boers. At Port Natal
Lindley set up a school for Dutch
children (and adults) and was made the
predikant of the Dutch Reformed
Church, after having been released by
the American Board. This phase of
his career was highly useful, and he was
virtually the founder of the Dutch
Reformed Church in the Transvaal, in
Natal, and in the Orange Free State.
Highly respected by Piet Retief and
other Boer leaders, it is possible that
he may have indirectly influenced the
form of government in the Transvaal.
His ministry to the Boers lasted for
seven and a half years.
During this period (in December 1842)
the British government had
taken control of Natal and was trying to
work out the problem of the
existence of the black and white races
in the same territory. Lindley's
understanding of the problem and
influence with all groups brought about
his appointment by the British
government as a member of a commission
to apportion lands in
"locations" for the native tribes. In this work he was
associated with the great South African
statesman Theophilus Shepstone.
In 1847 Lindley returned to the work
among the Zulus, establishing a
station on the Inanda location in Natal.
Here he and Mrs. Lindley labored
with great devotion for a quarter of a
century. In 1873 the Lindleys
gave up their work in Natal and returned
to the United States, where they
were near some of their eleven children.
Mrs. Lindley died in 1877 and
Lindley himself in 1880. One must read
the book to get a clear picture of
the man-handsome, athletic, courageous,
and lovable. He played an im-
portant part in the history of South
Africa, especially in the founding of
the Christian mission among the Zulus.
The author, Dr. Edwin W. Smith, has
written numerous books on Africa,
including The Mabilles of Basutoland and
the Aggrey of Africa. He is
thoroughly conversant with the history
of South Africa, which is the
background for most of Lindley's career.
His principal sources for the
biography are the voluminous family
correspondence, Mrs. Lindley's diary,
the archives of the American Board, and
the archives and standard histories
of South Africa. He has handled these
materials with great skill to produce
on
excellent biography.
In view of the excellence of the book it
seems trivial to point out in-
frequent minor imperfections. A few
should perhaps be noted. The state-
ment that Marietta, Waterford, and
Belpre were the first three towns in
the "Western valley of the
Ohio" (p. 16) is misleading. Columbia,
194
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
Losantiville, and North Bend were all
founded by February 1789 in the
Cincinnati area, which would also be in
the "Western valley." That Wilsor
Shannon was a contemporary of Lindley at
Ohio University is subject to
question. Present officials at the
university can find no record of Shannon'9
attendance there. He is listed in the
register of Franklin College at New
Athens as a member of the class of 1826.
It is possible that nearly all of
his biographical sketches have
perpetuated a confusion between Athens and
New Athens. The index is generally
adequate, but a few omissions were
noted, including that of Ohio
University, to which several pages are devoted
There is a misprint, "hree"
for "three" (p. 98), and "thridded" (p. 8)
is obsolete. The reference to the Ohio
State Archaeological and Historical
Quarterly (p. 16, n. 18) should be to Volume L instead of to
Volume I
The use of single quotation marks
instead of double quotation marks
throughout is a departure from usual
printing practice. The book deserves
a more substantial binding.
Ohio State Archaeological S. WINIFRED SMITH
and Historical Society
The Northern Railroads in the Civil
War, 1861-1865. By Thomas Weber
(New York, King's Crown Press, 1952.
xii+318p., bibliography and
index. $4.00.)
Unlike many specialists when writing of
a war, Weber is not too emphatic
in suggesting that his specialty--in
this case, railroads--was responsible for
the victory. His relatively modest claim
for the share of credit due the
iron horse in the military operations of
the Civil War is found in his
conclusion: "In a mobile war such
as the Civil War was, the railroads thus
played a leading part in the whole
drama. With them, the North might
still have lost, but without them, it is
certain that victory would not have
come." This was substantially the opinion
reached in 1912 by Frederic L.
Paxson.
The author's other findings in this
detailed study would seem rather
less obvious if we had not just finished
a war of our own in which
technology was so all-pervading. More
efficient methods of constructing
and destroying track and bridges, new
techniques in ready-made bridges
and trestles built on an assembly line
basis, and the introduction of special
equipment, such as armored cars,
hospital cars, and hospital trains--these
Book Reviews 195
are about the contributions we would
expect railroading to make to the
science of war.
More striking, perhaps, were the war's
contributions to the science of rail-
roading, such as the introduction of
railway post-office cars, the beginning
of the shift from iron to steel,
particularly for rails, the hastening of
the shift from wood to coal as fuel,
and, in general, the development of
new ways of doing things and new
materials for use in equipment and
rolling stock. At times, however, Weber
is skating on the thin ice of dum
hoc ergo propter hoc. He maintains that "it was through the increasing
cooperation of the railroads during the
war period that the stage was set
for the expansion of the post-war
years."
It is brought out that despite the great
profits of the war years, the
carriers were unable because of labor
and material shortages to avoid a
progressive deterioration of rolling
stock and equipment; and as the
conflict went on, many roads showed a
drop in net income in the face of
record gross earnings. One learns that
the two keys to success in operating
military railroads were: no military
interference with the running of
trains, and prompt unloading and prompt
return of empty cars.
It is to be regretted that the author
did not devote sufficient attention
to his literary style to make his
scholarly work inviting to the educated
people known as "general
readers." In addition to a few typographical or
other slips, there are some not very
important errors of fact: calling the
Steubenville and Indiana Railroad the
Pittsburgh and Steubenville (p. 21);
speaking of "scrap-iron" (p.
163) and "scrap rail" (p. 173) where "strap"
was meant; referring to the Cleveland
and Pittsburgh Railroad instead of
the Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati
(p. 183); writing that the Ohio
and Mississippi Railroad was controlled
by the Little Miami road (p. 241).
The principal point with which one might
take issue is Weber's claim
that cooperation among the railroads
before the war was slight, and developed
largely as a result of that struggle.
This view minimizes the quite con-
siderable cooperation and numerous
through routes in existence before the
war started. The rest of his conclusions,
however, appear to be un-
exceptionable. There are unfortunately
no maps, but the notes and bibliog-
raphy seem adequate. The book should be
read in conjunction with
Robert C. Black III's excellent The
Railroads of the Confederacy for a
well-rounded view of all our railroads
in the Civil War.
Columbus, Ohio WALTER RUMSEY MARVIN
196
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
History of the Ohio State University:
The Story of Its First Seventy-Five
Years, 1873-1948. By James E. Pollard. (Columbus, The Ohio State
University Press, 1952. vii+434p.,
appendices and index. $3.50.)
Each succeeding year sees numerous
additions to the long shelf of
histories and asserted histories of
individual colleges and universities.
Properly conceived and intelligently
executed, such books constitute valuable
contributions to the history of ideas
and social institutions. The college
is a mirror of the faith and values of
the community that sponsors and
supports it. It follows that the history
of higher education affords a rich
field for the study of the history of
American culture.
The book at hand is the authorized and
official "history" of Ohio
State University. Actually it is not a
history but a collection of annals. The
chronicle of administrative developments
is recited in a staggering flow
of information, but the recital never
goes deeper than mere journalism.
Again and again the reader finds himself
tantalized by the superficiality of
the account or the deficiency of the
data. It appears that the research for
this book was confined largely to the
newspapers, the miscellany of official
publications, and the records of the
board of trustees. Anyone who has
carried on investigations in the history
of American higher education is
aware of the inadequacy of these
sources. Trustees' minutes record action,
and action is not unimportant, but they
rarely explain why the action
was taken.
The history of a college is more than a
record of administrative decisions,
of plant construction, appropriations,
and such objective data. These
tangibles, properly interpreted, are
significant. But even more significant
are the intangibles. The physical plant
is, at best, mere housing for men
working with ideas. The essential
history of the university is the history
of those ideas. What was taught at
O.S.U.? To that question, admittedly
large and recalcitrant, this book gives
little heed.
The history of the Ohio State University
is still to be written. There
is much that we need to know. Why did
the people of Ohio treat the
university so penuriously in the early
decades? Why did Michigan, Wis-
consin, and Iowa, younger and poorer,
succeed in creating institutions far
superior to Ohio's? How significant was
the opposition in this state of
the churches and church-related
colleges? Was the appointment of ministers
to the presidency during most of the
first half century an accident or an
accommodation to group pressure? Why did
O.S.U., endowed by the
national government as a college of
agriculture and engineering, neglect
Book Reviews 197
these fields and attempt to simulate the
old-line classical colleges? And
why have intellectual freedom and
independence been more vulnerable
in this university than in other public
and private universities?
These questions are not academic. They
go to the inward meaning of
education in a democracy. Does democracy
require compromise of in-
tellectual values in public
institutions, or is accommodation to group
pressure merely the currency with which
administrators buy bigger ap-
propriations ?
Oberlin College THOMAS LEDUC
Historical Editing. By Clarence E. Carter. (Bulletins of the National
Archives,
No. 7, Washington, U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1952. 51p. $0.20.)
In editing the works of George
Washington more than a century ago,
Jared Sparks did not hesitate to change
the texts of documents in order
to correct style, spelling, and grammar.
He and other contemporary editors
felt justified in deleting parts of
sentences, whole sentences, and whole
passages, with no indication of having
done so. Sparks was a man of
integrity, honesty, and considerable
ability, and in his writing and
editing he reflected the methodology of
his day; but the canons of historical
editing have changed.
The task of today's editor is to
reproduce the documents of his project
with "meticulous accuracy,"
exercising "vigilant care" even to the copying
with fidelity of such minutiae as
punctuation as it appears in the manuscript.
The omission of a comma in the first
official printing of the Ordinance of
1787, and the omission of a semicolon in
the official published text of the
Webster-Ashburton treaty--errors which
brought subsequent controversy and
litigation--the author cites as examples
of the misrepresentation that can
occur in even the slightest mistakes in
copying. As for faithfulness in
reproducing errors and irregularities in
the originals themselves, he says,
"When human beings may be observed
only through documents, the
characteristics that make them human
should not be erased because an
editor finds that irritating" (p.
6).
In any editorial undertaking the editor
is "the key figure." Upon his
shoulders rests the responsibility for
the choice of techniques to be used,
the decisions made on all points of
dispute involving editing principles,
and their application. Clarence Edwin
Carter, whose eminence among
present-day historical editors is well
known and without dispute, has set
198 Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
forth in this pamphlet the techniques,
the methodology, and the theory of
historical editing taken from his
extensive experience in this field.
Although this bulletin has been prepared
primarily as a general discussion
of editing problems for the instruction
of staff members of the National
Archives, it is more than this. The
principles and rules set forth basically
are those which should be employed by
historians engaged in the repro-
duction and editing of materials for
publication in professional journals
and elsewhere. Historical Editing certainly
should be studied by those with
little or no experience in such a
venture. And it would do well for even
the more seasoned scholar to use it as a
refresher. The task of the editor
is not an easy one; nor is it one that
should be lightly assumed by one who
is not willing to meet its exacting
standards.
Ohio State University DWIGHT L. SMITH
The American Socialist Movement,
1897-1912. By Ira Kipnis. (New York,
Columbia University Press, 1952. 496p.,
bibliography and index. $6.00.)
This volume is a careful study of the
Socialist party from its organization
through the stormy years that brought it
to its greatest strength in the
election of 1912 and to a subsequent
period of decline. Preliminary
attention is given to the forerunners of
the party, including the Social-
Democratic party of 1874, which later
joined in forming the Working
Men's party of 1876, which in turn
became the Socialist Labor Party of
North America in 1877. During the 1890's
opposition to the doctrinaire
leadership of Daniel De Leon led to
schism in the Socialist Labor party
at a time when many labor unionists,
Bellamy Nationalists, and others
were avowing their devotion to Socialist
principles and seeking an or-
ganization which would not avoid an
appeal to middle-class people.
Bitter feuds continued within the
Socialist organizations which emerged,
but by 1901 the new Socialist party had
been formed, though differences
in ideology soon were expressed in
factionalism that divided this party into
Right, Center, and Left wings. For a
time the Left and Center groups
aimed at winning elections on all government
levels as steps toward eventual
control by the working class, while the
Right sought to employ a policy
of gradualism, advocating government
ownership of utilities as a step
toward socialism. More immediately the
Right endeavored to cooperate with
reform groups on the municipal level to
secure home rule, city ownership
of public utilities, better schools and
hospitals, and civil service reform.
Book Reviews 199
All factions were opposed to union labor
party movements and showed
little concern for the rights of the
foreign-born, Negroes, and women.
By 1905-6 the Center and Left had ceased
to cooperate, and the Center
joined the Right in emphasizing a
gradualist approach designed to attract
middle-class and even wealthy
public-spirited persons. As a result, a number
of millionaires and numerous
middle-class reformers joined the party. This
accentuated differences between the new
Center-Right and the Left wings,
as members of the latter exhibited
spirited enthusiasm for the radical
I.W.W. Hence the years 1907-8 proved to
be stagnant ones in the growth
of the movement.
The Socialist press during the period
was surprisingly large, there being
323 papers and periodicals in 1912.
Other means of propaganda were
Socialist Sunday Schools and the endowed
Rand School of Social Science
in New York. Efforts, not without
success, were also made to win liberal
Protestant ministers to a Christian
approach to the Socialist cause.
In 1910 the first Socialist (Victor
Berger) to be elected to congress was
chosen from a Milwaukee district, and
the party gained control of the city
government in Milwaukee on a reform program.
As a result, according to
the author, the city obtained "two
years of honest, reform government."
The next year over a thousand Socialists
won political office in 337 towns
and cities. These victories, however,
were generally achieved on a program
of reform rather than socialism.
By 1912 the party had become more
militant. In the presidential election
Eugene V. Debs polled 900,000 votes, but
the party lost its one seat in
congress. As the party had grown in
strength, bitter factionalism had in-
creased, the gradualist,
"constructive" Socialists of the Right denouncing
the Left as revolutionists who were
committed to chicanery and violence.
By 1912 leaders like La Follette,
Roosevelt, and Wilson represented
progressivism in the major parties, and socialism
lost much of its appeal
to reformers. Continuing factionalism
led to the expulsion of the Left
Wing from the party in 1919, and by 1921
party membership had declined
to 13,500. The author concludes,
"Whatever the future of socialism in
America, it no longer lay with the
Socialist Party."
The book is a significant aid to an
understanding of the history of
leftist political activity in America.
Ohioans will be interested to learn
that during 1905-6 the Toledo Socialist
was the national organ of left wing
Socialists and that in 1911 there were
8,000 party members in the state.
Ohio State University FRANCIS P. WEISENBURGER
200 Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
Veterans in Politics: The Story of
the G.A.R. By Mary R. Dearing. (Baton
Rouge, Louisiana State University Press,
1952. x+523p., illustrations,
bibliographical note, and index. $6.00.)
As the very last of the Union Civil War
veterans are passing from the
American scene, it is indeed fitting
that a scholarly study should be
presented of one of the most formidable
pressure groups in United States
history, the Grand Army of the Republic.
Mrs. Dearing has been tireless
in examining official records, personal
correspondence, newspapers, and
other sources to discover the
extraordinary role which veterans played in
the political life of the country in the
generations after the Civil War.
Careful attention is devoted to a
certain initial advantage which Democrats
enjoyed among the soldiers during the
war (due to the popularity of
Democratic commanders like McClellan)
and to the successful Republican
efforts to alter that situation.
Evidence is also presented of the discontent
which expressed itself through various
soldiers' organizations as economic
and social readjustment was necessary
for the reorientation of the veteran
to civilian life from 1865 to 1867.
After the first G.A.R. post was
established in April 1866, Republican
politicians soon sensed the
possibilities of the organization as a means of
prolonging war hatreds and of
devitalizing the crucial economic and political
issues of the time. In order to appeal
to veterans of varying views an
appearance of nonpartisanship was
displayed, though the organization in
reality was used constantly as a
powerful boon to the Republican party.
Shrewd techniques were employed to bring
G.A.R. members to exert
pressure upon senators to vote for
Johnson's conviction on impeachment
charges, to secure Grant's election to
the presidency, and in other ways to
advance Republican political programs.
Beginning in 1868, veterans for
a time showed a spirit of indifference
to the G.A.R., but Republican
politicians--important and local figures
alike--along with pension claims
agents and editors of veterans'
newspapers, labored to revive flogging
enthusiasm. War veterans were regularly
nominated for the presidency
by the Republicans, and even in 1884
when James G. Blaine, the "Plumed
Knight" of civilian life, was given
the leadership of the party, the vice
presidential candidate was the
vociferous General John A. Logan. The
party also sought increasingly to lure
votes by pension promises. Cleveland,
successful Democratic candidate in 1884,
as president displayed a zeal for
reforming the evils of dubious pension
grants. This brought down upon
him the wrath of Republican leaders who
used the issue in 1888 to help
Book Reviews 201
elect Benjamin Harrison, in whose
administration pension payments were
extravagantly liberal.
By 1890 the G.A.R., claiming 427,981
members, had reached the apex
of its power. During the years of its
great vitality, it concerned itself also
with an insistence upon
"loyal" school history which would not under-
estimate the significance of the Union
triumph in 1865, with flag-raising
ceremonies, and with economic conservatism
and anti-immigration views.
In 1896 various appeals were made to the
veterans to support the
Republican party. One argument urged
that Bryan's bimetallic program
would debase the value of pension
allotments. Undoubtedly G.A.R.
members contributed to McKinley's
victory. By that time, however, the
membership was already declining. In
1900 there were only 276,662
members, and the downward trend
continued until 1949, when only six
veterans attended the last encampment in
Indianapolis.
Ohioans will find a special interest in
the activities of various leaders
of the state, such as Governor Foraker,
who were prominent in G.A.R.
affairs, and all students will find the
volume a valuable contribution to a
realistic understanding of post-Civil War
United States history.
Ohio State University FRANCIS P. WEISENBURGER
The War of the Revolution. By Christopher L. Ward. Edited by John
Richard Alden. Two volumes. (New York,
The Macmillan Company,
1952. xiv+viii+989p., maps, notes, glossary
of military terms, appendices,
principal authorities, and index.
$15.00.)
The reader whose primary concern is the
political, social, or economic
aspect of the struggle for American
independence will find relatively
little to interest him in The War of
the Revolution. On the other hand,
anyone who is pursuing the military
history of the conflict will search long
and, in the opinion of this reviewer,
fruitlessly for a more competent
and informative work. As the title
implies, these two volumes cover only
the military operations of the American
Revolution, supplemented by
a minimum of explanatory background
material. Any doubt on this score
is erased promptly and clearly by
Christopher Ward in his modest preface.
Subscribing to John Adams' thesis that
the actual revolution occurred
in the minds of the people and in the
union of the colonies before
hostilities commenced, the author sets
out to tell the story of the war
that resulted from that revolution. He
accomplishes his purpose most
admirably.
202
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
The first volume and part of the
second--fifty-six chapters in all--are
devoted to the operations north of
Virginia. Approximately half as
many chapters are required to chronicle
the war in the South. Every
campaign, battle, siege, or engagement
of any consequence is reported
carefully and in considerable detail.
The author's decision to employ a
geographical approach appears to have
been a happy one. Any attempt
to adhere to a strict chronological
treatment would have inevitably resulted
in extreme confusion.
Even as the origins of the Revolutionary
War are to be found in events
that preceded the outbreak of
hostilities by at least a dozen years, so can the
origins of The War of the Revolution be
traced back a like number of years.
In 1941 Mr. Ward, a Wilmington attorney
and writer with a strong native
pride and an abiding interest in
Delaware's role in the war for independence,
published The Delaware Continentals,
1776-1783. This volume, which
purported to recount the activities of
the Delaware regiment on behalf
of the American cause, was received with
mixed reactions. While the author's
skillful craftsmanship was generally
conceded, it was felt in many quarters
that at times the central theme slipped
from his grasp and disappeared in
a profusion of detail. This was
understandable, for the Delaware regiment
figured in nearly every major campaign.
One may well suspect that a gnawing
desire to consummate this flirtation
with a comprehensive study of all the
military operations inspired Mr. Ward,
an octogenarian, to turn out nearly
a thousand pages on the subject. Much of
The Delaware Continentals
appears in the second volume, but some
forty new chapters precede the
ones of earlier vintage. When death
overtook the author before his
manuscript went to press, John Richard
Alden of the University of
Nebraska assumed the responsibility for
editing it. Only minor changes
and corrections were necessary, but the
editor added a chapter on the phase
of the war beyond the Alleghenies which
had been omitted by the author.
It is neither possible nor desirable to
summarize a book of this character.
It must be read to be appreciated.
Although presenting only fact and
considered opinion, it has the
captivating qualities of a first-rate historical
novel. Mr. Ward's facility with words
has enabled him to create a
smoothly flowing narrative which renders
painless the assimilation of
countless details. The extensive
bibliography and not infrequent wisely-
chosen quotations attest to his
familiarity with the sources. The numerous
character sketches are excellent,
transforming names into vibrant per-
sonalities. A valiant and usually successful
effort is made to be fair and
Book Reviews 203
judicious, as in the treatment of
Benedict Arnold (pp. 65-66). The text
is well documented, although the
footnotes are annoyingly placed at the
back of each volume. The maps of the
campaigns and engagements are
vital to a full understanding and are in
themselves outstanding. A glossary
of military terminology and half a dozen
appendices are both interesting
and useful. There will be disagreement
with and criticism of certain opinions
advanced by the author, especially with
regard to military strategy. Mr. Ward
lays no claim to being a military
expert. Moreover, it is inevitable that
those engaged in second-guessing Howe,
Cornwallis, et al., will sometimes
find themselves at variance.
The War of the Revolution deserves every word of commendation which
it receives. Credit should go also to
Professor Alden for his contributions
as editor. Between them, he and Mr. Ward
produced a work that is thoroughly
professional in every respect.
Ohio State Archaeological JOHN S. STILL
and Historical Society
Lincoln Finds a General: A Military
Study of the Civil War. Volume III,
Grant's First Year in the West. By Kenneth P. Williams. (New York,
The Macmillan Company, 1952. xiv+585p.,
illustrations, maps, appendix,
notes, bibliography, and index. $7.50.)
Kenneth P. Williams, professor of
mathematics, Indiana University,
now presents the third of his projected
five-volume history of the Civil
War. While the two previous volumes
treated of the war in the East,
the volume under review is concerned
with the war in the West up to
mid-July 1862, when General Henry W.
Halleck was called to Washington
to assume the responsibilities of
general-in-chief. The volume is precisely
what the title indicates, not a
biography of Ulysses S. Grant, but a judicious
military history of the Civil War and of
Grant's share in the events.
Although Grant is the principal
character, all campaigns are considered,
giving the student a picture of sectional
army organization, campaign
strategy, federal commanders, and the
Confederate military leaders who
opposed them.
In the initial chapters Professor
Williams, after devoting some space
to the problems and confusion occasioned
by divided and overlapping
commands in the West and the ineffective
use of troops for headquarters
display purposes, presents a brilliant
pen picture of the training, mis-
204
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
fortunes, and potential capabilities of
Ulysses S. Grant on the eve of the
disruption of American democracy. It is
shown that Grant, never dis-
gustingly aggressive either in civilian
or in military life and never per-
mitting his ambition to surge beyond his
evaluation of his own ability,
had some difficulty in obtaining
audiences with those charged with the
responsibility of directing the early Union
military effort.
In due time Grant was assigned to the
Missouri theater under the
command of General Fremont, who, within
a short period, was to be
removed for issuing a military order
establishing martial law in Missouri
and freeing the slaves of all persons
resisting the government. Here Grant
served under Fremont and later under
Halleck. He trained troops, attended
to the details of administration, and
studied logistics and supply problems.
He prepared expeditions, but was not
permitted to lead them. Indeed,
it was not until November 7, 1861, when
he was ordered to menace
Belmont, Missouri, that the future
general was to serve actually as a
battle commander. It is pointed out that
in attacking Belmont Grant acted
without, but not contrary to, orders. He
turned a menacing action into
an attack, which, although successful,
was the subject of severe criticism
by contemporaries in line for promotion
and later became the subject of
intense study on the part of military specialists.
This engagement demon-
strated Grant's ability to make
decisions rapidly, but revealed a weakness
in that he neglected to maintain an
adequate reserve to meet the con-
tingencies of battle. Moreover, he
accepted as reliable the false intelligence
that the Confederates were crossing the
Mississippi at Belmont to cut off
the advance of Colonel Richard Oglesby.
This action, sometimes neglected
by general historians, clearly revealed
that Grant, an intrepid combat
commander, was not unfavorably disposed
toward encountering an enemy
with superior numbers.
Then follows a detailed account of the
principal engagements in the
West, which proved to be a battle for
the control of the natural waterways,
such as the Mississippi, the Cumberland,
and the Tennessee rivers, which
offered parallel routes into Tennessee,
Alabama, and Mississippi. In the
summer of 1861 the Confederates began to
strengthen strategic river
positions to protect the heart of the
South, to obstruct Union commerce,
and to prevent the use of the rivers for
the movement of Union troops.
Grant, like many other Union commanders,
observed that Fort Henry,
located on the Tennessee River, and Fort
Donelson, located on the
Cumberland River, were the key positions
to the Confederate West. In
Book Reviews 205
January 1862 Grant presented and
obtained Halleck's reluctant permission
to employ gunboats and transports in an
attempt to reduce the fortified
Confederate positions. On February 7,
Fort Henry was reduced by
Commodore Foote before the arrival of
ground troops. On the high bank
of the Cumberland was Fort Donelson.
Grant, after surveying the situation,
disposed his troops in a semicircle
around the fort on the land side, while
gunboats under the command of Commodore
Foote approached by way of
the Tennessee and the Cumberland. As the
battle progressed, the naval
craft, steadily closing the range while
advancing on the target, became
quite ineffective and the operation in
the initial phases became definitely
a land operation. Contrary to
expectations, Grant's right was soon in
confusion, and his center seriously
threatened by charging Confederates.
Informed of the situation immediately
following a conference with Com-
modore Foote on board his flagship and
observing that the Confederates were
attempting to escape, Grant ordered a
crushing assault on the enemy's right.
Donelson, defended by Brigadier General
John B. Floyd, formerly Buchanan's
secretary of war, Brigadier General
Gideon Pillow, and Brigadier General
Simon B. Buckner, was surrendered by the
latter on February 16. With
the capitulation, Nashville was no
longer tenable by the enemy. Grant's
victory was blunted somewhat by a
failure to pursue the enemy and by
the escape of Pillow and Floyd and parts
of the four regiments he had
brought from western Virginia. As a
result, Johnson had time to con-
centrate troops at Corinth while Grant
was encamping on an ill-chosen
position at Pittsburg Landing with his
rear units menaced by the flood
waters of the turbulent Tennessee River.
In considering the controversial battle
of Shiloh, which proved to be
one of the bloodiest battles of the war,
the author points out that the
Confederates did not, as has sometimes
been contended, surprise the
Union outposts. On the other hand, Grant
did not expect a general
attack and had neglected or ignored
Halleck's instructions relative to
providing adequate entrenchments. In
appraising the command situation
it is pointed out that the Confederate
forces had the advantage in having
two full generals and three generals of
lesser rank to coordinate and
direct the three corps and the reserve
of Johnson's army. On the other
hand, Grant, with no other officer of
professional training, was required
to coordinate division action. Adequate
space is devoted to the disposition
of Major General Lew Wallace's troops on
the eve of the engagement
and his failure to appear with
reenforcements on the first day of the
206
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
battle. After carefully reviewing the
tactical situation, Dr. Williams con-
cludes that the responsibility for the
misinterpretation of orders lay with
General Wallace rather than with General
Grant. Moreover, the failure of
Union forces to follow up what appeared
to be a tactical advantage,
although sometimes attributed to the
pedantic qualities of Halleck and
his apparent reluctance to permit the
Ohioan to step into the limelight,
was actually caused by incomplete
intelligence and impassable roads. Grant's
statement in his Memoirs relative
to the advantages of pursuit appears to
have been his view "at the time of
writing, rather than at the time in
question." At the same time
important progress had been made in weakening
the Confederate hold on the Mississippi.
Union forces, operating under
the command of General John Pope,
captured Island No. 10, an important
river fort near the Kentucky-Tennessee
border. The occupation of Corinth
forced the Confederates to abandon Fort
Pillow and Memphis.
The author concludes his study with an
account of the Andrews Raiders,
a penetrating analysis of the command
situation on the eve of the Vicksburg
campaign, and the circumstances leading
to the promotion of Halleck
to commander-in-chief.
Professor Williams, eminently qualified
both by training and practical
military experience for his task, has
presented a study which will remain
for many years the most complete,
interesting, meticulous, and pain-
staking military study of the Civil War.
The author, basing his exhaustive
study on a reexamination of the official
records, dispatches, letters, diaries,
and selected secondary works, never goes
beyond his sources and corrects
and supplements the older military
histories at every point. It is shown
that Halleck, although pedantic and
probably jealous of Grant's achieve-
ments, never permitted his personal
feelings to cloud his judgment in
evaluating the capabilities and
potentialities of his principal lieutenant.
Indeed, he severely criticized Grant,
but at the same time privately
recommended his advancement.
The volume, well printed and
substantially bound, contains seven
illustrations, twenty-six maps, a
bibliography, eighty-nine pages of footnote
citations which reflects the author's
industry, an adequate index, and an
appendix in which the author refutes the
charges that General George H.
Thomas was discriminated against because
of his Virginia birth, the claim
that Anna Ella Carroll planned the
Tennessee River campaign, and that
Ulysses S. Grant planned the Donelson
campaign in August 1861.
Ohio State Archaeological JOHN 0. MARSH
and Historical Society
Book Reviews 207
On Freedom's Altar: The Martyr
Complex in the Abolition Movement.
By Hazel Catherine Wolf. (Madison,
University of Wisconsin Press,
1952. xii+195p., illustrations, notes,
bibliography, and index. $3.75.)
This excellent monograph, published by
the University of Wisconsin
Press, offers a brilliant interpretation
of a neglected phase of the abolition
crusade in the three decades preceding
the disruption of American democracy.
The author, after outlining the early
movement, usually associated with
the Quakers and such Puritans as John
Eliot, Samuel Sewall, and Cotton
Mather, discusses the religious concepts
brought forward at a later date
by the revivalists which gave positive
meaning and force to a heretofore
ineffective crusade.
The abolitionists, realizing that the
so-called "martyr complex" had
been a powerful force in the American
tradition of liberty, as exemplified
by the persecution of certain religious
groups, sought to capitalize on
the self-imposed suffering of the
crusaders in an effort to associate their
misfortunes with those of the American
Negro. It is shown that in the
early nineteenth century abolitionists,
never to be confused with the
antislavery protagonists, "eagerly
bidding for a martyr's crown, hoped to
impress Americans, and to make the
Americans heirs of the Christian
tradition identify the new mode
crusaders with the early martyrs of
Christianity." In their own minds
they identified themselves with the
proponents of the Christian faith.
Against this religious background and
with the acceptance of the political
ideals of European natural rights
philosophers, the abolitionists, always
a minority group, attempted to convince
the American people that the
movement was in accord with the best
American traditions. The antislavery
North, although never indifferent to the
plight of those held in bondage,
but not wishing to disrupt the cordial
relations between the sections, was
not unfavorably disposed toward accommodating
those who sought to wear
a "martyr's crown." This was
forcibly attested to by the fact that James G.
Birney's office was menaced by an irate
mob in Cincinnati; Theodore Weld
was ordered from Granville, Ohio, and
was stoned and egged in Circle-
ville; William Lloyd Garrison was jailed
in Boston; Stephen Foster, Parker
Pillsbury, and Henry B. Stanton were
unwelcome visitors in many com-
munities and were systematically driven
from place to place; Elijah P.
Lovejoy was coldly murdered by a proslavery
mob in Alton, Illinois;
Charles Torrey, afflicted with
tuberculosis, died in a Maryland jail;
Prudence Crandall, a Quaker
schoolmistress, was persecuted and jailed
208 Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
in Canterbury, Connecticut, for her
determination to educate Negro girls;
and John Brown, of Osawatomie, was
publicly hanged by Virginia officials.
While the deaths of Lovejoy and Torrey
became rallying cries for the
abolitionists, the crusaders for freedom
were constantly engaged in
acrimonious debates, and were divided on
the question of the proper
procedure to be followed in gaining
their ultimate goal. Some of the
leaders, noting that the theories of
moral suasion and the martyr technique
were quite ineffective in some areas,
sought to associate the movement
with such political concepts as freedom
of speech, freedom of assembly,
the right of petition, freedom of the
press, and other time-honored civil
rights. William Lloyd Garrison, an
apostle of Benjamin Lundy and a firm
believer in the theories of moral
suasion, promptly withdrew his support
from the American Anti-Slavery Society
when that organization endorsed
James G. Birney's leadership of the
Liberty party. The political abolitionists,
never eminently successful in the
political arena, recognized the possibilities
of furthering their cause when the
sectional issues, looming large on the
political horizon, were transferred to
the halls of congress during the
memorable debates on the legislative
acts of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska
act.
The political advantages temporarily
accorded to the political abolitionists,
occasioned by a break up of the old Whig
party and the widening schism
in democratic ranks under the heavy
impact of the sectional issues, were
practically dissipated when the entire
movement reverted to a moral
crusade with the appearance of Harriet
Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin,
and John Brown's martyrdom on a scaffold
at Charlestown, Virginia, for
his ill-fated expedition against Harpers
Ferry. The author rapidly con-
cludes her study with an account of the
rise and success of the antislavery
Republican party, the appeal to arms,
and the continuance of the abolitionist's
martyr complex by the radicals in an
effort to secure support for their
postwar program of reconstruction which
was far removed from the
"American quest for either freedom,
justice, or humanitarianism."
If one were to criticize this excellent
study it would be for the author's
tendency to restrict, rather than
expand, the discussion of important phases
of the abolitionist movement on the eve
of the Civil War. Perhaps lack
of space prevented her from discussing
the hostility of the abolitionists
not only to the Republican party, but
also to the Republican standard-
bearer. Indeed many abolitionists, after
examining the conservative Re-
publican platform and examining
Lincoln's past record on the slavery
Book Reviews 209
issue, concluded that only a Democratic
administration would keep the
slavery issue alive. Of equal
significance is an analysis of the actual in-
fluence wielded by the abolitionists in
their thirty years of relentless
agitation. Paradoxically enough, the
abolitionists contributed to, but
were not immediately responsible for,
the abolition of the "peculiar
institution."
As stated earlier, the author has made
an outstanding contribution to an
understanding of the personalities,
minds, and objectives of the abolitionists.
The study brilliantly supplements such
older treatments as A. B. Hart's
Slavery and Abolition, Gilbert H. Barnes's The Anti-Slavery Impulse,
1830-44, and Dwight L. Dumond's Anti-Slavery Origins of the
Civil War.
This volume, well printed and
attractively bound, contains fourteen
illustrations, ten pages of footnote
citations, a bibliography, and an index.
Ohio State Archaeological JOHN 0. MARSH
and Historical Society
Early English Churches in America,
1607-1807. By Stephen P. Dorsey.
(New York, Oxford University Press,
1952. xvi+206p., illustrations,
notes, bibliography, and index. $10.00.)
Shaw's "Essay on Going to
Church" both demonstrates the potent
stimulation which the sensitive and
creative mind derives from visiting
a real church and differentiates the
real church from the respectable shams
whose interiors are "irreconcilable
with the doctrine of Omnipresence,
since the bishop's blessing is no spell
of black magic to imprison Omnipo-
tence in a place that must needs be
intolerable to Omniscience." In this
beautiful book Dorsey convinces us that
there are real churches in America,
and shows how much the real church owes
to the Anglican tradition, how
much the liturgical form affected
interior design.
The subject matter is, of course, not
churches in the technical "Early
English" Gothic, but those built by
Church of England folk in the
period defined. The author's aim is
."a visual essay primarily addressed to
those interested in American
architecture and history." His method is to
furnish, in the text, a sketch of the
history of the Anglican Church at home,
and a much fuller account of its life
and influence in the Thirteen Colonies
and the early United States. He pays
close attention to regions and their
characteristics, with the result that a
surprising amount of good American
history is to be found here. There is a
good bibliography. Carefully com-
210
Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
piled lists of existing churches,
grouped by regions, serve as a guide to
anyone fortunate enough to attempt a
systematic visitation. Much in-
teresting detail about the individual
examples is printed with each of them.
The very essence of the book, however,
is the illustrations, nearly six-
score splendid photographs of interiors
and exteriors. Such a book is
bound to be costly, but it is a pity
that the cost will limit ownership, for
to possess it carries some of the
beatitude of going to church along with
the intellectual benefits derivable.
Of the churches illustrated, a few early
examples hint at things re-
membered from Gothic parish churches
"at home" and some late ones
show the Gothic revival, but the vast
majority represent the Georgian or
"Colonial" influence. This
derivative of the Palladian which was born out
of classical paganism, provided imposing
secular edifices and homes un-
surpassed as settings for dignified
domestic life. To make the form fit for
Christian worship, preserving harmony of
interior and exterior, called for
both artistry and religious feeling. The
Anglican ritual helped make the
achievement possible. What Wren and
others did at home was very
similarly achieved, and in much the same
media, in the seaboard regions
of the colonies. Inland, in more
primitive and less opulent circumstances,
the problem was met by local
craftsmanship with local materials in a way
interestingly illustrated by Christ
Church, near Laurel, Delaware (pp.
152-153).
The historian resident in Ohio who
raises his eyes from this book to
glance at the places of worship about
him will at once recognize his debt
to the English tradition. It is to be
seen not only in the churches of the
Protestant Episcopal confession,
imported directly, but in those of other
confessions some of whose members once
held the liturgy "papistical"
and boasted independence of all things
English. If that historian be con-
versant with the Anthony Wayne saga,
even as he records the influence
of the Welsh and their competence in
stonemasonry, seen at St. David's,
Radnor, Pennsylvania (p. 126), he may
wish that the statement read that
the bones, not the body, of Wayne rest
there.
Ohio State University WARNER F. WOODRING