The Scottish connection Book

This is an intriguing book, although not without some controversy. The method is to examine three pairs of generals, one each from the Union and Confederate armies--East and West--at different levels of command. The two top generals at the end of the Civil War, Ulysses Grant and Robert E. Lee are one pair. Two generals of armies in the West--George Thomas with the Union and John Bell Hood with the Confederates--are profiled and compared. Finally, two generals in the East--Francis Barlow and John B. Gordon--are compared, each at Division or Corps command level.

The end result is illuminating. Certainly, Robert E. Lee is not treated kindly. Grant comes in for some hits, as well. Nonetheless the criticisms are handled pretty well and the author does credit each for their strengths.

At the lowest level of command, Barlow and Gordon, we get an interesting tratment of two commanders who may not be as well chronicled as others. Nonetheless, each served with distinction and both were certainly interesting character studies.

Finally, and maybe most controversial, is the juxtaposition of Thomas (Southern born, despised by his family and mistrusted by some in the North) and Hood. The latter is a perfect example of the "Peter Principle," where one gets promoted above one's level of competence. A terrific division commander, Hood was overmatched as an army (and probably even as a corps) commander. Buell's treatment of Thomas is almost over laudatory. To be sure, the record is clear that Thomas was a stalwart, at whatever level of command he held; he excelled from the start of the Civil War, with his crushing of Zellicoffer's army at Mill Springs to his smashing victory over Hood at Nashville. Nonetheless, the treatment of Thomas is perhaps a bit "over the top," despite his genuine accomplishments and the shabby treatment that he received from Grant and Sherman toward the end of the war.

In the end, a very interesting book, marred mainly by the overenthusiastic treatment of Thomas (even though, I would argue, Thomas deserves much more credit as a general than he is often given).