A lot of people think repairing lawn mowers is a hard thing to do.I tell you from experience,that learning how to repair my own lawn mower is a big money saver for me. To do some repairs most people all ready have the tools to do the job,what am I talking about? Wrenches,sockets,screwdrivers etc. But what realy makes the job go easier is repair mannuals. They give you all the specks,tune up procedures and trouble shooting guides etc. So buy any lawn mower repair mannual and give it a try!

First off , I have to admit something about this Famous Figures of the Civil War Era juvenile biography of William Sherman strikes me as odd. Henna R. Remstein refers to Sherman as "William" throughout the book. Now, I have heard Sherman called "Uncle Billy," mostly by his troops, and "Cump" by his friends, but other than that Sherman has always been called Sherman. For that matter, it has always been William Tecumseh Sherman or William T. Sherman, but never just William Sherman. I guess I have a problem with calling someone whose destructive march through Georgia made him a legend by his first name. I am not a big fan of using first names as a way of building familiarization with the subject for young readers, but especially not with military leaders.

That reservation aside, Remstein provides a solid biography of Sherman's life and military career, focusing primarily on his military service during the Civil War, which saw him become the second most famous Union general. Ramstein also provides a context for understanding the war, and explains how the two sides in the war viewed Sherman's March to the Sea quite differently. This book is illustrated with historic photographs and pictures, including several rather well-known paintings that do not depict Sherman (such as boys playing crack the whip). Side-bars explain interesting details, such as telling about the Indian chief from whom Sherman got his middle name and explaining about "Sherman's neckties." One final note: I was surprised that Sherman's most famous quotation, "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve" was not included.

Sandy Antal has successfully presented a new analysis and insight into the events of the war for the old northwest during the War of 1812. Particularly noteworthy, is his illumination of the reputation of Henry Procter, a leader much aligned in the past for British failure in the theater. What Antal demonstrates, is that Procter's case was never fairly or objectively presented, both by American, but more importantly, by Canadian historians. Procter's actions, motives and reputation have been shrouded by a veil of misinterpretation, merely because the facts were unknown, unavailable, or ignored. Antal does much not only to save Procter's reputation, but to reassess British war aims, strategy and the Anglo-Native alliance. He has provided many pieces that have been missing to the puzzle of the events of the War of 1812. With those pieces, historians will have to reassess long-held beliefs regarding the campaigns in Michigan, Ohio, and Upper Canada. Antal also provides an "inside view" of the British and Canadian forces previously unavailable. Of particular note is his order of battle information and biographical notations of key leaders and participants. This volume is an heir to Gilpins' "War of 1812 in the Old Northwest" and Stanley's "War of 1812 Land Operations" as an accurate and well written book of the campaign in the wilderness. A must have for 1812 historians!

I am absolutely delighted with Mr. Antal's book "A Wampum Denied." This book attracts the many interests embodied within me: The "historian" with a desire to research and learn about events of the past. The "war enthusiast" with a lust for battle, tactics, and strategy. The "reader enthusiast" who rejoices as a well-written narrative comes to life before his eyes. The "student of management" who analyzes the leadership styles and skills of historical leaders to translate into effective leadership for today.

Mr. Antal presents the events surrounding Colonel Henry Proctor in a thorough, thoughtful, and objective manner. As I read "A Wampum Denied", I was able to understand the many psychological, logistical, and personality challenges that became significantly influential in both the failures and the successes of Colonel Proctor as he coordinated his military leadership between elements of the British Right Division, the Canadian Militia, and the Indian confederacy. I gained tremendous insight into the "unseen battles" faced by Colonel Proctor, such as cultural concerns of the Canadian citizens and the French Canadien settlers in Michigan; increasing logistical and strategic pressures from the Native Americans under his charge; and especially the political and strategic dichotomy between Colonel Proctor and his superior officers (with the exception of Major General Isaac Brock).

As a researcher, I truly appreciate the thoroughness of Mr. Antal's own research for his book "A Wampum Denied" and the detailed bibliography and notes found within. In my opinion, Mr. Antal was able to take the findings of his extremely comprehensive and exhaustive research and present his information in a delightful narrative that flows smoothly from beginning to end in rich detail. (The illustrations are exceptional!)

Mr. Antal's book "A Wampum Denied" increased my understanding and awareness of the important events that helped to shape the future of the Detroit frontier and has become a permanent addition within my library.

I highly recommend "A Wampum Denied: Proctor's War of 1812", by Mr. Sandy Antal, for anyone who enjoys reading an exciting story for enrichment, entertainment, or both. You will not be disappointed in the added value you will receive.

Sandy Antal's book is a superb revisionist study of Major General Henry Procter's defense of Upper Canada during the War of 1812. Unlike most historians, Antal presents Henry Procter as having been a resourceful, intelligent, and daring military leader who provided an excellent defense of Canada despite overwhelming disadvantages. Antal also provides ample evidence that Procter based his military activities on a strategic plan of creating a Native American buffer state to preserve British interests in the North American West.

Antal's writing style makes for a smooth and entertaining read. The book is also interesting because it is not a biography of Procter or a traditional campaign history book. Instead, Antal writes about the war by examining the perspectives of all the different types of participants; soldiers, Native Americans, politicians, and local citizens. Antal also explains the socio-economic and ethnic environment in which the war took place. Major General Procter is always at the center of discussion, but Antal's approach provides a broad understanding of Procter's circumstances during the war.

The real strength of Antal's argument involves the use of compelling primary source evidence. The letters written by Issac Brock, for example, indicate that Procter ought be credited for preparing the Canadian conquest of the Michigan Territory. The evidence portrays Procter as an extremely credible soldier who was neglected by his superiors during the war. Antal's evidence also provides a compelling argument that Procter fully supported the Native American cause. Antal even provides evidence that Procter admired Tecumseh of the Shawnees. This idea is completely new among scholars and historical fiction writers.

Scholars and avocational readers who are primarily interested in Native American history, however, may be disappointed with Antal's approach. Unlike most books written in the last ten years on the subject, Antal's book does not glorify Tecumseh or his cause. Instead, Antal considers the issues of other Native American leaders on an equal level with Tecumseh. Consequently, readers learn about Tecumseh's influential limitations from both Procter's perspective and that of other tribal leaders such as the Wyandotte chief Walk in the Water.

The end result is a world in which Henry Procter constantly struggles to fight despite having unreliable Native American and militia support for his small, sick, and starving army. Antal's telling of the story makes every one of Procter's successes seem like a spectacular and miraculous victory. Procter's failure appears to have been nothing short of inevitable. This book ought to read by all those interested in the War of 1812 and the Old Northwest.

Having read Wilderness Empire, Blue Jacket and The Frontiersmen, A Sorrow in the Heart, ranks as the author's finest contribution in helping modern Americans come to an understanding of the geography, historical context and people - both common and uncommon, who shaped the history of the Old Northwest. In my youth I canoed long stretches of the Little Miami River, had hiked from Old Town to the George Rogers Clark Memorial and had bicycled the warriors trail. I am going back to Ohio this Spring, with my copy of this book, to trace the life of a man whom I knew in the most general of terms but now, as an adult, place in my pantheon of true heroes. I credit this book for my rediscovery of these men of uncommon courage and my deep admiration for this Kispokotha Shawnee. Eckert paints sweeping portraits of events and men in a manner that celebrates their strengths, exposes their foibles and always,treating them as the men they were. A must read!

"A Sorrow In Our Heart" is definately one of Eckert's best historical novels, right next to "The Frontiersmen" and "Dark and Bloody River". It, of course, tells the story of the Shawnee leader Tecumseh, who has been hailed by many as the greatest Indian leader of all time. Tecumseh came closer than any other before or after him to saving his people from total destruction by the whites on the eastern frontier in the early 19th century. In the end, Tecumseh's death is not just a loss in the Indians' long struggle against the Americans, it signals the death knell for their way of life, as their defeat in the War of 1812 sealed their fate on the North American continent. A great and a wonderfully entertaining book, history has never been so hard to put down.

GROWING UP ON THE BANKS OF THE OHIO, I'VE HEARD EVERY LEGEND THERE IS CONCERNING TECUMSEH. I USED TO WALK TO THE SHAWNEE BURIAL MOUNDS WHICH ARE AN ARROW SHOT FROM MY PARENT'S HOME IN SILOAM, KY. I OFTEN TRIED TO IMAGINE WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE TO LIVE BACK THEN. WHILE NO HISTORIAN WILL EVER BE ABLE TO DECIFER WHAT IS TRUTH AND WHAT IS FOLKLORE. ALLAN W. ECKERT IS ABLE TO SEND YOU BACK IN TIME AND PLACE YOU AMONGST THESE HISTORICAL FIGURES. AND WHILE THIS WORK IS FICTIONAL IT IS ALSO BASED ON REAL CHARACTERS. ALLAN W. ECKERT IS TRULY AN ARTIST. WITH THE PAGE AS HIS CANVAS AND FACTS, MYTHS, AND LEGENDS, AS HIS INKS. HE PAINTS AN EXCELLENT PORTRAIT OF THIS LEGENDARY SHAWNEE'S LIFE.EXCELLENTLY WRITTEN AND RESEARCHED.

I have read numerous Civil War books, including the prominent Historical volumns by the leading scholars. These volumns led me to begin reading the memoirs and books of the significant people involved in the war - Grant, Longstreet, etc. I must admit, Sherman's memoirs have been the most facinating yet. He is a very powerful writer with flow and grace to his book. I have lived in California for over 50 years, a native, and his descriptions of early Calif. life were beautiful - too bad it is not still like that. I could not put this book down and finished it in about a week. After reading his memoirs, I do not agree that he was a failure in anything that he did. On the contrary, I think he led a full and fasciating life that would be difficult to duplicate in the present times, even with our transportation abilities. Sherman was a brilliant military leader and you feel as though you are with him throughout his many marches and campaigns. He includes many letters and orders in the book that I believe substantiate his writing and give proof that he was one of a kind.

This book is probably the most fasinating biography I have read. Sherman was an talented outsider whose abilty won the civil war. The book begins with Shermans early military career and civilain life before the civil war. Sherman crisscrosses the content to support his family and becomes a Dean of students, a surveyor, a banker, a rail road man and a partener in a law firm. All these skills and travels blend together to make a master stragist and leader.

Sherman was a man always moving to survive. His plan of attack was to move quickly to destroy property and save lives of his men as well as those of the enemy. He stood for loyality and a chain of command, yet was willing to congole the president and U S Grant into allowing him to march through Goergia and the Carolinas while living off the land.

This is an analytical story of stragidty and passionate story of a man who was unwilling to slaughter men and instead destroyed the means to war.

All war is hell. WT Sherman

The memoirs of William Tecumseh Sherman is a book I continue to return to . It is long, it is detailed but it it is fascinating . You participate with Sherman in the decisions he makes and realize he was the greatest General in the Civil War . Unlike Grant and Lee he avoide the killing of troops , ( on both sides ). He realized that the way to Peace was to destroy the economic underpinings of the South . The concept of his march across Georgia was contrary to the conventional wisedom both North and the South . It is fascinating to read his correspondence with Grant and Lincoln on this subject.
Readers interested in Sherman might want to look at a book by renowned British soldier and writer B.H. Liddell Hart book "Sherman: Soldier, Realist , American" which has been reissued in paperback 1993 and is availaable on Amazon for [...].
Hart feels that Sherman was the greatest General of modern times. He emphasizes the lives saved by Sherman's unconventional strategy.

John Marszalek's biography of General Sherman really does its subject justice. Instead of merely recording the details of Sherman and his life, he finds something that obviously drove Sherman, the passion for order, and uses that to define his actions. This is not only limited to the Civil War, but to the Indian Wars, and his less famous years before the Civil War. Without praising or villifying, he is able to paint a remarkable portrait of the man whom Southerners hated as much as Northerners hated Jefferson Davis. This is the book to read on Sherman. Do not pass it up.

Marszalek has studied Sherman for years, and his biography reflects a comprehensive knowledge of the sources on Sherman. Sherman was a highly complex and intelligent person, fourth academically in his class at West point, though a prankish student who finished sixth in his overall graduating class because of demerits. If you don't know much about Sherman, if you only know he said war is hell and marched through Georgia, this is a good book for you. Sherman's army assignments before the Civil War were mostly in the South, and he loved it, but he hated secession, though he did not oppose slavery. Under Grant's wing he became an excellent general. He believed in a hard war but a soft peace, and opposed the conduct of reconstruction after the war. The only reservation I have is the author may overpsychologize his approach to Sherman: the passion for order theme runs throughout the book. But the book's quality is saved by the mountain of details the author relates about Sherman's life and other's views of him, and by a highly readable writing style. As one of the most important generals in the Civil War and in the history of the U.S. Army, and an important influence on modern concepts of total war, William Tecumseh Sherman (aka "Cump") is well deserving of study, and this biography is well worth reading.

Sherman: A Soldier's Passion for Order, by John F. Marszalek, is a model biography of possibly the greatest general to emerge from the Civil War. Marszalek gives a very even-handed account of the general's rise from relative obscurity to command the second largest army in America, becoming a hero to most, and the equivalent of Satan to some in the process. Unlike Longacre's biography of John Buford, Marszalek did not labor under a shortage of primary information about his subject. With such a luxury, Marszalek follows the development of Sherman the man, and shows how particular events shaped his future views on warfare and towards the South. Most notably, the author points out his experience in the Seminole War as the basis for Sherman's ideas on war against populations. He also describes Sherman's time spent in the South, and how his friendliness towards its people led to leniency towards them after the war concluded. It would appear that Marszalek was somewhat influenced by B.H. Liddell Hart's Strategy, when describing Sherman's military campaigns. Hart states that he believed Sherman was the best Civil War general because he promoted the "indirect" approach to warfare. On many occasions, Marszalek refers to Sherman's "psychological outflanking" of the enemy and winning military victories without fighting battles-the very essence of Hart's tract. At the same time, the author insists that Sherman was driven by his need to have order in a chaotic world. This is in fact the theme of the entire book, and Marszalek does an admirable job of showing that Sherman fought the war in the manner he did in order to provide order (Union) the quickest way possible. Marszalek stretches his analysis of Sherman's desire for order into his post-war life. Sherman's experiences fighting the Indians, as well as "dalliances" with other women, and conflicts with politicians at caused him great distress because they were disorderly. In the end, Sherman's desire for stability led him on a campaign to provide an accurate history of the Civil War. Though his efforts made him many enemies in the South, his contributions ensured his place in American history, and the order he so desperately desired.

In this works,the author depicted Sherman's temperament and the fighting style.Analyzed the compaigns through Georgia and the Carolinas.

Although Lewis seems to be a Sherman fan, he is very fair and is not patronizing. I am impressed with the number of sources Lewis drew upon in his writing. This is a long book and starts slowly, but picks up speed during the Civil War years. This is the first biography I've read about Sherman, and I feel like I "know him" very well. I think ultimately, this is a very good book that serious Civil War buffs should read.

THIS BOOK OF LLOYD LEWIS' ON WILLIAM T SHERMAN IS AN EXCELLENT READ. LEWIS MUST HAVE SPENT A LONG TIME RESEARCHING SHERMAN AND HIS FAMILY, HIS LIFE AND TIMES. ANYONE WHO HAS READ THE BOOK WOULD AGREE I AM SURE. SHERMAN WAS AN INDEPENDANT THINKER AND A MAN OF HIGH RESOLVE. HIS CONTRIBUTIONS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO RESTORING THE UNION ARE CERTAINLY EVIDENT IN THIS BOOK. ALTHOUGH I AM NOT AN HISTORICAL EXPERT ON THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, I AM SURE THAT ANYONE WHO READS THIS BOOK WILL BE MORE INFORMED AN EDUCATED ON ITS HISTORICAL ASPECTS AS WELL. LLOYD LEWIS , IN ONE OF THE CHAPTERS REFERS TO "SHERMAN AND HIS INEXHAUSTABLE PEN". AFTER READING THIS NOVEL, YOU WILL FIND ALSO THAT "THE PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD". AFTER READING "SHERMAN - THE FIGHTING PROPHET", I FELT LIKE HAD KNOW THE MAN. W.MUNRO

William T. Sherman considered himself the best strategist of the Civil War generals. His march to Atlanta succeeded with a single battle. He maneuvered his troops so the enemy withdrew. This very readable book tells about this later campaign. Burke Davis spent over ten years gathering eyewitness accounts fro obscure and forgotten sources. Fourteen pages in the Bibliography replace footnotes; this book is for reading as history.

Atlanta was a major supply station for the Confederacy; it was targeted like railroad marshaling yards in WW II. Destroying railroad yards, an oil refinery, and warehouses was a military objective, but the fires spread (as in 1871 Chicago). Sherman was blamed for the destruction of private property (p.6). Sherman's army would live off the land; they could take what was in the open, but could not enter homes (p.8). Most of Sherman's troops were from the West: Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, one regiment of white Alabama Unionists (p.11). Sherman reduced formality to a minimum, and gained these troops affection.

When war was declared Sherman volunteered. He turned down an appointment as brigadier general for a colonel of regular infantry (p.15). Sherman was put in command of the Western army, and began to develop his theory of total warfare with highly mobile forces (p.18). Sherman's capture of Atlanta helped Lincoln's re-election. His march to Savannah was planned using census reports of farm production for each county. Sherman had a flat hierarchy, officers reported to him directly (p.26).

This foraging, or pillaging and destruction, was unique in American history (p.43). The looting and destruction of the Milledgeville statehouse library reminded one officer of the looting of Egypt (p.64). Sherman had a low opinion of newspaper reporters: they had earlier said he was insane, and published military news that was used by the Confederacy (no censorship then). Sherman was forever blamed for burning Columbia (p.161), but he intended to only destroy public buildings (railroad depots, factories). He said the fire was started by cotton bales burned by retreating Confederate cavalry. Others said it was caused by drunken troops (p.179), and the failure of the Governor to destroy the liquor supplies. His campaign was marked by unexpected cruelties, last seen in 17th century European wars. But not in North Carolina (p.216). Colonel Rhett was a symbol of the arrogant Southern ruling class (p.228). Sherman's focus was on winning the war rather than a victory, so he avoided a battle if possible (p.239)

Sherman's "Memoirs" in 1875 assessed the roles of individuals and governments in a bluff and candid manner, without sentiment. Sherman had some Southern admiration because of his opposition to Negro voting rights, but lost this when he termed the Confederacy as an "idiotic, criminal conspiracy" (p.300). This made him more popular with the Northern public. His death in 1891 had this eulogy: "He never acknowledged an error and never repeated it" (p.302). Sherman said "War is Hell". Clausewitz correctly said "war is the continuation of business rivalry through non-diplomatic means". Destruction in a country eliminates competition for manufacturers, creates new business for merchants and new investments for bankers. War is paradise when you profit from it.

Once again, Burke Davis has done a splendid job in profiling a great man of history. You will see Sherman as a tyrant and also as a soft hearted man, a man completely in control and completely out of control. You will feel the pain of Georgia and the Carolinas as he unleashes war on the people of the south.

It's often hard to find a book that is repelled from any bias, but renowned historian Burke Davis achieved it in this book. Sherman's March is an extremely touchy subject, but thanks to the heavy research, factual information, firsthand accounts, primary materials, quotations, and Davis' dramatic and engaging style, this book reads itself to you with no inhibitions.

Davis not only includes a thorough examination of the March itself tactically, but soldier's life and pasttimes, effects on the civilians, and most intriguing of all, an in depth look at the General himself which only helps in the understanding of the March. Sherman has never been so interesting.

The March was a somewhat necessary but horrible event that left scars on everyone involved and has left history in awe of it's strange grandeur, and has such been surrounded in a great amount of myth from both sides of the Mason Dixon. This clear cut and levelheaded book will let you understand what really did happen.

The book The Destructive War by Charles Royster, examines the war policies and strategies of the Union and the Confederacy during the civil war. The book talks extensively about Confederate general Jackson and Union General Sherman.

At the beginning of the war the Union did not attack citizens or their property. The Union did not destroy any property of the citizens of the Confederacy because they anticipated winning the war. They realized that if they won the war it would be their responsibility to help the south rebuild. They also thought of the south and the people of the south as Americans despite labeling them traitors. But despite the reluctance on the part of Union Generals to damage citizen's property it eventually became policy. This change in policy came about because, "northern expressions of support for intensified war-making assumed that the Confederate army was an instrument of the Southern populace and that the populace was a legitimate object of attack," (Royster, 81). Women were also subject to attack. Union soldiers attacked women because "in the conventions of the time, women were supposed to use their power to ennoble and civilize-whereas, Southern women, it seemed, were serving what Elizabeth Cady Stanton called "mere pride of race and class." By promoting war against the union and by showing their hatred of Federal soldiers, they imitated Lady Macbeth and "unsexed themselves to prove their scorn of 'the Yankees'." Thus they forfeited their exemption as ladies and noncombatants," (Royster, 87). Confederates did not share this policy. They always were proud that when Lee invaded Pennsylvania in 1863 that he gave an order that soldiers were not to damage citizen's property or plunder it.

The book also talks about General William Tecumseh Sherman. Sherman was a southerner who chose to stay in the Union. "He shared (southern) distaste for abolitionist and for Northern politicians who made hostility to slaveholders a political platform. Still, he told Louisianans that secession was treason and that he would not collaborate with it by remaining in the state," (Royster, 90). He hoped to stay out of the war but eventually he joined the Union army. He participated in the battle of Bull Run and blamed the "defeat on the inexperience and panic of the privates," (Royster, 92). He was the senior commander of central and western Kentucky in 1861, despite his desire not to be in charge. He was dismissed of command of the area and rumors spread that he was insane. He eventually led campaigns down the Mississippi River and captured Atlanta. He became famous for his destructive marches through the south.

General Thomas Jonathan Jackson or Stonewall Jackson was a very famous and effective Confederate General. Everyone even Northerners considered Jackson a "genuine general," (Royster, 42). Jackson on many occasions outmatched many Union Generals on the battlefield. He died on the battlefield on May 2, 1863 from friendly fire. Many Confederate Generals including Lee thought that if Jackson had not died that they would have won the war. After the war Jackson came to symbolize many things after the war. He epitomized the courageous and skilled Confederate soldier. He also represented a model "to all the men especially ambitious and aspiring youths, that the self-control and assiduous application he had become a self-made man," (Royster, 162).

The civil war was "an interior struggle in the (Confederacy and Union), an effort to make the newly forming conceptions of nationality inclusive lasting while they were still controversial and nebulous," (Royster, 145). Both sides believed that the best way to validate their idea of the nation is to destroy the other side's army. The Confederacy thought the best way to establish itself as an independent nation would be to deliver to the north a decisive defeat on their soil. General Stonewall Jackson gave the south many victories against the Union and came to be one of the most famous Generals in the war. The Union thought one of the best ways to bring the Confederacy to its knees would be to attack Confederate citizens. General Sherman was famous for his invasion into the south, wrecking havoc on the Confederate citizens.

I had to read this book for my Civil War class. I thought that the book was a valuable source of civil war information. However Royster repeated himself several times in the book. The book also jumped alot from subject to subject. The chapters did not flow into each other; they tended to skip from idea to idea. Despite this it was full of very detailed information.

This is a brilliantly labyrinthine disquisition on the American Civil War. Royster's premise is the examination of the wars' scale of destruction, and the surprising extent of its violence, developed out of biographical sketches of Sherman and Jackson, who Royster believes best personify the Union and the Confederacy. Further, Royster sees the devastation of the Civil War as incipient in the antebellum period. The Destructive War is interpretive as well as critical, literary as well as historical, dealing as much with the idea of war as the facts themselves. Indeed, the author terms his work " a long essay."

Royster depicts the Civil War as-primarily-aggresive, anomalous, vicarious, and as the title suggests, destructive. The Confederacy sought aggressive war to achieve quick legitimacy, its viability depending on the ability not only to wage war, but also to take that war north of the Potomac, make the Yankees feel its effects, and thereby convince them that the costs of prolonged combat would be far too dear. Royster argues that the Union pursued aggresive war, ultimately, to bring progress to the South and demonstrate the superiority of free labor over slave labor, by razing the Confederacy to its foundations and then rebuilding it in the North's own image.

For Royster no one better epitomizes the Confederacy than Thomas Jonathon Jackson, better known by his sobriquet Stonewall, which Royster asserts, reflected a self-created persona. Jackson's Stonewall was an inelegant fusion of plodding resolve, frustrated (if not checked) ambition, and intense piety, smacking of both Calvinism and Arminianism, all funneled into a zealous devotion to duty. His untimely death at Chancellorsville gave birth to the Stonewall myth-patriotic Christian warrior-providing tantalizing 'what if' grist for the counterfactual mill of post hoc Confederate nation building. An advocate of "the tactical offensive in battle" Jackson is certain the Civil War will be "earnest,massed, and lethal."

The essence of the Union, according to Royster, can be found in William Tecumseh Sherman. Alarmed by Confederate strength and resolve, Sherman presciently observed that tactical defensive warfare would be woefully insufficient in what he believed would be a long and costly war. Egged on by newspapers ravenous for victory on the cheap, and deferring to troops already engaged in wanton mayhem, Sherman embraced, then embodied, that which he originally resisted: total war.

Royster includes subsidiary characterizations of the war as drastic, Republican, and vigorous. Drastic war knows no limits in the pursuit of emancipation and abolition. Republican war means "Emergency war powers" and "passionate nationalism" which will create "a new republic, purged of antebellum evils and backwardness." Vigorous war is possible because of the "widespread eagerness to be exonerated of the criminality attached to bloodshed." Auxiliary adjectives such as harsh, bitter, ineluctable and causeless are employed to complete the illustration. In the book's chapter on vicarious war the author asks, "How had the naive notions prevalent at the start given way so readily to killing on a scale supposedly unimaginable?" This single question is the essence of Royster's work.

Royster's "The Destructive War" is one of the most important works of Civil War Scholarship in the 1990's. He blends a sweeping narrative with extensive analysis to explain the development of "total war" and its effects on Americans. What will really engage the reader is not so much Royster's examinations of General William Sherman's actions and those of his men, but rather the ideas of Stonewall Jackson and the calls for the destruction of Northern cities that they elicit from the Confederacy, a nation that was supposedly only wanted to fight a defensive war. While Royster's argument is not without some structural flaws, it makes some very interesting points about Confederate war aims and the willingness of populations and troops of both sides to destroy the cities of their former bretheren. I've read this book twice for graduate level classes and each time a lively discussion has been generated. An excellent book.