|
One of the most difficult types of Civil War books to write well are small unit histories. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is the relative lack of primary sources. The OR, vast as it is, rarely does much more than mention regiments. The smaller units are too far down the hierarchy to warrant much space in official reports. That means a researcher has to dig around for letters, diaries, memoirs, newspaper accounts, state archives, which as often as not are scattered around, if available at all. Then there is the challenge of assembling these obscure sources into a coherent narrative, and hoping there's a big enough market to justify the hard work. It can be done in the hands of a skilled writer who is passionate about his subject. John Pullen's "20th Maine" is perhaps the best example I've read of just how good a small unit history can be.
It's no secret that I'm interested in the role of Maine, my home state, in the Civil War. This book is the one that lit the fire of my interest in the Civil War. The 20th, thanks to the "marketing" skill of its most famous commander, Joshua Chamberlain, has long held an almost mythical place in the lore of the state. While much of its story is overblown, there is little question it was a solid unit which accomplished much while in the thick of the war. Most of its place in the general history of the war revolves around a single engagement on Day 2 of Gettysburg, but its real story encompasses much more than that single engagement. In some ways, the 20th was a typical regiment in the Army of the Potomac. Its story can stand as a framework for the study of almost any of its sister units.
Pullen, a relatively obscure author outside of Maine who was not a professional historian, did a masterful job of digging up private letters and diaries, combing through the state archives (Maine did a better than average job of officially documenting its involvement in the war), and tapping the writings of Chamberlain to create an extremely well written account of the unit. He traces the 20th from its inception in August 1862 as one of the last non-bounty regiments commanded by Adelbert Ames, a native Maine graduate of West Point, all the way through its mustering out. Ames, as the first commander, is shown as the officer most responsible for the regiment's development into a solid fighting force -- though Ames seemingly didn't have much faith early on that it would amount to much.
While Pullen does dwell at length on the 20ths role at Little Round Top, he does not short-change other aspects of the regiments history. One of the most pleasantly surprising touches in the book is the way Pullen spends much time explaining "The School of the Soldier", how raw recruits learned to maneuver coherently as a small unit in a much larger unit. He explains how pieces were loaded and how troops marched and moved into effective combat units. This backstory, almost always ignored in Civil War writing, does much to give context to how soldiers fought. Had I not understood how this happened, I doubt I'd be as interested in the CW as I am. Pullen understood the feel of a small unit, what the soldiers thought about, what they cared about, how they felt about the combat experience, and he was able to pass on this understanding to the reader.
Pullen delves into everything. He details how the regiment missed the Chancellorsville battle because of bad batch of small pox vaccine and an overwrought regimental surgeon. He also spends a fair amount of time describing a little known incident in the Mine Run campaign where the unit spontaneously and without orders came to the assistance of another Maine regiment (The 6th I think, but I'm not certain) hard-pressed by counter-attacking Confederate forces. In the books most poignant section, he details the misery of the final campaign beginning in the Wilderness and ending at Appamattox. He never fails to remind us that soldiers were real, living, breathing men who deserve to be remembered for their sacrifice.
Pullen doesn't overly romanticize the 20th, but he does fall into the trap of overstating its accomplishments in the larger picture. When he lets the record speak for itself, his story is masterful and satisfying. While he spends much ink on Chamberlain, he hardly ignores the views of others, both officers and men. His writing style is casually detailed, somewhat in the same vein as Catton, which gives the reader a page-turning narrative flow along with often astute analysis. I would highly recommend this book to anyone, novice or learned buff. It gives an excellent picture of the life and times of a regiment, and to my mind, it sets the standard for all other that follow.
|
