July the third 1863 it seems, will forever be associated with an event known by almost everyone as "Pickett's Charge" . . . the day more than 12,000 officers and men in Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia charged forward at the Union defenses at Gettysburg. Almost since that day onward, the label given to that assault has focused on the commander of less than half of the troops who made the attack-Major General George Pickett. Pickett whose Division constituted only three of the nine brigades in the afternoon assault has become the namesake of the entire effort. Now, the story is told of the men from North Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee and Alabama who made that charge.

A bibliographical guide to recently published Civil War diaries, journals, letters, and memoirs.

Young James Wren survived in the Union Army from April 1861 to May 1863. His regiment, the 48th PA Volunteers, saw some of the war's most blistering combat in North Carolina, at Second Manassas, South Mountain, Antietam & Fredericksburg. This is Capt. Wren's remarkable true story -- in his own words. Researched by 10 talented high school students, under the editor's supervision, this incredible document offers a firsthand, day-by-day account of the Civil War. The diary reveals new insights into race relations between enlisted soldiers, as well as the troops' attitudes toward the enemy & local civilians. Maps.

New developments in Civil War scholarship owe much to removal of artificial divides by historians seeking to explore the connections between the home front and the battlefield. Indeed, scholars taking a holistic view of the war have contributed to our understanding of the social complexities of emancipation—of freedom in a white republic—and the multifaceted experiences of both civilians and soldiers. Given these accomplishments, research focusing on military history prompts prominent and recurring debates among Civil War historians. Critics of traditional military history see it as old-fashioned, too technical, or irrelevant to the most important aspects of the war. Proponents of this area of study view these criticisms as a misreading of its nature and potential to illuminate the war. The collected essays in Upon the Fields of Battle bridge this intellectual divide, demonstrating how historians enrich Civil War studies by approaching the period through the specific but nonetheless expansive lens of military history. Drawing together contributions from Keith Altavilla, Robert L. Glaze, John J. Hennessy, Earl J. Hess, Brian Matthew Jordan, Kevin M. Levin, Brian D. McKnight, Jennifer M. Murray, and Kenneth W. Noe, editors Andrew S. Bledsoe and Andrew F. Lang present an innovative volume that deeply integrates and analyzes the ideas and practices of the military during the Civil War. Furthermore, by grounding this collection in both traditional and pioneering methodologies, the authors assess the impact of this field within the social, political, and cultural contexts of Civil War studies. Upon the Fields of Battle reconceives traditional approaches to subjects like battles and battlefields, practice and policy, command and culture, the environment, the home front, civilians and combatants, atrocity and memory, revealing a more balanced understanding of the military aspects of the Civil War’s evolving history.

Although much is known about the political stance of the military at large during the Civil War, the political party affiliations of individual soldiers have received little attention. Drawing on archival sources from twenty-five generals and 250 volunteer officers and enlisted men, John Matsui offers the first major study to examine the ways in which individual politics were as important as military considerations to battlefield outcomes and how the experience of war could alter soldiers’ political views. The conservative war aims pursued by Abraham Lincoln’s generals (and to some extent, the president himself) in the first year of the American Civil War focused on the preservation of the Union and the restoration of the antebellum status quo. This approach was particularly evident in the prevailing policies and attitudes toward Confederacy-supporting Southern civilians and slavery. But this changed in Virginia during the summer of 1862 with the formation of the Army of Virginia. If the Army of the Potomac (the major Union force in Virginia) was dominated by generals who concurred with the ideology of the Democratic Party, the Army of Virginia (though likewise a Union force) was its political opposite, from its senior generals to the common soldiers. The majority of officers and soldiers in the Army of Virginia saw slavery and pro-Confederate civilians as crucial components of the rebel war effort and blamed them for prolonging the war. The frustrating occupation experiences of the Army of Virginia radicalized them further, making them a vanguard against Southern rebellion and slavery within the Union army as a whole and paving the way for Abraham Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

This biography of General Edwin Vose Sumner emphasizes his role in developing the mounted arm of the U.S. Army. Born in Boston in 1797 he abandoned a merchant's career and entered the U.S. Infantry in 1819. Transferring to the Dragoons in the 1830s, Sumner established the Cavalry School of Practice at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. Among his students was the future Confederate General Richard S. Ewell. Sumner served with distinction throughout the Mexican War and maintained a balance between the warring factions in Kansas in the mid-1850s (his efforts earning him the displeasure of the Pierce administration). He led an expedition against the Cheyennes with subordinates that included future Civil War generals John Sedgwick and Samuel Sturgis as well as the capable but headstrong Lieutenant Jeb Stuart. Replacing Albert Sidney Johnston in California in 1861, Sumner kept the state in the Union. Returning east, he commanded the Second Corps throughout 1862 and died of pneumonia in March 1863.

“An important book that rescues George B. McClellan’s military reputation.” —Chronicles Bold, brash, and full of ambition, George Brinton McClellan seemed destined for greatness when he assumed command of all the Union armies before he was 35. It was not to be. Ultimately deemed a failure on the battlefield by Abraham Lincoln, he was finally dismissed from command following the bloody battle of Antietam. To better understand this fascinating, however flawed, character, Ethan S. Rafuse considers the broad and complicated political climate of the earlier 19th Century. Rather than blaming McClellan for the Union’s military losses, Rafuse attempts to understand his political thinking as it affected his wartime strategy. As a result, Rafuse sheds light not only on McClellan’s conduct on the battlefields of 1861-62 but also on United States politics and culture in the years leading up to the Civil War. “Any historian seriously interested in the period will come away from the book with useful material and a better understanding of George B. McClellan.” —Journal of Southern History “Exhaustively researched and lucidly written, Rafuse has done an excellent job in giving us a different perspective on ‘Little Mac.’” —Civil War History “Rafuse’s thoughtful study of Little Mac shows just how enthralling this complex and flawed individual continues to be.” —Blue & Gray magazine

Harper's informs a diverse body of readers of cultural, business, political, literary and scientific affairs.