Howard: I certainly agree with you regarding the Monaghan book, although I must admit that it is the one that initiated by interest in the Trans-Mississippi theater. I am a Jeff Thompson admirer, and his biography of Thompson treats his subject like some kind of clown.



We may well agree on Oates as well.



Jim McGhee

I am still trying to track down the much more erudite response provided to me by a Civil War author I corresponded with once, who opened my eyes to the pitfalls of generalized Civil War history. Be that as it may, I still contend that Stephen Oates projects his own opinions about the Confederates being "good" guys and the Yankees being "bad" guys.



On pages 31 through 33, Oates refers to a "bloody uprising in Creek country" that threatened to engulf the area in a small civil war. This description is incorrect and does not provide any detail on the flight of men, women and children of Opothelayhola in the dead of winter towards Kansas. The "uprising" depiction of this story is more pro-southern than historically acurate.



On page 42, Oates describes Quantrill's recruiting efforts as a response to depredations by "James Montgomery, Doc Jennison and Jim Lane". This simplistic generalization is a far cry from the complexities that created Quantrill's raiders. While I would concur that history would support bloody deeds performed on both sides, Quantrill should not be described simply as other guerilla leaders were at the time. Quantrill's duplicity started much earlier culminating in the Morgan Walker farm massacre in late 1860. Most battle reports carry a similar pro-Confederate cast.



What Oates does really well was to provide hard to find details on the organization, the many multiple confusing changes made throughout the war, the arms, mounts, and a sense of how the common soldier of the south fared in the Trans-Mississippi West. He portrays the hardship and the superb horsemanship that constituted the most effective arm of Confederate troops in the far western theatre of the Civil War.



So, I do read Stephen Oates but I always keep in the back of my mind that I need to read balancing material in order to get a true picture of the Civil War west of the river.



The same may be said of Monaghan, Connelly, even Castel on the Northern side, either casting everyone as heroes or villians. What is probably true is that people reacted under the trying circumstances of the Civil War much as they would have reacted today, given 19th century morals and behaviors. Politicians acted like 19th century politicians, soldiers acted like 19th century soldiers, and civilians acted like 19th century civilians with the added burden of being in the midst of a civil war. Civilians, as having been pointed out elsewhere, were subjected to the privations of a scorched earth policy, were murdered by both sides if they were suspected of supporting the other side, were robbed by both sides, and abused, humiliated and imprisoned by both sides.



Hope this helps answer part of your question.



Thanks,

Howard Mann

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Howard: I certainly agree with you regarding the Monaghan book, although I must admit that it is the one that initiated by interest in the Trans-Mississippi theater. I am a Jeff Thompson admirer, and his biography of Thompson treats his subject like some kind of clown.



We may well agree on Oates as well.



Jim McGhee