Shenandoah 1862: Stonewall Jackson's Valley Campaign (Civil War America) [Kindle Edition]

Peter Cozzens established his reputation as an author with a series of excellent western battle histories. Now he turns his attention to one of the classic campaigns in America's military history. "Stonewall" Jackson's Shenandoah Valley Campaign is one of the best examples of what a smaller determined force can accomplish. The Robert G. Tanner and Gary W. Gallagher produced excellent campaign studies and Gary L. Ecelbarger is doing excellent work on individual battles. Tanner's book has long been considered the "standard work" by which all other books are judged. I am not ready to dethrone Tanner but I feel this is a real challenger for the title of best campaign study.
This is a detailed history, omitting nothing of importance and including most of the smaller details that make history interesting. This is not a dry, detailed account that plods on page after dreary page. Cozzens' lively style combines first person accounts with his considerable skill as a storyteller. The result is a history unfolding as it happened, imparting the urgency the participants felt to the reader. We know the story BUT we always understand how limited their knowledge was at the time. This ability makes bad decisions understandable and it shows the problem with doing nothing.
General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson is one of the pivotal figures of the early war. Lionized by many, he became a mythic heroic saintly leader. Cozzens gives us a very human Jackson. He is a complex person completely committed to the cause. He is a harsh taskmaster, prone to snap judgments and unforgiving. This portrait is neither unflattering nor idolizing. It seems to be completely honest, presenting the good and bad points that all men have.
N. P. Banks is a mixed bag, with some very good points as a person but a poor general. He is given a fair treatment that refused to make him a fool or a hero. Freemont is himself, vain, a poor general and a fool. The portrayal is what he was and nothing can change that. The treatment of Lincoln and Stanton is fair. While condemned for overreacting the author recognizes they lost sight of what was important and concentrated on a secondary front.
The handling of Garnett is excellent. The "reasons" Jackson found for the charges are well covered. This includes the personality problems and differences in what they saw as the role of second in command. The full story of the court martial and political maneuvers is not detailed within the book.
The writing is excellent. Battles are detailed, well covered and very understandable. The reader has no problems understanding why a position must be held or taken. The author's conclusions are well presented and quite good.
My only problem with this book is the maps. First, they were not completely proofed. Units in the battle are misidentified on the map. Second, maps need to be placed where they are needed. A map of the midpoint of a battle should not be placed at the start of the story. Likewise, one map cannot cover multiple unit positions with no indication of movement. I found this to be a constant problem when trying to follow the battle on the map. However, this is not a reason to bypass this excellent book.
I feel this will become a classic account of this campaign. The book is informative and fun to read.

Cozzens is so much better at Chickamauga...the best work on that battle IMO. But here, he has some failings...
First is his admission to level out, tone down, Tanners treatment of Jackson...and the popular perception of Jackson. He seems to tell us this..then we look for it as we read the book. Why mention it? And why attempt it? Just do the recount as you did so well with Chickamauga.

Maps..as mentioned...Why would you mention locations in your book that are not on your maps? It is maddening. It happened with Tanner also. I had to search the internet for maps. Some errors in regiments on the maps as well. Cosmetically..the maps were good.

He includes a section in the back with the army organizations at certain periods in the campaign. Good. But, as the book is read...the clarity of brigades and divisions...both sides..is murky. Granted, this campaign and the organizations of the armies is shifty ... but as the army changed complextion...why not have, at that point in the book..the new makeup of the armies? Brigades are shifted between regions...and militias are there...then they are gone...where?

Index is poor. Ord is noted as coming into play under McDowell. Trying to get the commands straight, I wanted to reread that...looked for Ord in the index. Not there. Patton replaces Campbell as brigade commander. I wanted to reread. I knew it was late in book. The index had no reference under Patton or Campbell for what I later found on page 396. Just a few examples...Cozzens should be better than this....

One Full page map with all the points referred to in the book, actually on the map, would really have made it a better book. If not one page, make it two. Also...how about a traced route of the marches?

If Peter was attempting a counterbalance to Tanners book...he succeeded.
But, the counterbalance was equally ...out of balance.

Read both Tanner and Cozzens.. Bring maps...

Peter Cozens has penned a detailed, well written, densely researched account of the endlessly instructive Valley Campaign of 1862. It would be easier to heap praise on his prodigious effort if Cozzen's publisher had loosened up on the purse strings and sprung for some decent maps and illustrations.

The Shenandoah Valley is not Kansas or the New Jersey Turnpike, and superior knowledge of its intricate topography was one reason the Confederates came off so well in 1862. Without decent maps to accompany his voluminous descriptions of battles, march routes and villages, Cozzens is forced to waste whole pages describing specific geographic and tactical features. I LIVE in the Shenandoah Valley, but still found myself bewildered by some of these incredibly wordy place descriptions. The few maps included in the book are murky, monochromatic, incredibly hard to read, and on occasion baffling. The devoted reader is best advised to have a good high-scale map of the Shenandoah Valley at hand well before undertaking Cozzen's otherwise exemplary tome.