Customer Reviews

The Whirlwind of War: Voices of the Storm, 1861-1865

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Mr. Oates' first volume in his new and unique Civil War saga was well written and well researched. Although I enjoyed the second volume well enough, I was disappointed to find that he gave credibility to some popular Civil War myths, namely in the case of the Longstreet Gettysburg controversy. Mr. Oates would have done well to consult the most complete and exhaustive work on the subject - Glenn Tucker's "Lee and Longstreet at Gettysburg". Recent research like that of Glenn Tucker's proves that Longstreet acted with vigor and professionalism in coordinating the attacks on the second day at Gettysburg, although he differed with Lee on where the attack should be made. As for Lee ordering an attack at dawn on the third day, it just didn't happen. Mr. Oates has written a decent book, but his treatment of the Gettysburg campaign was flawed, and that is unfortunate. Longstreet deserves much of the credit for creating the only bright spots of that camaign for the Confederate side. I would recommend Mr. Tucker's book for anyone interested in truth rather than controversy. The only other point that I disliked was the treatment of Sherman. I feel he comes off rather simple and shallow. Truth is, Sherman was a military genius and our popular opinion of him is colored by how he was portrayed by the press during the war. He was extremely articulate, immensely thorough and perhaps the most professional and clear minded general the North produced. He was well ahead of his time and many of his controversial opinions have been proven correct and accurate in the generations since the war.

I found this book tiresome compared to part one [Voices of the Storm] and his other biographies [Lincoln and Martin Luther King] which are outstanding and recommended. The vehicle he uses --e.g. 11 voices of historical figures from the War who alternate perspectives from chapter to chapter is contrived, of questionable authenticity in many segments and eventually, to me, distracting. In volume one this technique gave me a sense of political issues --it just was not as effective in this volume which focused mostly on military issues. A military history needs maps and diagrams to give the reader a sense of what was happening, where and when. The absence of such support weakened that aspect of the story. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom is a better source for information on the flow of the Civil War than this volume.

"The Whirlwind of War" is a very well written book about the American Civil War, with an especially innovative approach. Author Stephen B. Oates interweaves imaginary first-person written accounts of eleven of the war's key figures - among them Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, U.S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, William T. Sherman, Mary Boykin Chesnut and Mary Livermore - to present the story of America's most tragic war a dramatic and compelling way.

Although the first-person soliloquies are fictional, they are based on obviously extensive and meticulous research, and are filled with historical facts which are detailed and accurate. Actually, Oates adds little in the way of new historical data or interpretation in this book, although the new information on John Wilkes Booth, and the descriptions of the Northern hospital camps by Cornelia Hancock make compelling reading. What I found most fascinating about "The Whirlwind of War" was how effectively Oates was able to bring the characters' personalities so much to life in their soliloquies. Oates doesn't pretend to try to write in the style of Lincoln, Davis, Grant, or the others; still, he allows their personalities to shine through completely. I felt I really got to know the tormented Abraham Lincoln, the laconic U.S. Grant, the profane, manic-depressive William T. Sherman, the reserved and dignified Robert E. Lee, and the bitter Jefferson Davis through their first-person accounts.

Oates' imaginative writing in "The Whirlwind of War" makes it an especially entertaining book, one which gives readers an accurate and reasonably detailed understanding of the people and events which made up America's bloodiest conflict. Highly recommended!

This brilliant book is a real standout in Civil War literature. Oates swings for the fences, and hits the ball way out of the park. With this unique interweaving of first person narratives, he puts the reader in the shoes of Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Lee and others. One is left understanding the war from different viewpoints as never before. Highly recommended.

Oates's treatment of the Civil War through fictionalized statements by major participants is a notable achievement. It really is not a military history of the war, but a history of what these participants thought about the war as it progressed. There are some weaknesses to this approach, mostly that the author must choose one version of some events under debate by historians without being able to outline the debate, as might be done in a conventional history. Also, such fictionalization must remain conjectural, even though in Oates's case it is buttressed by great research, and Oates must necessarily limit himself to relatively few participants. Still, by taking seriously the thoughts and opinions of those involved, Oates gives us a much more "alive" picture of the war as it unfolded. Although it took me a few pages to become accustomed to the method, I was impressed by the overall effect.

Oates succeeds in recreating eleven distinctive voices who by turns tell the story of the Civil War. In doing so, he brings us into empathy with each of them: we may disagree with them, even despise what they do, but we see the struggle as they saw it, and feel what they felt. Oates has attempted the nearly impossible here -- and achieved it! It is a feat other writers will be hard pressed to match.

A good addition to the corpus of historical literature about America's most horrendous war and tragedy.

Oates' treatment of Lee, Longstreet, et al, at Gettysburg is solid and well-documented. To consider as a "popular Civil War myth" Longstreet's sulking, insubordinate, and ultimately devastating performance at Gettysburg, as another reviewer does, is an opinion, and an innacurate one at that--and if Glenn Tucker believes as such, he is misguided as well.

Our day is replete with "historians" who amass selective mountains of facts and figures to arrive at the pre-ordained, and often incorrect, conclusions they desire. Glenn Tucker, Alan Nolan, and Michael Shaara notwithstanding, "Old Pete" Longstreet demonstrated an obstinate lack of cooperation with and support for his commanding officer's orders at Gettysburg, as well as a half-hearted effort at positioning his First Corps for battle on the second day of that engagement--all the while urging Lee on to Longstreet's own course of action that Lee wisely considered and rejected.

Lee wanted an early morning attack on the second day--not the third. His mistake was in placing similar trust in lesser corps commanders like Longstreet and Ewell as he had in Stonewall Jackson. On the evening of the first day at Gettysburg, Lee said, with Longstreet present, "If the enemy is there in the morning, I mean to attack him." The enemy was there, Longstreet had abundant time to get his men there, and Stonewall Jackson would not have needed a picture drawn for him (Second Bull Run, Chancellorsville, etc.)--nor would he have rebelled against the authority over him.

The Confederates came within an eyelash of overruning the Federals on the second day at Gettysburg. Without the eight hours or so of additional preparation time provided Meade's army by Longstreet's foot-dragging, what do you think would have been the result?

Got to read it for a term paper for a class on the Civil War. It was illuminating and is a treasure trove of references to other books to read and different directions to go in your study of the war. BUT as a reference for an 8-10 page essay...holy mother is it terrible. Please note I'm addressing the organization of the book and not the content/style.

The table of contents is only each year, even though the monologues are numbered. There is absolutely no "outsider" or "narrator" to recap what the heck everyone's talking about or even just alluding to. (Such as the 20-odd pages on Gettysburg/Longstreet; as someone who does not yet understand military jargon or what it even means to "take a hill," this and other instances caused my eyes to glaze over.)

In all fairness, a lot of things are spelled out while completely in keeping with the "voice." Abatis is defined by at least two different "characters," for example.

Perhaps my complaints with the book are simply the wages of my own ignorance--the book is about a war, and political agitations before the war are more my strong suit.

If you have a guy who can watch like, the military channel or understands war jargon and isn't surrounded by Civil War books already, this is an awesomely great book for him. And he'll love Sherman.