David C. Hinze, Karen Farnham. The Battle of Carthage: Border War in Southwest Missouri, July 5, 1861. Campbell, C.A.: Savas Publishing Co., 1997. vi + 314 pp. $24.95, cloth, ISBN 978-1-882810-06-2.
Reviewed by Wolfgang Hochbruck
Published on H-CivWar (October, 1998)
Ask anybody about the frst battle of the Civil successes in Missouri during four bloody years of War. Almost invariably, the answer will be "Bull military strife" (p. 217). In the face of all the argu‐ Run" ("First Manassas", if you want). However, ments Hinze and Farnham present, one might still there was a smaller-scale battle more than two argue that 'Forty-eighter' Colonel Franz Sigel and weeks earlier, and its impact, though hardly no‐ his badly outnumbered command inficted higher ticeable in Washington or Richmond, was certain‐ casualties than they sufered themselves and, af‐ ly felt in the Trans- Mississippi theater of the war. ter a day of hard fghting, managed an orderly David C. Hinze, teacher of history at a high school withdrawal--a very difcult maneuver with large‐ in Rolla, Missouri, and his former student Karen ly untrained volunteer troops, and certainly Farnham, have spent much time and efort to give something Gen. Irwin McDowell, for example, did a detailed account of one of the least researched not efect at Bull Run sixteen days later. battles of the Civil War. The fght at Carthage had While the author's fnal conclusion thus re‐ all the odds for fame stacked against it: It took mains debatable, the whole book is no doubt the place in Southwestern Missouri, far from the capi‐ most comprehensive piece of research written on tals and centers, with no reporters or big newspa‐ the Battle of Carthage to date. As far as the battle pers at hand. It was fought between pre-confeder‐ itself is concerned, it is difcult to imagine a more ate Missouri State Guardsmen on the one side and detailed and thorough investigation. In light of predominantly German Union volunteers on the the scattered, problematic, missing, and often other, and few of the men present rose to larger contradictory evidence available, to research an fame. And it was a draw. early Western theater battle like this one is no mi‐ Actually, as far as the last point is concerned, nor undertaking, and Hinze and Farnham make a Hinze and Farnham argue that it wasn't: "While remarkable job of it. As usual local folklore, belit‐ results can be manipulated and debated, one tling or self-aggrandizing reports by the respec‐ thing remains clear: Carthage was the frst true tive commanding ofcers, and sometimes outright feld victory for Southerners and one of the few falsifcations have to be taken into account. To H-Net Reviews make things worse, most of the reminiscences of The book is, on the whole, particularly strong the battle were written decades after the war, cre‐ on the Missouri State Guard and on the proto-Con‐ ating at best uncertain images, at worst complete federate political and military forces in Missouri distortions of what happened. Hinze and Farn‐ and environs. The roles men like James Spencer ham seem to steer a relatively safe course be‐ Rains and Mosby Monroe Parsons played, as well tween the conficting memoirs, carefully weighing as the characters of the men themselves, are aptly them against each other. presented. Unfortunately, the same does not al‐ One of their most interesting conclusions is ways apply to the Union side of the confict, even that the running battle reportedly fought between though there are some strong moments here, too. Sigel's men and the Missouri State Guard between One valuable insight is that into the obstructive Buck Branch and Spring River, where Sigel's bat‐ role of "Chief Quartermaster Justus McKinstry, a teries supposedly leap-frogged along the retreat‐ quintessential bureaucrat," who never seems to ing moving open square formed by infantry and have realized what a revolutionary situation he wagons, simply did not take place. Even if Sigel's was in. Whereas they attempt to do justice to the forces moved in the described manner, there is no background of the German "Forty-Eighters" evidence that anybody tried to get too close. "It among the Unionists in Missouri, Hinze and Farn‐ was not simply or even primarily Sigel's superb ham do not go as far as Steven Rowan, who has training or discipline that won the race ... but the conclusively shown that what happened in St. chronically inept handling of the Southern caval‐ Louis in the Spring of 1861 was in efect the "Sec‐ ry and the exhausted and disrupted state of the ond Baden revolution"--a violent overthrow of a slowly pursuing Missouri State Guard infantry" counter-revolutionary State government on be‐ (p. 175). This is one of the points the authors re‐ half of a grander national democratic idea. Only peatedly make (have to make): whereas there was this time, the veterans of 1848 and 1849 were no lack of general ofcers among the State Guard, more successful. Unfortunately, this aspect is left in decisive moments there was a lamentable lack out (as is Steven Rowan's name in the bibliograph‐ of generalship. There is, for example, no evidence ic citation of the important book Germans for a that Governor Claiborne F. Jackson led the troops Free Missouri). Of the chapter entitled "The Ger‐ nominally under his command--or who else did. mans" (pp. 10-36), only four pages are really de‐ Worse, the pincer movement around Sigel'sfanks voted to the German population in St. Louis, and and into his back was not only inefective--Lt. Col. the Union volunteers of 1861. What the authors Hassendeubel's battalion brushed of the guards‐ have to say about Franz Sigel's background on pp. men blocking their way at Buck Branch (p. 91-92 is simply a garbled mess-- and Hinze/Farn‐ 169-70)--but it further fragmented what little co‐ ham cannot blame their sources here: Stephen hesion there had been on the Rebel side original‐ Engle's Yankee Dutchman: The Life of Franz Sigel ly. However, in an army in which " ... rampant is usually accurate as far as the research is con‐ nepotism ... permeated its ranks" and "family ties cerned. Most of the avoidable as well as the un‐ took precedence over military training or compe‐ avoidable inaccuracies in The Battle of Carthage tency [sic]" (p. 69), such things are probably un‐ sneak into the text where the German soldiers are avoidable. Considering the odds, the rank and fle concerned. Unavoidable are mistakes the authors of the Missouri State Guard seem to have inherit from older books like Ella Lonn's Foreign‐ marched and fought with astounding alacrity and ers in the Union Army and Navy (1951) or A. E. perseverance. Zucker's The Forty-eighters: Political Refugees of the German Revolution (1950), both of which have 48er veteran Captain Adolf Dengler killed at
2 H-Net Reviews
Vicksburg. His Co. G was one of the units that con‐ cape" (p. 189). And while The Battle of Carthage fronted the Missouri State Guard attempt to cross does contain comparatively less of the jingoistic Dry Fork Creek, he was cited by Sigel in his ofcial "Germish" encountered in other campaign histo‐ report, and lived to command the 43rd Illinois to ries, already the idea that German volunteers the end of the war. would have "serenaded ... young ladies with 'John Other mistakes are clearly due to defcient ed‐ Brown's Body' and 'The Star-Spangled Banner' ... itorship. Soldiers described as in rags on page 64 delivered in a mixture of broken English and Ger‐ turn into well-dressed men again by page 122, man" (p. 103) is simply ridiculous. These prob‐ wearing "gray jackets (some trimmed with yellow lems, plus the usual misspellings of German piping), gray jeans pants and black shoes." The names and institutions, could and should have sources for this description are not given. Actual‐ been avoided. But then the focus of the authors' ly, the 3rd Missouri regiment wore a grey blouse attention is clearly on the pro-Southern side of the with red collar (or neckerchief), probably mod‐ confict, and as stated above, it is difcult to imag‐ eled after the garments worn by the revolutionists ine a more thoroughly investigated account of the in Germany in 1848 and 1849, notably by Georg battle of Carthage itself. If the book is, as David Herwegh's "Legion" of German exiles returning to Hinze states in an (otherwise superfuous) inter‐ fght for democracy. Sigel's men were making a view at the end, "a labor of love under construc‐ political statement by the cut of their uniforms. As tion" (p. 314), then in a second edition they should far as the rest of the uniform is concerned, Andy eliminate these and other mistakes, and revise the Thomas's paintings, one of which is used for the incomplete bibliography. book cover, are better researched than Hinze/ Copyright 1998 by H-Net, all rights reserved. Farnham's text. Likewise, a number of technical This work may be copied for non-proft educa‐ inaccuracies mar the text. Only the rife compa‐ tional use if proper credit is given to the author nies of Sigel's infanty did indeed have rifes. The and the list. For other permission, please contact rest of the soldiers were equipped with smooth‐ [email protected]. [The book review editor bores, Springfeld 1842 model, and possibly even for H-CivWar is Robert F. Pace 1816 conversions, so the repeated assertion that
3 H-Net Reviews
If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-civwar
Citation: Wolfgang Hochbruck. Review of Hinze, David C.; Farnham, Karen. The Battle of Carthage: Border War in Southwest Missouri, July 5, 1861. H-CivWar, H-Net Reviews. October, 1998.
URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=2407
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
4