Black Jack: John A. Logan and Southern Illinois in the Civil War Era. By James Pickett Jones. Tallahassee: The Florida State University, 1967.

            The military career of Gen. John A. Logan is well known to students of the Civil War’s Western Theater, though his contributions are arguably underappreciated outside that circle. James Pickett Jones, Distinguished Teaching Professor of History at Florida State University, offers one of the earliest academic biographies of Logan in Black Jack: John A. Logan and Southern Illinois in the Civil War Era, covering his early life up to his 1866 reelection to Congress (Jones chronicles the second half of Logan’s life and career in John A. Logan: Stalwart Republican from Illinois). Jones considers Logan in the context of his background as an outspoken Democrat from the pro-Southern Democrat bastion that was “Egypt” (southern Illinois), one who helped maintain his region’s loyalty to the Union, converted from race-baiting Democrat to Radical Republican, and proved himself as one of the most capable of the Civil War’s political generals.

John Alexander Logan was born February 9, 1826, near present-day Murphysboro, Illinois, the oldest of eleven children born to Irish native Dr. John Logan and his Southern wife. Young Logan received a lieutenancy in an Illinois regiment in the Mexican War but saw no action. During the 1850s Logan made a name for himself as an attorney and politician, elected as a Democrat first to the state legislature and later to the House of Representatives. A dedicated supporter of Senator Stephen Douglas, Logan sided with the “Little Giant” in the latter’s feud with President James Buchanan over Kansas policy, doing political battle with fellow Illinois Democrats siding with the administration. The secession crisis in the wake of Abraham Lincoln’s presidential victory strained the loyalties of Logan and his fellow “Egyptians.” Southern Illinoisans, mostly staunch Democrats, had no love lost on the abolitionist cause and were reluctant to go to the war with Southerners with whom they had close ties of blood and culture. From February through June 1861 the normally vociferous Logan was notably silent as to whether he would declare himself a War or Peace Democrat, though at this time he was advocating compromise and deprecating both secessionists and Republicans. Jones surmises Logan was trying to discern the sentiments of his equally conflicted Egyptian constituents and how to respond in kind. Southern Illinoisans at the time were loudly debating the prospect of civil war amid rumors and rhetoric of taking their own region out of the Union and siding with the Confederacy, and in later years political opponents would accuse of Logan of having encouraged such efforts behind the scenes, charges for which Jones finds little basis. Logan broke his silence June 18, delivering an inspiring pro-Union speech to troops under Ulysses Grant, inaugurating an energetic speaking tour throughout Southern Illinois. Jones allows that Logan may have been riding a rising tide of pro-war sentiment but persuasively suggests that in fact Logan may well have helped inspire a pro-Union turn of opinion.

Logan received a commission as colonel of the 31^st Illinois, distinguishing himself at Belmont and Fort Donelson under Grant’s command, receiving wounds at the latter engagement that would cause him to miss the Battle of Shiloh. Logan returned to Grant’s Army of the Tennessee in command of a division in time for the Vicksburg Campaign. In Mississippi he proved himself the opposite of fellow War Democrat John McClernand, capable and decisive on the battlefield in contrast to McClernand’s dithering and loyal to Grant in contrast to McClernand’s backbiting. Logan also emerged as one of the most popular generals in Grant’s army, always visibly leading and encouraging his men in battle and earning the nickname “Black Jack” for his swarthy complexion and coal black hair and mustache. He led XV Corps during Sherman’s Atlanta Campaign, taking the reins of the Army of the Tennessee after James McPherson’s death in the Battle of Atlanta and avenging his commander by leading his men to a Union victory. Sherman gave permanent command of Grant’s old army to Oliver O. Howard, however, in part due to his own bias against non-West Pointers. Logan resented being passed over but received praise for his stoic acceptance. During the war he also underwent a political conversion, embracing emancipation, according to Jones, out of a willingness to use the policy as a weapon to save the Union and a realization that there was political support for such a move beyond his own southern Illinois. Logan actively campaigned for Lincoln prior to the Election of 1864, telling Sherman after the war that it had been at the president’s private request. As a fervent Union man and opponent of the Confederacy, he completed his political transformation shortly after the war when he was reelected to the House of Representatives in 1866, this time as a Republican.

Jonathan Steplyk   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Texas Christian University 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Black Jack: John A. Logan and Southern Illinois in the Civil War Era.  By James Pickett Jones.    (Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1995 (1967).  Pp. xxiii, 314).

             As the Civil War began, the Federal government had only a small army while the Confederacy had no army at all.  Both governments had to enlist, train, and arm large numbers of civilian-soldiers in order to meet their manpower requirements.  As for officers, some of the men had West Point training but many achieved their rank solely on the basis of political clout.  These politician-officers often failed miserably as commanders on the battlefield but some performed their duty with distinction.  One such man who achieved success in his military career was Union Major General John “Black Jack” Logan.  Historian James Pickett Jones examines the political and military career of the renowned Illinois general from his initial entry into local politics as a Democrat assemblyman during the early 1850s to his election as Republican congressman in 1867.  Logan’s career as military officer and politician highlights the dynamics of Illinois politics as well as those of Civil War era America.

            Born in 1826 to a prominent Illinois doctor and politician, John Logan grew up steeped in the raucous politics of Southern Illinois.  This area, known as Egypt for unknown reasons, had been settled by southern emigrants who favored Jacksonian Democratic politics.  Southern Illinois and its political leaders often found themselves in opposition to the northern part of the state including the areas around Springfield and Chicago.  After serving in the Mexican War, Logan trained as a lawyer and followed his father’s footsteps into politics eventually gaining election to the state assembly in the early 1850s.  Logan performed well in that office and gained positive attention across the state.  By the late 1850s, the northern half of Illinois leaned towards the new Republican Party while the southern half stayed Democratic.  Blasting vile abolitionist Republicans, Logan won election to the United States Congress and occupied that office during the secession crisis of 1860-61.  Logan supported the Union and argued against both southern secessionists and northern abolitionists.  As southern states broke away from the Union, he condemned their actions but argued against a war to preserve the Union.  As with many others from Egypt, he identified more with his Southern countryman than with the northern Republican government.  Despite his initial opposition, Logan finally threw his support behind the Union and raised a regiment, the 31^st Illinois, for Federal service with himself as the colonel.  Scorned by many anti-war proponents in Southern Illinois, Logan used his influence to build support for Lincoln’s policies in the region.  According to Jones, Logan’s decision to fight for the Union proved to be a major factor in gaining the region’s support for the war effort. 

            Logan served with distinction and rose steadily through the ranks.  He served at Fort Donelson, Corinth, and Vicksburg and proceeded from regimental command to brigade and finally divisional command.  By early 1864, Logan had risen to major-general and commanded a corps during the Atlanta campaign.  He earned the support and trust of West Pointers such as Grant and Sherman.  During the final days of the war, Logan earned command of the Army of the Tennessee and led it during the victory review in Washington that celebrated the Federal victory.  As the war progressed, Logan identified more and more with Lincoln Republicans.  First, he decided to support the war but vowed that he was not fighting for abolition.  After initially opposing the Emancipation Proclamation, he decided to support the policy and argued for emancipation.  As Lincoln fought for reelection in 1864, Logan took leave from the army and campaigned for him in Southern Illinois helping to swing the state into the Republican camp.  After the war, he kept his views to himself while he studied the political situation.  Finally in early 1866, he proclaimed himself a Republican and won election to Congress as a representative from Southern Illinois.  Once again, his personal influence helped build support for the Republicans in Egypt.  As Jones ends his narrative in 1867, Logan has completed his metamorphosis from a staunch Democrat into a loyal Republican.

            Overall, Jones presents a balanced view of Logan while avoiding extremes of hero-worship and character assassination.  He could have been more critical of Logan in a few areas such as when he quarreled with fellow officers over unimportant matters of prestige and authority.  In addition, Logan obviously hesitated at times to state his political views until he had calculated which side would favor his personal ambitions.  A little more critique from Jones on these areas would have added to his book.  Nonetheless, Jones’s book offers an intriguing portrayal of a politician-general and the intense partisan atmosphere that characterized Civil War politics.  

Johnny Spence                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Texas Christian University