Soldiers Blue and Gray. By James I. Robertson, Jr., 1998.                     

 In, Soldiers Blue and Gray, James Robertson provides an updated version of Bell I. Wiley’s works, The Life of Johnnie Reb: The Common Soldier of the Confederacy and The Life of Billy Yank: The Common Soldier of the Union.  Robertson considers Wiley to be his mentor[1] and expresses great admiration for his ability to research unpublished manuscripts.  Without criticizing his teacher’s books, Robertson asserts that Wiley was—of necessity—highly selective in the information he used.  He contends that the focus of Wiley’s research prevented use of certain published texts including collections of primary material and unit histories dating from the post-war years.  Robertson justifies Wiley’s omissions by suggesting there was simply too much data available.  Wiley’s selectivity was a necessary way to manage his research. 

Additional primary material became available because of Wiley’s publications and the interest stimulated by the centennial period of 1961-65.  Robertson contends that there is now so much primary information about the common soldier of the Civil War that no book or series can tell the complete story.  He—like Wiley before him—had to limit the research material he used in this publication.  In an effort to explain the purpose of Solders Blue and Gray and the relationship between of his work and that of Wiley, Robertson states: 

The major purpose of this book is to provide a new and fresh appraisal of Johnny Rebs and Billy Yanks.  In no wise does this work presume to be a replacement for the two Wiley compilations.  Its intent is to supplement those works, not only with material which Wiley did not use, but also with reliance on a sampling of the post-1955 tidal wave of publications.  Quotations dominate the text because of the overriding desire to let the soldiers express their own feelings—and relate their own experiences—whenever possible.[2]

Soldiers Blue and Gray probably accomplishes this objective, but not in a convincing or satisfying manner.  After reviewing the entire book, it seems to be more a collection of information than a cogent analysis and coherent narrative of the Civil War soldier.    

Robertson points out—through the words of his subjects and his own analysis—that the early war fever was an emotional and political response to the exuberance of the times.  Few realized what the future held, but most believed it presaged adventure and excitement.  The volunteers were highly diverse, and over the course of the war they came from every age group, ethnic and racial category, and socio-economic class.  As the war drew on, Robertson believes that idealistic and moral influences began to wane as both armies relied more on enlistment bounties and conscription for recruitment of new troops.  Through most of his book, Robertson does not show much respect for the individual soldier of either army particularly those entering service after the initial rush to glory.  As he stated in the chapter titled Mixing the Ingredients:

Conscripts and substitutes as a rule had to be guarded in camp to prevent them from plundering their compatriots or deserting the army.  In battle, they were an almost total liability.  They would not fight under any inducement; and if somehow forced to the front lines, they would go over to the enemy at the first chance.  They were so unreliable that any regiment that had them in large numbers was decidedly weaker than it would have been without them.”[3]

In this regard, Robertson is entirely unbelievable.  He basis this sweeping judgment on the statement of a singly disgruntled soldier, and then contradicts himself in the following paragraph.  If what Robertson contends above were true, it would be hard to imagine any battles at all, much less the hard fought battles for which the American Civil War is renowned.  Casualty lists alone belie Robertson’s contention about the reliability of Civil War soldiers of any period. 

Other areas in which Robertson’s assessments seem questionable relate to leadership of the armies in the field.  For example, he contends that as the war wore on, latrines and horse pens were often located upstream from encampments.  Certainly, anything may have happened on an occasion, but to suggest such widespread lapse in professionalism as this is to give in to folklore and mythology.  In a further effort to demean the service of the Civil War soldier, Robertson laments the unimaginative workday as being one of drill, drill, and more drill.  He criticizes the efforts to conduct large unit exercises as being “akin to the ignorant leading the uneducated.”[4]  Yet in this criticism, he is unwittingly giving high praise to training programs.  Through hard and often redundant training, soldiers develop skills to the point that they become almost automatic during the confusion of combat.  And it is through the blundering exercises of training camp that green military forces become efficient fighting units.  Blundering will always occur when units first attempt to conduct maneuvers.  Hopefully this will occur during training and not in the heat of battle.  Some mistakes will occur in combat as well as training, of course, but the number of errors and their severity will be inversely proportional to the amount made before the battles begin. 

At the end of the Chapter titled Novelties of Camp Life, Robertson states:

Corporal Peter Welch of the 28^th Massachusetts assured his wife after three months in the field: ‘i am heartier and stronger then i ever remember to be before i will be quite handy when i get home.’  In truth, however, the wartime process of making obedient soldiers out of carefree citizens was painful for all concerned, and the adaptation became more difficult as the war continued and intensified.[5] 

 Corporal Welch’s comment of the effect of his training appears to belie Robertson’s effort to characterize training as almost comic opera.  After three chapters of describing military life of the North and South in terms of hyperbolic folklore, it is refreshing to read an observation focused on substance and integrity. 

After his diatribe against the quality of the soldiers and their training, Robertson goes on to attack the poor rations and long marches of the Civil War armies.  In these observations, he is closer to the truth than his previous criticisms.  The quality and quantity of food was nearly always unsatisfying, and often inadequate.  Food from home and the proximity of civilian vendors known as sutlers helped to mitigate, but could not solve the problem.  Foraging became a common, if somewhat erratic, practice.  Robertson reflects the troop’s dissatisfaction with subsistence, but does not address it in a substantive manner. 

Then, as now, force marches make an important contribution to the physical fitness and discipline an army.  In actual combat, the ability to maneuver depends on the marching skills of individual soldiers.  Whether in training or actual combat, marching taxes the endurance and physical condition of soldiers.  Marching to the point of exhaustion with bleeding feet and burning lungs was an essential skill to the Civil War soldier as well as to those to follow.  To his credit, Robertson acknowledges that these men displayed remarkable stamina and fortitude.  Yet even this he must qualify with the observation such devotion was not without emotion or resentment.  Robertson is apparently unaware that soldiers of all eras grumble about the painful aspects of their profession.  We should inform him that the measure of a soldier is not how much he complains, but how well he performs under stressful circumstances. 

Letter writing, singing, and reading provided the greatest amount of amusement for Civil War soldiers.  Robertson contends that Civil War troops enjoyed singing more that those of any other eras.  In support of this, he points out that no other event in American history produced as many enduring melodies.  This love of music found expression in everything from formal bands to campfire singing.  Other forms of activity included camp sports such as baseball, boxing, wrestling, and track events.  Amateur theatrical productions and practical jokes also helped relieve the drudgery of camp life.  The earthier, seamier side of military society included frequent use of profanity, gambling, tobacco, and whisky.  Robertson believes that these vices, particularly the use of alcohol, served as a vehicle of escape from the horrors of war and the loneliness of being away from home.  He concludes his observations on Civil War vice with the following comments:

Most Civil War soldiers who indulged freely in raucous camp activities just as freely relinquished them on returning home at war’s end.  Every army has its quota of rogues and weaklings, to be sure; but the evidence is overwhelming that the majority of Confederates and Federals were conscientious, devoted men possessed of simple but indelible virtues.  They sought to do the best they could in an atmosphere over which they had no control.  How well they met hardships and temptations during long months in camp varied with the individual.[6]

 These comments contrast sharply with his earlier negativity about the common soldier of this era.  Robertson even contends that the widespread prevalence of prostitution did not suborn the feelings of fidelity and commitment among those with marital ties back home.  Although very strong in his view that prostitution was a major activity wherever the army existed, he is quite vague about who availed themselves and under what conditions.

Robertson returns to use of the overstatement in his chapter titled Problems of Discipline.  He starts the chapter with the comment, “Civil War troops were the worst soldiers and the best fighters that American has ever produced.”[7]  He bases this assertion on the fact that discipline was difficult among volunteer troops and was often a problem.  Robertson apparently is confused on the difference between leadership and regimentation.  He seems to think that to be a good soldier, one must render blind obedience, and that a soldier requiring authentic leadership is somehow deficient.  Such is not the case.  Even officers who express frustration at the demands of leadership in a volunteer army understand the necessity for it.  The fact that solders expect (even require) good leadership from their officers does not mean that they are bad soldiers.  If an officer looses respect due to drunkenness or lack of fortitude in battle, it is a reflection of his inadequacy, not of his soldiers.  Yet throughout this chapter, Robertson confuses these two issues. 

Robertson also seems surprised at occasional acts of kindness between Confederate and Union soldiers, which he also characterizes as a breakdown of discipline.  Yet the fact that such acts could occur under one set of circumstances, while the soldiers fought with determination when necessary attests to their excellent discipline, not its absence.  In the chapter titled Problems of Discipline, Robertson seeks a simple explanation to complexities of military activities.  He seizes on the issue of discipline—in his view the lack of discipline—as his explanation.  But he is wrong to assume that because these soldiers—and soldiers of every American war—require good and competent leadership they have a disciplinary problem.  Contrary to Robertson’s assertion, the Civil War troops were among the best soldiers and the best fighters that American has produced.

Robertson also returns to the role of critic in his discussion of health care during the Civil War.  Although conceding that most surgeons were hard working and caring administrators, he regrets that they made no outstanding medical breakthroughs.  Without question, the Civil War was hard on its soldiers.  Not only were battlefield casualties horrific, but such diseases as chicken pox, measles, mumps, whooping cough, smallpox, typhoid fever, malaria, diarrhea, and dysentery would visit the camps with bewildering frequency.  The close proximity of individuals coupled with the poor nutrition and limited medical knowledge served to make disease a great disabler of soldiers.  Civil War medicine is a favorite target of many historians and critics.  Robertson inserts himself into this issue with a criticism of its practice but without understanding the reasons.  In short, he seems to expect doctors of 1865 to have a greater capability than the scientific base of that period would permit. 

The practice of religion was important to both armies in the Civil War although not all soldiers participated.  In no place could religion have served a greater purpose than the military prisons of both North and South.  Although some prisons achieved more notoriety than others did, none operated on the level that society would consider humane.  As Robertson states, “In truth, conditions of Southern soldiers incarcerated in a land of plenty were as inhuman as those for Union soldiers imprisoned in a land being systematically destroyed.”[8]  Food and water was impure, clothing unavailable, and cleanliness unattainable.  These deficiencies coupled with lack of medical supplies ensured extensive illness in all prisons.  Hysteria and exaggeration added to the already negative opinion people held about the prisons.  Despite the fact that all prisons were horrible, Andersonville stands out as the worse such facility ever to exist in the Western Hemisphere.  Even by the best possible representation of conditions, Andersonville was a criminal operation.  Captain Henry Wirz served as the ideal scapegoat for all wrongs associated with the prison system.  After the war, he received a sham trial and ascended the gibbet. 

In his final chapter titled Beyond the Call of Duty, Robertson reverses his earlier denunciation of the Civil War soldier by acknowledging they were brave and good fighters.  He even goes so far as to use the words of Admiral Nimitz—without giving Nimitz credit—that “Uncommon valor was a common virtue.”[9]  One would hardly recognize the soldiers that Robertson described in this final chapter as being the same ones presented in the rest of the book.  In a sense, this inconsistency is exemplary of the overall book.  One finds divergent views throughout.  To some extent, this results from an effort to deal with complex issues that do not lend themselves to simple explanation.  Yet Robertson often presents conflicting information without a proper discussion of the intricacy of the issue. 

In his preface, Robertson stated, “The major purpose of this book is to provide a new and fresh appraisal of Johnny Rebs and Billy Yanks.”  Although he did use new material, it is not clear that he created anything new or fresh, other than a more critical and less sympathetic view of the Civil War soldier than what most researchers perceive.  At least this is true up to the last chapter, where he tends to reverse his opinion.  In part, his harsh view of Civil War soldiers may result from a lack of understanding about certain basic elements of the military profession—such as the role of leadership.  For example, lack of an in-depth comprehension about leadership could—and probably did—lead to incorrect conclusions regarding the status of military discipline.  Before this book, James Robertson wrote an incredibly good book on the life and career of Stonewall Jackson.  Soldiers Blue and Gray contains none of the detailed information and sophisticated analysis that was the hallmark of his book on Jackson.  It is as if different people wrote the two books.  I find this to be inexplicable and very mysterious.

Gary J. Ohls