Dan Butterfield played a pivotal role during the Civil War. He led troops in the field at the brigade, division, and corps level, wrote the 1862 Army field manual, composed “Taps,” and served as the chief of staff for Joe Hooker in the Army of the Potomac. He introduced a custom that remains in the U. S. Army today: the use of distinctive hat or shoulder patches to denote the unit to which a soldier belongs and was a Medal of Honor winner. Butterfield was also controversial, not well-liked, and tainted by politics. Award-winning author James S. Pula unspools fact from fiction to offer the first detailed and long overdue treatment of the man and the officer in Major General Daniel Butterfield: A Civil War Biography.Butterfield was born into a wealthy New York family whose father co-founded American Express. He was one of the war’s early volunteers, fought at First Bull Run, and made an important contribution with his Camp and Outpost Duty for Infantry (1862). He gained praise leading a brigade on the Virginia Peninsula and was wounded at Gaines’ Mill, where his heroism would earn him the Medal of Honor in 1892. It was in the solemnity of camp following the Seven Days’ Battles that he gained lasting fame for composing “Taps.” When its commander when missing, Butterfield took command of a division at Second Bull Run and did so with steadiness and intelligence. His abilities bumped him up to lead the Fifth Corps during the bloodbath at Fredericksburg, where he was charged with managing the dangerous withdrawal across the Rappahannock.Shocked and hurt when he was supplanted as the head of the Fifth Corps, he received a “second chance” when General Hooker named him chief of staff of the Army of the Potomac. In this capacity he was largely responsible for innovations such as the use of insignia to identify each corps—which he designed himself—the streamlining of the supply system, and the improvement of communications between commands. He played a pivotal role during the Chancellorsville and Gettysburg campaigns in managing logistics, communications, and movements, only to be discarded while home recuperating from a Gettysburg wound. Politics, questionable morals, and his testimony before the Committee on the Conduct of the War tainted his star. When Hooker was sent west Butterfield went along as chief of staff, earning positive comments from Hooker and Gens. George Thomas, William Tecumseh Sherman, and U. S. Grant. He led a division in the XX Corps during the Atlanta Campaign with conspicuous ability at Resaca before a recurring illness forced him from the field. Pula’s absorbing prose, meticulous research into primary source material, and even-handed treatment of this important Civil War figure will be welcomed by historians and casual readers alike. Major General Daniel Butterfield: A Civil War Biography is a study long-overdue.

“They have done all that can be expected of them; we are outnumbered and outflanked,” so described Lt. Col. Benjamin Ford of the desperate situation for his Marylanders at Camden on August 16, 1780. The battle of Camden is considered by many historians as the high tide of Great Britain’s prospects for victory in the American south. Beginning in the spring of 1780, British leadership focused their attention on conquering the southern colonies. In May 1780, Charleston, South Carolina capitulated and the British captured the bulk of the American Southern army. After the fall of Charleston, the British set up outposts through the South Carolina backcountry in an effort to secure the colony with hopes of moving into North Carolina. In response, the Continental Congress sent the “hero of Saratoga,” Gen. Horatio Gates, to establish a new American Southern army. Gates named this new force as his “Grand Army,” of which its core was a small contingent of experienced Continentals from Maryland and Delaware. However, the majority of Gates’ army were untested, newly-recruited militia from Virginia and North Carolina. Soon after arriving in North Carolina, Gates impetuously led his forces south to confront the British based near Camden, South Carolina. The mostly- inexperienced army lined up against some of the best units of the British army in America and commanded by one of their best generals, Gen. Lord Charles Cornwallis. In a series of misfortunes, what happened on August 16, 1780 was an unmitigated disaster for the Americans. In All That Can Be Expected: The Battle of Camden and the British High Tide in the South, August 16, 1780, historians Rob Orrison and Mark Wilcox describe the events that led to one of the worst American military defeats in United States history. The authors lead you in the footsteps of American and British soldiers throughout the South Carolina backcountry. They interweave a clear historic narrative while guiding the reader to historic locations, creating a precise understanding of the events of August 1780.

After the guns of Manassas fell silent, the opposing armies grappled for position wondering what would come next. Popular history has us believe that daily briefings reported something along the lines of “All quiet along the Potomac.” Reality was altogether different. In fact, the fall and early winter of 1861 was a hotbed of activity that culminated in the December combat at Dranesville. The Union victory—sorely needed after the string of defeats at Bull Run, Wilson’s Creek, and Ball’s Bluff—was small when measured against what was to come; it also helped shape the bloody years to follow.Ryan Quint’s The Battle of Dranesville: Early War in Northern Virginia, December 1861 is the first full history of that narrow but critically important slice of the war. No one knew what was coming, but for the first time in a long while civilians (sympathetic to both sides) were thrown into a spreading civil war of their own as neighbor turned on neighbor. In time, this style of warfare, both on the home front and on the battlefield, came for the small town of Dranesville in Fairfax County.Quint’s mostly forgotten tale uses overlooked or underused sources to sweep readers along from the White House and Secession Hall in Charleston to midnight ambushes and the climatic Dranesville action. A host of characters and commands that would become household names cut their teeth during these months, including Generals Jeb Stuart and Edward Ord, and the Pennsylvania Reserves, whose baptism of fire at Dranesville set the Keystone State soldiers on a path to becoming one of the best combat units of the entire war. Though soon eclipsed by larger and bloodier battles, Dranesville remained a defining moment for many of its participants—soldiers and civilians alike—for the rest of their lives.Here, for the first time, shared through the eyes of those who lived it, is the story of Dranesville and the early war in Northern Virginia.

Even before the guns fell silent at Gettysburg, Robert E. Lee was preparing for the arduous task of getting his defeated army back safely into Virginia. It was an enormous, complex, and exceedingly dangerous undertaking, told here in exciting fashion by Bradley M. Gottfried and Linda I. Gottfried in Race to the Potomac: Lee and Meade after Gettysburg, July 4-14, 1863, the latest Emerging Civil War series entry.General Lee’s first major decision was the assembly of two wagon trains, one to transport the wounded and the other to deliver the tons of supplies acquired by the army as it roamed across Pennsylvania and Maryland on the way to Gettysburg. Once the wagons trains were set, he mapped out routes for his infantry and artillery on different roads to speed the journey and protect his command.Unsure of his opponent’s next move, George Meade, the victor of Gettysburg, dispatched Maj. Gen. John Sedgwick’s VI Corps on a reconnaissance-in-force. The thrust found the Confederate infantry in full retreat; Meade finally had the confirmation he needed that Lee was heading back to Virginia. Meade decided to launch a pursuit along different routes hoping to catch his beaten enemy without unduly exposing his own troops to a devastating counterattack or ambush.Union cavalry moved out after the vulnerable Confederate wagon trains, and the encounters that followed, including several engagements with Jeb Stuart’s horsemen, resulted in the loss of hundreds of vehicles and the capture of large numbers of wounded and tons of valuable supplies. The majority of Lee’s wagons reached Williamsport, Maryland, only to find the pontoon bridge gone—cut loose by Union troops in the area. Lee’s army reached Hagerstown, Maryland, largely unscathed and began building a strong defensive line while a pontoon bridge was built across the Potomac at Falling Waters.Meade refused to rush headlong against attack Lee’s new position, and the Confederates began crossing the river on the night of July 13-14. The last of Lee’s troops crossed on the morning of the 14th, thus ending the high-stakes drama of the “race to the Potomac.”

Often relegated to a backseat by action in the Eastern Theater, the Western Theater is actually where the Federal armies won the Civil War. In the West, General Ulysses S. Grant strung together a series of victories that ultimately led him to oversee Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House and, eventually, two terms in the White House. In the West, the fall of Atlanta secured Lincoln's reelection for his own second term. In the West, Federal armies split the Confederacy in two - and then split it in two again. In the West, Federal armies inexorably advanced, gobbling up huge swaths of territory in the face of ineffective Confederate opposition. By war's end, General William T. Sherman had marched the "Western Theater" all the way into central North Carolina. In the Eastern Theater, the principal armies fought largely within a 100-mile corridor between the capitals of Washington, D.C., and Richmond, Virginia, with a few ill-fated Confederate invasions north of the Mason-Dixon Line. The Western Theater, in contrast, included the entire area between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River, from Kentucky in the north to the Gulf of Mexico in the south - a vast geographic expanse that, even today, can be challenging to understand. The Western Theater of War: Favorite Stories and Fresh Perspectives from the Historians at Emerging Civil War revisits some of the Civil War's most legendary battlefields: Shiloh, Chickamauga, Franklin, the March to the Sea, and more.

The American Civil War is often called the first “modern war.” Sandwiched between the Napoleonic Wars and World War I, it spawned a host of “firsts” and is considered a precursor to the larger and more deadly 20th century wars. Confederate Gen. James Longstreet made overlooked but profound modern contributions to the art of war. Retired Lt. Col. Harold M. Knudsen explains what Longstreet did and how he did it in James Longstreet and the American Civil War: The Confederate General Who Fought the Next War now released in paperback.Initially, commanders on both sides extensively utilized Napoleonic tactics that were obsolete because of the advent of the rifled musket and better artillery. Some professional army officers worked to improve tactics, operations, and strategies. On the Confederate side, a careful comparison of Longstreet’s body of work in the field to modern military doctrine reveals several large-scale innovations.Longstreet understood early that the tactical defense was generally dominant over the offense, which was something few grasped in 1862. Longstreet’s thinking demonstrated a clear evolution that began on the field at First Manassas in July 1861, developed through the bloody fighting of 1862, and culminated in the brilliant defensive victory at Fredericksburg that December. The lethality with which his riflemen and artillery mowed down repeated Union assaults hinted at what was to come in World War I. Longstreet’s ability to launch and control powerful offensives was on display at Second Manassas in August 1862. His assault plan at Chickamauga in Georgia the following September was similar, if not the forerunner to, World War II tactical-level German armored tactics. Other areas show progressive applications with artillery, staff work, force projection, and operational-level thinking.Longstreet was not the sole agent of modern change away from the Napoleonic method, but his contributions were significant and executed on a large scale. They demonstrated that he was a modern thinker unparalleled in the Confederate Army.Unfortunately, many Civil War students have a one-sided view of Longstreet, whose legacy fell victim to bitter postwar Southern politics when “Old Pete” supported Reconstruction bills, accepted postings with the Grant Administration, and criticized Robert E. Lee. Many modern writers continue to skew the general’s legacy.This book draws heavily upon 20th century U.S. Army doctrine, field training, staff planning, command, and combat experience and is the first serious treatment of Longstreet’s generalship vis-a-vis modern warfare. Not everyone will agree with Knudsen’s conclusions, but it will now be impossible to write about the general without referencing this important study.

Like many other soldiers who fought in the Civil War, New Orleans newspaper editor William J. Seymour left behind an account of his wartime experiences. It is the only memoir by any field or staff officer of the famous 1st Louisiana Brigade (Hays’ Brigade) in the Army of Northern Virginia. Long out of print, The Civil War Memoirs of Captain William J. Seymour: Reminiscences of a Louisiana Tiger is available once more in this updated and completely revised edition by award-winning author Terry L. Jones.Seymour’s invaluable narrative begins with his service as a volunteer aide to Confederate Gen. Johnson K. Duncan during the 1862 New Orleans campaign. Utilizing his journalistic background and eye for detail, Seymour recalls in great detail the siege of Fort Jackson (the only Southern soldier’s account except for official reports), the bickering and confusion among Confederate officers, and the subsequent mutiny and surrender of the fort’s defenders. Jailed after the fall of New Orleans for violating Maj. Gen. Ben Butler’s censorship order, Seymour was eventually released and joined General Hays’ staff in Virginia.Seymour’s memoirs cover his experiences in the army of Northern Virginia in great detail, including the campaigns of Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Wilderness, and Shenandoah Valley, ending with the Battle of Cedar Creek in 1864. His pen recounts the activities of the Louisiana Brigade while offering a critical analysis of the tactics and strategies employed by the army.A perceptive and articulate officer, Seymour left behind an invaluable account of the Civil War’s drudgery and horror, pomp and glory. Terry L. Jones’ spare and judicious editing enhances Seymour’s memoirs to create an indispensable resource for Civil War historians and enthusiasts.

Fort Sumter. Charleston. April 1861. The bombardment and surrender of Sumter were only the beginning of the story. Both sides understood the military significance of the fort and the busy seaport, which played host to one of the longest and most complicated and fascinating campaigns of the entire Civil War. Richard Hatcher's Thunder in the Harbor: Fort Sumter and the Civil War is the first modern monograph to document the role of both the fort and the city throughout the entire Civil War. After it was captured, Southern troops immediately occupied and improved Sumter's defenses. The U.S. blockaded Charleston Harbor and for two years the fort, with its 50 heavy guns and 500-man garrison, remained mostly untested. That changed in April 1863, when a powerful combined operation set its sights on the fort, Charleston, and its outer defenses. The result was 22-month land and sea siege, the longest of the Civil War. The widespread effort included ironclad attacks, land assaults, raiding parties, and siege operations. Some of the war's most famous events unfolded there under the direction of a host of colorful personalities, including the assault of African American troops against Battery Wagner (depicted in the movie Glory), the shelling of the city by the "Swamp Angel," and the beginning of submarine warfare when the H. L. Hunley sank the USS Housatonic and was herself lost at sea. The destruction of Fort Sumter remained a key Federal objective throughout the siege. Despite repeated concentrated bombardments of the fort and the city, however, it never fell. The defiant fort, Charleston, and its meandering defensive line were evacuated in February 1865 once word arrived that Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman had taken Columbia, South Carolina and was about to cut off the coastal city. Hatcher, the former historian at Fort Sumter, mined a host of primary sources to produce an in-depth and fascinating account of the intricacies, complexities, and importance of this campaign to the overall war effort. Nearly 18 months of shelling had rendered Fort Sumter almost unrecognizable, but the significance of its location remained. During the eight decades that followed, the United States invested millions of dollars and thousands of hours rebuilding and rearming the fort to face potential foreign threats in three different wars. By the end of World War II, sea and air power had been made Sumter obsolete, and the fort was transferred to the National Park Service. Thunder in the Harbor fills a large gap in the historiography of the war and underscores that there is still much to learn about our endlessly fascinating Civil War.

General John Bell Hood’s tenure commanding the Confederate Army of Tennessee stood in marked contrast to that of his predecessor Joseph E. Johnston. Where Johnston was forced to conduct a war of maneuver, parrying William T. Sherman’s repeated flanking attempts, he rarely risked offensive blows. The initiative remained almost entirely with the Federals. When Johnston did stand to accept battle, with only a few exceptions, he received enemy assaults behind fortified lines. However, weeks of retreating undermined morale.With Hood in charge, offense became the order of the day. Hood fought the two largest and bloodiest battles of the entire campaign within the space of two days: attacking at Peachtree Creek on July 20, and again at the Battle of Atlanta on July 22. A third attack at Ezra Church on July 28 was launched by Stephen D. Lee, on his own initiative. The results of all three battles, however, were the same—bloody failures for the Confederates. Thereafter, Hood adopted a more defensive strategy, choosing to preserve what combat power his army retained.The second volume on the Atlanta campaign portrays the final months of the struggle for Atlanta, from mid-July to September, including what remains to be seen of the battles around the city: Peachtree Creek, Atlanta, Decatur, and Ezra Church. The siege will cover historic views of Atlanta, operations east of the city, and the city’s capture. The cavalry chapter focuses on the Union cavalry raids south of Atlanta which ended in disaster. Finally, the fighting at Jonesboro will bring the series to a close.

The campaign for Atlanta was pivotal to the outcome of the American Civil War. Roughly 190,000 men waged war across northern Georgia in a struggle that lasted 133 days. Today a national park at Kennesaw commemorates this titanic fight, and there are a surprising number of physical reminders still extant across the state. The struggle for Atlanta divides naturally into two stages. The first half of the campaign, from May to mid-July, can be defined as a war of maneuver, called by one historian the “Red Clay Minuet.” Under Joseph E. Johnston the Confederate Army of Tennessee repeatedly invited battle from strong defensive positions. Under William T. Sherman, the combined Federal armies of the Cumberland, the Tennessee, and the Ohio repeatedly avoided attacking those positions; Sherman preferring to outflank them instead. Though there were a number of sharp, bloody engagements during this phase of the campaign, the combats were limited. Only the battles of Resaca and Kennesaw Mountain could be considered general engagements.Johnston’s repeated retreats and the commensurate loss of terrain finally forced Confederate President Jefferson Davis to replace him with a more aggressive commander—John B. Hood.This work will portray the first half of the Atlanta Campaign in text and images, using both historic sketches and photographs, as well as post-war and modern images. Extant trenches, rifle pits, redoubts, shoupades, and other works, as well as the battlefields, will be covered, as well as surviving historic structures and the monuments and cemeteries that commemorate the campaign.

Fifteen years have passed since the publication of the last biography of Jeb Stuart. Several appeared during the last century lauding his contributions to Confederate fortunes in the Eastern Theater. Each follows a familiar tradition established by hero-worshipping subordinates portraying its subject as a model of chivalric conduct with a romantic’s outlook on life and a sense of fair dealing and goodwill, even toward his enemy. J. E. B. Stuart: The Soldier and the Man, by award-winning author Edward Longacre, is the first balanced, detailed, and thoroughly scrutinized study of the life and service of the Civil War’s most famous cavalryman.Long known to scholars and history buffs alike as “The Beau Sabreur of the Confederacy,” James Ewell Brown Stuart of Virginia was possessed of many gifts, personally and professionally, and led the Army of Northern Virginia’s cavalry to the all-but-complete satisfaction of his superiors. Stuart, insisted Robert E. Lee, “never brought me a piece of false information.” Being human, Stuart also under-performed. On occasion, he underestimated his opponents, took unnecessary risks with his habitually understrength command, failed to properly discipline and motivate his troopers, and was prone to errors both strategic and tactical.These flaws were evident during the Gettysburg Campaign, when his wayward route to the battlefield deprived Lee of the ability to safely negotiate his path toward a climactic confrontation with the Union Army of the Potomac. Because of his outsized wartime reputation—one embellished in the century-and-a-half since—most of Stuart’s errors have passed virtually unnoticed or, when addressed, have been excused or explained away in some fashion.Longacre’s study is based on hundreds of published works, archival sources, and newspapers. He probes not only Stuart’s military career but elements of his character and personality that invite investigation. Even the man’s fiercest partisans admitted that he was vain and inordinately sensitive to criticism, with a curious streak of immaturity—at times the hard-edged veteran, at other times a devotee of the pageantry of war, given to affectations such as ostrich-plumed hats, golden spurs, and the headquarters musicians who accompanied him on the march. Ever motivated by appeals to vanity, he curried the patronage of powerful men and responded readily to the attentions of attractive women even though by 1861, he was a long-married man.Personal flaws and limitations aside, Stuart was popular with his officers and men, beloved by members of his staff, and considered by the people of his state and region the beau ideal of Confederate soldiery. The distinction endures today. Longacre’s J. E. B. Stuart is an attempt to determine its validity.

During the Revolutionary War, forts in New York were instrumental in initiating and maintaining America’s desire for independence and helped the nascent nation to eventually prevail. These forts saw crucial, campaign-determining naval battles, and pivotal land engagements between battle-hardened well-led British troops and unproven American militia. In both land and sea engagements the garrisons deployed a range of weapons including different calibers of smooth-bore cannon, howitzers, musket, bayonets, and even tomahawks. Covering Amsterdam, Clinton, Fort Clinton at West Point, Dayton, Decker, Flagstaff, Au Fer, Brooklyn, Defiance, Franklin, Golgotha, Herkimer, Jay, Klock, Montgomery, Niagra Old Stone Fort, Salonga, Stanwix, Ticonderoga, Wadsworth, and Washington, this expert text discusses design, armament, and current status of the forts. It explores their garrisons, commanders, and the battles fought, as well as the spatial and military dependent relationships these forts had with one another.

The British Army in North America conducted two campaigns in 1777. John Burgoyne led one army south from Canada to seize control of the Lake Champlain-Hudson River corridor resulting in the battle of Saratoga. Burgoyne’s defeat led to that army’s capture. Rather than assist Burgoyne’s campaign, William Howe led his army from New York City on the Philadelphia campaign. Although Howe captured Philadelphia, the events of 1777 led to the French Alliance and ultimately American victory in American Revolution. This fully illustrated account of the Philadelphia campaign puts the battles into context and explains the importance of the campaign to the outcome of the war.

By the late summer of 1862, it appeared as though the United States would be permanently split in two, and by the beginning of September, General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was on the doorstep of Washington, D.C. Panicked and defeated Federal soldiers huddled behind the capital’s defenses. Rather than attacking the city, Lee turned his attention north into Maryland, seeking a decisive battlefield victory to influence public opinion at home and diplomatic opinion overseas. Major General George B. McClellan led the reorganised Army of the Potomac into the state to meet Lee. Over a span of 18 days, the two armies fought four significant battles, including the climactic engagement along Antietam Creek outside Sharpsburg on September 17, 1862. The battle there still holds the distinction as the bloodiest single day in American military history. Forced from Maryland, Lee withdrew into Virginia, leaving President Abraham Lincoln free to follow up this strategic victory with the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, a measure that changed the nature of the American Civil War. Copious illustrations and maps paired with a detailed text, this account of the Maryland campaign will have wide appeal.

He has been accused of "studied and ingenious cruelty." By turns he has been called a savior and a barbarian, a hero and a villain, a genius and a madman. But whatever you call William Tecumseh Sherman, you must admit he is utterly fascinating. Sherman spent a lifetime in search of who he was, striving to find a place and a calling. Informally adopted by the Ewing family of Lancaster, Ohio, when his own father died when he was just nine, the young redhead lived in a spacious mansion just up the hill from his mother. Later, as a young man he would marry his adopted sister, Ellen. After attending West Point, the intrepid Ohioan found that being a soldier suited him. Yet he always seemed to miss his opportunity. The second Seminole War was in its closing days before he saw action. When the Mexican-American War broke out, he anticipated the opportunity to earn military glory only to be posted to Pittsburgh on recruiting duty. Transferred to California, he arrived too late after surviving two shipwrecks, then ended up on administrative duties. Hounded by his family to leave the military, Sherman tried banking and practicing law. Finally, he became superintendent of a new military academy in Louisiana and thought he had found his place - until civil war intervened. But after leading his troops at the battle of Bull Run, the anxious brigadier general was sent West to Kentucky. Apprehensive over the situation in the Blue Grass State, suffering from stress, insomnia and anxiety Sherman begged to be relieved. Sent home to recover, the newspapers announced he was insane. Colleagues concluded he was "gone in the head." Instead, like a phoenix, he rose from the ashes to become a hero of the republic. Forging an identity in the fire of war, the unconventional general kindled a friendship with Ulysses S. Grant and proved to everyone at Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, Georgia, and in the Carolinas that while he was unorthodox, he was also brilliant and creative. More than that, he was eminently successful and played an important role in Union victory. Man of Fire: William Tecumseh Sherman in the Civil War tells the story of a man who found himself in war - and that, in turn, secured him a place in history. Condemned for his barbarousness or hailed for his heroics, the life of this peculiar general is nonetheless compelling - and thoroughly American.

The Battle of Wise’s (Wyse) Forks, March 7-11, 1865, has long been thought of as nothing more than an insignificant skirmish during the final days of the Civil War and relegated to a passing reference in a footnote if it is mentioned at all. Mark A. Smith’s and Wade Sokolosky’s “To Prepare for Sherman’s Coming”: The Battle of Wise’s Forks, March 1865, now in paperback for the first time, erases this misconception and elevates this battle and its related operations to the historical status it deserves. By March 1865, the Confederacy was on its last legs. Its armies were depleted, food and resources were scarce, and morale was low. Gen. Robert E. Lee was barely holding on to his extended lines around Richmond and Petersburg, and Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman was operating with nearly complete freedom in North Carolina on his way north to form a junction with Union forces in Virginia. As the authors demonstrate, the fighting that is the subject of this book came about when Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant initiated a broad military operation to assist Sherman.The responsibility for ensuring a functioning railroad from New Bern to Goldsboro rested with Maj. Gen. Jacob D. Cox. On March 2, 1865, Cox ordered his hastily assembled Provisional Corps to march toward Goldsboro. In response to Cox’s movement, Confederate Gen. Joseph E. Johnston executed a bold but risky plan to divert troops away from Sherman by turning back Cox’s advance. Under the command of the aggressive but controversial Gen. Braxton Bragg, the Confederates stood for four days and successfully halted Cox at Wise’s Forks. This delay provided Johnston with the precious time he needed to concentrate his forces and fight the large and important Battle of Bentonville.“To Prepare for Sherman’s Coming” is the result of years of careful research in a wide variety of archival sources, and relies upon official reports, diaries, newspapers, and letter collections, all tied to a keen understanding of the terrain. Sokolosky and Smith, both career army officers, have used their expertise in military affairs to produce what is not only a valuable book on Wise’s Forks, but what surely must be the definitive study of one of the Civil War’s overlooked yet significant battles. Outstanding original maps by George Skoch coupled with period photographs reinforce the quality of this account and the authors’ commitment to excellence.