"Any recommendations on this book?" Topic

link

It's been years since I read this, but I recall most of it being fairly good, concentrating on the Confederate tendency to attack, though as numerically inferior, they should have taken the defensive more.

I felt that the final chapter, where he suggests that the majority of Southerners came from more Celtic parts of the British isles, and tried to link the Civil War battles to ancient battles where the Celts became known for their ferocious attacks, seems a bit of a stretch.

Grelber

IIRC, McWhinney & Jamieson was fairly controversial when it came out (1982). The essentials of the argument are that the Southerners were Celtic descendants (unlike, say, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, Meade, McClellan, MacPherson, etc., etc., and so forth on the Union side) and that made them prone to attacking even in unfavorable situations. Essentially the old wargamer "national characteristics" fetish dressed up in academic language.

I had problems with it because it put too much emphasis on cultural determinism and that Confederate leaders, because of their Celtic ancestors, etc, wanted to attack and attack. It didn't allow for training or the ability of senior leaders to make logical decisions.

It didn't really take into account that, given Union resources, geography, and the sheer size of the country's battlespace, that the south could not passively sit back and wait for the Union to attack and let them have the initiative.

I haven't read it for 30 years, but I do remember thinking at the time that the celtic thesis was nonsense. It's probably also a racist generalisation.

I mocked the Celtic thesis myself--right up until I found myself painting ECW Scots in hodden gray with various St Andrews Crosses while watching charging Confederates in gray and butternut waving the Battle Flag. I'm still not altogether convinced, but I don't mock any more.

But yes, if McWhinney & Jamieson were entirely correct, the greatest ACW commanders were McLennan and Joe Johnson. (And if Paddy Griffith were entirely correct, that would be John Bell Hood followed by Burnside.) Successful ACW tactics were a little more nuanced than either thesis allows. But it's worth reading.

I've read it and then it was discussed a bit in a graduate military history course I took. Apparently Jamieson was a Ph.D candidate who wanted to take his dissertation on Civil War tactics and turn it into a book. His advisor, McWhinney, said 'No, no, that's too dull and technical. You need some sort of social angel to give it some pizazz. And it just so happens I have my own pet social theory right here. What say we collaborate on a book?" Jamieson agreed (what choice did he have?) and the result was Attack and Die. Jamieson's sections are pretty good, but the rest of it is a mess.

Before anyone reads it, read the reviews on Amazon. They span the whole range of opinions, and will give the potential reader a very good idea of what they're in for.

The whole "Confederates were Celts" bit was too much for me. I'm not sure anyone should pay good money for the book, but if it is at your local library you could give it a quick looking-over.

Jamieson would years later repute many of the books premise.

Kim

I read the book and discussed it with Dr. McWhinney at a Houston Civil War Round Table meeting a few decades ago. While the concept was overextended he did present some cogent kernels of thought. Every cliche has a bit of truth in it.

I own and have read the book. I agree with the above comments (and I am part Scot-Irish myself). The premise of the Celtic myth of always on the offense is, to my mind, stretching things a good bit.

Jim

My Scots-Welsh-French (Gallic) ancestors were on the Union side.

I have read it and well remember one section where the casualties taken by different commanders were compared. IIRC Van Dorn had a much lower rate in his commands than R. E. Lee. Gave one food for thought. But I agree the Celtic angle was garbage.