Race and Radicalism in the Union Army (review)

sources often contain wildly exaggerated accounts, and Benedict’s book is a forceful reminder of how misleading some primary sources can be. One example Benedict gives is a speech that Lane delivered in the U.S. Senate in July 1861. On that occasion, Lane accused the “slave oligarchy of Missouri” of routinely torturing, murdering, and mutilating Free State men. Lane’s accusations were ridiculous, but public discourse was full of similar allegations. Second, the book provides an interesting perspective on the nation’s unpreparedness for war in 1861. The Union army eventually gained control of units like Lane’s, but not without diffi culty. The border troops had been fi ghting their own war for months, and the temptation to reject army discipline and become bushwhackers must have been strong. As it was, Lane’s Brigade entered the regular service only after some striking instances of insubordination. Offi cers ignored orders, and enlisted men circulated petitions and in one case formed a committee to wrest control of a company from its offi cers. Yet despite its unseemly behavior, in some ways Lane’s Brigade was ahead of its time. From the brigade’s earliest days Lane took runaway slaves into his camp and refused to return them to their masters. On the negative side, as the war progressed and attitudes hardened, better and more senior commanders than Lane ordered their troops to destroy civilian property, or allowed them to steal it. Lane’s Brigade was hardly a model unit, but in historical memory it is a scapegoat for abuses that were widespread. mark w. geiger