What do you think?
With Porter In North Missouri: A Chapter In The History Of The War Between The States
With Porter In North A Chapter In The History Of The War Between The States is a book written by Joseph Aloysius Mudd and published in 1909. The book is a historical account of the American Civil War, specifically focusing on the role of General Fitz John Porter in the conflict in North Missouri. Mudd, who served as a surgeon in the Confederate Army during the war, provides a detailed and insightful perspective on the events that took place during this chapter of the conflict. The book covers a range of topics, including the military strategies employed by both sides, the experiences of soldiers on the front lines, and the political and social factors that contributed to the outbreak of the war. With Porter In North Missouri is a valuable resource for anyone interested in the history of the Civil War, and provides a unique perspective on this important period in American history.This scarce antiquarian book is a facsimile reprint of the old original and may contain some imperfections such as library marks and notations. Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it available as part of our commitment for protecting, preserving, and promoting the world's literature in affordable, high quality, modern editions, that are true to their original work.
482 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1992
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
January 12, 2013
This memoir by a Confederate veteran is a flawed yet still valuable look at an interesting part of the Civil War in Missouri.
The author rode with Colonel Porter in 1862 as they fought their way across Union-held northeast Missouri, gathering recruits, drawing bluecoats away from more important theaters, and generally causing havoc. There are few published memoirs from either side for this region so Mudd's book is intrinsically valuable.
Where it falls down, however, is its starry-eyed view of Porter. In Mudd's eyes the man could do no wrong. In fact, Porter made several basic tactical blunders, such as getting into a series of set-piece battles with larger and better-armed Union forces. It seems Porter thought of himself more as a general leading an army rather than a cavalry raider doing hit-and-run strikes. This led to his downfall and eventual death.
Further undermining the credibility of this volume are the lengthy quotes attributed to Porter, some running more than a page. Since this book was published in 1909, it's obvious that these conversations are made up. The content, however, generally corresponds with what we know of Porter's personality and tactics, thus only a few grains of salt are needed to get through these passages.
For serious students of the Civil War, this book is a worthwhile historic curio. Those with only a passing interest in the Civil War in Missouri or Confederate cavalry raiders would do best to look elsewhere.
The author rode with Colonel Porter in 1862 as they fought their way across Union-held northeast Missouri, gathering recruits, drawing bluecoats away from more important theaters, and generally causing havoc. There are few published memoirs from either side for this region so Mudd's book is intrinsically valuable.
Where it falls down, however, is its starry-eyed view of Porter. In Mudd's eyes the man could do no wrong. In fact, Porter made several basic tactical blunders, such as getting into a series of set-piece battles with larger and better-armed Union forces. It seems Porter thought of himself more as a general leading an army rather than a cavalry raider doing hit-and-run strikes. This led to his downfall and eventual death.
Further undermining the credibility of this volume are the lengthy quotes attributed to Porter, some running more than a page. Since this book was published in 1909, it's obvious that these conversations are made up. The content, however, generally corresponds with what we know of Porter's personality and tactics, thus only a few grains of salt are needed to get through these passages.
For serious students of the Civil War, this book is a worthwhile historic curio. Those with only a passing interest in the Civil War in Missouri or Confederate cavalry raiders would do best to look elsewhere.
December 12, 2009
This book is biased in favor of the rebel cause, but does quote some Yankee sources. The author joined the rebels at Millwood in Lincoln County, Missouri, in 1862, and served with them for a few months. He describes Porter's moves around Northern Missouri and the strategies behind them—to recruit Confederate sympathizers and get them safely across the Missouri River to the war in the South. And to distract federal troops away from the river and strategic areas. There were occasional clashes with federal troops.
He argues that rebels were better fighters than Yankees because they had "the moral high ground." He complains that Porter's men were much maligned in the Yankee press. He tells of a Yankee taken prisoner by Porter's men who was treated so well that he was reluctant to be paroled!
Writing in the twentieth century, he says on page 11: "The majority of the slaveholders of Missouri were opposed to slavery, but they contended that it was a matter for their own settlement and they deeply resented outside interference. They would settle it in their own way and at their own time."
An apology for the Confederate cause, but a primary source with some historical value. A primary source, though published many years after the war.
He argues that rebels were better fighters than Yankees because they had "the moral high ground." He complains that Porter's men were much maligned in the Yankee press. He tells of a Yankee taken prisoner by Porter's men who was treated so well that he was reluctant to be paroled!
Writing in the twentieth century, he says on page 11: "The majority of the slaveholders of Missouri were opposed to slavery, but they contended that it was a matter for their own settlement and they deeply resented outside interference. They would settle it in their own way and at their own time."
An apology for the Confederate cause, but a primary source with some historical value. A primary source, though published many years after the war.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews