BOOK REVIEWS
613Records Atlas map as being "grossly incorrect," and calls contemporary maps "unreliable." Yet, the map by Hotchkiss, that he uses, shows West Union, W. Va., at least sixty miles from its present position, and on the wrong side of Grafton. In many respects the 0. R. A. map and recent maps are superior. Again, the map of Stuart's raid (p. 287) omits McClellan's headquarters at White House and the position of his army, though both were included in the rejected 0. R. A. map. Also, a map on page 492 shows the James River at Richmond, and far above, at least two miles wide ! As a whole, the book will be of great value to experts, and, if utilized by textbook writers, will be immensely helpful in injecting some common sense into their accounts of the Civil War. The revised edition of this history differs from the original, which appeared in 1924, by bringing the last chapter up to date and by a few changes in the appendices. The varied changes in the army, both legislative and actual, are faithfully recorded. The provisions for organization, the plans for training, the struggles over equipment, the attempts, usually futile, to secure support, and the heroic performance of a small group of competent men in the face of adversity constitute a long and discouraging story. The story itself is somewhat catalogic and monotonous, but it is unquestionably a faithful index of our national policy.The book is clearly and vigorously written, and within the limits which the author has placed upon its scope he has achieved a reasonably satisfactory book. He pictures accurately and in detail the non-military services which the army has rendered throughout our history. He describes the poor equipment, the ill-trained troops, and the unreasonable expectations of the public which prevailed at the opening of each war. He deals in greater detail with the tactics, uniforms, and internal organization of the army.The merits of this book are somewhat obscured by the special pleading which permeates its pages. The author shows that our military history does not constitute the glorious record which we like to present to school children and says that our failures are due to public apathy and Congressional niggardliness and shortsightedness. An army is a form of national insurance, and because we as a people have never quite accepted this idea we have taken out small policies and allowed them to lapse for
