Had Beilein stuck to the subject of guerrilla warfare and the effect of that aspect of the war, this would have been a 5 star book. But too many civil war mythological clichés and repeated inaccuracies has diminished the cogent historiography of the work; things that most historians are slowly beginning to acknowledge. For instance, his snipe at Jefferson Davis “dressing in his wife’s clothing” as a disguise in an attempt to avoid union capture is an intolerable assertion for any 19th century historian. Although this is an oft repeated myth, there is no excuse for such misrepresentation in a work of this caliber. Truth be told, at the time he was captured by the union 4th Michigan Cavalry, Jefferson Davis was sick. His wife wrapped her shawl over his shoulders to keep him warm, not to disguise him, which would have amounted to a pathetic disguise at any rate. That’s it! That’s what has been twisted into Davis dressing in his wife’s clothing to avoid capture and propagated by unscrupulous and/or lazy historians. But to Beilein and others it seems more scandalous to repeat the deception that “he tried to sneak away in his wife’s clothing” conjuring up images of Davis absconding in petticoats, while later casually referring to this as “his wife’s shawl over his shoulders”. Unacceptable complicity to distortion for a historian, in my opinion.
Also, while the institution of slavery was indeed an abhorrent practice and much bloodshed was caused by frictions between Kansas abolitionists and Missouri slavery advocates (some bloodshed of which abolitionism was not the direct cause), the civil war was not a conflict over slavery. Many historians are now admitting this fact. The civil war was begun, fought and precipitated because of Abraham Lincoln’s desire to keep the union together. In his own words, slavery was not the issue. Preserving the union was. Beilein repeatedly plays the slavery card, explicitly and implicitly. For instance, he asserts that some of the bushwhackers were targeting blacks. His reason for this assumption? Here is an excerpt of his account of the Goslin’s Lane incident.
“Goslin’s Lane demonstrates the influence of race on the bushwhacker identity. Of the twelve or so teamsters shot down and incinerated, at least three of them were black. …For most, however, because of their skin color and the fact that in the minds of the guerrillas they were out of place, they were shot down. Here the black men sitting atop the wagons that were ambushed at Goslin’s Lane experienced just that fate.”

What kind of strange reasoning is that? Because 3 out of 12 of the teamsters killed were black, this somehow demonstrates racial influence? I suppose the fact that they were union enemies had absolutely nothing to do with it and the other eight whites killed were just collateral damage? Absurd. Perhaps this type of reasoning is a result of the incessant, unfounded, and dubious proclivity of modern-day accusations of racism.

I know many, because of the abundance of misinformation, will scoff at these facts. But for any who value veracity, look it up. The age of the internet has made contemporary source material replete. (Which may be much of the reason historians have begun bowing to the truth. It is difficult to promote falsities in the light.)

Strangely enough, in light of certain historical inaccuracies, Beilein, gives a fair assessment of the bushwhacker. He is often brutal with their brutalities, but fair handed in the reasons for their violence and the acknowledgement that much of the bushwhackers’ actions could have been volatile reaction to union atrocities.

All in all, Bushwhackers is a good read and well worth the time. Much can be gleaned of the guerrillas, their attitudes, their lives, families and homes as well as the reasons for their actions, acceptable or not under the microscope of “modern” psychoanalysis.

With the caveat of caution on certain historical assumptions, I highly recommend Bushwhackers.

If we look at it for what it is, rather than distorting, twisting or imposing 21st century reasoning upon it, history will teach us much of who we were, who we are, and who we have the potential of becoming. ( )