Reviewed by:

• William Gregg’s Civil War: The Battle to Shape the History of Guerrilla Warfare ed. by Joseph M. Beilein Jr.
• Jennifer Lynn Gross

The Civil War is one of the nation’s most studied wars, by both professional historians and history buffs, but the perspectives of its guerrilla combatants have not always enjoyed the same attention given to that of other fighting men or even civilians on the home front. In William Gregg’s Civil War: The Battle to Shape the History of Guerrilla Warfare, Joseph M. Beilein Jr. provides two [End Page 127] invaluable contributions. The first is the publication of the memoir itself, which Beilein correctly identifies as “an irreplaceable perspective on the war,” rendering it easily accessible to historians and laymen alike (p. 1). The memoir, which Gregg wrote with the intention of publishing, provides a jaunty and exciting tale of William Clarke Quantrill’s bushwhackers and the guerrilla war in Missouri and Kansas, taking the reader on, as Beilein promises, “a hellish and invigorating ride across a strange landscape” (p. 42).

The second and perhaps more important contribution of this book lies in Beilein’s introduction, where he throws open wide a window on the historical process of writing history. Beilein’s ostensible jumping-off point is the memoir itself, which Gregg wrote as a way to venerate his and other guerrilla fighters’ contributions to the war. Much like the stories of other former Confederates written and published in the late nineteenth century, Gregg’s memoir reflects the political whitewashing done by the larger Lost Cause narrative. William Elsey Connelley’s Quantrill and the Border Wars: The Story of the Border (Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1910), which was also published in the early twentieth century, provides a sharp contrast to Gregg’s manuscript despite Connelley’s having been written with a great deal of personal help from Gregg. Though Connelley was not a professional historian, Beilein asserts that Connelley cloaked his work on Quantrill in the mantle of a historian’s objectivity all while pushing a very subjective perspective. Connelley vilified the guerrillas unconditionally and provided for none of their voices in his manuscript. To illustrate Gregg and Connelley’s friendship and communication, Beilein includes correspondence between the two men. Beilein asserts that Connelley’s failed promise to publish Gregg’s manuscript allowed Connelley’s voice and perspective to dominate successive studies of guerrilla warfare. The publication of Gregg’s memoir, according to Beilein, rectifies the silencing of guerrillas’ voices by Connelley’s and later historians’ claims to objectivity. Perceptively, Beilein cautions the reader: “If historians get too close, . . . they risk falling under the spell of the bushwhackers and becoming their mouthpiece. If historians create too much distance between their subject matter and themselves, they may never be able to truly see the guerrillas, let alone understand them. Pitfalls abound” (p. 42).

William Gregg’s Civil War will prove to be a valuable primary resource for historians, but its greatest value lies in its usefulness as a tool for teaching students about the historical process. Beilein’s introduction is thoroughly instructive in how history is written and rewritten in “a war for the present,” as the words of both contemporary observers and later “historians live on, shaping and reshaping the past for generations, long after the ink has dried” (pp. 4, 3). With a component website that will allow students and teachers to more closely “interact with the volume’s content and sources,” William Gregg’s Civil War should become a go-to text for undergraduate classes in the American Civil War (p. 4). [End Page 128]

审核人：

• 威廉·格雷格（William Gregg）的《内战：塑造游击战历史的战役》 ed。由小约瑟夫·贝琳（Joseph M.Beilein Jr.
• 珍妮弗·林恩·格罗斯

内战是美国历史最悠久的战争之一，无论是专业历史学家还是历史爱好者，但是其游击战斗人员的观点并不总是像其他在国内战场上的战斗人员或平民一样受到关注。在威廉·格里格（William Gregg）的《内战：塑造游击战历史的战役》中，小约瑟夫·M·贝琳（Joseph M. Beilein Jr.）提供了两篇文章[End Page 127]宝贵的贡献。首先是回忆录本身的出版，贝琳正确地认为这是“关于战争的不可替代的观点”，这使得历史学家和外行都可以轻易获得（第1页）。回忆录是格雷格为出版而写的，它讲述了威廉·克拉克·昆特里尔（William Clarke Quantrill）的灌木丛砍伐者以及密苏里州和堪萨斯州的游击战争的生动而有趣的故事。风景”（第42页）。

本书的第二个甚至更重要的贡献在于贝琳的导言，他在其中为撰写历史的历史过程打开了一个广阔的窗口。Beilein表面上的出发点是回忆录本身，Gregg撰写该回忆录是一种敬意他和其他游击战士对战争的贡献的方式。格雷格的回忆录很像19世纪晚期撰写和出版的其他前邦联的故事，反映了更大的《迷失的原因》叙事所进行的政治粉饰。威廉·埃尔西·康纳利（William Elsey Connelley）的《Quantrill和边境战争：边境的故事》（爱达荷州雪松急流市，1910年出版），尽管康奈利（Connelley）在格雷格（Gregg）的大量个人帮助下进行了写作，但该书也与格雷格（Gregg）的手稿形成了鲜明的对比。尽管康纳利不是专业的历史学家，但贝琳断言，康纳利以历史学家的客观性为幌子掩盖了他在Quantrill上的工作，同时推动了非常主观的观点。康纳利（Connelley）无条件地谴责游击队，并在他的手稿中没有提供他们的任何声音。为了说明Gregg和Connelley的友谊和交流，Beilein包括了两个人之间的往来。贝琳断言，康纳利发表格雷格手稿的失败承诺使康纳利的声音和观点主导了对游击战的连续研究。格里格回忆录的出版，根据贝琳的说法，康纳利和后来的历史学家对客观性的主张纠正了游击队声音的沉默。感知上，贝琳警告读者：“如果历史学家离得太近，……。。。他们冒着被灌木丛黑客迷住的危险，并成为他们的喉舌。如果历史学家与他们自己之间的距离太远，他们可能永远无法真正看到游击队，更不用说了解他们了。陷阱比比皆是”（第42页）。他们可能永远无法真正看到游击队，更不用说了解他们了。陷阱比比皆是”（第42页）。他们可能永远无法真正看到游击队，更不用说了解他们了。陷阱比比皆是”（第42页）。

威廉·格雷格（William Gregg）的《内战》将被证明是历史学家宝贵的主要资源，但其最大价值在于它作为一种工具来向学生传授历史过程的实用性。Beilein的介绍对如何用“当下的战争”书写和重写历史是完全有启发性的，正如当代观察家和后来的“历史学家在墨迹变干很久以后继续生活，塑造和重塑过去”一样。 （第4、3页）。有了一个使学生和老师更紧密地“与书卷的内容和来源互动”的组件网站，威廉·格雷格的《内战》应该成为《美国内战》本科课程的入门教材（第4页）。[完第128页]