Reviewed by:

• William Gregg’s Civil War: The Battle to Shape the History of Guerilla Warfare by Joseph M. Beilein Jr
• Noah F. Crawford (bio)

The story of William Clarke Quantrill did not die when that guerilla fighter met a grisly end at the hands of Union soldiers in the spring of 1865. Instead, as Joseph M. Beilein demonstrates, the subsequent injection of Quantrill’s guerilla war into the historical record comprises an intriguing story in itself. In William Gregg’s Civil War: The Battle to Shape the History of Guerrilla Warfare, Beilein contributes to the burgeoning scholarship of irregular operations while providing an important case study of how history is produced.

Beilein divides the volume into three equal parts: an introduction that contextualizes the memoir and muses on the production of history; the transcript of William H. Gregg’s memoir describing that guerilla’s time as Quantrill’s chief lieutenant; and an appendix comprising letters exchanged between Gregg and historian William E. Connelley. Gregg and Connelley, Beilein explains, developed a professional relationship four decades after the war ended. Gregg sought Connelley’s assistance in publishing his memoir, while the latter queried the former for firsthand information to support his own writings on the history of Quantrill’s guerilla band. Gregg hoped that his memoir and Connelley’s book would vindicate Confederate guerillas from their infamous reputation as sanguinary murderers and thieves. This symbiotic friendship collapsed after seven years when Connelley, whose pro-Union upbringing colored his scholarship, published Quantrill and the Border Wars, in which he decontextualized and twisted Gregg’s words to further indict the guerillas’ legacy. Infuriated, Gregg [End Page 64] doubled down on his simmering hatred of Kansans like Connelley as well as his own efforts to publish his memoir.

This manuscript’s title—A Little Dab of History without Embellishment—reveals Gregg’s espoused value for objectivity in historical writing. Readers find all they would expect in the recollections of a Missouri guerilla—swirling charges, bold rear-guard actions, and narrow escapes from encircling Yankee pursuers. Beilein provides concise annotations in footnotes throughout this section, including brief biographical sketches for almost every individual whom Gregg mentions. Gregg recalls joining Quantrill when the latter’s cadre comprised just eight followers, which steadily grew until Quantrill earned the rank of captain with Gregg eventually serving as first lieutenant. In dozens of skirmishes, Gregg served Quantrill capably, including the raid on the unionist stronghold of Lawrence, Kansas. As Quantrill’s conglomerate of guerilla bands disintegrated from infighting, Gregg joined conventional Confederate military forces. When the writer and his new troop returned to Missouri late in the war, he married his betrothed before evacuating her during his command’s withdrawal southward in the war’s final months. As Beilein notes, Gregg almost entirely avoided mentioning slavery and enslaved people in his memoir, although the correspondence contained in the third part of the book includes repeated references to an enslaved man who rode with Quant-rill’s raiders. Particularly glaring is the guerilla fighter’s omission of his unit’s massacre of twenty black Union prisoners. If he neglected to include such clear atrocities, what else, Beilein ponders, did Gregg fail to record?

This question represents just one methodological inquiry in William Gregg’s Civil War. Beilein certainly deserves praise for bringing Gregg’s memoir back into the light in its entirety, as well as for his helpful contextualization of its people, places, and events. But equally important is how Beilein investigates the production of historical scholarship and memory. Historians of the American Civil War will recognize the historical factors that compelled Gregg’s writing—white reconciliation grounded in a Lost Cause narrative that largely heralded the likes of Lee and Grant while entirely ignoring the Trans-Mississippi theater. Beilein calls for historians to strike a balance between diving deep into primary sources (in order to fully understand the entire humanity of historical figures) while maintaining enough distance so as to not regurgitate those figures...

审阅者：

• 威廉·格雷格的内战：塑造游击战历史的战斗作者：小约瑟夫·M·贝莱因
• 诺亚·F·克劳福德（简介）

1865 年春天，威廉·克拉克·坎特里尔 (William Clarke Quantrill) 的游击战战士惨遭联邦士兵之手，但他的故事并没有就此消亡。相反，正如约瑟夫·M·贝莱因 (Joseph M. Beilein) 所证明的那样，随后将坎特里尔的游击战争写入历史记录的内容包括：本身就是一个有趣的故事。在威廉·格雷格的《内战：塑造游击战争历史的战役》中，贝莱因为非正规作战学术的蓬勃发展做出了贡献，同时提供了关于历史如何产生的重要案例研究。

贝莱因将本书分为三个相等的部分：介绍了回忆录的背景和对历史产生的思考；威廉·H·格雷格 (William H. Gregg) 的回忆录记录了这位游击队员担任坎特里尔 (Quantrill) 首席副官的时期；附录包含格雷格和历史学家威廉·E·康纳利之间的信件往来。贝莱因解释说，格雷格和康纳利在战争结束四十年后建立了职业关系。格雷格在出版他的回忆录时寻求康纳利的帮助，而后者则向前者询问第一手资料，以支持他自己关于匡特里尔游击队历史的著作。格雷格希望他的回忆录和康纳利的书能够为南部邦联游击队洗清他们作为血腥杀人犯和小偷的臭名昭著的名声。在《匡特里尔和边境战争》中，他脱离了语境并扭曲了格雷格的话，以进一步起诉游击队的遗产。格雷格（Gregg）被激怒了[第64页完]，他对康纳利等堪萨斯人的仇恨加倍，并努力出版他的回忆录。

这份手稿的标题——一点不加修饰的历史——揭示了格雷格在历史写作中所拥护的客观性价值。读者在密苏里州游击队的回忆中找到了他们所期望的一切——激烈的冲锋、大胆的后卫行动，以及从包围的北方追击者中死里逃生。贝莱因在本节的脚注中提供了简洁的注释，包括格雷格提到的几乎每个人的简短传记草图。格雷格回忆说，加入匡特里尔时，后者的骨干成员只有八名追随者，这一数量稳步增长，直到匡特里尔获得上尉军衔，格雷格最终担任中尉。在数十次小规模冲突中，格雷格为匡特里尔提供了出色的服务，其中包括对堪萨斯州劳伦斯市工会据点的突袭。当匡特里尔的游击队集团因内讧而瓦解时，格雷格加入了传统的南方联盟军队。当作家和他的新部队在战争后期返回密苏里州时，他与未婚妻结婚，然后在战争最后几个月他的指挥部向南撤退期间将她撤离。正如贝莱因指出的那样，格雷格在他的回忆录中几乎完全避免提及奴隶制和被奴役的人，尽管该书第三部分中包含的信件反复提到了一名与匡特里尔的袭击者一起骑行的被奴役者。尤其引人注目的是，这位游击战士忽略了他的部队对二十名联邦黑人囚犯的屠杀。贝莱因想，如果他忽略了如此明显的暴行，那么格雷格还没有记录下什么呢？在战争最后几个月，他的指挥部向南撤退时，他与未婚妻结婚，然后将她撤离。正如贝莱因指出的那样，格雷格在他的回忆录中几乎完全避免提及奴隶制和被奴役的人，尽管该书第三部分中包含的信件反复提到了一名与匡特里尔的袭击者一起骑行的被奴役者。尤其引人注目的是，这位游击战士忽略了他的部队对二十名联邦黑人囚犯的屠杀。贝莱因想，如果他忽略了如此明显的暴行，那么格雷格还没有记录下什么呢？在战争最后几个月，他的指挥部向南撤退时，他与未婚妻结婚，然后将她撤离。正如贝莱因指出的那样，格雷格在他的回忆录中几乎完全避免提及奴隶制和被奴役的人，尽管该书第三部分中包含的信件反复提到了一名与匡特里尔的袭击者一起骑行的被奴役者。尤其引人注目的是，这位游击战士忽略了他的部队对二十名联邦黑人囚犯的屠杀。贝莱因想，如果他忽略了如此明显的暴行，那么格雷格还没有记录下什么呢？尽管本书第三部分中的信件多次提到一名与匡特瑞尔的掠夺者一起骑行的奴隶。尤其引人注目的是，这位游击战士忽略了他的部队对二十名联邦黑人囚犯的屠杀。贝莱因想，如果他忽略了如此明显的暴行，那么格雷格还没有记录下什么呢？尽管本书第三部分中的信件多次提到一名与匡特瑞尔的掠夺者一起骑行的奴隶。尤其引人注目的是，这位游击战士忽略了他的部队对二十名联邦黑人囚犯的屠杀。贝莱因想，如果他忽略了如此明显的暴行，那么格雷格还没有记录下什么呢？

这个问题只是威廉·格雷格的内战中的一个方法论探究。贝莱因将格雷格的回忆录完整地带回人们的视野，以及他对书中的人物、地点和事件进行了有益的背景介绍，这当然值得赞扬。但同样重要的是贝莱因如何调查历史学术和记忆的产生。研究美国内战的历史学家将会认识到迫使格雷格写作的历史因素——白人和解建立在一种失败的事业叙事之上，这种叙事在很大程度上预示着李和格兰特等人的到来，而完全忽视了跨密西西比战区。贝莱因呼吁历史学家在深入研究原始资料（以便充分理解历史人物的整个人性）和保持足够距离以免反省这些人物之间取得平衡……