The Battle of Island Mound (October 29, 1862)

Well before the 54^th Massachusetts stormed Fort Wagner and well before contrabands-turned-soldiers repulsed a Confederate assault at Milliken’s Bend, a regiment of black soldiers, many of them only recently escaped from slavery, fought and bled against Rebel forces, near the Kansas-Missouri border. Far from the central command in Washington D.C., Unionists in the Trans-Mississippi were able to act somewhat independently. This unfortunately resulted in violent guerilla bands called Jayhawkers, who entered into a mutual war of terror with Rebel Bushwhackers. There was a positive, however, the first regiment of black soldiers. This unit, the 1^st Kansas Colored, was hastily formed and entered into battle before Lincoln even authorized the creation of black regiments. Their trial of fire was the Battle of Island Mound, a furious skirmish with Confederate partisans in western Missouri.

This battle is mostly known simply for being the first use of a full black regiment in a Civil War battle. There are scant sources on it and actual primary sources can be counted on one hand. I plan to make this an ongoing series that covers the battle history of the 1^st Kansas. Not only was it the first true, if unauthorized, black regiment to fight for the Union, it fought in the Trans-Mississippi theatre (my area of focus), and in contrast to the more famous 54^th Massachusetts actually had a good win-loss record.

Sean McMeekin's Stalin's War: A New History of World War II

McMeekin, Sean. Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II. New York City: Basic Books, 2021.

Sean McMeekin is known for his work early 20^th Century Russian and Ottoman history, with special emphasis on the World War I and Russian Revolution era. In Stalin’s War he takes a deep look into World War II and presents a revisionist narrative that is certain to grab attention. With Stalin’s War, McMeekin seeks to challenge the conventional narrative, that the Second World War was “a heroic struggle between good and evil.” In particular he takes issues with the notion that Hitler was the personal driving force of the worldwide conflict. Instead it should be Stalin, head of the Soviet Union, who encouraged the other great powers to tear each other apart so that his communist nation could swoop in and exert its power over the world. McMeekin points out that Stalin’s influence was felt in both the European and Pacific Wars, while Nazi Germany only had a significant role in the former.

The Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact enabled Stalin to make a series of easy conquests in Eastern Europe while the Germans fought a much tougher war against the Western Allies.  The Soviets got into a brief war with the Japanese, but were successful. Instead of using their leverage to drive back the Japanese for good, the Soviets gave them a free hand to continue their war with China. This kept Japan and Chiang’s Nationalists embroiled in the slog of war, while Mao’s Communists were able to sit back in their northern strongholds (McMeekin also points out that after 1945 the Soviets gave ample military resources to Mao with which to conquer China. The Americans by contrast withheld aid from Chiang and demanded that he form a peaceful government with the Communists, a totally unrealistic expectation). Stalin’s goal of making the great powers wear each other down through attrition was thrown off when Hitler struck him and rolled back all his 1939-1941 conquests. Now he had to go to the Western Allies for aid.

The New Mexico Campaign, 1861-1862 Part VII: Remembrance and Assessment

 

Remembrance & Historiography

At the end of the campaign Albert Peticolas, having just endured the horrid retreat from New Mexico, noted in his journal that “our operations out here will all be lost in history, when such great struggles are going on nearer home…”[1] The Civil War in the Southwest would indeed be considered a sideshow, though it would receive a few articles in Battles and Leaders of the Civil War. One of the writers, Brigadier-General Latham Anderson, attempted to argue the importance of the campaign. He wrote that if Sibley’s men had reached California, they would have doubtlessly created a strong presence in the state and created large implications for the Union war effort. With California’s coastline added to Confederate territory, the already strained Union blockade would have lost any effectiveness. However, such grand ramifications, even when expressed by a Civil War veteran and late 19^th Century general, remain speculative as Sibley’s campaign was done in before it could ever get out of New Mexico.[2] Only one Confederate, Teel, provided an article in which he castigated Sibley. “He did not husband his resources, and was too prone to let the morrow take care of itself,” he wrote. Teel believed that if Baylor had been given command, “the result might have been different.”[3] There was some argument among the Union contributors over Canby’s leadership, but this failed to spark any great historical inquiry into the campaign.

Some veterans kept memories of the campaign more alive through unit histories or published speeches. Once these survivors had died off, the war for the Far West became a piece of trivia, unknown by many. It often did not garner a mention in general Civil War histories, including Bruce Catton’s centennial trilogy. This is not to say that historians totally forgot about it. Several books were published in the 50s and 60s. Sibley’s campaign was presented in Robert Lee Kerby’s The Confederate Invasion of New Mexico and Arizona (1958), Martin Hardwick Hall’s Sibley’s New Mexico Campaign (1960), and several other works. Hall’s account of the campaign was the expansion of a doctoral dissertation, fleshed out with a wealth of newly discovered sources. Arthur Wright’s The Civil War in the Southwest (1964), is actually oriented around the adventures of James Carleton’s California Column rather than Sibley’s battles with Canby and the Coloradans.