Men of Fire: Grant, Forrest, and the Campaign
That Decided the Civil War
By Jack Hurst
(December 2008 Civil War News)

Softcover, 461 pp., 2007. Basic Books, 1094 Flex Dr., Jackson, TN 38301, $18.95 plus shipping.

Reviewer: Craig L. Barry
Craig L. Barry is Co-Editor of The Watchdog Civil War magazine and author of The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy.

Review:
The U.S. Civil War period is responsible for more new book titles than any other subject in American history and it is often difficult to keep up with all of the new titles. Among them is Jack Hurst’s new account of the Fort Henry/Fort Donelson 1862 campaign called Men of Fire.

It is a volume that concentrates on two protagonists, Ulysses S. Grant and Nathan Bedford Forrest, and the story is told in a traditional character-based narrative. The book is written with the skill and insight necessary to explain history.

Hurst is more than a skilled writer he is a wordsmith and a storyteller. Quality writing on any subject is always a pleasure to read. In addition, Hurst demonstrates a flair for historical research and a good handle on the source material.

Men of Fire is more than objective than Hurst’s biography of Forrest and wisely avoids trumpeting the nearly mythological status of the man widely recognized as the Civil War’s greatest cavalryman.

The author made another good decision in that more character development seems devoted to Ulysses S. Grant with Forrest present mostly for purposes of comparison and contrast. Ironically, Forrest actually seems less than necessary to the story of the campaign in which most of the action was driven by Grant.

Certainly both men were courageous, persistent and difficult to defeat on the battlefield, yet each had to overcome major character flaws. Grant fought a “thirst” that caused him to edge perilously close to self-destruction on several occasions, while Forrest had a famously vicious temper and short fuse. Both men were aggressive almost to the point of being reckless, and yet both were successful.

There are a few criticisms that are worth mentioning. First, the premise that the Fort Henry/Fort Donelson campaign was a turning point in the Civil War is a real stretch.

If Hurst’s suggestion is that the campaign decided the outcome of the Civil War, it would necessarily minimize the impact of Shiloh, Antietam, Stones River and Gettysburg that came afterwards.

The point is that a campaign does not have to be labeled a “”turning point” to be worth a closer look, especially in the under-researched battlefields of the Western Theater.

In addition, the book includes an overemphasis on somewhat irrelevant personal information on the two protagonists in such a way that one feels slightly cheapened reading it, as though you have just overhead the gossip. An example is the attention given the politically motivated charges made by William J. Kountz against Grant early in the war.

Men of Fire is recommended for not only the high standard of writing, but also for the 11 Bearss/Cooling hand-drawn maps, and an hour-by-hour description of the decisive day of Feb. 15, 1862, at Fort Donelson.

The narrative is light and insightful with catchy phrases (perhaps a few too many) and only a few baffling flaws. Overall, this is worth a space on your bookshelf or otherwise adding to your collection of Civil War books.