Member Review Destruction and Reconstruction: Personel Experiences of the Civil War by Richard Taylor

Rusk County Avengers

Captain
Muster Stunt Master Stones River / Franklin 2022
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Location
Coffeeville, TX
1581625946911.png


Destruction and Reconstruction: Personal Experiences of the Civil War
By- Lt. General Richard Taylor, CSA
Published by-De Capo Press
Pages- 274, Introduction, text, and index
ISBN- 0-306-80624-X

When looking at Book Reviews, I've always noticed a lack of memoirs by CW veterans, my favorite type of CW book. While I personally prefer memoirs by enlisted men above all else, I figure this much remembered and controversial book deserves attention, especially since I just re-read it for the first time in a LONG time.

To many Richard Taylor is forgotten, or just remembered for his very short service in Virginia under Jackson. Others either living west of the Mississippi or actually studying this ignored region remember him well for his leadership in the Red River Campaign of 1864, and or the epic seemingly mutual hatred between him Edmund Kirby Smith and their feud.

In this book Taylor begins with retelling the beginning of the war, and how he came to be Colonel of the 9th Louisiana Infantry, and his quick rise through the ranks to Brigadier General over others by his friend and former brother-in-law Jefferson Davis, and how he fought the elevation. He takes us back to his first meeting with the famous Stonewall Jackson, his meeting and service besides General Ewell and countless other greats in Northern Virginia. When taking us back he also gives short biographies of everyone, and makes his feelings about them plain....

After that Taylor tells of his being sent home to Louisiana to recuperate, (he suffered rheumatoid arthritis all his life) and take command of the Louisiana District. He gives us a personal account of his orders to save Vicksburg, and how he felt it folly, and that Pemberton and Joe Johnston did it to themselves. Afterwards we see his probably least known campaign fighting the Union in South Louisiana, then move on to his most well known, the Red River Campaign and beyond to the end of the war seeing General Nathan Bedford Forrest along the way after they met, and developed a seemingly mutual admiration and respect for one another, with him praising or d---ing comrades and enemies alike along the way.

From there, we get to what I personally feel General Beauregard was referring to when he said the book was the "Romance of Destruction and Reconstruction" and we see Taylor as he goes through Reconstruction and get good pictures of Grant, Andrew Johnston, and the Radical Republicans.

All and all, I think this an important book for any student of the Civil War to read. Throughout he adds quotations from antiquity and metaphors galore, but it is an easy book to read, at least until Reconstruction. There he goes so far overboard with the ancient and poetic references, so much I have a hard time following it.

But don't take my word for it, read it yourself if you haven't already, then read it again!

Michael Pepper
Coffeeville, Texas
"Rusk County Avengers" on CivilWarTalk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have my own old paperback copy thereof and I have used it in my little research projects on occasions. The book is really a weak attempt to appear humble but clearly its thrust is the self glorification of Prince Richard Taylor. He benefited from his former brother in law Jeff Davis no one can deny. He is totally without formal military training but he was a serious student of ancient classical history and its warfare included. He benefits from this in that he had a sense of how to handle military affairs. He had many shortcomings which historians continue to gloss over to this date with most seemingly accepting his view of things. I have T. Michael Parrish new book called RICHARD TAYLOR SOLDIER PRINCE OF DIXIE but it seems only to be more Richard Taylor glorification. I remain waiting for a serious critical and more truthful history of Prince Richard Taylor.
 
I have my own old paperback copy thereof and I have used it in my little research projects on occasions. The book is really a weak attempt to appear humble but clearly its thrust is the self glorification of Prince Richard Taylor. He benefited from his former brother in law Jeff Davis no one can deny. He is totally without formal military training but he was a serious student of ancient classical history and its warfare included. He benefits from this in that he had a sense of how to handle military affairs. He had many shortcomings which historians continue to gloss over to this date with most seemingly accepting his view of things. I have T. Michael Parrish new book called RICHARD TAYLOR SOLDIER PRINCE OF DIXIE but it seems only to be more Richard Taylor glorification. I remain waiting for a serious critical and more truthful history of Prince Richard Taylor.

Agree that Taylor's memoir, as almost all memoirs seem to be, are intended to glorify the writer. I understand that he was not a professional military man, benefited from his family connections, and was unable to stop the federal advance to Port Hudson or recapture New Orleans, notwithstanding the obstacles he was up against. But he seems to have had a generally successful career as a commander in the Shenandoah Valley and later on against Banks in the Red River Campaign. I will certainly like to read the new biography by Parrish.
 
There's also a good book about Taylor (and Kirby Smith) called "A Crisis in Confederate Command: Edmund Kirby Smith, Richard Taylor, and the Army of the Trans-Mississippi" by Jeffery S. Prushankin.
 
Thanks for the review @Rusk County Avengers . As much as I enjoy Civil War Louisiana,at some point it's gonna be time to do some reading about Richard Taylor and Tom Green.

I prefer him in his own words, he was there after all.

I've seen some talking here about him glorifying himself, I don't get that vibe from his memoirs. I've read a lot of memoirs where the author glorified themselves as much as possible, (like Admiral Porter, him its so much I can't feel right about trusting a word of it, though I do like it around Lincoln and City Point) but I just don't get that feeling from Destruction and Reconstruction. Only places I see Taylor pumping himself up is when he's pointing out flaws in other folks and that is only human. Folks who usually get a bad rap from history itself.

Although I use if for reference from time to time, it has been a few years since I read it from front to back. After your review, I think its about time to get it down for a reread.

Comments like yours really make writing a review worth it.
 
I am going to have to purchase a copy of his book, seems to be an interesting read. Another thing I did not know that he was the only son of Zachary Taylor our 12th President. Thanks for posting.
 
I have to agreed with it being very thin on the true history of things have to do with the Civil War. The spotlight is on himself and how he sees things and as important are things he does not want you to see. Its true most memoirs are like this. I am also very interested in how he spins things and the timeline. His remarks scatter around about some ancient figure is a very dull page filler of a very short work. You get more from the recent Parrish work. Let we give you an example of one of the parts that I find disturbing: the Battle of Yellow Bayou. Prince Richard gave it about one or two sentences. You come away thinking it merely a minor clash. The truth is that Taylor's army got routed and had likely more than 600 men shot down that day in a very short violent bloody fight plus around about 150 captured. Another rout of his army at Pleasant Hill scattered them for many miles to the rear before they stopped running but reading the Prince's book you do not know that. He has himself lurking around the battlefield with a small cavalry escort in the dark giving the impressing he possesses the battlefield in a victory. The Yankees are loading up to leave the scene and are not chasing any of the Rebels.
 
It sounds like a very useful memoir to history, in terms of the author being very clear on his opinions and giving a strong sense of what he thinks was important or unimportant (or experiences he wants to minimize). It's not the sort of thing I will probably ever read, but I'm glad it's written and I appreciate the OP taking the time to write a good review.
 
Back
Top