Reviewed by: Civil War Arkansas, 1863: The Battle for a State by Mark K. Christ Gary T. Edwards Civil War Arkansas, 1863: The Battle for a State. Mark K. Christ. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2010. ISBN 978-0-8061-4433-7, 336pp., paper, $19.95. The twenty-third volume in the Campaigns and Commanders series provides a solid history of a seldom examined time and place. Arkansas’s share of the Civil War spotlight rapidly diminishes after 1862, yet relative to its inhabitants, Christ has demonstrated that 1863 was a momentous year for the state. Christ argues that 1863 was pivotal because it witnessed a new objective in Federal strategy—seizing the Arkansas River Valley and thus bisecting the trans-Mississippi theater. The author lays out his case in a straightforward manner that yields a classic example of military narrative history. It is well-researched and certainly the only book-length study on this topic. Thus, it adds substantively to an underserved subject. Thematically, the book rests on the premise that the Arkansas River Valley was tactically essential to both sides. While this is perfectly sensible, there is a strange duality to the river, which Christ acknowledges, that makes it seem like a conduit of invasion while simultaneously a repellant to invaders. On the one hand, the river was the most logical means of conveying troops and supplies, yet on the other hand, it was so fickle (even by nineteenth-century standards) that it was virtually a non-factor in the campaign to capture its valley. Other than during the battle at Fort Hindman, great flotillas of ironclads did not cruise up and down the Arkansas River, because its navigability was too unreliable. Likewise, in the campaign to capture Little Rock, the river’s key city, the Federal offensive proceeded from two directions without reference to the Arkansas River at all. Yet in relation to the state, the river’s tactical potential was unquestionably significant. In presenting the evidence for the valley’s overall importance, however, Christ may overestimate the region’s agricultural significance. He explores [End Page 321] useful data that reveals the twelve counties bordering the river contained 20 percent of Arkansas’s farmland and a comparable percentage of its grain, concluding that the valley was the state’s “breadbasket,” perhaps analogous to Virginia’s Shenandoah (39). Yet one would expect 20 percent of the farmland (presumably with 20 percent of the farmers) to yield 20 percent of the grain. If so, then the valley’s importance to subsistence would be limited to its immediate borders and little more. Christ is most concerned with the troops during 1863, and he skillfully narrates their actions. After a chapter of background on secession and the early war, he chronologically follows events. The author is not prone to extensive analysis and often prefers to allow the subjects to have the final word. This is commendable, because he has scoured the archives for regimental histories, diaries, and letters. The result is a generally evenhanded account of troop deployment and strategic problems placed within the context of winners and losers respectively. For instance, Christ’s account of the battle of Fort Hindman—where the Union enjoyed overwhelming odds—conveys extensive narrative tension to the point that most readers might forget the Federals’ superiority until the end. Likewise, the physical suffering of the troops on both sides is often highlighted with great empathy. When he does offer critical analysis, it is focused on command decisions and their outcomes. For the most part, Christ supports the consensus view of earlier works. He affirms that the Confederates could not have taken Helena with the forces at hand and Sterling Price was wise to yield Little Rock without a fight because the Federals had been superbly outmaneuvered him. However, here Christ quotes Shelby Foote, who speculated that the Union would have “presumably been willing to pay even one hundred times the actual cost” in casualties to secure Little Rock (196). It seems highly speculative that such a large number (13,700) would have been acceptable; this particular conclusion is more of a narrative flourish from Foote and inflates Little Rock’s strategic significance. Finally, Christ praises...
Read full abstract
Nov 2, 2018
V.E Boldyrev 
Open Access