On the one hand the reviewer complimented Walker for his ability to tell a good story and his focus on the experiences of the soldiers themselves. The criticisms, however, centered as much on the publisher as the lack of analysis contained in the book. Here are a few excerpts from the review:
Hell’s Broke Loose in Georgia deserved to be published, but not by an academic press because the author failed to engage in a single scholarly debate about the common Civil War solder. Soldier motivation, desertion, the psychological trauma of combat, and Confederate nationalism are issues discussed, but they are not interpreted in a broader historiographical framework….
Popular history deserves to be published by academic presses as part of a broader scholarly offensive to reach a wider audience. We should not, however, dilute our standards when it comes to what constitutes “good” popular history. We must insist on deep analysis and thorough research, as well as a readable narrative. In many cases, this book fails to meet such standards. Most of the chapters are sparsely footnoted, manuscript research is minimal, and the author did not consult the voluminous regimental resources at the National Archives.
I read the book and had some of the same concerns that were expressed above; however, I did not question whether it was an appropriate study for an academic press. The book clearly did not rise to the level of Earl Hess’s Lee’s Tar Heels (UNC Press) or Mark Dunkelman’s Brothers One and All (LSU Press). Notice that the reviewer is not suggesting that academic presses should not publish non-professional historians; the concern is the content of the study itself. It should be noted that the books jacket reviews are written by professional historians who are or were connected with universities and other research institutions.
“The letters, diaries, and other information Scott Walker located and utilized on the soldiers and families of the 57th Georgia infantry are among the finest I’ve ever encountered. He has done complete justice to these superb primary sources by writing a narrative that is richly descriptive yet focused and restrained. Walker allows the soldiers and their families to speak for themselves while placing their words and deeds in a clear and meaningful context.”
—T. Michael Parrish,
Bowers Professor of History, Baylor University
“Civil War regimental histories are thick on the ground now, but Hell’s Broke Loose in Georgia is a different sort of creature, a penetrating look at the inner world and lives of men who marched, ate, slept, fought, and died together. Not so much a unit history as a ‘family’ portrait of
men bound by the war, Scott Walker’s book offers a glimpse of the personality and inner world of almost all Civil War units, North and South alike. This is the part of regimental history that too many regimental historians overlook.”
—William C. Davis, Director of Programs,
Virginia Center for Civil War Studies, Virginia Tech
“Scott Walker has produced history that is at the same time very old and quite new. He relies upon a rich trove of letters and diaries to focus his narrative upon the coming-of-age experiences and vivid observations of men and boys who served in the Fifty-seventh Georgia Infantry Regiment. Walker also offers a species of the ‘new’ military history—a drama set in blood and mud instead of command posts in which common soldiers instead of generals are the principal characters. This is an excellent book.”
—Emory M. Thomas, author of Robert E. Lee: A Biography
This is an interesting question and hits at the divide that separates the general reading public along with the historians who write their books and the academic world which is interested in a more analytical-type study. I honestly don’t know where I stand on this one.