Et tu, Barney?

Civil War encyclopedias, general and specialized, are numerous. Off the top of my head, I can recall owning three general references (including this one), one on Robert E. Lee's army, one on the brigades of Gettysburg, one on Union generals, and one on Confederate generals. And every one of them is longer than this.

Is that bad? I suppose it depends on your purpose. This volume is newer than the other two general references -- much, much newer than Mark M. Boatner's classic volume. That does have its advantages -- this book has many photographs, which Boatner's does not (although the other general dictionary, the Historical Times Illustrated Encyclopedia, has more photographs still). Biographical entries in this book are preceded by capsule summaries, which are handy. And the simple fact that this is newer gives it a double advantage: a lot of research has been done in recent decades, and we have also become more aware of just how deeply secession rose out of racist attitudes, not the Southern claims of "States' Rights." For the broad strokes of the war, this is the best of my references.

But you don't buy an encyclopedia to get broad strokes; you buy a history for that! Encyclopedias are supposed to be about specific details. I'm sure there are people who will find this too-slim volume adequate for their needs. But, for me at least, there just isn't enough here. (A very current example, as I write this: There is a current controversy about Fort Benning in Georgia, named for Brigadier General Henry "Rock" Benning, a brigade commander in Robert E. Lee's army. No point in looking him up in this encyclopedia, though; he's not in it.) Bottom line: I'll keep this book -- but Boatner still remains my go-to Civil War reference, despite the fact that it's older than I am. ( )