The Last Full Measure: A Novel of the Civil War (Civil War Trilogy)

I was inspired to ask the title question as I was reading one of my favorite novels by my most favored writer, Jeff Sharra. Jeff is known for the many American military history novels he’s written beginning with the events leading up to the American Revolution, and the Revolutionary War itself. He has followed in his father’s footsteps in picking up where Michael Sharra left off (Killer Angles/Gettysburg) to the end of the civil war in 1865. He has also written several novels on civil war period battles. As a retired military and civil service officer, history major, and civil war buff, I can vouch that Sharra goes to extensive lengths of background study to make his characters come alive as historically accurate as possible. The other source of inspiration was AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from Military by Kathy Roth-Douquet and Frank Schaeffer. For opposing viewpoints on Roth-Douquet and Schaeffer’s views of the American elite having no desire to share in the total sacrifice of our military during wartime see the review “Ghost Warriors-What happens to a country when its elite won't serve in the military?” and an the opposing view “Examination of 'Elites' and the Military AWOL,” by Dr. Tim Kane, for the Heritage Foundation. Although the opposing views above relate to how does one define elite Americans to the hot potato of conscription, or a draft to get a greater number of well, elite Americans to serve in our Armed Forces, the questions I felt inspired to ask have little to do with the draft. The term and concept of a military draft is disgusting (a turn off) to far too many Americans, regardless if we are liberals, conservatives, or politically apathetic making it impossible to have an intelligent debate about the pros and cons of conscription. I believe that both viewpoints have a partisan political tint to them. However, one aspect is undeniably true. History will clearly show our nation’s inability to end long wars or at least make them shorter is not solely because one socio-economic group views military service as below their class thus they have no desire to share in the sacrifices of our Armed Forces. The commitment of even a fraction of America’s riches, most prominent families would do little to end wars or make them shorter in duration. Dr. Kane notes that…” really at issue is not a divide between the military and rich Americans, or smart Americans, or any other demographic category. There is a gap, but it is a political one. But the authors pretend otherwise. For example, they write in the introduction, "This is not a Democrat-versus-Republican issue." In a later chapter, they write that "both sides of the aisle are contributing to the alienation of the military." The sad fact is that the liberal elite has lost touch with the military.” Well, I can understand problems in defining what or who is an American elite, but by the same token I find it comical that Dr. Kane’s opinion above provides readers no clear definition of what a conservative elite is much less a liberal elite. It is clear that with the Heritage Foundation being a Conservative Think Tank, one can see the partisan bias in Dr. Kane’s review.Regardless, I believe that both sides are really missing the point. No one can convince me, a retired career military officer and civil servant that the vast majority of Americans have sacrificed, or even been asked to sacrifice, for our wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. To me, this is a disgraceful tendency that forces us to depend on only 1% of Americans to carry the burdens of war, and future wars for the rest of us - elite or not.No pun intended to the Heritage Foundation, but the questions I was inspired to ask about “Why American Wars last so long?” may be found in our heritage. I contend that WE Americans have a bad habit of allowing history to repeat itself regardless the rational or excuses for it. This especially applies to our last controversial long wars (Korea and Viet Nam). The Korean War frankly has never ended, and Viet Nam remains in competition with our 21st Century wars in the Middle East and Southwest Asia (Iraq and Afghanistan) to be America’s longest war depending upon what date is applied to our presence in S.E. Asia after WWII.My understanding is that our wars remain difficult to end or even shorten is due to failure to expect nationwide shared sacrifice for our 21st Century wars, and this sets a very dangerous precedence. What I read in Jeff Sharra’s “The Last Full Measure; the sequel to his father’s civil war novel Killer Angels, was that wars will be easier to start, last longer, and be hard to end if only 1% of our population is expected to carry the entire sacrifice for the rest of us.On pages 375 to 377 of “The Last Full Measure,” Jeff Sharra provides insight to thoughts of Union General William T. Sherman as his army marches through Georgia, and U.S. Grant as the Army of the Potomac lays siege to Petersburg, Virginia during the last months of the civil war.Sharra writes about Grant entering his Headquarters on Christmas evening 1864. “There were newspapers on the small table by the window, and [Grant] stood now, would read the one column again, the amazing hostility, the vicious attacks on the [Union] army. It was not a southern paper, but one from New York. It had always been the voice of opposition to [President] Lincoln, but this time the writing was not endless rhetoric about politics and economics, topics of interest to almost no one; this time the attacks were leveled directly at the army, and directly at William T. Sherman….The article quoted the governor of Georgia and the representatives in Richmond. They were howling mad, claimed the worse kind of barbarism was sweeping across the state, that what Sherman was doing was little more than raping the land, burning and looting the farms and towns of the innocent [civilians]. Grant turned slightly, let the lamplight wash over one paragraph, one sentence in particular. Wars are the exclusive property of the men who fight, and should never injure the innocent civilians.[Grant] had read that the first time with astonishment, read it now with disgust. He put the paper down. Innocent? He thought. Where is the line? Does the man who works in the munitions factory differ from the man who grows food? Do they not both support the ability to fight a war?”Although the above may be applicable to innocent civilians our troops found in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade, however it is this part that Sharra interprets that is to me most relevant today. Not only because it mentions how the nature of the war had changed but also makes a strong case for the need of national shared sacrifice on the battlefield or in the war effort in general to end war(s). It is an ingredient missing in 21st century America, and it is a shame not exclusive to liberals, conservatives, or extreme fanatics.“[Grant] knew how Sherman saw this, how Sherman had responded to the indignant civilians, the small-town politicians who protested his method of war. His response had opened something in Grant’s mind that he never considered. Sherman had told [his critics]: If YOU are not affected [by the war], if YOU are not hurt by what we [soldiers on both side] do, then YOU will not do anything to stop [the war]. The war will simply continue. As long as it is just the soldiers [volunteers] these barbaric men with guns who kill each other, as long as the damage is far away, the destruction and death out of your sight, then no amount of hand-wringing and moral outrage will make [war] end. If YOU are affected, if your farms, your crops are destroyed, your neat buildings in YOUR perfect towns burned to the ground, then there will be a reason to stop this [war]. War is not tidy, it is not convenient, it is everywhere, it has to be felt by everyone.”In closing, Sharra interprets another aspect of this historic period that relates to all the wars that America has fought since the Civil War. He mentions Grant thinking about how the nature and technology of warfare had drastically changed since Fort Sumter in 1861. “Above the James River, [Confederate General James] Longstreet was using land mines now, on the roads east of Richmond, [improvised] explosive charges that did not distinguish between who was innocent and who deserved to die. [Confederate General William J.] Hardee had done the same in defense of Savannah, GA, and when Sherman’s army approached, men and horses were maimed in horrific ways by hidden charges they never saw. When the weapons are so anonymous, when we can kill our enemy without ever seeing him, then how do we know who the victim might be? The guns were so good now, we can drop our shells with such precision, the killing happens with such casual regularity. Was it different when we had to look him in the eye, stare face-to-face, comparing our honor and our courage to his?”Of note, Sharra’s “The Last Full Measure,” is historical fiction. It is his interpretation of what might have been on Grant or Sherman’s mind, and what they said at any point in history, but Sharra’s interpretation is based on historic fact. More so, the points made about how the multitudes feel the shared sacrifice provides insight into why it will remain too easy for Americans to send other people children to war, but too hard to end one.Robert L. HanafinSpecialist Five, U.S. Army (69-72)Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired (72-94)G

... of the American Civil War. I would say this is an excellent history for those who do not particularly have the patience or care to read a history book.Set as a novel viewing the events of the war through the eyes of it's major players, the story begins with Lee's army at the swollen banks of the Potomac after his retreat from the disaster at Gettysburg. Although the novel does not include the recruitment process of Grant for command of all Union forces as Lt. General (a rank last held by George Washington), nor the strategy session between Grant and his favorite, Gen. W.T. Sherman; it does give a glimpse of why Lincoln chose this man to led the Army.With the selection of Grant the focus of the war is changed from the dubious capture of Richmond as a means to defeat the South to the defeat of Lee himself. Grant sums it up in a sentence to Gen. Meade (who he leaves in charge of the Army of the Potomac) saying, "Where Lee goes, you will go too." Grant knows that the fighting heart of the South is not in Richmond, but in its most popular leader, Gen. R.E. Lee. When Lee is beaten, the war will end ... and of course, history bears this out.The tale takes us through the Union defeat in the burning thickets and forest of the Wilderness; Lee's (and Stuart's) brilliant disengagement and race to Spotsylvania and the mule shoe salient -- where the most vicious fighting of the war takes place -- the two armies positioned literally yards from each other, clubbing and stabbing one another to death over and through chinks in the log barricades. It follows Lee's move to the North Ana River where Grant's leaders make a terrible mistake in deployment, but are spared disaster because Lee remains in his tent, too ill to take advantage of the situation. The fight moves further south to Cold Harbor and the wholesale slaughter of Union troops in Grant's biggest mistake of the war. Over 7,000 men are killed in twenty minutes of battle. And finally to the siege of the strategic rail center at Petersburg.Ultimately Lee will leave Petersburg and march his army west only to be dogged by the Union and finally give up the fight as hopeless at Appomattox.Although slow moving at times, the average reader will come to know the last year of the Civil War in a way that standard history texts cannot tell it. This is the most critical period of time for each nation's survival. If Lee can hold out for a few more months and Lincoln is not reelected, the pacifist movement in the North will permit the Confederacy their independence and the Union will be broken. With the defeat of Lee in Virginia and the victories of Sherman in Georgia, the South will give up the fight and the Union preserved. We all know the eventual outcome of the struggle. This book gives us the personalized details of how desperate a fight it really was.Some of the more avid history buffs might be a bit disappointed at the coverage of some events (such as the battle of Cold Harbor), but all in all, this is a fine book on the greatest event in American history. Well written and very readable.*** Highly Recommended ***~pjm~

All the traits and foibles of the main protagonists are superbly portrayed in. this excellent climax. to a war that savaged a nation . The vignettes on Lee, Grant ,Chamberlain post conflict are both poignant and revealing . Stunning story telling as all Jeff Shaara,s books are .

a long time ago I read a book called 'Killer Angels' by Michael Shaara ( Jeffs dad) as I was already a civil war fan when this book was published I had to have it ,if you include Angels there is Also 'Gods and Generals' all telling the story of the US civil war.Like now with our politicians writing how they saved the world ,the Generals etc from the civil war did the same so Jeff has a load of history on the personal level to tell a story ....Grant,Sheridon,Meade and Chamberlain to name a few...he do's a good job trying to get inside the head of the person/battle .....it's not like a mystery thriller you know what the outcome will be before you pick it up.....but Jeff keeps you wanting to turn the page ....it is a good read and you might just get interested in that part of history

I read this as an Englishman who wanted to learn about the American Civil War. I thought it the best of the trilogy. I particularly liked the characterisation of Lee and Grant and it is easy to see why both are almost sacred in US history.My only concern is that the issues of the Blacks and slavery are seldom mentioned. Also it did not bring out the shear magnitude of the slaughter: the bloodiest war in American history.Still it is a good read, and I now a stand in awe of Lee and Grant.

Provides a view of the main players on the stage of an event which still influences US society today. It is a perspective that is sometimes lacking in more formal historical accounts. Wars at every level are fought by human beings, the weapons may change but the experience remains the same. This very useful book illustrated the impact of personality and emotion upon these formative events and provides context many of the crucial decisions made under stress.

Whether, like me, you have an interest in the American Civil War, or are just interested in a cracking, well written story, this is the book for you. Jeff Shaara follows in the best of traditions of historical fiction set by his father Michael. This book brings the closing stages of the war in Virginia, and the leading characters involved therein to light brilliantly.