The Yankee Division in the First World War: In the Highest Tradition (review)

Reviewed by: The Yankee Division in the First World War: In the Highest Tradition Daniel R. Beaver The Yankee Division in the First World War: In the Highest Tradition. By Michael E. Shay. College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-1-6-344-030-1. Illustrations. Maps. Bibliography. Index. Pp. xiii, 294. $49.95. This excellent account of New England's 26th National Guard Division, like Lonnie White's history of the 36th Division and Nancy Gentile Ford's study of the 82nd Division, adds substantially to the revisionist history of the American battle experience in the Great War. It is a virtual day by day account of the Division's experience from its organization in New England, to its training at home and in France, to its battle experience from the Chemin des Dames through the Meuse-Argonne. It challenges the conventional wisdom that this outstanding National Guard unit was "the whipping boy of the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) (p. xi). The first units of the 26th shipped out from east coast ports and Montreal for England in September and early October 1917. The last elements arrived at Brest in December, 1917. After moving from Southampton to France, training began near Neufchâteau in January, 1918. The 26th was the first of only two American [End Page 974] divisions, the other being the 1st, to nearly complete the full training cycle before being committed to battle in late February 1918. It fought at Château Thierry, St. Mihiel, and Troyon and took part in the Meuse-Argonne offensive. The Division was in the line 192 days from March, 1918 until the Armistice and took almost 16,000 casualties. The author describes its performance as "better than most" and its shortcomings as "virtually the same" (p. xi) as other American National Guard and Regular Army divisions involved in the battles of the Great War. Like other revisionists, Shay is very critical of General John J. Pershing. "Black Jack" was a demanding commander and had well known likes and dislikes. He disliked the 26th Division Commander, Major General Clarence R. Edwards. When Pershing removed him from command on October 23, 1918, Edwards, a West Pointer, class of 1883, asserted that it was due to Pershing's antipathy to the National Guard, who the AEF commander reputedly referred to as a bunch of "Boy Scouts" (p. xi). However, the affair was more about Edwards's place in the promotion ladder and his long-time connection with Pershing's old nemesis, Leonard Wood, than it was about the National Guard. The assertions of First Army commander Major General Hunter Liggett and Inspector General Colonel Malin Craig, that the Division under Edwards's command was not as efficient as it might have been, merely gave Pershing the opportunity to act. The effect on the Division was traumatic and it was never again quite as effective as it had been under Edwards. The war ended and in late March, 1919 the troops returned home. On April 8, 1919, in a fitting finale, General Edwards himself led the homecoming parade before enthusiastic crowds of Bostonians. This is a critical yet nicely balanced book and a fitting defense of the battle performance of the National Guard in the Great War. The author's use of sources, including materials from the National Archives and, especially, personal records from the Military History Institute at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, is more than adequate and he places the 26th Division's experience in appropriate context. I recommend this well written volume to all students of the American Army in the First World War. Daniel R. Beaver Emeritus, University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio Copyright © 2009 Society for Military History

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.