Book Review: Garden of Ruins: Occupied Louisiana in the Civil War

Garden of Ruins: Occupied Louisiana in the Civil War. By J. Matthew Ward. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2024. Hardcover, 306 pp. $50.00.

Reviewed by Sean Michael Chick

The Federal occupation of Civil War Louisiana has received a significant amount of attention from scholars over the years. This is partly due to the dramatic Union entrance into the state with the capture of New Orleans, but more so because of the colorful figure of Maj. Gen. Benjamin Butler, who in 1862 dealt with a myriad of military, social, and political issues. The continued focus of contemporary professional scholarship remains race, gender, and class and Butler’s tenure provides plenty of grain for the mill on each subject.

Yet, Butler was only in charge from May to December 1862. General Nathaniel Banks was in command significantly longer. Additionally, much of the state remained Confederate, and for many Unionists and the growing number who chose neutrality, the Confederate government seemed every bit as much of an occupying force. J. Matthew Ward’s Garden of Ruins: Occupied Louisiana in the Civil War provides a look at nearly every aspect of occupation from secession to the day Gen. Simon Bolivar Buckner surrendered Confederate forces in the Trans-Mississippi theater on May 26, 1865, in New Orleans. Most importantly, while Butler is present, he is not the center of the story, and that alone is a welcome change.

Garden of Ruins is about occupation policy and its impact. The Confederacy receives two chapters out of six, which is more than readers usually will find nearly anywhere else, including John D. Winters’s The Civil War in Louisiana. Indeed, to get any detail on what New Orleans was experiencing under the Confederacy, one has to locate Winters’s master’s thesis, which he finished in 1947. Butler and Banks receive nearly equal time. Always in the forefront of the study is how the war affected families, in particular blacks and women of both races. Louisiana is all the more important for this kind of study. No other state provided more soldiers to the ranks of the United States Colored Troops. Abraham Lincoln wanted a loyal government in Louisiana, which is largely why he sent Banks, a man who shared most of Lincoln’s views. Personal tales might receive more space here than is warranted, but the evolution of policy and the experience in both halves of Louisiana remains at the center.

Two topics that Ward handles especially well are Benjamin Butler and the experiences of freedmen. Of the latter, Ward points out that freedom was a complicated affair. Blacks were often forced into work and military conditions they did not choose. More importantly, emancipation as depicted here was not a holy crusade for the Union army, but rather a practical measure to damage the Confederacy and add men to the Union ranks; the later is important since the XIX Corps spent over a year essentially isolated from quick reinforcement. As such, Ward depicts emancipation as less of a revolutionary experiment than a practical one with inadvertent radical consequences.

As for Butler, Ward aligns with recent scholarship that depicts Butler in a positive light, perhaps more so than he deserves. The idea that Butler was perhaps not corrupt in Louisiana is far too generous to “the Beast.” Yet, Ward shows that Butler was cautious on the subject of emancipation. This aligns with Butler more as a politician first and foremost rather than as the progressive crusader motif that is common in many recent works such as Elizabeth Leonard’s Benjamin Franklin Butler: A Noisy, Fearless Life.

Perhaps the best part of the book deals with the Confederacy. Early on, secession was broadly popular among whites, at least once it happened. The last chapter, detailing life under Gen. Kirby Smith, might be the finest. In this chapter, Ward explains Confederate reactions varied in response to Smith’s autocratic ways. Many saw it as a military necessity, reminding readers of how Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis sometimes ignored civil liberties in wartime. It did help that Smith was not heavy-handed, and Ward rightfully points to Smith’s domestic policies as his greatest strengths as department commander. These actions though led to increasing lawlessness, particularly in disputed areas of Louisiana, and a burgeoning neutrality movement as the war dragged on. Hopefully, if Ward continues with studies on Civil War Louisiana, he will explore neutrality more and in a similar vein to J. S. Morrill’s classic study, The Revolt of the Provinces: Conservatives and Radicals in the English Civil War, 1630-1650.

Garden of Ruins has certain limitations. The prose is very academic, which may inhibit its reach. The emphasis on how the war affected families is often vague in the text and less fleshed out than the discussions of policy. It also lacks military details for context on how situations evolved in Louisiana. Most of all, how Union policy and actions created chaos is not fully covered. True, occupation and emancipation caused disruption, but it was not only that. Butler’s tenure was, despite Ward’s waffling, corrupt, and he could be insulting and mean. Confederate distaste for Butler was not only a product of fevered imaginations, but it also came from anger over closing city relief for widows and allowing Albert Sidney Johnston’s corpse to rot in an exposed tomb. Additionally, charges of arson, looting, and rape followed Union armies in Louisiana under Banks’s command. The Federal rampage in Bayou Teche ensured that those who disliked the Confederacy would never aid the Union cause, and was one key reason why Louisiana, perhaps more than any other state, had such a large population that expressed a neutral sentiment.

Garden of Ruins is not flawless, but it is quite good. The book is especially well researched. It gives a good overview of policy for both belligerents in Louisiana. More importantly, the book has nuance, and that is always to be treasured.