Other editions of book A Taste For War: The Culinary History of the Blue and the Gray

For soldiers in all wars, mealtime is a focal point of the day. Armies do indeed “march on their stomachs,” as Napoleon said. Soldiers of the Civil War armies, many away from home and mothers’ and wives’ cooking for the first time, were thrown back on their own resources both to prepare their own meals and often to stock their larders. No one in America, North or South, was prepared for the massive task of acquiring and distributing the uncountable tons of foodstuffs necessary to keep almost three million men fed. And yet food and mealtime were the dominant topics of interest and conversation, and the fodder for a great deal of the war lore. A Taste for War looks at what soldiers ate during the Civil War, where they got it, how they prepared it, and what they thought of it. Leavened with first-person accounts of finding and preparing food, A Taste for War includes more than two hundred recipes drawn from soldiers’ letters and diaries and from the few cookery guides furnished them by their governments. The recipes are adapted with instructions for modern preparation that allow readers to recreate the distinctive flavors and aromas of the Civil War.

"[Hardtack was] positively unsuitable fodder for anything that claims to be human...and I think it no exaggeration to say that any intelligent pig possessing the least spark of pride would have considered it a pure insult to have them put into his swill." (Wilbur Fisk, Civil War soldier). We know the uniforms they wore, the weapons they carried, and the battles they fought, but what did they eat and, of even greater curiosity, was it any good? Now, for the very first time, the food that fueled the armies of the North and the South and the soldiers' opinions of it--ranging from the sublime to just slime--is front and center in a biting, fascinating look at the Civil War as written by one of its most respected historians. There's even a comprehensive "cookbook" of actual recipes included for those intrepid enough to try a taste of the Civil War.

Throughout his discussion of food in the camp, Davis provides overwhelming evidence of his central theme that the culinary experience for soldiers was a poor one for non-officers. "From 1861 to 1865 [soldiers'] menu was a three-course meal of monotony, insufficiency, and improvisation" (xvi). Many historians, of course, have commented on the poor state of nutrition in both armies, especially in the South. Still, it was a topic that was due for the kind of in-depth and thorough examination that Davis gives it. Davis argues persuasively that malnutrition probably exacerbated the poor health of many soldiers, noting that disease of diarrhea was the "biggest single killer" of men, especially in the prison camps. Interestingly, he posits that such "bowel complaints" probably affected both sides "almost equally" and that the South never lost a battle due to malnutrition (126-127). Even so, it almost certainly did not help and malnutrition in camp and back at home probably had at least some influence on skyrocketing Confederate desertion rates near the end of the war. Some of the most interesting parts of the book, and perhaps where the book could have been tied more closely to recent scholarly literature, comes during Davis's discussion of food in prison camps. Davis demonstrates how the food prisoners ate on both sides steadily declined during the war and played a role in the horrendous death rates in both northern and southern prisons. Although Davis only briefly mentions such vengeful episodes, it seems clear that northerners such as Secretary of State Edwin Stanton and Commissary General of Prisoners of War William Hoffman cut food to prisoners in a retaliatory measure whereas southerners simply did not have the resources to care for their own men or Yankee prisoners (100-102).