4 comments about McClellan's War: The Failure of Moderation in the Struggle for the Union.

1. Finding a general in American history with as bad a reputation as George B. McClellan is not an easy task. Few Civil War books have anything good to say about him, fewer still defend his actions in the field. His victory at Antietam is often listed as a draw or even a Confederate victory. This "victory" is because McClellan should have destroyed the Army of Northern Virginia and their survival is a "victory" for them. His problems with military intelligence and the chronic over estimation of numbers is a "character defect" that he used to keep from fighting the army he created and loved to much to use. When pressed, even his harshest critics, will admit that McClellan created the Army of the Potomac and that it was the premier Union army during the war. Finally, they will acknowledge that McClellan always obeyed orders from Washington, even when he disagreed with them and felt they hurt his army.
   This book covers McClellan's background and actions up to being removed from command for the last time in 1861. While not taking a position, each incident is completely covered and footnoted. This allows the reader to both check the author and to draw well founded conclusions from the text. For this reason, "McClellan's War" should become an important milestone in the evolving debate about his service. The amount of information packed into this book is staggering. While the book is so well written that, it reads like a good novel. The combination produces a very enjoyable and dynamic learning experience.
   Everything is here. All the questions about relations with Congress, Lincoln and Scott, are examined and both sides presented. Coverage of the question about reinforcements during the Peninsula Campaign is complete with attention to the critical sequence of events. McClellan's feelings about and support of Pope are fair and well documented as are his difficulties with Stanton. The Antietam Campaign is a major item in the book and very well covered. What McClellan did and did not do, how it influenced R.E. Lee's plans, and the subsequent events is very well done. The condition of McClellan's army, the problems he faced and the effect they have on the battle of Antietam is a revelation.
   The author takes the time to explain the theory of Conciliation and the political exchanges between its' supporters and the Abolitionist. The lucid discussion of the development of both these ideas and the background of the people that supported them is an important contribution to ACW this book makes. After reading this, I gained a much better understanding of the early war and how the policies developed as the war progressed.
   Over all stands Lincoln, literally towering over McClellan. The book details the pressure Lincoln is under and the changes in his attitude towards, the South, McClellan and the war in the first 18 months of the war. In addition, we come to understand how the two men, wanting the same victory, were unable to bridge the widening gulf between them. McClellan, with his background and beliefs, was unable to understand or respond to Lincoln's problems. Lincoln, forced to respond to pressure and discarding the policy of Conciliation, could not give McClellan the time and resources he needed. The strength of the book is we understand both sides and have sympathy for both men.
   In the emerging debate on McClellan, Ethan S. refuse has written his name along side Joseph L. Harsh as authors of "must read" books on the subject.



2. George Brinton McClellan's legacy since the Civil War has been largely criticized by historians and the general public. Hundreds of books generated notions that the Union high command prior to U.S. Grant's arrival was full of generals who could not win battles or take the initiative in destroying Robert E. Lee's army. McClellan served as the primary victim of these rants because he held the longest tenure as commander of the Army of Potomac. Even though McClellan had earned the respect of his men, he certainly did not get that same respect from Washington or from future historians. Thankfully, that has changed.
   
   Rafuse's book showcases a lot of the author's abilities as a historian and as a writer. Though military book in nature, Rafuse's insight into McClellan's political influence largely explains the behavior attributed on the battlefield. Perhaps no Civil War biographer has detailed his subject's political connections as Rafuse has shown. In the Civil War field, Rafuse is considered as one of the up and coming military historians of this generation. This only makes sense as Rafuse's advisor was the distinguished historian Herman Hattaway, whose book "How the North Was Won" is still considered a standard in this profession. Certainly, Rafuse has a bright career as a scholar, teacher, and writer.
   
   Finally, this biography explains the political influence that troubled the Union generals throughout the War. Recently, scholars have argued that Lincoln and his cabinet caused much of the disappointment in the war's first two years because of their inability to let the generals lead on their own. Certainly, it can be questioned that if McClellan was given the same freedoms as Robert E. Lee in the South, the "young Napoleon" may have ended this war a lot sooner.



3. What a delightful rendering of General George B. McLellan from Ethan Rafuse. I don't know if this treatment will restore Little Mac from the severe wounds history has inflicted on him but it does help us understand why he behaved the way he did. Politicians always slather thick layers of patriotic ardor over the stark brutality of modern war in order to get the hostilities underway; the attendant death & destruction is never full anticipated & always pitifully underestimated. The radical Republicans wanted to unleash the dogs of war right at the Secesh throat not realising the South had hounds of their own. McLellan with his gentile family background & his Whig- Democratic political leanings & his West Point education got in the way. He was mauled nearly to death.
   
   This is an account of the life & generalship of McLellan from his triumphant processional into Washington & anointing up until his dismissal from command after Antietam (& the Emancipation Proclamation) in November, 1862. Rafuse focuses on the moderate political opposition to the radicals who ran Congress after the Whig party had been splintered into oblivion & the Southern Democrats had left the Republicans in a lopsided majority after Lincoln's election. This moderation is McLellan's raison d'etre.
   
   McLellan thought reasonable, unemotional (not radical) professionals should run the war. A decisive set-piece battle & then some mopping up would bring the South back to the Union with their traditions & way of life, including their peculiar institution, intact. Treat the Southerners in a conciliatory sort of way & they would reject the fire-eating slaveholders who brought on the war & return to the fold. How wrong he was. Six hundred thousand dead later & the Union was victorious & slavery was abolished. Victorious Grant became President & McLellan who had presidential aspirations of his own paled into obscurity, the anachronism he was. Little consolation that his scientific way of war with its fortifications & artillery abundance might have strangled the Confederacy in its cradle far quicker than Scott's Anaconda plan eventually did. His hamstrung Peninsula Campaign failed & the radicals took control. Conciliation was dead.
   
   Rafuse's account is a fine one indeed. The prose is a bit turgid to start but get McLellan on the Peninsula & the tale starts to flow. Maps are the windows into military history. The ones included are great. I never understood what McLellan's Urbanna plan was all about until I saw one of the maps & read again of Joseph E. Johnston's pull back from Manassas. All of the maps are pertinent, well done & , behold, contain all the place names mentioned in the text, a rare treat indeed.
   
   Abraham Lincoln comes across as the bewildered military neophyte he was at this stage of the war. McLellan has more spine with little emphasis on the sniveling he did about his estimation of the great multitude of the horde opposing him. He does get credit for his great organizational skills, training ability, & charisma. The Army of the Potomac was the instrument he created but never learned how to wield. Clausewitz was correct: the object of war is not to nick your opponent but to whack him so hard he won't get up again.



4. Sailing around the world, U.S. Grant sighed that George McClellan was one of the chief enigmas of the war. A century and a half later, most Civil War buffs would agree. McClellan's biographers either considered him a hero or, in the case of say Stephen Sears, a delusioned man who flirted with mental illness. Taking a page from the likes of Daniel Walker Howe, Ethan Rafuse argues that the key to understanding Little Mac is viewing him as an old line Whig of the Clay and Webster tradition who believed in self control, gentility, education and discipline. Rafuse goes into McClellan's prewar career and education and other influences (most importantly, Rafuse stresses how McClellan's jewel of a wife shaped his religious sentiments) and how they shaped his Civil War tenure. Readers may still view McClellan as a failed commander once they read Rafuse but at least they understand where he was coming from. As opposed to being plagued by psychological problems as Sears would have us believe, Rafuse shows that McClellan was man of his times who failed, in many ways, to grow with them. While Rafuse fails to provide a traditional narrative of military history, he provides an excellent political history of McClellan in 1861 and 1862. One wishes that Rafuse had taken his account to the 1864 election and McClellan's rather underappreciated political career after the war. Still, no other book truly offers such an interesting and insightful portrait of McClellan. If you want to understand the Union effort in the Civil War, you have to understand George McClellan's roller coaster ride in the high command. No other book does that as well as Rafuse's splendid "McClellan's War."

1 comments about Army Life in a Black Regiment: and Other Writings (Penguin Classics).

1. Several years ago I urged John Seelye to edit this work for Penguin. A couple of years after that, he asked me to do it instead, and I did. This is a remarkable book about a literate Yankee (Higginson "discovered" the poet Emily Dickinson) who "discovers" the South. It's also "about" Black soldiers in a white war, white officers in a Black regiment, self-discovery, rivers, and hope. Much of the imagery and characterization in the movie GLORY seems to have been lifted from this book: it is, after all, a first-hand narrative of war by an idealist sorely tested by politics and physical hardship. Higginson's writing of the book is in part his attempt to deal with what today we would call Post-Traumatic-Stress Disorder, and it is no wonder that the tone sometimes reminds the reader of Hemingway's "Big Two-Hearted River." Because the teller of this story emerges as an interesting person per se, this edition includes some of his other essays, ranging from his fascination with slave rebellion to his appreciation for poetry.

5 comments about Grant and Lee: A Study in Personality and Generalship.

1. This is a small book, but don't judge it by its size. It is a great little book. Grant & Lee, with such different backgrounds, lead two great armies in the strangest of times. In the end, with no grudge, the two men get to know and respect each other. But the story of how these men fought & how they thought so similarly in the battlefield and how they were both so noble and courageous help show that two men that could not have been more dissimilar, ended up being so alike serving their causes. I highly recommend this book. Very entertaining, and very educational.



2. If you read the introduction to this book, you will understand that Fuller has set out to write a brief but direct book on the Generalship capabilities of Grant and Lee. In the introduction, Fuller notes that Henderson's classic book on Jackson is more a romantic study than one that is an objective view. He goes further to say that a full study of Jackson gives a different appreciation. A respect for his maneuvering and desire to fight but also his idiosyncrasies and secrecy that Fuller indicates would cause one to question Jackson's sanity. With that introduction, you are prepared for the author's blunt assessment of both Generals. The book is brief concentrating more on strategy than just battlefield tactics. He concentrates on the critical battles of the war and the general effect the war has as a whole not just the eastern theater. In Lee, he notes that he was not a grand strategist but one that fought with intuition. As a General, he excelled on fighting on the defensive as showed in the final campaign. However, Lee preferred fighting aggressively and his errors show at Gettysburg and Malvern Hill. In the case of Chancellorsville, Fuller notes that Lee should have used the wilderness more often as a greater asset for defensive maneuvers instead of coming out in the open into battle. That like a spider, he should have waited for opportunities to attack and withdrawal with the protection of cover. He further indicates that Lee had a poor operating staff and his administration impaired supply and clarity of orders as all were given verbally and minimally. Grant on the other hand was a former quartermaster, was well organized and had a global plan of the war hence his simultaneous operations with the western theater and his multiple prong attacks in the east. Fuller notes that at first his objective was to follow Lee and not concentrate on the Richmond. But later he changed to maneuver so that Lee had to react to him as opposed to the reverse. Grant was often accused of having little imagination but as Fuller notes, he did not have the imagination to inflate numbers that were against him (McClellan) but he was rational in knowing that the Confederates had limited manpower. Through his intuition, Lee had success against the earlier Union generals but as Fuller points out, he could not fathom Grant.
   
   The book is critical of both; however, as an overall commander, Grant comes across as much more able and Lee a totally different commander highly capable on the defensive but not as much a hands on commander as most would previously think. Both men are stripped bare; the author offers a unique unbiased view of the war without the human frailty of sentiment.



3. Whatever your view of Robert E. Lee and U.S. Grant, Fuller's book will challenge you to think long and hard about your beliefs concerning both generals.
   
   As a Southerner, I have to admit that Fuller makes a compelling case for Grant being the better general between the two. One instance is where he confronts the idea that Grant was a butcher because of the heavy casualties during the Wilderness-Spotsylvania Campaign. While Grant indeed suffered the heavier losses, the percentage of losses was acutally lower than Lee. In fact, this was a common occurence in many battles in which Grant commanded.
   
   The book's contents are as follows:
   
   1. The Two Causes - the two nations, presidents, armies and other North/South factors both generals had to operate within.
   2. The Personality of Grant - modesty, common sense, courage.
   3. The Personality of Lee - humility, tact, audacity.
   4. The Generalship of Grant and Lee, 1861-1862 - description of the battles fought by both generals during both years (Shiloh, Fort Donelson, Antietam, Fredericksburg, etc).
   5. The Generalship of Grant and Lee, 1863 - Vicksburg, Gettsyburg, Chattanooga, Chancellorsville.
   6. The Generalship of Grant and Lee, 1864-1864 - Spotsylvania, Wilderness, Cold Harbor, Petersburg, Appamattox.
   7. The Two Generals - comparison and contrast between their two styles and personalities.
   
   One other interesting point mentioned by Fuller was perhaps making the Confederate capital in Atlanta instead of Richmond. I have often thought how such a move would have affected the fighting in Virginia, Georgia, and my home state of North Carolina. Something interesting to ponder!
   
   I highly recommend the book. Read and enjoy.



4. Grant and Lee, A Study in Personality and Generalship, published in 1932, compares quite favorably in its detailed research and readability with works by modern writers and historians like Shelby Foote, James M. McPherson, Gary W. Gallagher, and Stephen W. Sears. This work by Major General J. F. C. Fuller is notable for directly challenging the conventional wisdom that Grant was little more than a "butcher" and that his eventual success was almost entirely due to the North's larger population and more abundant resources. In Fuller's view Grant was not only the greatest general of the Civil War, but ranks among the greatest strategists of any age. Fuller generated even more controversy with his contention that Robert E. Lee in several respects had major failings as a military leader.
   
   Controversial or not, Major General J. F. C. Fuller was no ordinary soldier writing about the Civil War. Fuller was a highly respected British military strategist and noted author. In the 1920s he collaborated with B. H. Liddell Hart in developing new ideas for the mechanization of armies. Ironically, their recommendations were more readily adopted in Germany than in Britain, France, or the U.S.
   
   Grant and Lee, A Study in Personality and Generalship, is a relatively short book, around 300 pages. Fuller writes with clarity and precision. He makes careful use of firsthand accounts; he paid particular attention to opinions of staff officers, as men in these roles were likely to have gained greater insight into the personalities of Grant and Lee. He also utilized the opinions of foreign witnesses of the war, like Colonel Fremantle, as a check on insiders' observations. His sources were identified through extensive end notes as he realized that his findings would be controversial. He includes statistics on battle losses to illustrate that the persistent belief that Grant's losses were abnormally high is simply a myth, and that Lee's percentage losses were actually higher.
   
   There are many exceptionally good books on the Civil War, but there are few that are as readable as Fuller's Grant and Lee, and offer such a fresh viewpoint (albeit, now nearly 75 years old, but one that remains stimulating and thought provoking). Grant and Lee, A Study in Personality and Generalship, is available in a reprint edition (1982) by Indiana University Press. Five stars.



5. There are so many books on this subject that it's easy to start a fight from any point of view. Fuller is writing from across the Atlantic, and I believe that has given him a perspective that makes for a clear study of the two men. Fuller makes good use of Freemantle's observations from the latter's time in the Confederacy, extending observations into well reasoned analysis. This one is worth reading.

1 comments about Lincoln and His World: The Early Years, Birth to Illinois Legislature.

1. This book is absolutely captivating. It is one of the best biographies I have ever read--one truly has a feel for what Lincoln's world was like during his childhood and early adulthood. Can't wait for the sequel.

2 comments about Letters of a Civil War Nurse: Cornelia Hancock, 1863-1865.

1. As an English civil war re-enactor, and a nurse by profession, Cornelia Hancock brings alive the horror, and difficulties faced by the wounded and the woman who choose to nurse them. The book is useful in its detail, and describes medical care at the battlefield, in hospitals, and the improvements made as the war developed. A book worth owning.



2. I wish the press had released the other version of this book. The introduction isn't very helpful.

4 comments about Robert E. Lee: Icon for a Nation.

1. At the end of the American Civil War Robert E. Lee had only five years to live. The heart problems that caused him to spend the battle of the North Anna River in an ambulance killed him. ==In the years following his reputation as a battlefield leader was heavily promoted by writers lamenting the lost cause of Southern independence. These included not only Southerners but Northernors as well.
   
   In this book Brian Holden Reid, Professor of American History at King's College London, writes from the vantage point of a disinterested outsider to argue that Lee was one of the great commanders of all time. He does not claim that Lee didn't have faults. Everyone does, but that the overall generalship of General Lee ranks him among the best.
   
   The American Civil War took place at a transition point in military affairs. The war before (Mexico, 1843) and the war that followed (World War I). The author contends that Lee was among the first of the modern generals. If the armies had listened to him during World War I, it probably wouldn't have turned into the mess that it was.



2. It is easy to overlook the many contributions that non-Americans have made to the study of the American Civil War. Brian Holden Reid's outstanding study "Robert E. Lee: Icon for a Nation" brings an informed, fresh and balanced perspective to bear upon the Confederacy's greatest general. Reid is Professor of American History and Military Institutions and Head of the Department of War Studies at Kings College, London. He has taught military strategy and tactics and written extensively about America's Civil War.
   
   Any new study of Lee must work on two levels. First, of course, it must examine Lee himself, his life, his career, and his generalship. Second, any study must come to terms with the extensive writing and radically shifting perspectives about Lee over the years. Following the Civil War, Lee quickly became an icon to Southern partisans in the "Lost Cause" tradition. His character and success, for a time, against long military odds soon elevated Lee into a figure respected and revered by many Americans, north and south. Then, in mid-20th Century a reaction set in against Lee, questioning some of the mythology that had grown around him and challenging his agressive conduct of the War, his focus on the Eastern theater, his alleged lack of broad strategic vision, and the high casualty rate to which he subjected the Army of Northern Virginia, among other things. The reasons underlying the reassessment were complex. They included correcting an overly iconic and uncritical account, the changing perspective with which Americans viewed the Civil War, and a general and, I think, unhappy tendency to debunk and to criticise important historical figures.
   
   In clear, elegant prose, Reid examines Lee and Lee historiography. Although Reid avoids hero worship, he clearly admires greatly Robert E. Lee as a person and as a general. He finds that much, but not all, of the traditional picture of Lee has merit: he was an imaginative, agressive, savvy, and gifted commander who, importantly, inspired the love and the trust of his men. He fought and won many battles against long odds and prolonged the life of the Confederacy, giving it its best chance to achieve independence. Reid is far from uncritical as he points to flaws in, among other things, the command structure of Lee's army, the commander's frequent over-confidence, his tendency to overdelegate to subordinates, his conduct of the Battle of Gettysburg, and the failure to make the most of his opportunites in battles such as Seven Days, Second Manassas, Fredricksburg, and Chancellorsville. For all these faults, Lee emerges in this study as a remarkable, charismatic commander whom Reid believes is properly regarded as one of the greatest in history.
   
   The book opens with a chapter on Lee the icon with a summary of how historians of the "Lost Cause" school have viewed him, under the influence of the writings of Confederate General Jubal Early. The book then discusses Lee's pre-Civil War career, focusing on his service in Mexico, but gathers force in its consideration of Lee's three-year career as the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia. Lee's assumption of command in June, 1862, and the battles for which he is famous -- Seven Days, Second Manassas, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, the Wilderness Campaign, Petersburg, and Appatomatox, are discussed clearly and with sufficient detail. Reid keeps his and the reader's focus on the main themes of his study: showing Lee's greatness as a leader but his shortcomings as well.
   
   In common with most books about Lee, his military exploits are discussed in detail but we see little of his inmost thoughts and feelings. Lee was a highly reserved individual. I would have also liked more emphasis on Lee's pre-Civil War career and, particularly, a fuller discussion of Lee's life and career as President of Washington University following the Civil War. The book includes some basic maps of the key theatres of Lee's operations -- placed at the beginning of the book to avoid cluttering the text -- a good, basic bibliography, and no footnotes.
   
   Reid has written an excellent study of a great commander which argues convincingly that Lee deserves most of the esteem that he has traditionally received. This book will appeal to serious students of the Civil War.
   
   Robin Friedman



3. the author is a good writer, entertaining with an obvious wealth of knowledge of the subject. I couldn't imagine how the author could get a picture of Lee into that small book when it took Freeman four volumes, but it was well worth the purchase, I would highly recommend it.



4. General Lee was a trator to this country and his training, and he would have replaced the Black-American slaves with the Irish serfs of Europe, according to Elizabeth B. Pryor, in her study of Lee, in Reading The Man. Please only recommend historal facts to me, and not some idealized opinion. Lee was a West Point trained soldier, and he selected personal comfort and convience over duty. Am I to believe that Ms. Pryor is incorrect?

3 comments about I Rode With Jeb Stuart: The Life And Campaigns Of Major General J. E. B. Stuart.

1. More than McClellan's memoir, this is an early Stuart biography, and later biographies such as Davies' and Thomas' rely heavily upon it. McClellan became Stuart's AG in May '63, but his account starts with Stuart's youth.

   This is a vital account in showing exactly what Stuart's cavalry did during the war: scouting, raiding, screening movements, fighting rearguard actions, gathering information, etc. One thing I didn't know was that Stuart's horse artillery, often under the command of the general himself and sometimes with regular batteries added, would take up a flank position during infantry battles and fire into the Federal ranks. The perpetual, obviously exhausting, activity of the cavalry also becomes obvious.

   McClellan was present for the Gettysburg campaign, and his account is invaluable for this somewhat controversial issue. His writing becomes more personal at this point, and he recounts several anecdotes of interest. He continues his detailed recounting of ANV cavalry activity until Stuart's death; McClellan was present at the deathbed and ends his book there. This should be required reading for anyone interested in the cavalry.




2. It is often more interesting to read what those who have been there have to say than what we think they said. Thus is the case with this book. It may not have every fact correct, but it is what the author McClellen remembered. As with "Co. Aych" and "All For the Union," their perception of the smaller picture of the War than the overall history that is fascinating.



3. I feel this is a great book for anyone intrested in learning more about this great person. He was not just a General but a caring, warm and compassionate person.

5 comments about Wolf of the Deep: Raphael Semmes and the Notorious Confederate Raider CSS Alabama.

1. first off...it bugs me to no end that official and customer reviews refer to both Semmes and the CSS Alabama as "privateers." The Alabama was a ship built and comissioned in England by the Confederate States of America, and Semmes, her captain, was a Confederate Naval Officer. What she did, and did quite well, was commercial raiding, which was to destroy the enemy's commerce whenever possible. The Union ships did the same when they found Confederate blockade runners, and one can say they were performing the nautical version of what Sherman and others were doing on land.
   
   That said, this is one outstanding book. I'm not partial to historical biographies, and even less to military ones, but I tore through this one in two days. Military, political, and sexual intrigue--a real flair for characterization---Fox has all of the ingredients for an old-fashioned potboiler--and this is all a true account of an overlooked Civil War navy commander of whom little was thought until late in his career.
   
   Semmes and the Alabama are both fascinating characters--but the supporting roles of the crew--and those that love them--and those that plot aginst them--and the exotic ports of call the lovely Lady Alabama finds herself in and her many harrowing escapes until her final battle--all make for a book you can't put down.
   
   Most historical tomes by Brown history professors aren't devoured like the latest beach novel. For me, this one was, but it was a far more satisfying experience.



2. ~Wolf of the Deep: Raphael Semmes and the Notorious Confederate Raider CSS Alabama~ is a fluid and captivating tale of the Confederate Raider helmed by the Confederate Admiral Raphael Semmes. This book, in particular, focuses on his almost two-year stint as captain of the infamous Confederate privateer, the Alabama.
   
   In 1860, the Union strategist Winfield Scott devised a shrewd plan to strangle southern commerce with a naval blockade. The Confederates answered by building up their tiny Navy, though they never really could effectively counter the formidable power of New England shipbuilders. The South lacked the shipyards and iron foundries to build great ships, and had to turn to England for naval implements of war. One such ship was the CSS Alabama that set sail from Birkenhead, England in 1862 after being built by John Laird Sons and Company.
   
   At the onset of the war, Semmes was first placed in command of CSS Sumter. That tour would last six short months. He raided commercial shipping while eluding pursuing Union warships. In January 1862, the Sumter required a major overhaul. Semmes attempted to have her repaired at Gibraltar, but the arrival of U.S. warships ended her career, and Semmes narrowly escaped to England, where he was promoted to captain. There he acquired a sizable commercial vessel. He then went to the Portuguese island of Madeira in the Atlantic and had that vessel converted into a formidable warship that became world-famous as CSS Alabama.
   
   The CSS Alabama was a screw sloop-of-war built for the Confederate States Navy at Birkenhead, England in 1862. At capacity, it had a crew of some 145 officers and sailors. All told, the Alabama sunk 62 vessels, mostly merchant ships. Its captain was the illustrious Raphael Semmes. Stephen Fox gives a nice background to Semmes' life leading up to the war. Semmes had spent his early years in the U.S. Navy, and was married to an northern woman. A native of Maryland, Semmes practiced law in Alabama. When Alabama seceded in 1861, he served the Confederacy as a blockade runner and had great success raiding Union merchant vessels in the Caribbean and Atlantic. Playing cat-and-mouse games in the vast gulf of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, the Alabama preyed upon Union commercial shipping. The ship bounced around ports from the Caribbean to England to the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa.
   
   On 11 June 1864, Alabama arrived in Cherbourg, France. There Semmes requested permission to dock and overhaul his ship. Pursuing the raider, the American sloop-of-war USS Kearsarge lied in wait. Eventually the two met, and though the Alabama fired more shots at the Kearsarge, the Union ship plowed a deadly shot at a section of the Alabama's waterline sending the ship hurling to the bottom. The Union ship received the vacating crew of the Alabama.
   
   All things considered, this is an intriguing and fascinating account of Raphael Semmes and the notorious Confederate Raider CSS Alabama. The book is engaging and it has some nice pictures and illustrations, which enliven the narrative.



3. This book is an outstanding account of the little known actions of the Confederate Nany during the war between the states. The book is very well written and offers a "Southern Perspective" of Captain Semmes actions during this tragic time. I found the book riviting and highly recommend it to history buffs.



4. Raphael Semmes is/was my great great grandfather. It is a matter of pride, if of no other significance, that I share a birth date of September 27th with him. An appreciable amount of my 78 years has been consumed in correcting error and wrongful expressions relative to Raphael Semmes, often by authors who borrowed liberally from his memoirs. For example the use of the words "notorious" instead of "famous"; the term "pirate" by authors better deserving the term; "rebel" by persons purporting to be historians. Fox appears, at times, to have used the philosophy of no proof to the contrary in his conclusions, especially his conjecture that one of Semmes's children had been born out of wedlock. This musing was based upon his time at sea and the unlikelihood of a 10 month pregnancy. Had one read all the error in the advertising of the book, this would come as no surprise. Semmes's character is best described in the words of Warren F. Spencer who wrote a factual book about Semmes during the Mexican War and the War between the States: "One other person inspired me to complete this writing:Raphael Semmes. His personality comes through all of his writings; his strong intellect constantly challenged me. I have learned from him the meaning of honor and the value of sacrificing one's self for the sake of one's convictions. My travel through Raphael Semmes's life has, in the sunset of my career, given me a new meaning to this period of my own existence. And for that, I thank Raphael Semmes". Spencer provided an accurate recounting of the life of a good man. The value of Spencer's thoughtful approach is well expressed through words of John Paul II: "People have always needed models to imitate, and that need is all the greater today, amid such a welter of confusing and conflicting ideas".



5. Stephen Fox (who, I assume, is either a Yankee or has Yankee sympathies) has written a superb, sympathetic and pretty well true (I have read with interest the review by O.J. Semmes and I respect it) thriller based on the exploits of Captain Raphael Semmes (O.J. Semmes's great great grandfather) and that of his principal and most important command, the C.S.S. Alabama, the extraordinary Confederate raider that wrought havoc amongst Yankee shipping during the War for Southern Independence. It's the sort of book that's almost impossible to put down as, though one knows how the ship's story ends - sunk off Cherbourg, France, by the U.S.S. Kearsarge, on Sunday, the 19th of June, 1864 - the Alabama's creation at Liverpool and her career at sea makes for endless fascination, as does the life of Captain Semmes himself. For this Britisher, however, one of the most interesting aspects of the book is the careful cataloguing of the Confederacy's many supporters who were 'over here,' some of whom I knew of but about some of whom I knew next to nothing. Any present-day supporter of the cause of the Confederate States of America should remember with pleasure the parts played on 'our' side of 'the pond' by such as (in alphabetical order) James Dunwoody Bulloch (an uncle of Theodore Roosevelt), William Ewart Gladstone, M.P., Henry Hotze, the Laird ship-building brothers of Liverpool, William Schaw Lindsay, M.P., Senator James Murray Mason, Matthew Fontaine Maury, Senator John Slidell, James Spence, and, of course, the Revd. Francis William Tremlett and his sister, Louisa. These fine folk played their parts in the great drama and I am proud of all of them, British and American, but it was Semmes and his ship that nearly turned the tide of history and, despite losing the last battle, had lasting effects on both Great Britain and the United States. Read this well-written book: you'll love it like I did!

5 comments about Generals in Gray Lives of the Confederate Commander.

1. Warner does an excellent job in giving short biographies on all 425 Confederate generals, including a picture of each general. An excellent reference guide and a must have for your Civil War library.



2. I remember first reading Generals in Gray as a teenager and have often referred back to the book over the years.

   Warner gives a synopsis of each general , usually containing the following information:

   1. Birthplace and birthdate.
   2. Pre-Civil War life.
   3. Battles served in, promotions, woundings, death (if applicable).
   4. Postwar career (if he survived the war).
   5. Death and place burial.
   6. Brief mention of the general's competency (or lack thereof).
   7. Relationships with other generals (superior, subordinate).

   I have often found the book to be extremely helpful when reading a book on a particular Civil War battle. Doing so helps me to better understand the general when studying a particular battle.

   Whether you have a serious interest in the Civil War or a novice, I highly recommend the book as an excellent reference!




3. This book is a must for any Civil War buff. Learn the good, bad and the ugly about all general officers of the army of the CSA. I keep this book, and its companion, Generals in Blue, handy when I am reading historical accounts of battles of the Civil War. How often, while you are reading, have you yearned to get additional information on a particular general? These books are perfect to provide more information, when you want it.



4. .....but this one sure is. The Civil War is still a current event for many of us. For four long years, both sides were carried by their armies, and led by their Generals. Now, lots of us know about Lee and Jackson, but there were a total of 425 Confederate Generals over the course of the war, and some even I've never heard of. Of these, 299 were serving as General Officers at the end. A total of 77 were killed in battle; the rest died of natural causes, resigned, got fired, etc., etc.
   
   They're ALL here, at least the ones that we can't argue about whether they were really a General. [There are others about whom we can argue, for various reasons--a separate book has come out in recent years...see "More Generals in Gray"]. While Lee has has more biographies than I can count, and many have at least one, for most of these guys, this is all we've got. Here we get pictures, pre and, where appropriate, post war careers, grave sites, and a study of just what the man accomplished [or didn't]. Robert E. Lee gets three and a half pages, but all get a good write-up.
   
   They were a varied lot: six General Lees, six Jacksons, eight each of Smith and Walker. Professional soldiers, lawyers, politicians, even three preachers [Polk and Pendleton, you know; read this and find the third]. Some were heroic, some were drunks, a few were both. Some brilliant, some inept, one or two both. The post war lots of the survivors were as various as the men; poverty and wealth, glory and apostasy, and all points in between. Trivia: Who was the ONLY Confederate General born in Texas? Who was the last living Conferderate General? ONE man answers BOTH questions. [OK, I'll give it to you...Judge Felix Huston Robertson of Waco died April 20, 1928]. The very first American Indian to wear General's stars AND the last General to surrender...he's here, in all his glory.
   
   I can go on all day. The late Ezra Warner, Illinois native and California investment counsellor, published this in 1959...it needs to stay in print forever. While I've had this, and the companion "Generals in Blue", for years, only recently has a trade paperback made it readily available, and affordable. A "thank you" to the publisher, and a huge, everlasting, "THANK YOU" to Mr. Warner.



5. Like its companion volume Generals in Blue, Generals in Gray is an important resource for both the Civil War buff and the serious historian (which is not to say that the two can't be one and the same!). In this volume, which was actually written before Generals in Blue, author Ezra Warner has written the biographies and rustled up the photos of all the general officers confirmed by the Confederate Congress, and a handful of those who weren't for one reason or another.
   
   There were 425 men who served as Confederate generals. Nearly one-fourth of them died in the war. Boy generals, men promoted before they reached the age of 30, were plentiful, and nearly half of them were killed on the battlefield. Looking at their photographs, one can scarcely fathom the experiences they endured at such young ages. They look like college lads.
   
   Several of the generals profiled by Warner especially stand out for me. There's William Flank Perry, for example, the philosopher-general, who enlisted as a private in 1862 and was commissioned a brigadier in the war's final months. After the war, he taught philosophy at Ogden College in Kentucky until the turn of the century. There's Alexander Reynolds, who at war's end entered the service of the Khedive of Egypt, and so must've known the tragic Federal General Charles Pomeroy Stone, of Ball's Bluff infamy, who did so as well. There's General John McCausland, who with his huge handlebar moustache and heavy eyebrows looks for all the world like Yosemite Sam of cartoon fame. And there's the boy general Thomas Benton Smith, a youngster whose fate breaks my heart. After he and most of his brigade surrendered during the Battle of Nashville, a Federal colonel tried literally to beat Smith's brains out. His brain exposed, in a coma, Smith was expected to die. But he somehow survived, only to spend the rest of his life, some 48 years, in an insane asylum.

5 comments about Antietam: The Soldiers' Battle.

1. I agree with a previous reviewer that Priest's book works best with a general Antietam book like Sears's. My approach to understanding Antietam was to (1) read Sears's Landscape Turned Red; (2) visit the battlefield (this is key to understanding the numerous references in Priest's book to "Mumma's swale," "the high ground 600 yards south of the Dunker Church," etc.--with a mental picture everything fits together better); (3) buy a topographic battlefield map, such as the one by Trailhead Graphics (for sale at the Battlefield's Visitor Center); and (4) read this book. My only criticism of the maps is the lack of a small-scale "finder" map that shows the battlefield and the area around Sharpsburg. As for the author's large-scale "handdrawn" maps, I found them very useful, and they are placed well, usually never more than a page or two from the action they refer to (I read the original 1992 edition, so I'm not sure if the maps are placed as well in this 1994 edition from a different publisher). As for the text, it's wonderful: well edited and even well indexed. The emphasis on the more "minor" actions on September 17, 1862 that a more general book would breeze over or ignore because of space limitations is appreciated.



2. John Michael Priest " Antietam: The Soldier's Battle" is like deja vu. The Minnie balls are fast and thick and the double canister cut down your men. Of the 226 men you led into the cornfield (1st Texas) that warm day of 17th of Sept 1862, only 40 men came out.
   This book reads just like you were there. AWESOME and highly reccomended. The research is impressive and for those looking for who shot whom up on one of the most bloodiest days of the war, this book is it.
   My research was also in to try to identify what battery fired the U.S. 12lb Sperical Shot recovered at Sharpsburg Pike near the prison at Antietam that I own.



3. Terrific book. Unique in its approach of using first person accounts to describe in detail one of the most horrific fights of the ACW. Priest puts you in the thick of the action. Contains numerous great maps as well.
   
   I would highly recommend this book to anyone who enjoys military history, and consider it one of the best written on the Civil War.



4. I can't say enough good things about this book. Prior to visiting the Antietam battlefield, I read Sear's Landscape Turned Red to get an overview. But then after seeing the battlefield I was eager to read more. Priest's book was just what I wanted. It is a compilation of first person accounts that puts you right in the middle of the action. You'll feel the shells and bullets flying all around. I've now read this book at least ten times, learning and understanding more with each read. I've also recently revisited the battlefield to help me put everything together.



5. In "Antietam: The Soldiers' Battle," author John Michael Priest tells the story of the American Civil War's bloodiest day using a compilation of eyewitness accounts. The book also includes no less than 72 sketch maps of the battle. Between the plentiful maps and the chronologically-arranged accounts, the reader can easily follow the ebb and flow of the battle.
   
   The book contains surprises, such as a mention of Gen. Robert E. Lee harassing Confederate stragglers, the soldiers' nearly universal dislike of shelling and occasional acts of cowardice or outrageous bravery. It's astonishing how close together opposing units were when they fired at one another. The author claims that Confederate defenders of the Bloody Lane fired at Max Weber's Union brigade at a range of 60 feet!
   
   My favorite vignette concerns the half-crazed Swedish commander of the 20th New York Regiment, Col. Von Vegesack. When a Maine colonel helpfully suggested that the 20th's colors be lowered because they were drawing too much Rebel fire, Vegesack ranted, "Let them wave. They are our glory."
   
   While many historians write about Antietam in broad strokes, this book gets into the details. For example, every student of the battle knows that Gen. John Sedgwick's Union division got ambushed and cut to pieces in the West Woods. Priest's book shows exactly how this disaster unfolded and where each unit was positioned. Most historians criticize the clumsy commitment of Col. William Irwin's VI Corps Union brigade. Yet, this unit -- which included the 20th NY -- defeated a Confederate thrust that threatened to retake Bloody Lane.
   
   It's easy for armchair strategists to say that the Union commanders should have done this or the Rebel commanders should have done that. But, the general impression from reading this book is how difficult it must have been to impose any sort of control on a large battle like Antietam. This book should serve as a handy and useful reference for students of the battle.