Castel, Albert.  Simpson, Brooks D. Victors in Blue: How Union Generals Fought the Confederates, Battled Each Other, and Won the Civil War (University Press of Kansas, 2011). 374 pages, 10 photos, 10 maps, notes. ISBN: 978-0-7006-1793-7 $34.95 (Hardcover).

What ONE Union general, other than Grant, could have defeated Robert E. Lee?  How should the victorious Union generals be ranked in terms of direct war winning influence?  How did the Union win the war with so much infighting among its military leaders?  Veteran Civil War author Albert Castel answers these questions and more, with an assist by Brooks Simpson, in Victors in Blue: How Union Generals Fought the Confederates, Battled Each Other, and Won the Civil War.

My first experience with Albert Castel was his seminal work on the Atlanta Campaign, Decision in the West.  Castel’s use of present tense in that book was at first very difficult to get used to, but once this novel experiment was accepted what followed was an excellent overview of the Atlanta Campaign.  Ulysses S. Grant expert and fellow Civil War blogger Brooks Simpson is professor of history at Arizona State University.  Simpson helped Castel with the last five chapters of the Victors in Blue.

Victors in Blue, as Castel makes clear in the Preface, is not full of original takes on the generals covered.  With that said some of the views Castel uses have been obscured by the mountain of literature on men like Grant and Sherman.  As a result, he calls this an exercise in “interpretative archaeology.”  The book is not focused on tactical detail, instead looking at the big picture of campaigns and focusing on how leaders conducted operations.  As a result entire campaigns are covered in chapters of twenty or so pages each.

Now that we have covered what the book is not, let’s take a look at what it is.  According to the author the book does three things: providing short accounts of battles which decisively affected the Civil War’s outcome, looking at the performances of the winning generals in those battles, and examining the infighting of Northern generals and how this affected ultimate victory.  As a result the book is not necessarily for beginners.  Readers should have at least rudimentary knowledge of most of the major campaigns of the Civil War to truly enjoy this work to the fullest, though the maps and well written text will allow newer readers to take something away too.

This book, while somewhat scholarly in tone, is aimed squarely at armchair generals who are constantly participating in the exercise of ranking Union and Confederate generals at various online venues.  The following is a slightly paraphrased set of criteria used by Castel to do what many of us have done, rank the generals in some sort of order:

1. If a winner, did he contribute decisively?  How so?
2. Why did he win?  Superior skill, greater strength, brilliant feat by one or more subordinates, enemy blunders, chance, or a combination?
3. What were his objectives?  What did he do to realize them?
4. Did he accomplish what could be reasonably expected?  More?  Less?
5. If less, what could he have done to accomplish more based on info at hand, and why didn’t he do it?

Each chapter examines a decisive campaign through the eyes of the Northern generals responsible for its execution as well as rivals which stood in the way, be they subordinates, superiors or sometimes both.  Where Victors in Blue really shines is in examining official telegrams and letters and explaining what two or more generals were possibly thinking when they composed or received these communications.  Some chapters have been told many times and a consensus opinion has been strongly formed, with Halleck and Grant’s issues after Fort Donelson being a perfect example.  Others, including Castel’s take on what Sherman really won at Atlanta and his opinion of the only Northern general aside from Grant who could have won against Lee, are more surprising.  As expected this story is filled with Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, but it’s the other commanders behind the “big three” and Castel’s opinions of them which make this a truly fascinating book.  While the top three are pretty standard, some of his choices will absolutely surprise you, especially on one general not particularly well thought of today.

I’d love to see a similar volume entitled “Losers in Gray: How Confederate Generals Fought the Union, Battled Each Other, and Lost the Civil War”, though it would have to be a two part book.  Obviously one volume would be devoted to the cuddly Braxton Bragg, while the other would relate the squabbles of Jefferson Davis.  Everything else could be fit into an appendix at the back of volume two.  Castel’s writing is filled with a snarky quality which made me laugh more than once while shaking my head in agreement.  Probably my favorite example comes from page 273: “Lee…struck the Yankees on July 28 at what became known as the Battle of Ezra Church, mainly because there was nothing else to name it after except a road with the unusable name of Lickskillet.”

The maps in this book are not all that detailed.  Nor do they need to be given the subject matter.  Most cover large areas of operations and generally help the reader refresh his or her memory with regards to the major campaigns.  Castel uses end notes at the end of the book rather than the end of each chapter and without an accompanying bibliography.  The notes rely on the Official Records for a key portion of the book, the official dispatches sent and received by various commanders.  Castel also gives credit to different authors whose opinions of various commanders are relevant to the discussion at hand.  The index is standard and allows readers to quickly skip to favorite generals.

Victors in Blue, while technically breaking no new ground, does what Castel intended.  The generals who most contributed to the Union war effort are examined critically, the war winning campaigns are discussed at a high level, and the author shows how a little bad luck can take a general from a potential war winner to a forgotten man in a backwater assignment.  This book is written in an accessible format for readers of all stripes and should appeal to a wide range of Civil War students.  Victors in Blue does what many readers enjoy in ranking the war winners and their contributions.  While some conclusions will be considered standard, enough surprises await readers to make this a worthwhile new addition to the long list of Civil War books on the market today.  Castel has written an appealing and fascinating book and brought together various thoughts on major Union commanders in one place, enriching our understanding of just how the Union was able to win the war in spite of the bickering of its top military men literally from start to finish.  I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the military and political aspects of the Civil War.

This book was provided gratis for the purposes of this review.

The links to the product reviewed in this article are affiliate links. If you buy this product after clicking one of my links, I’ll make a small amount of money.  The possibility of earning something from the affiliate link has not influenced the objectivity of the review and my opinions are honestly offered.

Post from: TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog

Civil War Book Review: Victors in Blue: How Union Generals Fought the Confederates, Battled Each Other, and Won the Civil War

No related posts.

Editor’s Note: This blog entry was originally posted at Beyond the Crater: The Petersburg Campaign Online.  It has been crossposted here at TOCWOC – A Civil War Blog.

(Hat tip to Nick and Harry.)

As many of you are probably aware, the Grant Papers moved from the care of John Y. Simon at Southern Illinois University to John Marszalek and Mississippi State University due to the unfortunate passing of Simon. In what is a very fortuitous event for me, Mississippi State University has now made the entire Grant Papers available online!

As Harry pointed out, the Grant Papers are an amazing resource for those of us wanting to see what Grant thought during the war, long before there was time for revisionism and self-serving writings. Grant was noted as someone who was remarkably evenhanded after the war, but everyone has some bias. I hope to use this collection frequently for my work here at Beyond the Crater: The Petersburg Campaign Online. Volumes 11-14 are particularly pertinent because they cover Grant’s letters from June 1864 to April 1865. Unlike Harry, my site WILL require me to spend quite a bit of time perusing these volumes. That’s fortunate, because like Harry, I suspect I’ll be spending quite a bit of time there going forward.

For a brief background on the Grant Papers, check out this excerpt from the new site:

About the Collection

The digital collection consists of 31 volumes of The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, political cartoons, and sheet music from the larger collection. Other materials will be added to the digital collection as processing continues.

The Ulysses S. Grant Collection housed at Mississippi State University Libraries consists of some 15,000 linear feet of correspondence, research notes, artifacts, photographs, scrapbooks, and memorabilia and includes information on Grant’s childhood from his birth in 1822, his later military career, Civil War triumphs, tenure as commanding general after the war, presidency, and his post-White House years until his death in 1885. There are also 4,000 published monographs on various aspects of Grant’s life and times. From this collection, the series of volumes edited by John Y. Simon, entitled The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant were chosen and published by the Southern Illinois University Press. Upon Simon’s death in 2008, the Ulysses S. Grant Association, which owns the collection, chose John F. Marszalek as Executive Director and Managing Editor of the remaining publication projects: a supplementary volume and a scholarly edition of the Grant Memoirs. The Association also voted to place the Collection in the Congressional and Political Research Center of the Mississippi State University Libraries.

Materials in the Collection

The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant were published in 31 volumes by Southern Illinois University Press between 1967 and 2009. These materials contain thousands of letters written by Ulysses S. Grant (1837-1885), and to him; his military and presidential documents; and a small number of photographs. These manuscripts are extensively annotated to explain their significance. There is also an extended calendar synopsis of letters in each volume. In total, this is the largest and most comprehensive published collection of Ulysses S. Grant correspondence available for scholarly use. Even more material is contained in the complete Ulysses S. Grant Association Collection housed in the Congressional and Political Research Center.

Political cartoons and sheet music represent a sampling of the memorabilia that has been donated to the Ulysses S. Grant Association. Political cartoons from publications such as Harper’s Weekly and Puck offer researchers a variety of illustrated commentary featuring Ulysses S. Grant from the early days of the Civil War to the scandals that rocked his Presidency. Patriotic sheet music written in honor of U. S. Grant, William T. Sherman, Abraham Lincoln, and the Union Army complements the MSU Libraries’ extensive collection of sheet music in the Charles Templeton Ragtime Collection. The Grant sheet music ranges from songs composed in the 1860s up to the early 20th century.

Post from: TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog

Ulysses S. Grant’s Papers Online Courtesy of Mississippi State University

Related posts:

1. Tufts University Has Digitized the Southern Historical Society Papers
2. Discovering the Civil War Online with American Military University, Part 1
3. Reynolds Family Papers on line

Back to the George Nafziger American Civil War Order of Battle Collection

                       Forces of U.S.Grant
                      Louisville, Kentucky
                        30 November 1861 

1st Brigade: Brigadier General Schoepf
     33rd Indiana Infantry Regiment
     12th Kentucky Infantry Regiment
     17th Ohio Infantry Regiment
     38th Ohio Infantry Regiment
2nd Brigade: Colonel Manson
     10th Indiana Infantry Regiment
     4th Kentucky Infantry Regiment
     10th Kentucky Infantry Regiment
     14th Ohio Infantry Regiment
3rd Brigade: McCook
     2nd Minnesota Infantry Regiment
     9th Ohio Infantry Regiment
     35th Ohio Infantry Regiment
     18th U.S.Infantry Regiment
4th Brigade: Brigadier General Rousseau
     6th Indiana Infantry Regiment
     3rd Kentucky Infantry Regiment
     1st Ohio Infantry Regiment
     15th & 19th U.S.Infantry Regiment (1 bn)
5th Brigade: Brigadier General Wood
     34th Illinois Infantry Regiment
     29th Indiana Infantry Regiment
     30th Indiana Infantry Regiment
     77th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment
6th Brigade: Brigadier General Johnson
     32nd Indiana Infantry Regiment
     29th Indiana Infantry Regiment
     15th Ohio Infantry Regiment
     49th Ohio Infantry Regiment
7th Brigade: Brigadier General  Negley
     38th Indiana Infantry Regiment
     78th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment
     79th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment
     1st Wisconsin Infantry Regiment
8th Brigade: Colonel Turchin
     19th Illinois Infantry Regiment
     24th Illinois Infantry Regiment
     37th Indiana Infantry Regiment
     18th Ohio Infantry Regiment
9th Brigade: Colonel Sill
     3rd Ohio Infantry Regiment
     21st Ohio Infantry Regiment
     33rd Ohio Infantry Regiment
     10th Wisconsin Infantry Regiment
10th Brigade: Colonel Ammen
     34th Indiana Infantry Regiment
     36th Indiana Infantry Regiment
     6th Ohio Infantry Regiment
     24th Ohio Infantry Regiment
11th Brigade: Brigadier General Boyle
     1st Kentucky Infantry Regiment
     9th Kentucky Infantry Regiment
     2nd Ohio Infantry Regiment
     59th Ohio Infantry Regiment
12th Brigade: Acting Brigadier General Carter
     31st Ohio Infantry Regiment
     6th Kentucky Infantry Regiment
     1st Tennessee Infantry Regiment
     2nd Tennessee Infantry Regiment
13th Brigade: Colonel Cruft
     31st Indiana Infantry Regiment
     44th Indiana Infantry Regiment
     17th Kentucky Infantry Regiment
     unknown Kentucky Infantry Regiment
14th Brigade: unknown
     42nd Indiana Infantry Regiment
     43rd Indiana Infantry Regiment
     11th Kentucky Infantry Regiment
     unknown Kentucky Infantry Regiment
15th Brigade: Colonel Hascall
     15th Indiana Infantry Regiment
     17th Indiana Infantry Regiment
     41st Ohio Infantry Regiment
     51st Ohio Infantry Regiment
16th Brigade: unknown
     13th Kentucky Infantry Regiment
     15th Kentucky Infantry Regiment
     9th Michigan Infantry Regiment
     3rd Minnesota Infantry Regiment

U.S.  War Department,  The War of the Rebellion,
A Compilation of Official Records of the Union
and Confederate Armies,  Government Printing Office;
Washington, D.C., 1882

Source: George Nafziger Order of Battle Collection

Post from: TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog

861aa: Forces of U. S. Grant Louisville, Kentucky 30 November 1861

Related posts:

1. 861ab: Union Forces under Brigadier General G.H.Thomas 30 November 1861
2. 862bo: The Union Army of the Ohio 30 April 1862
3. 862ej: Union Forces at the Battle of Richmond Kentucky 30 August 1862

Longtime student of the Petersburg Campaign and author of an unpublished manuscript on First and Second Deep Bottom Bryce A. Suderow was kind enough to offer up his opinions on the campaign in a recent comment here at TOCWOC – A Civil War Blog.  Bryce is not a fan of Ulysses S. Grant, as you will see below.  I enjoyed reading Bryce’s articles in North and South Magazine on both Deep Bottom battles and he has helped me greatly in my own study of the Petersburg Campaign.  His comments were lengthy and thought-provoking, just the sort of qualities which make those comments a great candidate for a blog entry…

For years Grant’s apologists have been blaming his incompetence on his subordinates.  Is it possible that they will do this in 3 or 4 upcoming books on the Siege of Petersburg?  I refer to books by Gordon Rhea, Will Greene and Gary Gallagher.  If they do excuse Grant it will require a slight-of-hand that Houdini would have admired.

Here are the facts:

Grant failed to capture Petersburg between June 15 and 18th because of his own mistakes.

Many of the were caused by what is known as Command and Control.  The first and perhaps the worst error Grant made was Butler’s attack on Petersburg on June 9th by Gillmore’s small force from the X Corps and Kautz’s cavalry.    It is true that the force defending the city was small but the works were mighty.  Perhaps the city could not have been captured by anyone given that small force.  Or perhaps the habitually cautious Gillmore was at fault  In any case the city did not fall and the Union attack alerted Beauregard to very real threat against the city.  He prepared for another attack just in case.

According to Porter on June 7th Grant sent him and Comstock to meet with Butler to discuss where Grant could cross the James.  They arrived on the 8th and left on the 10th to look for crossing points.  Thus they rs were there during the time that Butler hatched his plan for the attack and launched the attack.  Porter says they dispatched a note to Grant before setting out for their trip along the river.  (Campaigning With Grant, p. 188)

Presumably they informed Grant of the planned attack.  If Grant was aware of the proposed attack he should have cancelled it.  It was foolish to risk the key to Richmond on a hazardous enterprise;  no force smaller than the Army of the Potomac should have been employed to capture Petersburg.  If Grant was not aware of the proposed attack then he was a very poor Army Group Commander indeed and obviously failed to control Butler, his subordinate.  This was a command and control failure with a vengeance.

Grant also made errors because he did not create a good operations plan with a carefully thought out objective.  In fact Grant chose the wrong objective.  Bermuda Hundred, not Windmill Point, should have been the place where his army landed.  Reinforced by the Army of the Potomac directly under Grant’s and Meade’s command the Federals could have broken out of Butler’s “bottle” which was held only by Bushrod Johnson’s division.  They could have positioned themselves so that they cut the railroad and turnpike linking Lee to the north outside Richmond and Beauregard to the south at Petersburg.  Then at his leisure while holding the railroad and turnpike Grant could have captured Petersburg while Lee waited impotently to the north for the ax to fall.  Incidently Beauregard later expressed astonishment that Grant  failed to see this and he estimated that Richmond could only have held out for a very short time aftewards – I think a month or so if Grant had cut the lines.  I should also point out that when I first spoke to Terry Justice about this he told me he had glanced at a map years ago of Petersburg and Richmond anrd realized that Bermuda Hundred was the key to capturing both.

And you will recall that after Butler did secure the railroad and turnpike on June 16th when Beauregard pulled Johnson out of the Bermuda Hundred lines to save Petersburg, Grant weakened his forces bound for Petersburg by diverting the VI Corps to reinforce Butler to keep the turnpike and railroad cut.  Only belatedly did he see the importance of their possession.  And sending Wright to aid Butler came too late to help Butler and it fatally weakened his attacking force at Petersburg.

Ever heard of the German military concept of “point of main effort”?  Apparently Grant had not for he attempted to make two points of main effort with forces that were too limited in numbers and failed at both points.

Another German concept is the one Clauswitz originated “friction” where the simplest task becomes difficult because of faulty staff work, poorly worded orders, hesitant subordinates and so forth.  Apparently Grant never grasped that idea either.

Grant’s failure to appreciate the role that friction plays in war seems odd, especially since the very victory that won him top command of the Union forces was a model of friction.  I refer to Lookout-Mountain/Missionary Ridge.  Grant ordered Sherman to make the decisive attack on Missionary Ridge, but the point he chose to attack was the wrong one and he didn’t give Sherman enough time to reach his objective- poor intelligence gathering so Sherman attacked late and in the wrong place.  Grant ordeed Thomas to make a demonstration to cause the rebels to weaken their forces in front of Sherman.  The demonstration turned into an attack that neither Thomas nor Grant ordered.  The attack would have failed except for the faulty placement of some Confederate troops.  Grant’s luck saved him but the battle had not gone the way Grant planned it.

Grant failed to gather adequate information about the strength of the Confedeates at Petersburg after the June 9th attack – poor intelligence at work again.  He should have assumed that beauregard would strengthen the garrison after the failed attack on June 9th – but he did not allow for this change.  Thus he repeated Butler’s mistake of June 9th – he trusted too small a force to make the attack.

Let’s imagine there’s a bookmaker, the kind of man who lays odds on sports events.  But this time he’s laying odds on whether Grant can succeed in capturing Petersburg.

Optimimum Scenario

1.  Through uncharacteristic foresight Grant collects enough transports to move the II Corps to Bermuda Hundred on June 13th and the other corps on the 14th.

2.  Meade commands the movement.of the troops.  On June 14th at the head of 100,000 troops he attacks Bushrod Johnson’s lines, held by 5000 troops.

Odds 10-1 in favor of Grant

Second-Best Scenario

1.  Grant does not allow Butler to attack Petersburg on June 9th

2.  Through uncharacteristic foresight Grant collected enough pontoons and transports to move the II Corps to Windmill point on June 13th and the other corps on the 14th.

3.  Meade commands the movement of troops and attacks Petersburg on June 14th with 100,000 troops.  It is defended by 2000 militia and 2000 cavalry.

Odds:  5-1in Grant’s favor

Third Scenario

1. Butler attacks Petersburg on June 9th.  Beauregard strengthens the garrison.

2.  Through uncharacteristic foresight Grant collects enough pontoons and transports to move the II Corps to Windmill point on June 13th and the other corps on the 14th.

3.  Also through uncharacteristic foresight Grant assumes Beauregard has strengthened Petersburg so he commits the entire Army of the Potomac.  Meade commands the movement of troops and attacks Petersburg on June 14th with 100,000 troops.  It is defended by Wise’s 2000 regulars, 2000 militia and 2000 cavalry.

Odds:  3-1 in Grant’s favor

Fourth Scenario

1. Butler attacks Petersburg on June 9th.  Beauregard strengthens the garrison.

2. Although the II Corps reached the James on the 13th and the rest of the corps arrived the next day, the pontoons arrive late and there aren’t enough transports.

3.  However through uncharacteristic foresight Grant assumes Beauregard has strengthened Petersburg so he commits the entire Army of the Potomac.  Meade commands the movement of troops and attacks Petersburg on June 14th with 100,000 troops.  It is defended by Wise’s 2000 regulars, 2000 militia and 2000 cavalry.

Odds 2-1 in Grant’s favor

Fifth Scenario

1. Butler attacks Petersburg on June 9th.  Beauregard strengthens the garrison.

2. Although the II Corps reached the James on the 13th and the rest of the corps arrived the next day, the pontoons arrive late and there aren’t enough transports.

3.  On May 12th Grant sends the XVIII Corps to Cole’s Landing on the Chickahominy River instead of White House on the Pamunkey.  Rawlins orders Smith to take his time loading the boats so that brigades and divisions are kept together.  The troops land without difficulty in evening of the 13th, a day early.  This gives them time to sort themselves out and rest.  Kautz and his cavalry are also ready.

Grant sends Hancock forward promptly on the morning of the 15th with orders to join Baldy Smith at Petersburg and participate in the attack.

Odds:  1-1 even odds

Sixth Scenario (What really happened)

1. Butler attacks Petersburg on June 9th.  Beauregard strengthens the garrison.

2. Although the II Corps reached the James on the 13th and the rest of the corps arrived the next day, the pontoons arrive late and there aren’t enough transports.

3.  On May 12th Grant sends the XVIII Corps to White House on the Pamunkey.  Rawlins orders Smith to load the boats as fast as possible without regard to organization thus mixing up brigades and divisions are kept together.  The troops land at night in evening of the 14th.  It takes all night to sort the troops out.  They are exhausted.  Kautz and his cavalry are not ready.

Grant tells Butler to send Hancock rations while the corps waits – without sending a staff officer to insure the rations arrive.  He issues Hancock a faulty map and tells him to halt at a creek that isn’t there – and wait for further orders.

Odds:  2-1 against Grant

Post from: TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog

Bryce A. Suderow on the Petersburg Campaign

Related posts:

1. Bryce Suderow Comments on Grant and Meade’s Leadership Early in the Petersburg Campaign
2. Mahone’s Petersburg Failure: The Battle of Burgess Mill, Oct. 27, 1864 by Bryce Suderow
3. Today In The Petersburg Campaign…

Civil War Odds & Ends looks at recent interesting Civil War news and notes from around the Civil War blogosphere and the web.

• Wargames Illustrated #261 will feature Civil War cavalry miniatures.
• The Richmond Times-Dispatch features an article about the inaugural event of the Virginia Sesquicentennial of the America Civil War Commission.
• Archived webcasts of the event are available as well.
• Fellow blogger Andrew Duppstadt spent the day in Richmond and watched the conference live.
• Harry Smeltzer at Bull Runnings has an interesting story up of Southern impressment of Northern soldiers early in the war.  Notes on the article are also up.
• Someone at The Big Money thinks it is a good idea to kick U.S. Grant off of the $50…and replace him with Frederick Douglass!  (ht to Dimitri Rotov and Ethan Rafuse)
• Confusion appears to reign in Georgia as the state plans its Civil War Sesquicentennial events.  Apparently “the chance to make money on tourists” is about the only thing they have nailed down so far! (another ht to Dimitri)
• Fellow blogger J.D. Petruzzi is offering up limited edition copies of his new book The Complete Gettysburg Guide on June 4-7, 2009 at the Civil War Preservation Trust Conference in Gettysburg.
• Past in the Present looks at battlefield usage by those who aren’t there to see the battlefield.

Did you enjoy this blog entry?  Subscribe to TOCWOC’s RSS feed today!

Please also consider using the ShareThis feature below to spread the word.

Post from: TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog

Civil War Odds & Ends: May 1, 2009

Related posts:

1. Civil War Odds & Ends: April 18, 2009
2. Odds & Ends: July 8, 2008
3. Civil War Odds & Ends: September 28, 2008

Why Are These Summaries Showing Up Late?

Civil War Times Illustrated

Volume 45, Number 10 (January 2007)

Civil War Times Illustrated Web Site

Mail Call…..4

Turning Points: Arming the Confederacy…..9

Josiah Gorgas

by Jeffry D. Wert

This month Turning Points looks at Brigadier General Josiah Gorgas, chief of the Confederate Ornance Bureau.

Gallery: South Carolina Volunteer…..13

Wiliam N. Gaston

submitted by John Porter Gaston III

William Gaston served with the 6^th South Carolina in Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia during the war, serving from Fort Sumter to Appomattox and suffering four different wounds.

Irregulars: The Operators…..17

by Eric Ethier

Telegraph operators faced a hazardous path during the Civil War, with one in ten becoming a fatality.  Despite the dangers, these men were not paid like soldiers or given the same recognition.  Despite the dangers, writes Eric Ethier, these men went wherever the armies did, always trying to keep their side better informed than the enemy.

Civil War Today: Rough Waters for the Museum of the Confederacy…..19

by Michael J. Varhola

The Museum of the Confederacy faces a budget reduction of $650,000, money that had been counted on.  As a result, the Museum has been forced to institute drastic measures such as limiting visiting times and days, limiting new exhibits, and even briefly discontinuing tours of the Confederate White House in downtown Richmond.

Behind the Lines Editorial…..21

by Chris W. Lewis

Editor Chris Lewis discusses the many tasks of a Civil War General, and notes that fighting was just the tip of the iceberg.

A Legend is Born…..22

by Richard F. Selcer

Grant’s ability to learn on the job is explored in the first of a three part series looking at the three campaigns in which an enemy army surrendered to Grant, a record unsurpassed in American history.  The first instance of surrender came at Fort Donelson, Tennessee, where Grant’s pre-war friend Simon Bolivar Buckner was the opposing commander.  Grant’s subordinate and mentor Brigadier General Charles F. Smith mentioned “unconditional surrender”, but Selcer points out Grant never credited Smith as the inspiration for this famous phrase.  Despite scheming subordinates and the Navy looking to gain credit for the surrender, Grant came out of this ordeal as the victor of Fort Donelson.  He did not do so without making some mistakes, according to Selcer, including allowing too many Rebels to be assigned to burial parties, many of whom escaped; not appointing a provost marshal to handle the large number of prisoners; allowing too many other men to write out paroles, even Buckner!; and allowing his own men too much leeway in their behavior.  In the end, it took two full days of talks before the surrender was finalized.  It did not happen without Buckner trying to use his friendship to gain concessions, but Grant held firm on all important points.  Selcer writes that Grant was a man of great compassion and generosity during the surrender, ignoring protocol when it made no sense.  He concludes that the media sensation of the surrender and the term “unconditional surrender” served Grant well and propelled him on to even greater victories.

New York City’s Secession Crisis…..32

by Chuck Leddy

New York City, led by Mayor Fernando Wood and men with financial interests in the South, proposed secession of their own from the United States and the forming of a new independent city-state called “Tri-Insula.”  Wood’s efforts caused him to be viewed with suspicion and dislike in the North.  New York City was highly democratic and pro-South, partially as a result of the enormous profits New York City merchants made off of the institution of slavery.  Once the Civil War started, New York’s threats to secede became unrealistic and faded into the background as patriotic fervor gripped the North.  However, this undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the Republicans and abolitionists never truly went away entirely.  Leddy mentions Wood’s efforts as a Copperhead congressman and the New York City draft riots of 1863 as just two examples of this.

Gettysburg After the Storm…..38

by Gabor S. Boritt

In an excerpt from his book The Gettysburg Gospel: The Lincoln Speech That Nobody Knows, Gabor Boritt looks at the devastation wrought by the two opposing armies during the Gettysburg Campaign.  Seven thousand dead and 21,000 wounded were left behind at Gettysburg with hardly any surgeons to care for them.  The stench of rotting carcasses was present for months.  In all of this destruction, George Meade took four out of every five surgeons with the Army of the Potomac in their pursuit of Lee.  In the vacuum left behind, the National and Pennsylvania governments did not recognize the extent of the disaster and hardly any official help was forthcoming.  The number of dead grew daily as the ground became ever more hallowed.

‘To the Last Crust and Cartridge’…..46

by George Skoch

Prolific Civil War cartographer George Skoch turns to writing, this time about the action at Greenland Gap on April 25, 1863 during the Jones-Imboden Raid.  Captain Martin Wallace of the 23^rd Illinois commanded the 50 or so men of his company along with 30-odd men from a company of the 14^th West Virginia defending Greenland Gap.  Brig. General “Grumble” Jones’ force of 2000 men descended on the gap, and after bloody afternoon and evening attacks finally forced the Union defenders to surrender.  The raid was a success, but the stand of these Union soldiers prevented the Confederates from achieving even more, according to Grumble Jones.

My War: ‘This Worrisome Mode of Existence’: The Letters of Josiah H. Gordon…..55

edited by Christopher Benedetto

Member of the Maryland Legislature Josiah H. Gordon was suspected of treason by the Federal government in the early years of the Civil War.  As a result, he was held at Fort Warren in Boston Harbor for eight months.  This edition of My War consists of selected diary entries Gordon wrote while imprisoned there.

In Their Footsteps: The Road to Atlanta, Part 2…..60

by Jay Wertz

Jay Wertz continues his driving tour of the Atlanta Campaign, this time from Calhoun to the “Shoupades” of the Chattahoochee River Line.

Civil War Times Album of the Late War…..64

by Chris Howland

This collection of anecdotes includes the fate of Simon Bolivar Buckner, a hygiene kit, a portable checkerboard, and a letter from a man who had been reported killed to his wife!

Book Reviews…..66

1. Contested Borderland: The Civil War in Appalachian Kentucky and Virginia by Brian D. McKnight
2. Military Necessity: Civil-Military Relations in the Confederacy by Paul D. Escott
3. Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac by William Swinson

Frozen Moment: Fort Fisher’s Hot Shot Furnace…..74

The image in this Frozen Moment is the solid shot furnace from Fort Fisher, North Carolina, which was used against a combined arms Union force which attacked the fort in January 1865.

Post from: TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog

Civil War Times Illustrated, January 2007

Related posts:

1. Civil War Times Illustrated, January 2006
2. Civil War Times Illustrated, August 2006
3. Civil War Times Illustrated, June 2006

Obituaries of renowned Grant scholar John Y. Simon have started to appear.  Hat tip to Brooks Simpson for pointing out the following links.  Brooks takes issue with the New York Times obituary, especially some of the comments attributed to Harold Holzer.  He recommends two articles coming out much closer to Simon’s home in Carbondale, Illinois.  For those of you who don’t know, Professor Simon was the editor of the long-running series The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, now 28 volumes strong since the first release in 1967.

Post from: TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog

John Y. Simon Obituaries Begin to Appear

Related posts:

1. Grant Expert Professor John Y. Simon Passed Away Today at the Age of 75
2. Civil War talk Radio: December 17, 2004
3. Who Killed Uncle John (and John Reynolds)?

This Odds & Ends contains quite a few links from the Civil War blogs.  I’m trying to fill in just a bit for the recently retired This Week in Civil War Blogs formerly run by Civil War Interactive, but I doubt I’d ever have time to fill in on a permanent basis.  I’d like to thank Laurie and the crew for their dedication over the past few years.  The Civil War blogosphere has grown quite a bit since then, so it had to be tough to keep track of them all.  Without further ado, here’s this version of O&E for your enjoyment:

• A note on the preservation struggle at Shepherdstown, West Virginia from Scott Mingus at his Charge! Wargaming blog.

• Drew Wagenhoffer has an insightful two part interview with excellent author Peter Cozzens, who is this time working on the Eastern Theater for a change.  It appears that after reading Gary Ecelbarger’s new book on Front Royal and Winchester and seeing what Cozzens had to say here, Nathaniel Banks is getting some serious reputation rehabilitation as a result.  Bo references to good ol’ Jackson foil “Commissary” Banks in these pages!

• Sid Champion V has created a $120,000 documentary on the Battle of Champion Hill which apparently “needs polish”, according to Sid.  Hat tip to Dimitri for this one.

• Daniel Sauerwein at Civil War History is oh so close to completing his MA.  His thesis covers “the transition from civilian to soldier.”  Good luck on defending it on Friday morning Daniel!

• David Woodbury delivers, as he usually does, an outstanding blog entry, this time an interview of Alan Nolan, author of the controversial Lee Considered: Robert E. Lee and Civil War History.

• Darrin Dickey at BrandingFire Blog interviews Eric Wittenberg about marketing Civil War books.  Hat tip to Eric.

• Fellow blogger John David Hoptak has reached the halfway point of $3,000 in his effort to get the 48^th Pennsylvania Moument at Antietam restored.

• Winfield Scott Hancock was recently featured on Wikipedia on the anniversary of arguably his greatest service to his country on the third day at Gettysburg.

• The Art of War meets General Tso’s Chicken, with a dash of “Cump” Sherman thrown in for good measure!

• Daily Kos has a “Bookchat” on the Battle of Gettysburg.

• An article about collecting Civil War antiques from EasyArticles.com.

• History is a way of life for Slidell Battery, a group dedicated to teaching people about life in the 1860s.

• Anyone want some General Grant beer?  Talk to Sequoia Brewing Company!

• Josh M. at Student of the Civil War is looking forward to reading Brent Nosworthy’s book Roll Call to Destiny, as am I.

• Apparently Union soldiers dug in during the Fredericksburg Campaign into the foundation of George Washington’s boyhood home, taking a detour around the main chimney!

• Speaking of butchering Civil War history, They Died With Their Boots On (1941) comes in second to No movie!

Post from: TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog

Odds & Ends: July 8, 2008

Related posts:

1. Odds & Ends: July 12, 2008
2. Odds & Ends: July 17, 2008
3. Odds & Ends: July 25, 2008

It’s time for another edition of O&E for your browsing enjoyment:

• The Civil War bread riots in Richmond (hat tip to the latest History Carnival) at Axis of Evel Knievel

• Lee White at Army of Tennessee links to an excellent Grady McWhiney talk on Braxton Bragg

• An interesting interview of Joseph W. Glatthaar about his new book General Lee’s Army: From Victory to Collapse

• The “epicenter” of the Civil War plans to commemorate, not celebrate, the 150th Anniversary of the Civil War

• Jeff at The Capitol Tribune rethinks his stance on Ulysses S. Grant
  

• A blog post giving a whole new meaning to the term “GENERAL Manager”

• Drew Gilpin Faust doubles as a Public Intellectual, according to the magazine Foreign Policy

• A First Person Shooter (FPS) where time traveling and Antietam mix? Strange but true, and Paper, Rock, Shotgun has the details.

• An excellent look at Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation from a blog specializing in Black History
  

• Softpedia has an article up on Gary Grigsby’s War Between the States

• Flash of Steel also has its say on GGWBTS

• Bryan J. Scrafford asks a question many of us have wondered about: Was the Civil War Inevitable? He believes it was avoidable, and promises a paper on the subject for his class on The History of the Old South.

• The indiegamer.com forums have a short discussion ongoing about the Civil War game “Bushwhack”
  

• Jack at Michigan Civil War blog votes for universal restoration to period view sheds

Post from: TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog

Odds & Ends: May 3, 2008

Related posts:

1. Odds & Ends: July 8, 2008
2. Odds & Ends: May 6, 2008
3. Odds & Ends: June 21, 2008

I never quite grasped where such strong feelings towards the Confederacy come from. Some southerners (certainly not all) pine for and bemoan a government that barely existed 150 years ago- a country founded in war and never tested for its mettle outside that war. As a “northerner” born and raised in the heart of Yankee territory, I probably never will understand the proclamation that they are southerners first, and Americans only by happenstance.

I’ve tried to rationalize- for my own understanding- that people are merely honoring the soldiers that fought and died for what they believed would be a better way of life. I have also come to realize that for many people, it is so much more. Almost form the conclusion of the war, there have been those who would cry for their lost cause, and even attempt to claim victory from defeat. Throughout the course of the last 145 years, there have been southern movements by groups such as the SCV that have made every attempt to glorify their ancestors, and put the best possible light on the reasons for secession in the first place. Some have done so to the point of distorting history in favor of their own views, while accusing others of doing just that!

General Grant, one of the greatest generals of the war, and perhaps history, almost always snatched victory from the hands of the enemy. He had an almost uncanny sense in determining the personalities and the military prowess of those he was going up against. He smashed the confederate armies time after time, executing some of the boldest campaigns in history. He never underestimated his foe, and because of that, he was never defeated. But he was an American, and a loyal unionist. He believed that in time the southerners would be again as well, while also understanding that it would take time; the wounds were too fresh to be healed in his time.

As I struggle to understand the strong CS sentiments of the south, I realize that far more enlightened men than I have struggled over this same question. For, even with his military genius, in this subject even Grant finally underestimated the true tenacity of the south.

“I would not have the anniversaries of our victories celebrated, nor those of our defeats made fast days and spent in humiliation and prayer; but I would like to see truthful history written. Such history will do full credit to the courage, endurance and soldierly ability of the American citizen, no matter what section of the country he hailed from, or in what ranks he fought. The justice of the cause which in the end prevailed, will, I doubt not, come to be acknowledged by every citizen of the land, in time. For the present, and so long as there are living witnesses of the great war of sections, there will be people who will not be consoled for the loss of a cause which they believed to be holy. As time passes, people, even of the South, will begin to wonder how it was possible that their ancestors ever fought for or justified institutions which acknowledged the right of property in man”

“Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant”

“In time”, he says. How much time? Isn’t 150 years time enough?

Post from: TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog

Grant Finally Underestimates the South

Related posts:

1. Number 4 (The Wilderness: Grant & Lee Below the Rapidan)
2. Ulysses S. Grant’s Papers Online Courtesy of Mississippi State University
3. 861aa: Forces of U. S. Grant Louisville, Kentucky 30 November 1861