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.

1 comments about The War the Women Lived: Female Voices from the Confederate South.

1. The Women of the Confederacy speak. Culled from journals, diaries and published memoirs of the most cruel war of all, a Civil War, these women tell of hardships endured and unbelievable savagery on both sides. If this book was fiction it would be a good read. As eyewitness accounts it is a great read. Experience the horrors, the insights, the frame-of-mind of a violent time from our past. This book will enrich you

5 comments about Hospital Sketches.

1. This book is a classic. Wirten by Louisa May Alcott, yes the one that would later write the chlidrens classic "Little Women", tells the story of her service during the Civil War through the eyes of Nurse Tribulation Periwinkle. Although it is a short work, this edition is only 55 pages it brings to focus war and its cost and who pays the bill.
   
   Nurse Periwinkle will have two assigments before she, her self becomes a victum of the war (Typhiod) and must leave. The first is what we would call today an Evecuation Hospital where the wounded are brought from the battle field.
   
   We hear about a un-named soldier who asks only for a sip of wat and Nurse periwinkle has to go to a water can in another building and when she returns the soldier is dead. We hear about the long death of John, of the little Sergent who manages to survive and the Prussian who goes back to fight again.
   
   Nurse periwinkle's final assigment is to the Armory Hospital and to "K" Ward. K Ward is Military talk for where they send those who have run out of medical options and who's fate is in some other power, a large percentage of those on K Ward, will die on K Ward. All Wars have K Wards, I was in the K Ward at letterman Army Medical center for several months during the Vietnam War. Her brief discription is perhaps the best in literature of what hopelessness is.
   
   This book should be read by all and have a place next to Stephen Crains "Red Badge of Courage" in High School American Lit. Class.



2. This little book tells what is was like to work in a Civil War hospital. It is autobiographical, although the author changes her name in the narrative, which was considered proper in women's writing at the time.
   
   Louisa May Alcott had an ability to tolerate chaos and laugh at herself, which lends a charm to her writing, even though it is the sometimes wordy prose that was common in the 1860's. I found the book quick to read and enjoyable.
   
   The book would have been enhanced with a brief biography of the author, perhaps on the back cover. She is, of course, best known for her books for young people, but she had other accomplishments which are remarkable considering that she was afflicted with mercury poisoning, a result of medication given for typhoid, which she contracted in the hospital. In this book, she describes the bout with typhoid from the point of view of her becoming a patient in her room, and how kind the staff was to her. She tells that she lost her hair as an effect of the medication. Eventually her father shows up and she goes back to Massachusetts with him.
   
   Alcott based the book on letters she wrote home while serving in the hospital. Some were hastily written and she did not edit them strenuously because she did not want to lose the immediacy of the writing. In a few places, I longed for more clarity. Also, she makes references to literary characters of the time and most of these were lost on me. Still, there is much of value in this book and it is worth reading.



3. What aroused my interest in this book? No snazzy title. No enticing aroma of mystery or intrigue about it at all. But am I glad that I did read it? Unquestionably! From start to finish this book never falters, never flags in evoking the times, the place, and the human experience. Louisa's style may require some adjustments and patience from modern readers, and it probably will appeal to a more mature audience. (I don't see young people dropping Harry Potter for the tale Louisa tells.) As another reviewer eloquently noted, the book tears at the heart and makes you smile and laugh. Would that I could write half as good.The truth of the book cannot be denied. Read it and decide for yourself.



4. As I write this, there is currently a controversy swirling in Washington DC, about the shabby treatment of some wounded American veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Making the cover of Newsweek, and with the general of a veterans' hospital and the Secretary of the Army being forced to resign.
   
   Alcott's writings take on a very contemporary tinge, under these circumstances. Of course, she wrote of a far bloodier struggle, on American soil. Her descriptions of the Union hospitals do bring forth the primitive treatments then available, and the sacrifices of the thousands injured. Her book is a reminder of the cost of wars. Though the Civil War was necessary to end slavery, while some current readers might reasonably wonder whether entering Iraq was worth it.



5. This book was in great condition. The shipping was very quick just like promised.

5 comments about Generals in Blue: Lives of the Union Commanders.

1. Its a good bok to look what a general and a brigadier officers life and military duty.So I recommended this book to all fans of the Civil War.



2. I agree with the other reviewers who say that Ezra Warner's Generals in Blue is an essential resource for Civil War buffs. Whether you're in need of the basic biography of familiar generals, or want some quick and convenient background on an unfamiliar name, Generals in Blue is the place to go. I use it so often that I don't even bother reshelving it anymore.
   
   But the volume is more than just a reference book. It's also an existential document that evokes a lot of pathos from the reader. By far the greater number of generals discussed weren't regular army officers. Like their troops, they were volunteers--civilians suddenly wrested from the normal course of life and thrown into battle with, frequently, very little training and no experience. Many of them were wounded; some were killed; some were so incompetent that they got lots of foot soldiers killed; some were heroes; some rogues; a very few were pretty old, but many were little more than boys (Custer, for example, was generaled at the age of 25); some were shattered by their experiences in the war; some coarsened. Reading their biographies and contemplating their photographs go a long way towards putting faces to anonymous battle descriptions.
   
   Too bad there aren't similar compilations of ordinary soldiers.



3. and yet also surprisingly entertaining. I find it rather compelling actually. A few years ago this was my preferred reading on nights when I couldn't sleep...the individual bios were gripping and informative, but not too much to bite off. Warner's perspective is kinda old-school; I am a bit leery of his dismissal of the contributions of some of these officers to Reconstruction in the South. But mostly he is fair if a bit acerbic in his assessments. The pictures are entertaining in themselves, as well. The facial hair in that era! Comparing and contrasting the mustaches and beards of Ambrose Burnside, George McClellan, Ulysses Grant, and Egbert G. Brown might require a book in itself, but Warner does an invaluable job bringing so much material together.



4. Like Generals in Gray, I have often referred to Generals in Blue as an excellent reference over the years.

   Warner presents a brief biography of each general usually including the following information:

   1. Birthplace and birthdate.
   2. Prewar career.
   3. Battles served in, promotions, wounding and death (if applicable).
   4. Postwar career.
   5. Relationships with other generals and officers.
   6. Death and place of burial.
   7. Mention of the officer's competency (or lack thereof).

   Whether you are a serious student of the Civil War or a novice, I highly recommend the book as an excellent reference!




5. Like it's companion, Generals in Gray, Ezra has done an excellent job in giving short biographies on all the Union generals, with a picture of each general included. An excellent reference guide for your Civil War library.

2 comments about One Man Great Enough: Abraham Lincoln's Road to Civil War.

1. A basic history of Abraham Lincoln's political journey from Illinois to Washington, D.C. Nothing in this book will be a surprise to dedicated readers on the Civil War era.
   
   The author writes in a folksy style, sourcing quotes from local press accounts of the time, memoirs, and early Lincoln biographies. Mr. Waugh uses the Little Giant, Senator Douglas, and his long-time and somewhat unusual relationship to the up-and-coming Lincoln as a common thread throughout his book.
   
   Not broad or deep scholarship, but worth reading for one in need of an introduction to, or reminder of, the greatness embodied in the one who finally ended slavery within our land.



2. There are a raft of Lincoln books published seemingly every year. Each author has a slightly different take on the Great Emancipator, seeing him in a slightly different light. Most think him as great as the name implies, nad I tend to agree. So does the author of this current book, who takes a look at Lincoln's political philosophy, especially as it relates to the issue of slavery. Author Waugh spends only a little time dealing with incidents in Lincoln's life: his marriage, the death of his son, and so forth are all dealt with very cursorily. His father's death is only mentioned in passing, when the author is recounting something that happened a decade later. The majority of the space in this book follows Lincoln's transformation from a Whig who had only vague opposition to the institution of slavery into an abolitionist of sorts who had very definite views about pretty much every aspect of the issue.
   
   I've never read a book by John C. Waugh before. On one or two occasions, people have recommended books by him to me, and I think I have a copy of one of his books floating around here somewhere, but I never did get to it. This book crossed my path, and the time was right so I read it. I have to say I think I'm going to have to find that other book, because this volume is very well-written and interesting. I really enjoyed it.

2 comments about The Civil War Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant.

1. Insight is key to this book written by Grant from basically his death bed. What we learn from Grant in this book gives us an opportunity to understand his intentions, strategies and how he worked with people. Grant tries to be very fair in his writing that covers his early days as a colonel to full-fledged commander of the US Army. His style is basic and easy to understand. At times the book feels like he is giving a history lesson about the war and sometimes is vague about triumphs or failures. I was looking forward to reading about Grant's work with the battle of Cold Harbor and he was completely brief in this book considering it was a major conflict. But, this was Grant's choice to write and memoir depth is subject to author decision. Grant does pack a lot of information in and also has interesting coverage in regards to Lee's surrender. Anyone studying Grant or looking for further insight owes it to themselves to consider reading this book.



2. The only criticism here is that the editors saw fit to edit this masterpiece of American literature. This is a little like editing Shakespeare or the Bible. Don''t tamper with genius! This criticism aside...

   General Grant wrote this book while dying of throat cancer. He had been swindled by a dishonest Wall Street Broker and his trophies and possessions were stripped from him to satisfy the demands of his debtors. Bankrupt, suffering from a terminal illness and never passing a moment without acute pain, he produced this magnificent monument to his greatness. Those who denigrate Grant as a drunkard, butcher, bumbling President need to read this book in order to correct these errant assumptions. It is impossible to read this book and not realize that Grant was an inordinately intelligent man and one hell of a writer.

   Grant's Memoirs are a deserved classic in American literature and considered the greatest military Memoirs ever penned, exceeding Caesar's Commentaries. Grant wrote as he lived: with clear, concise statements, unembellished with trivialities or frivolities. The only "criticism" the reader might have is that Grant bent over backwards not to wound the feelings of people in the book. He takes swipes at Joe Hooker and Jeff Davis, but what he left unsaid would have been far more interesting. A compelling and logical reason why Grant was so spare in his comments was because he was involved in a race with death. He didn't know how long he could live and therefore, "cut to the chase."

   Grant's assessments of Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan and other military leaders are brilliant and engrossing. His style, like the man himself, was inimitable and couldn't be copied. In everyday life, Grant was a very funny man, who liked to listen to jokes and tell them himself. His sense of the absurd was acute. It's no accident that he loved Mark Twain and the two hitched together very well. Twain and Grant shared a similar sense of humor, and Grant's witicisms in the Memoirs are frequent, unexpected and welcome. There are portions where you will literally laugh out loud.

   Though Grant's Memoirs were written 113 years ago, they remain fresh, vibrant and an intensely good read. I have read them in! their entirity 30 times in my life and I never weary of the style and language that Grant employed. He was a military genius to be sure, but he was also a writer of supreme gifts, and these gifts shine through on every page of this testament to his greatness. All Americans should read this book and realize what we owe to Grant: he preserved the union with his decisive brilliance. A truly oustanding book.

5 comments about Winfield Scott Hancock: A Soldier's Life.

1. This highly readable account of Winfield Hancock's life does not disappoint. Never commanding a Union Army on his own, Hancock emerges from the Civil War one of the most accomplished, most successful of all Union battlefield commanders. His performance at Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor and Petersburg earned him the sobriquet McClelland bestowed upon him early in the war during the Peninsula Campaign, "Hancock the Superb". Simply stated, he was one of the most important commanders in the American Civil War.
   
   Jordan does a very credible job of tracing Hancock's origins from the Mexican and Civil Wars to his service in the Plains Indian Wars, his controversial reconstruction command at New Orleans and ultimately, his unsuccessful bid for the Presidency in the 1880 campaign. Combining broad strokes with an eye for interesting detail David Jordan delivers a biography of a most interesting personality whose life embodied a unique reflection of America's history for much of the nineteenth century.



2. This book does a good job in painting Winfield Scott Hancock as this perfect general, great human being, and fair politican while tearing down those (U.S. Grant for example) who opposed Hancock. In this biography, Hancock always comes out as a honorable family man who put duty to his country first and at the same time this book shows how kind and considerate Hancock was to friends and strangers alike. However, a closer examination of the man reveals that Hancock was flawed. What upsets me the most about this book is David M. Jordan ALWAYS find a way to excuse/pardon Hancock's behavior. Jordan does a great disservice to readers when he refuses to deal with legitimate criticisms of Hancock.
   
   Let's deal with one of those criticims: Reconstruction. Hancock believed in state's rights but his noninterference in a time of great racial strife shows a man who allowed his personal feelings and not duty to his nation, get in the way of him doing his job. Let's be honest...Hancock was a racist, as most white men of the 19th century were. However, most white generals (Grant, Howard, Thomas and even Sherman) regardless of how they felt about blacks, understood that Reconstruction must work for the good of the country. It has been said and proven that Hancock's behavior not only help prolonged Civil Rights in the South for another 100 years, but that his policies helped foster the rise of the KKK. Jordan refuses to admit or examine that this is one of the reasons why U.S Grant removed him from the South because simply put...Hancock was NOT doing his job.
   
   I understand Hancock was a man of his time, but David Jordan should be honest in admitting how Hancock's policies (good or bad) affected the people of Louisiana and Texas and why others took offense to them. Jordan is so determine to paint Hancock as this great man who did no wrong, it begs the question about Jordan's motives.
   
   Mr. Jordan, it is true that Hancock was obviously a great man, but he was flawed. Tell the whole truth is all I am saying....



3. At the Battle of Williamsburg, as the Army of Potomac crept up the Peninsula toward Richmond, Virginia, General Winfield Scott Hancock attempted an aggressive flank attack on Confederate positions. At a moment when serious damage could have been wrought against the Confederate forces, a timid Union commander recalled him. Even at that, he was able to deliver one last serious sting to the southern forces. General George McClellan noted that "Hancock was superb yesterday." Hence, the nickname "Hancock the Superb."
   
   This is a serviceable book on this talented Union general. There is not enough detail on the battles in which Hancock was engaged; much of the book is "underdetailed." Nonetheless, one gets a sense of why Hancock was held in such great respect.
   
   The book covers his early years, his time in West Point, his service in the "Old Army" (with the capstone being the lugubrious final meeting after the firing on Fort Sumter among him and future Confederate generals Lewis Armistead and Albert Sidney Johnston in California).
   
   Briefly, he was consigned to a desk job. Soon, however, McClellan got him a brigade command. Then, his service where he earned the sobriquet "The Superb." He did good service at one point at Second Manassas/Bull Run; he served well at Antietam, where he advanced to division command. Then, the dreary battles at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville where, once more, he served the Union well. After Chancellorsville, he earned command of the Second Corps.
   
   It is at Gettysburg, though, where he may have had the best three days of generalship of almost any commander in the Civil War. He brought order out of chaos at the end of the First Day; he shuffled troops all over the place on the Second Day, providing "Hairsbreadth Harry" narrow escapes (think his ordering of the First Minnesota into a suicidal attack against vastly superior forces to buy a few moments time for reinforcements to get to the scene); his command of the center of the Union line on the Third Day, where he commanded the troops who destroyed the charge by Pickett's, Pettigrew's, and Trimble's attacking forces. He was also seriously injured, and the damage done to him hindered his physical ability throughout the rest of the war.
   
   After a convalescence, he did well at the Wilderness (his flank was rolled up by Longstreet, but he rallied his troops and led them well); he led a massive in depth attack at the Muleshoe at Spotsylvania. Eventually, his Second Corps bled down and he gave up his command in front of Petersburg.
   
   After the war, he served in the South, against the Indians, and had a long career as a general officer. He even ran for President of the United States. This book introduces us to Hancock; I wish that there had been more exploration of his character and more detail in a number of the chapters. But for those who want to learn more about "Hancock the Superb," this is a good starting point.



4. A well written biography of a mostly forgotten soldier. Hancock was in many battles and his influence was felt long after the Civil War.



5. "On each of the three days of the (Gettysburg) battle (Hancock) played a significant role - rallying the beaten forces on July 1 and selecting the battlefield, redressing the Sickles blunder the next day and saving the left wing of the army, and finally beating back the last and greatest assault of the Army of Northern Virginia. ... Gettysburg was Hancock's field." - author David Jordan
   
   It was these three days in July, 1863 that established Winfield Scott Hancock as perhaps the best corps commander to serve in the Army of the Potomac. Yet, his career of loyal service to his superior officers, his Commanders-in Chief, and his country extended for a multitude of years on either side of his command of the Second Corps, which encompassed the relatively brief period from June of 1863 to November 1864, and which included the battles at Gettysburg, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, and skirmishes around the Petersburg entrenchments.
   
   Hancock's Civil War generalship earned him the affection of his troops and the country's citizenry and the respect of his fellow officers, all of which were sustained and flourished during his post-war career as a Reconstruction military administrator, a Great Plains Indian overseer, commander of the Military Division of the Atlantic (states), during which time he earned the gratitude of the nation in quelling labor violence, and, finally, as a three-time seeker of the Democratic nomination for President (1868, 1872, 1880) and his party's nominee for that office in the 1880 election.
   
   David Jordan's WINFIELD SCOTT HANCOCK is an extensively referenced, solid, immensely readable biography and work of popular history. Jordan obviously thinks highly of the man. Even Hancock's less than illustrious stint as commander of the Military Department of the Missouri from August 1866 to August 1867, during which he stumbled around the Great Plains without a clue as to the nature and culture of the Indian tribes he was tasked with controlling, goes pretty much uncriticized. After all, Hancock was only following the orders of his superior, General Sherman. And that's what Winfield did best all his life - follow orders.
   
   If there's a failing to this volume, it's that it suffers from a limited photo section, and helpful maps are either absent or rudimentary. Beyond that, the book is a fine tribute to an American for whom much honor is due in the nation's history.

3 comments about Sabine Pass: The Confederacy's Thermopylae (Clifton and Shirley Caldwell Texas Heritage Series).

1. There were actually two battles at Sabine Pass during the Civil War. The first one ended with the fort there being captured by Union forces. However, because of its distance from Union headquarters, Texas was hard to hold, and Sabine Pass was quickly returned to Confederate control. The second battle is the one author Edward T. Cotham, Jr. recounts in his well-researched "Sabine Pass: The Confederacy's Thermopylae."
   
   By the third year of the Civil War, Texas had become an important objective to the Union, primarily to cut off Confederate trade. Sabine Pass was considered the best invasion point because of its proximity, not only to Louisiana and the Mississippi River, but to the Houston train yards.
   
   In the interim between the two battles at Sabine Pass, a new, stronger fort had been built at a location where the river forks around an oyster reef, dividing the stream into two channels. Manned with six guns set to pivot at ninety-degrees the artillery could cover both channels. Lieutenant Dowling expected an assault on the fort and, in preparation, drilled his men using range stakes placed in the two channels.
   
   On September 8, 1863, the Union fleet began to arrive at the mouth of the Pass. In all there were four shallow-draft gunboats, and seven transports loaded with Union solders and sharpshooters. The soldiers were a landing party designated to take the fort from the rear while the gunboats assaulted from the river.
   
   At the start the battle looked to be a match between David and Goliath. The forty-four Confederate gunners, Irishmen of the Davis Guard, were outnumbered a hundred to one. But a series of missteps made by the Union fleet, the shallow water and some deadly accurate fire from the six cannons turned the assault into a rout by this small Confederate contingent.
   
   After 45 minutes, the two leading gunboats ran up a white flag. One had been blown to bits, the other was hung on a sand bar. Dowling sent boats to recover 350 prisoners.
   
   The troop transports never landed. In a desperate attempt to retreat through the shallow water, they off-loaded horses and supplies. For a distance of thirty-five miles west of the battle, beaches were littered with these supplies and the bodies of dead, hobbled horses. As one soldier put it, "Such a skedadling you never saw."
   
   At times I was unable to keep straight the names of the commanding officers on either side in the battle, but confusion is one of the side-effects of the Civil War with brother fighting brother. I appreciated the detailed description of the topography and underwater terrain, as well as the background material the author exhaustively researched, including skirmishes at Corpus Christi and off Matagorda Island.
   
   A monument stands at the Sabine Pass Battleground State Park honoring the Confederate heoes. I found myself wanting to jump in the car and make a trip there, but after a phone call I learned the park has not reopened after damage from Hurricane Rita. More information can be found at the Texas Parks & Wildlife web site, [...].



2. Author Edward Cotham provides a well-written and interesting account of the civil war at Sabine Pass and the events leading to a decisive battle there in front of Fort Griffin. Although the author spares few superlatives for the victorious Texans' unanticipated and stunning victory he does so for good reason and in an overall balanced manner. The Union officers' failures (as well as successes in other areas) are fairly presented.
   
   This engagement was small but costly for the Union. It set back operations for capturing the important port of Mobile, Alabama as well as delaying operations against the Texas coast.
   
   On the Union side, the roots of the fiasco rested in poor intelligence, coordination, and execution. The first major failure was the arrival of the attack force, when the coordinating blockader was away re-coaling--setting back the attack a critical day and a half. This provided the small garrison the opportunity to bring powder and projectiles to what would have been a defenseless set of gun emplacements.
   
   The well-led and well-drilled garrison occupied a small but well-conceived and constructed earthen fort. It was ideally sited and designed to inflict maximum damage to any naval assault while limiting their ability to counter fire. Attacking gunboats would be forced to approach in tightly constricted channels where they could employ only their forward most guns at a low profile target. Lt. Dick Dowling's handful of men were itching for a fight and well equipped to do so.
   
   The attack was to be a joint operation, with the navy leading the attack in order to allow the army to land. Unfortunately a lack of intelligence about the new fort and unrealistic expectations of the naval vessels' capacity to fight it meant that the gunboats were at a severe disadvantage. Earlier in the war, a small predecessor fort nearby had been easily taken by Crocker, but allowed to fall back under rebel control. This prompted the CSA to build Fort Griffin, and for Crocker to become overconfident.
   
   During the assault everything that could go wrong for the navy did. The lead ship in the east channel suffered an early hit to its boiler scalding the crew and disabling it. Crocker's flagship in the west channel also was disabled by a hit to its rudder chain, then boiler. The other two navy gunboat captains displayed cowardice and fled, not even attempting to assist their disabled comrades. Crocker attempted to fight on, expecting that the army would land as planned and win the victory. U.S. Gen. Wietzel inexplicably decided not to land his force, squandering the painful sacrifice by the navy. The defenders had only 40 charges of powder in the fort at the end of the battle. Then after the battle Wietzel's superior Gen. Franklin retreated to New Orleans rather than carrying out his original instructions to attack elsewhere along the coast if necessary.
   
   350+ Union sailors and infantry serving as sharpshooters were captured when the two disabled ships were surrendered. The little rebel garrison suffered no casualties. The author reasonably suggests that the setting sun would have made gunnery effect hard to distinguish for the union gunners. Texas rejoiced and the CSA enjoyed some increasingly rare good news.
   
   In addition to the pivotal battle, Cotham reviews the initial Union capture of Sabine Pass, the CSA's successful cottonclad attack, operations at Galveston, and Calcasieu Pass. The maps and figures are excellent. My complaints and quibbles are few: I did notice a few confusing descriptions of some of the heavy artillery early in the book such as an 8 inch Columbiad rebored as a 6" rifle (?) and a 12 pdr howitzer described as a 12 inch howitzer. The author perhaps overstates the importance of the blockade running at Sabine Pass since it seems to have only been well suited for very light vessels rather than steam blockade runners. Also, supplies entering this pass would only really have been available to those in the Trans-Mississippi theater. Finally, I believe he fails to sufficiently emphasize the importance of the early delay that granted the defenders time to obtain ammunition.
   
   In spite of the above minor criticisms I highly recommend this book. It is a fascinating read and provides a useful perspective of seacoast warfare in Texas.



3. Sabine Pass was a narrow, 6-mile-long defile that channeled the Sabine River, which was the boundary between Texas and Louisiana, into the Gulf of Mexico. Guarding the Sabine River was Fort Griffin, a mud citadel which Union Army Intelligence believed had a force of 200 Confederate troops, including a field artillery battery, two 32-pounders (heavy artillery) and two boats that had been converted into rams. Actually, Fort Griffin was manned by only 46 Irish Texans, officially known as the 1st Texas Heavy Artillery, under the command of 25-year-old Lieut. Richard W. Dowling. It's artillery consisted only of six fieldpieces (the two 32-pounders had been removed weeks earlier). The two rams were ordered scuttled by Dowling near the entrance to Lake Sabine. This meant that any Union ships which did make it past Fort Griffin would run into the trap of the sunken boats, especially since the Sabine was running dangerously low.
   
   The Union plan to take Sabine Pass was developed by Maj. Gens. Nathaniel Banks, Henry Halleck, and William Franklin, as well as Admiral David Farragut. The Union assault force would consist of 5,000 troops in 22 transport vessels protected by four gunboats (with another two gunboats in support). On September 8, 1863, the battle began, and after just 45 minutes, it was all over. One gunboat, "Clifton", was so badly hit by the fort's artillery that it was disabled and abandoned, while another, "Sachem", was forced into shallow water and surrendered to the fort. One humiliated captured Union officer said to Lieut. Dowling,"You and your 46 men in your miserable little fort in the rushes have captured two gunboats, a goodly number of prisoners, many stand of small arms, and plenty of good ammunition, and that is not the worst of your boyish tricks: you have sent three Yankee gunboats, 5,000 troops, and a major-general out to sea in the dark!"
   
   The battle at Sabine Pass had disproved once and for all the myth about the invincibility of Union gunboats. And it gave the Confederacy a much-needed victory after recent disasters at Gettysburg and Vicksburg. In fact, President Jefferson Davis was so impressed by Lieut. Dowling and his men that he commemorated the battle by striking a silver medal in honor of the men. A statue honoring Dowling was later erected near the site of the remarkable fight. This is, at least in my opinion, one of the most fascinating battles of the American Civil War, yet very little has been written about it. Edward T. Cotham has obviously done exhaustive research for this book and his narrative makes for an exciting and very informative book on this extraordinary battle. Highly recommended!

No comments about Civil War Battles and Leaders.

5 comments about Richard S. Ewell: A Soldier's Life (Civil War America).

1. This is a refreshing and informative look at Richard Ewell, before, after and of course during the Civil War. Often described as a failure after succeeding Jackson and becoming leader of the Lee's new 2nd Corp, Ewell has suffered severe criticism for the first day of Gettysburg and for his emotional response to the breach at Spotsylvania. Pfanz provides a fair and colorful look at the dependable soldier that fought the second half of the war with a wooden leg and overall served much better than superficial history would lead you to believe. Pfanz profiles Ewell's early life efficiently noting that Ewell's family as a whole were eccentric and Ewell himself a very thin and balding man who spoke with a lisp. Although lacking in military forbearance, Ewell completes West Point and serves gallantly as a dragoon officer in the west occasionally fighting Indians with high praise. Pfanz provides a full perspective of Ewell as a brave soldier who initially though Jackson crazy and in a rather amusing historical telling, Pfanz describes how at one point several generals in Jackson's command think each other unbalanced. As Pfanz describes, Ewell fights extremely well for Jackson particularly at Cross Keys and at Winchester. Although literally pegged as an officer that follows explicit orders, Pfanz clarifies that Ewell fought extraordinary well particularly in the initial stages of the Gettysburg campaign in capturing Winchester and marching virtually to Harrisonburg. He also fought brilliantly at the Wilderness and for the most part at Spotsylvania. As Pfanz notes, Ewell saved Richmond during Butler's great onslaught attack in the fall of 1864, which is a little appreciated fact. After Butler captured Fort Harrison his attack is stymied by Ewell who masks his small force by using the woods to limit the view of his small defiant band. Richard Sommer's writes of this wonderfully in his book "Richmond Reeemed". Pfanz notes Ewell's one quality that may have not worked in his favor; he frequently asked the opinions of others in contrast to Jubal Early who frequently gave opinions. At Gettysburg, Lee's directives were not precise to Ewell who contended with his July 1 victory with rounding up 5,000 union prisoners, waiting for Johnson's division along with a report of union troops appearing on his left flank. On top of that, Early would not support an attack on Cemetery or Culp's Hill. Nor would Early support shifting Ewell's corps to the right to pull the lines together as Lee wished. Pfanz notes that communication failures appear to be the biggest command problem at Gettysburg along with a lack of forceful leadership from Lee along with the union's will to fight. Ewell also suffers a slight from Gordon, whose self serving personal history make him a questionable source, stung Ewell in Lee's eyes as Gordon relates how Ewell virtually squandered a surprise attack on the union right. Acting judiciously, Ewell orders the attack but may have looked inept to Lee after his brilliant attack and defense in the Wilderness. The almost humorous episode of Ewell trying to stop retreating soldiers at Spotsylvania, cussing at them and slapping them on the back with his sword appears too much for Lee and Ewell's ill advised attack that was suppose to be more reconnaissance in nature virtually keys Lee's decision to replace Ewell with Early when Ewell is momentarily ill. Unfortunately, Ewell's romance with his old flame and new bride caused a huge negative reaction with his staff particularly when she intervened with staff activities and her husband's time raising doubts about his focus. Pfanz provides fascinating detail on the correspondence between Ewell and Lee where Ewell sadly tries to return to command while Lee gently tries to tell him he is not needed at the front. Ewell finishes his confederate career in charge of the Richmond defenses finishing the war on the road to Appomattox at Saylers Creek when he is cut off and alone with Anderson's division. Pretty amazing story after the war that the man missing a leg, with several horses shot out from under him, and two horses roll over him, survives to live a life as a vigorous business man. Ewell was a modest man who, unlike Longstreet, died before Jubal Early rewrote his version of confederate history.



2. I disagree with a line written by Mr. Pfanz in his biography of Ewell.
   On page 326 of the book he discusses the failure of General Robert Rodes to attack Cemetery Hill the evening of July 2.This has been discussed in every book I have read on Gettysburg. However, Mr Pfanz has decided to put his own spin on an old subject. He states "he(Rodes) tried to deflect his failure onto his subordinate Stephen D. Ramseur." This is the first accusation of disloyalty and pettiness that I have ever read of General Rodes.
   I would ask the reader to check Rode's Official Report on the battle and try to discern how Mr. Pfanz could have come to the conclusion that the General was guilty of something so dishonorable.
   Too bad Rodes is not here to defend himself. It is easy to malign the dead.
   
   Pleasant reading but nothing really new on Ewell- a kind,brave and generous man who was very good at being a general until he was so severely wounded at Groveton.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   



3. Pfanz offers a most credible account of the life and times of one of the "lesser" lights of the Confederate pantheon. While indeed "Baldy Dick" lacks the nobility of Genl Lee or the exciting eccentricity of Thom Jackson, this offering serves the good general well. I found the author pretty balanced in his recitation of Ewell's trials and tribulation, be it in the realm of military action or his personal life. While this text is 500+ pages of small print, those with a particular interest in Confederate military lore will appreciate author Pfanz's efforts to bring Richard Stoddert Ewell to life...



4. Gen. Richard Ewell. A figure from history that has been all but ignored until now. While many blame Ewell for the loss at Gettysburg, One finds a different side of the story. The reading flows smoothly. I have really enjoyed reading this book and getting to know Gen.Richard Ewell. The author expolores his background as a Dragoon, fighting Indians and his faithful service to the Confederacy. Also mentioned is his conversion to Christainity as a result of his rubbing elbows with Stonewall Jackson. I suggest you add this book to your library!



5. There are three impressive aspects of this work. First, it is quite readable. The battle scenes and other events are as lively as a full color film. The historic characters are full dimensional figures who inhabit the book rather than being referred to. Even minor Ewell family members are brought to life realistically.

   Second, the terrain is imaginatively and graphically depicted. The author has a real sense of the places and the climate of the times. This is also supported by good made-to-order maps of important locales.

   Third, practically every assertion in the book is backed up by solid primary and secondary historical sources. This is done with no intrusion on the readability of the text. No judgment is made without balancing all extant points of view. A real work of moderm scholarship.

   Finally, I was surprised at how much I learned about historical personages and battles with which I though I was familiar.