Currently Reading

Started Decision in the West: The Atlanta Campaign of 1864. I will be seeing my Atlanta-bred niece in a few weeks and want to have chatting material.

lol surly; I have to pull out all my Vicksburg stuff shortly; heading down to Miss!

>1 surly: Do nieces talk with kindly uncles about military history!?
Reading The Confederacy's Last Hurrah: Spring Hill, Franklin, and Nashville
Getting ready to shed a tear for Cleburne (I grew up just down the road from where he was born)

3> Of course they do! :)

The actual intent is to begin the indoctrination of her children into the ACW fraternity. They, and their cousins, will most likely inherit my collection and I need to start determining who amongst the herd is interested in what.

Started Leaders of the Lost Cause: New Perspectives on the Confederate High Command

Almost done with The Hinge of Fate, part of Churchill's World War Two series.

I finished Leaders of the Lost Cause: New Perspectives on the Confederate High Command a couple months ago. I thought it a good read. Much of the information in it I was aware of or had heard before, but overall it was a great way to introduce or re-introduce yourself to these major players in the Southern movement by some of the most respected authors in the game today.

Fraud of the Century by Roy J. Morris This book tells us that even though the North won on the battlefield, the South won the after-war period known as 'Reconstruction."

The presidential election of 1876 was won by Samuel Tilden. He had the popular vote majority & a majority of the electoral college.
So why is the presidential library & museam located in Fremont OH at the home of Rutherford B. Hayes?
And why, during WW2, were soldiers wearing the uniform of the US Army refused service in certain restaurants south of the Mason-Dixon line? Why did they still have to wait in segrated waiting rooms& use segregated rest rooms in the states of the former confederacy? Why did the "Solid south"vote consistantly Democratic (even if their candidate might be a "Yellow dog?")

Actually, the south did have the right to secede from the Union. Any state had that right because they entered the Union voluntarily. In 1860, Lincoln & the republicans were technically wrong, but morally, on the right side.

This has not been taught in history classes. The author has done a lot of good research & studied private letters & memoirs.

Any one interested in the cause of the civil war & the rise of the segrated south should study this.

Started Shiloh and the Western Campaign of 1862.

Reading Tullahoma : The 1863 Campaign for the Control of Middle Tennessee.

Just started April '65: Confederate Covert Action in the Civil War.

Just finished Return to Bull Run: The Campaign and Battle of Second Manassas. I felt this was an excellent account of the campaign that ended Lee's first three months as the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia and John Pope's career as a field commander.

#12, concur, great book

>12 wildbill: & 13 Longstreet's attack is featured in three chapters. Not enough space to do it justice in my opinion. Does a longer, book-length analysis of Longstreet's attack exist (similar to Pfanz' The Second Day at Gettysburg)?

JC

I don't know of one. Anybody else?

Was reading Lincoln's Political Generals by David Work but got interrupted.

Embrace an Angry Wind by Wiley Sword

About 300 pages into McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom.

>18 sergerca: I think that Battle Cry of Freedom is an excellent book. I hope you will enjoy it.

I am just starting Bentonville: The Final Battle of Sherman and Johnston by Nathaniel Cheairs Hughes Jr.

#19 It's outstanding so far. I am much more up to speed on the military part of the war. I haven't covered the political lead up to the war very much at all. I am learning a lot!

Jefferson Davis and His Generals. Woodworth is a lot kinder to A.S. Johnston than Connelly was.

BillandKaren (Bill, most likely), what do you think about Jefferson Davis and His Generals? I am currently reading Jefferson Davis, American and while it brings up his handling of his generals, it does not go into detail. I have recently read a number of books on Lincoln recently (which is why I am reading Jefferson Davis, American), several which have gone into differing amounts of detail on Lincoln's handling of his generals. I am interested in reading more about Davis and his handing of his generals, as the impression I have gotten so far is he failed repeatedly and never learned from his mistakes.

#23: If I can chime in here, Jefferson Davis and His Generals is, in my opinion, an excellent study of Confederate problems in the Western Theatre. Woodworth followed it up with Davis and Lee at War, covering the Eastern Front, which is also worth a read. I've always thought that Davis' worst issue was his fatal friendships: Confederate logistics chief Northrop, Theophilus Holmes, Leonidas Polk, Braxton Bragg, John Pemberton & of course, John Bell Hood.

I can't really add much to what Ammianus says. Woodworth gives Davis a lot of credit for some of his strategic decisions, but then does point out the "friendship" weakness A mentioned. He also thinks that using the Mississippi River as a dividing line between theater commands was a major blunder and just about ensured that there'd be very little cooperation between the trans-Mississippi and the rest of the western Confederacy.

Ammianus and BillandKaren, thanks for your opinions; I will put both books on my reading list. I wish they were available for my Sony Reader, but maybe they will be by the time I get to them (I have The Civil War: A Narrative next on my reading list for physical books).

Gentlemen,

I agree entirely that Jefferson Davis and His Generals is a most valuable resource for the western campaigns.

Mike

I just finished Hallam's War by Elisabeth Payne Rosen. As members of Baxter's Battery, Co. B, (Cleburne's Division) my son and I will be participating in a reenactment for the battle of Franklin in a few weeks. (He is only 14, therefore the powder monkey!) So I'm hoping to read For Cause & for Country: A Study of the Affair at Spring Hill & the Battle of Franklin by Eric A. Jacobson. I think it should be good.

Hi! I believe this is my first post in this group. You're doing some great reading -- some that I've read, and some that I'll definitely look into.

I'm currently reading the first volume of Shelby Foote's trilogy.

> tymfos Welcome. I am sure you will enjoy Shelby Foote. He was an excellent writer.

I am enjoying paging through two reference books I picked up on a really good sale. The New York Times Complete Civil War, 1861-1865, (touchstone error), it has 400 pages of selected articles and a DVD with every article published during that time. The Maps of Gettysburg: An Atlas of the Gettysburg Campaign, June 3- July 13, 1863,( touchstone again) it has a total of 144 full page maps and I love good maps.

#31 - Is it the color or B&W version of The Maps of Gettysburg? I have the B&W version and have heard the color one is so much better that it is worth buying even if you own the B&W.

It is the color version. I have never seen the B&W but the color is very good and highlights all of the features of the maps.

I've started Lincoln's Melancholy by Joshua Wolf Shenk.

I am reading The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery by Eric Foner. It is a narrative of Lincoln's changing attitudes toward slavery during the course of the Civil War.

Just acquired 'NOTHING BUT VICTORY' (0-375-41218-2) (2005). Finally, a work about the most overlooked Union army of the war. At 640 pages, this should keep the winter blues away. I may even review it when I am done.

Hi, first time poster. I'm presently reading "The Cavalry Battles of Aldie, Middleburg and Upperville: Small but Important Riots, June 10-27, 1863" by O'Neill. Mr O'Neill is a noted Cavalry expert and his book is pretty much the only one that covers these small but important Cavalry battles that precede Gettysburg.

Just finished The Coming Fury and Never Call Retreat volumes one and three of Bruce Catton's Centennial History of the Civil War. Excellent writing and thorough coverage of the political and military aspects the war. Now to finish the series with Terrible Swift Sword.

About half way through Vicksburg, the Campaign that Opened the Mississippi by Michael Ballard

Bill, if you find you want to know more about Vicksburg campaign I recommend that you check some reviews of ... "Ninety-Eight Days: A Geographer's View of the Vicksburg Campaign" ... , the best single volume history of the campaign to me. As is often the case I can't get touchstones to work.

http://www.librarything.com/work/1888089/book/9118597

Started Jefferson Davis and his Generals: The Failure of Confederate Command in the West.

41, great book!

I concur with 42 and will add another title worth reading on this subject: "A Crisis in Confederate Command" by Prushankin.

>40 Ammianus:

That, I would like to read. Can you tell me the author/publisher? Thanks.

>41 surly:, 42, 43

Agreed, gentlemen!

Mike

Thanks A. I'll check that one out. Next up is going to be Champion Hill.

I just finished Lincoln's Melancholy, which I found very enlightening.

Reading The Forgotten Fury: The Battle of Peidmont, VA by Scott Patchan

Have just finished The Boy Spy by Joseph Orton Kerbey. If you are interested in first person accounts of the war years, you might enjoy it. Not much spying and not much by way of battle reportage but interesting inter-actions with some of the movers and shakers. Have also finished the Shelby Foote trilogy, Civil War, a narrative - what a good writer he was. Would like to find a comparable history that is available in e-book format. Does anyone out there know of any? (The New York Times is running a daily series of interesting anecdotal Civil War articles - worth checking out, if you have an interest in a day by day account of the period.)

I am now reading How the North Won the Civil War. I had only intended to read a chapter about the generals in the war but found the book very interesting.

Currently reading Sam Watkins's Company Aytch. Am much more interested in the common soldier's experience at this point than those of officers and politicians.

>50 DocWood: I recommend "Rebel Private Front and Rear" by William A Fletcher. It's my all time favorite book by a common soldier in the Civil War. My second recommendation would be, "Confederate Chaplain: A War Journal of Rev. James B. Sheeran, c.ss.r., 14th Louisiana, C.S.A." Both these books are straight and too the point without the flowery, lost cause writings of many books written by participants after the war.

Thanks, Marylandreb--I've added Rebel Private Front and Rear to my Wish and To Be Read lists! It does look good.

Reading James Ford Rhodes's History of the Civil War, 1861-1865 It's not a history I would recommend: research in Civil War history has advanced exponentially since this book was written near the turn of the twentieth century.

I just finished Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant. I thought it was very good.

Failure in the Saddle indicts Joe Wheeler for mishandling his new cavalry corps prior and during the battle of Chickamauga. The text is fine (despite lazy editing: "ankee", "Rscrans"). What prevents it from being a great book is its missing comparison to its outstanding Federal counterpart as well as to Stuart's cavaliers.

In reality, it was not a failure in the saddle. The Army of Tennessee had an oversupply of rear ends. It just took two years for the Federals to build up better armed, disciplined cavalry. Both Bragg at Chickamauga and Lee at Gettysburg lacked mounted reconnaissance and flank protection, a service splendidly done by the Federal cavalry.

Just finished Blood and Treasure by Donald S. Fraizer. Fraizer's book isn't just about the Rebel invasion of the current New Mexico and Arizona at the start of the American Civil War. Instead, Fraizer approach is to propose, rather successfully I think, that this invasion was not some wild-eyed scheme or diversion, but a fundamental part of the Confederate, or at least Texan, high level ambitions. Starting from right after the Texas War for Independence, argues Fraizer, Texans had sought to seize the Rio Grande from mouth to source, and after the Gadsden Purchase of 1854 their interest expanded to the mineral rich area of present southern Arizona. And California with it's gold was never far from their thoughts either.

After this background, the book does an excellent job of relating the story of the Rebel early attempts to control the Southwest, first with localized uprising and escalating to Sibley's invasion in late 1861. He then covers the campaign, the battles and the eventual withdrawal of the Rebel forces.

The book is published by Texas A&M University Press and is focused on the Texan and Confederate forces and actions, rather than an equal assessment of both sides. That's no problem since it reflects the author's intent. Fraizer is rather opinionated at times and doesn't mince his words, but he does seem to be evenhanded with his criticisms, eventually finding that much of the blame for the failure of the invasion falls squarely on the Texans, who he notes were often fine warriors but poor soldiers.

Highly recommended for the reader with interest military or American Civil War history.

#56, if you found the Southwestern Campaign of interest, check this thread:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/57570

I'm headed back to NM in the Spring, can't wait!

I'm reading Terrible Swift Sword to finish up Bruce Catton's Centennial History of the Civil War.
I'm still going on How The North Won the Civil War. I am enjoying the book but it is long. Sometimes I feel like I'm reading for a graduate seminar.
The authors of this book quote Bruce Catton several times. At one point in the book they quote Catton's description of Richard Ewell because it "is too classic to improve upon."

Am about to begin 'Company Aytch' -- Maury Grays, First Tennessee Regiment available at manybooks.net.

Finished 'Company Aytch' -- Maury Grays, First Tennessee Regiment. It's a well written memoir of action seen by Sam R. Watkins from the initial mustering of the First Tennessee until its surrender at the end of the war. Worth reading and an excellent supplement to a narrative history of the conflict.

Just starting :The Slaves' War by Andrew Ward
Subtitle: The Civil War in the Words of Former Slaves.
Ken Burns writes: "This is a riveting book." I hope so!

I finished How the North Won the Civil War. I enjoyed the author's perspective on military history. I felt that I learned a lot. Now I am starting The Gettysburg Campaign: A Study in Command. I have read some very good things about the book. I am supplementing it with Bradley Gottfried's The Maps of Gettysburg: An Atlas of the Gettysburg Campaign. I got the latest version with all of the maps in color. Good maps are a real help to me in following the action.

I'm now about 600 pages into McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. Very readable! But I am surprized by how much space he gives to events leading up to the war (much on the Mexican War, for example) and just how little real description of battle the book contains. This is not a complaint. I like knowing details of how both sides financed the war and what it was like to be on burial detail the day (or worse, 2 days) after a battle, but was expecting more traditional military history. Great book. I recommend it to everyone who has not read it. I bought it 18 years ago and wish I had read it earlier.

Finished "Bloody Bill Anderson: The Short, Savage Life of a Civil War Guerilla." I read it because my ancestors in Missouri had close encounters with him and his gang of bushwhackers.

>65 pjsullivan:, What sort of encounters? Details please!

>65 pjsullivan:

Any view on the book?

Mike

Illiniguy71, I agree completely about Battle Cry of Freedom (except I read it when I bought it). I think not focusing on the battles makes it a better history as McPherson can use the space to explore other important issues of the time and how the war affected the country.

I'm currently reading Lincoln's and His Admirals by Craig L. Symonds and I'm about a quarter of the way through it. So far I'm enjoying it, in part as I find his writing style easy to read. Similar to Battle Cry of Freedom he gave only a brief description of the battle of Port Royal, but that is likely due to the focus of the book on people and relationships.

Civil Wars: Women and the Crisis of Southern Nationalism by George C. Rable. It's a little unusual in its coverage of women in all strata of society, not just the planters' wives and middle class that we usually hear about.

I'm just finishing the first book of Shelby Foote's trilogy, Fort Sumter to Perryville. I'm hardly a Civil War buff; however, it seems to me that everyone who cares about this country should spend some time reading about this war. I had started reading the McPherson book (Battle Cry of Freedom first, but I felt that knowing more detail about the war as a whole--the kind of detail that Foote writes--would make McPherson's book a better read. I read the first few hundred pages of McPherson's book before I put it down. The issues he covers about the coming of the war are interesting; however, I honestly have to say that I felt his bias towards the North got in the way of any sort of balanced discussion of the issues.

I think that James McPherson did an excellent job of being unbiased in Battle Cry of Freedom. As I recall he doesn’t give a pass to either side and both take a number of hits in the book. Did he attack the South more than the North? Probably so, but as I think the South was more in the wrong I don’t think that makes him or the book biased.

As for whether or not to read battle Cry of Freedom before or after reading a more detailed history of the war, I wish I had read it before reading any of the many other civil war books I have read. Most books on the civil war mostly or totally ignore the causes leading up to the conflict and how the war affected the home front during the war. Battle Cry of Freedom is the only book I have read that focuses on these areas and it gave me a much better understanding of how the war was fought. My only complaint about it is that I think it should have been a standalone book and not part of the Oxford History of the United States. As part of the series I think McPherson went too far back before the civil war and covered matter that should be covered by Daniel Walker Howe in What Hath God Wrought (and which I still need to read), which covers 1815-1848. However I understand McPherson doing so, as many of the issues he covers had origins before 1848 and he felt the need to discuss them so the reader could understand what happened in the 1850s. After all, 1) not everyone who reads Battle cry of Freedom will have read What Hath God Wrought first (I didn’t) and 2) his views on the origins are likely somewhat different that Howe’s views.

I am currently reading volume one of Freehling's The Road to Disunion. I can't believe all the post-its I am leaving in the book or how much I am highlighting. Before the US Civil War non-slave-holding whites were burned out, tarred and feathered and even lynched for speaking out in disapproval of the slave-holding minority. I had no idea.

So far he has painted a vivid picture of the mind of the master class* and clearly explained the difference of opinons between the "Boarder South", the "Middle South" and South Carolina. I still have 400 pages and another volume to go.

I have read both volumes of The Road to Disunion and enjoyed them very much. As I recall Freehling added some facts that don't usually appear in other books about the causes of secession.
My favorite book on the topic is The Impending Crisis. The author goes through each of the steps that led to secession and does a terrific job of analyzing the choices that were available at each step. He also does a very credible job of showing why the country slowly tore itself apart over the issue of slavery.
# 72 I guess the asterisk on "the mind of the master class" refers to the book of that title. It was an effort but reading that book greatly added to my understanding of the South and secession. I felt I was reading what nobody else ever told me about the ante-bellum South. It showed me how much the North and the South were two different countries.

You are right Bill, The Mind of the Master Class is on my wish list, I intended to add a note identifying it but I was at work and got distracted. I have added The Impending Crisis to my wishlist. I don't know how I overlooked it.

It has been a bit of a slap in the face reading about the "Masterclass" and how little distinction they say between slaves and free labor.

In the 1850's Southerners wrote that there were only two classes, masters and laborers, and that slaves were better off than wage laborers. This contrasts with Lincoln's speeches where he talked about laborers working their way up to journeymen and then employing others in a small shop. I am sure glad that the North won.

Did they? Or is the battle still going on? To much of what I am reading reminds me of today.

Has anyone read Ed Bearss trilogy on Vicksburg? I understnad that it is considered definitive, but before I spill 125 - 150 bills, I would like some ffedback. He will be at our local CV Roundtable soon and I would like to have him sign the books, but would like to get them and read them first. What say y'all?

I have Impeding Crisis, but still to read. It is always in the bibliographies of CV books. That says something for it.

#77, purely my opinion; purchase the single volume Ninety-Eight Days: A Geographer's View of the Vicksburg Campaign by Grabau instead. I would only purchase Bearss if I were a collector. 98 is the best single volume history for me. Incredible maps! And very good commentary. Cheers,A

i dont know if this counts as current reading but i have just finished listening to David Blight on iTunesU gibe a series of lectures for a course he did in 2008. Very interesting and gave me a few book ideas. Piqued my interest in reconstruction too

I'm just getting started on Retreat from Gettysburg and have enjoyed it so far. I'm a Project Manager, so logistics tends to interest me a great deal.

all war is logistics based

Still finishing up Stuart's Tarheels.

Confederate Cavalry West of the River by Oates

Just finished Gettysburg by Stephen W. Sears. It was better than I expected it would be.

85 I read that one a while back and really liked it, wildbill.

I just started the second volume of Shelby Foote's The Civil War: A Narrative trilogy.

Finally got through Stuart's Tarheels and am now giving Out of the Storm a second reading.

About a third through General Braxton Bragg, C.S.A. from Early Reviewers.

Confederate Generals in the Western Theater, Vol. 1, collection of essays...

and Confederate Generals in the Western Theater, Vol. 2, one to go!

Embattled Courage by Gerald F. Linderman. All I can say is, "Wow!" It's different from any, and I mean any Civil War book I've ever read. Linderman's focus is entirely on the value of courage as it was understood and expressed in 19th-Century America, and the role it played in the war, both as seen by the men who fought it.

And finally, Confederate Generals in the Western Theater, Vol. 3. Great series of essays on personalities and events connected with the long-suffering Army of Tennessee.

Also looking at Coddington's Faces of the Confederacy which just came in the other day on Inter-library Loan. Another unique approach to the war, it's a collection of cartes de visites and the story behind each.

I am reading Gary Gallagher's outstanding The Union War. It is supposedly revisionist but I don't think so. His is a more nuanced approach which got buried under the avalanche of the "Civil War was over Slavery" camp of revisionists!

". . . the ʻCivil War was over Slaveryʻ camp of revisionists", , , (94)

Iʻm losing track of what is "Revisionist" and what is the "Conventional Wisdom" (CW) in the matter of The Slavery Issue>Civil War. I always thought that ʻIt was ABOUT slavery" (A S) was the C. W.
and "Strictly about preservation of the Union" (SAU) was the revision.
But then, yesterdayʻs revisionism may become todayʻs C W.
(SAU) was coming in about mid-20th century when I was college age, as I remember it. It took an extreme form which upheld that Lincoln was just another bigoted Redneck*, not at all interested in
freeing slaves. This weird theory had reached the Hawaiʻi public schools about in my younger sonʻs h. s. time (the late 1980s).


* Born, as was Jefferson Davis, in Kentucky, and living in Illinois he was usually considered a Westerner, but sometimes referred to himself as a Southerner -- if only to jolt the "Yankees" of his cabinet.

Aa-a-and back to the original topic!

Eric Wittenberg's The Battle of Brandy Station (VA): North America's Largest Cavalry Battle came in via Inter Library Loan today. Woo-hoo! My great-great-grandfather was just up from NC with Beverly Robertson's command, so this was his first real battle of the war.

So I was still trying to finish Gerald F Linderman's Embattled Courage: The Experience of Combat in the American Civil War, but will have to put it down for the brief time I have the Wittenberg.

Nice problem to have, you ask me.

Just finished A World On Fire by Amanda Foreman. A very, very good book, although very, very long ;)

Just started Drama on the Rappahannock. Does anyone have an opinion on "War Between the States" vs American Civil War as a descriptive term? I understand that WBTS is cultural in origin much like Bull Run/Manassas. Overall a good book.

#98 "War Between the States" is generally a Southern usage. (jokingly also called, The War of Northern Aggression).
War of the Rebellion and War of Seccession are also out there.

>98 RChurch: Years (and I'm talking years) ago Strategy & Tactics magazine had a sidebar article about the different names, pointing out that none of them really were accurate. "War Between The States" wasn't really correct because the war wasn't between individual states, "American Civil War" wasn't accurate because the Confederacy didn't want to take over the government, "The War of Northern Aggression" didn't ring true since the South fired on Fort Sumter first and so on and so forth.

I'm thinking that "The War of 1861-65" probably has the virtue of being the least offensive to everyone.

". . .the war wasnʻt between individual states"

Yes, "War between the States" struck me as inaccurate back when, in childhood I first heard of it as
"what Southerners call the Civil War".-and for that very reason. But I suppose it could be short for
"War between two Groups of States". (A classmate did tell me that, growing up as a White girl in Georgia, she had never heard the war called anything but "The Ciivl War".)
Those who became Confederates did recognize the Union right up until secession, and continued to recognize it as a legal government of a truncated U. S. The Union recognized the Confederacy only as an illegal belligerent. Curiously, the Union itself, pre-Civil War, was sometimes called "the Confederacy", and that usage probably influenced the Secessionistsʻ naming of their would-be nation.

Another curiosity of language usage in the pre-Civil war Era, was that the word "Federal" could be used
to TONE DOWN peopleʻs feelings of factionalism or regionalism! Today it would only exacerbate them. Andrew Jackson intended to propose a toast: "Our UNION! It must, AND SHALL, be preserved!" Advisers persuaded him to change it to:
"Our FEDERAL Union: it must be preseved!"
(Add "Federal" and omit the challenging sounding
"AND SHALL" --And thus get his meaning across
in a more conciliatory way.

True, the Confederates didnʻt intend "to take over the government". But it was for all practical purposes a "Civil War", whatever a purist historian might call it.
To call it anything else is to imply that the Union was something a region or faction could break out of, whenever they felt like it.

It was, of course, not entirely regional. Over 100,000 White Southerners from the Slave States
fought on the Union side. Then there were
"Copperheads" in the North who would have welcomed a Confederate victory-- an unestimated and, no doubt, small, number. And a large number of
Northerners (+Westerners, as as the Mid-Westerners of that time were called ) who would have said
"good riddance", not "treason", to a sucessful secession.

I am not a fan of the South but I do think that "The War of Northern Aggression" might be appropriate. As Jefferson Davis said many times "All we want is to be left alone".
That being said I always enjoy reading about the plebeian North whipping up on the arrogant wanna be aristocrats of the South.

"As Jefferson Davis said many times ʻAll we want is to be left alone.ʻ ". (102)

The two Northern presidents before Abraham
Lincoln very clearly DID leave Davisʻs region alone. They even helped the Southern slaveownersʻ Establishment along in its political agenda.

One of them, Franklin Pierce (D, N H) even had Davis as his Secretary of War! But Pierce didnʻt prove to be to the U. S. Union what Jean Chretien was to the Canadian Union. James Buchanan (D, PA) certainly had more diplomatic skills than Pierce OR Lincoln, but he couldnʻt, as a lame duck president cope with secession.

If campaigning to keep what youʻve already got is
aggression, then I suppose the "Yankees" were
no more aggressors than the British forces of
1775-1781 --and no less.

>102 wildbill: If Jeff Davis wanted to be left alone he probably shouldn't have told Beauregard to open fire on Fort Sumter. If they took no action against the fort, allowing the North to send supplies, it would have forced Lincoln to either negotiate with the Confederate government (granting them de facto legitimacy) or to take aggressive action. By attacking Sumter, Davis gave Lincoln (and the Northern newspapers, let's not forget the real shapers of public opinion at that time) a casus belli, at least for a while. Of course Davis had Southern public opinion (again, shaped by the newspapers) to deal with as well.

"Davis...probably shouldnʻt have told Beuaregard to open fire on Fort Sumter." (104)

Very accurate analysis, j z.

In thinking about this, Iʻm not so sure that my analogy (of Britain defending its empire with the Union defending its territory) will hold up. There was no "Sumter" to act as catalyst for the final division. Or was Lexington/Concord, so to speak a "Sumter"? If so, it was one in which the "Rebels" not the legitimist claimants (as the British would call them) seemed to have a temporary military advantage. And the British were not "leaving them
alone."

For some interesting insight on these twin battles I recommend Lexington and Concord by Arthur B Tourtellot. These battles did serve as a catalyst in the same way as Sumter did, from what I've read. Once blood was shed neither side could back down, nor probably wanted to.

This afteroon, I just added Tourtellot's book to my Wish List!
And I'll be looking for a librarycopy.

I grew up a few miles from the Lexington Battlefield. But
never did understand even the geography of 04/75. What
did Longfellow mean that the British would march (to
COncord) "by land OR by SEA from the town (Boston) tonight" ?
Did "by sea" (which was the option finally signalled)
mean sailing part of the way up the Mystic River? Or just
crossing the water from Boston to Charlestown (then
organized as a separated community?

Anyway, I learned a couple of things from an old fashioned
encyclopediaaccount about pre-Lexington and post-Lexington:
The British declared (Greater?) Boston to be "in open rebellion"
in 02/75. By 06/75, Burgoyne, Howe, and Clinton had all
landed in Boston with reinforcements. A far cry from
Buchanan's reaction to secession, and even to Lincoln's
initial policy.