By Steven Garrett

Edward Achorn. Every Drop of Blood: The Momentous Second Inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. Grove Press. New York, 2020.

     Last year we were treated to Edward Achorn’s presentation at our March meeting. I have to admit Mr. Achorn’s book exceeded what I remembered of his presentation—probably due to my distractions, but that is not the author’s issue. The title, as most of you know, is drawn from the famous quote from Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address:

“…until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword…”

Lincoln was making the point that our nation’s sin of slavery would be paid for by both North and South.

     Achorn’s book, unlike a number of other studies on the Second Inaugural Address, is not only an analysis of the speech, but a presentation of the inaugural, the key players, and associated events that preceded or followed the address. He does an outstanding job of recreating the atmosphere and experience of being in Washington on the day prior to and day of Lincoln’s inaugural. Using primary sources, newspapers, letters, diaries, etc., the author places the reader in the moment as the events evolve.

     Key players that Achorn uses to weave this very readable history are: Frederick Douglass, John Wilkes Booth, Lucy Hale (New Hampshire Senator John Hale’s daughter and one of Booth’s love interests), Walt Whitman, Sheldon Connor and his younger brother Virgil, Salmon P. Chase and his daughter Kate, Edwin Stanton, Dorothea Dix, and many others. The weather and environment of the day prior also helps set the stage. It rained the entire day prior to the day of the inauguration creating a muddy mess up and down Pennsylvania Avenue making travel, even walking miserable; yet, the sun came out just prior to Lincoln rising to speak. Achorn very successfully sets the stage so clearly that you are placed in Washington D. C. on Saturday, March 3 and 4, 1865.

     This is a well written, enjoyable history of a dramatic time in our history. Abraham Lincoln presents what many believe was his greatest address. Achorn explains why the Civil War had to be fought and why the sacrifices had to be made. It was an argument that our nation had to be punished for not living up to our highest ideal expressed in our Declaration of Independence:

“All men are created equal.”

Frederick Douglass believed and expressed that it was a sermon to the nation. Abraham Lincoln believed it would not be well received initially, but it would “. . . wear well . . . .” It is now considered the greatest speech by a sitting president.

     Get a copy of this book and read it. It will be well worth your time. Edward Achorn has given us a splendid book to read and consider.

Brian Kilmeade. The President and the Freedom Fighter: Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, and Their Battle to Save America’s Soul. Sentinel, an Imprint of Penquin Random House LLC. New York, 2021.

Photo by S.G.

     Brian Kilmeade, author of George Washington’s Secret Six and Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates, turns to two other heroes of the nation: Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. If you want a good read, well written with information about the two giants of the events that led to the freeing of enslaved people and the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment, you need to look no further. Is this a read that would satisfy every student historian of the events of that time? Probably not, but you would search for a long while for as good an introduction to the events and the relationship between these two giants.

     Kilmeade begins by introducing the reader to his two subjects. Lincoln has hundreds of books written about him to the point he may be more myth than reality. Douglass was nearly lost, partly due to the domination of the “Lost Cause Myth” in our history books, and partly because of underlying racism.

     Kilmeade opens the discussion by providing side-by-side biographies of the two characters and their impact on the pursuit of freeing enslaved people and their influence upon each other. One was white, born into poverty, who worked on the family farm and/or farmed out for income. That income was paid to his father as the law prescribed. Lincoln’s father believed education was not required for a farmer so he received less than one year of education. But his stepmother encouraged his desire to learn and he read anything he could get his hands on. Our other character, black and born into slavery, received no formal education because educating enslaved people was against the law. He did not know for certain his father’s identity and, since his mother had been hired out to another plantation, he only saw her during a few brief visits at night. Douglass had no memory of his father, and his mother was a vague memory as he was raised by his grandmother. During his early life, he was moved from the plantation to be the companion of Daniel Lloyd. Lloyd introduced him to proper English and shared what he learned in school. This fed his hunger for learning. Soon Douglass was sent to Lloyd’s brother in Baltimore to be the enslaved companion of their son Tommy. Initially, he was treated well and was reintroduced to learning from Tommy’s mother, until Tommy’s father forbade his wife from continuing any educational efforts to an enslaved person. But the seed had been planted. Douglass learned that words had power and he learned that he had to be free to pursue his dreams.

     Both men shared a love of education, love of the power of language, and polemics. In fact, both studied the same little book titled The Columbian Orator, which taught how to speak and how to hold an audience. Both men were rarely without a book as they pursued self-improvement and learning. But one started with the cultural beliefs of a poor white and the other started with the beliefs of an enslaved person. Both raised themselves with an unbending ambition to advance themselves—one to be a successful citizen, the other to pursue freedom for himself and for the emancipation of enslaved people. Both grew into their roles.

     Lincoln was a pragmatic politician who moved carefully. As he said: “I may walk slowly but I don’t walk backwards.” Douglass was the flaming torch, pushing the abolition movement and government to work faster. He often was critical of how slowly Lincoln pursued his goal, but gave him credit when Lincoln acted. Lincoln worked hard to prevent the forthcoming civil war, but Douglass welcomed it if it meant freeing enslaved people. They nonetheless became friends and fellow warriors in the pursuit of the same goal. Douglass was invited to the White House by Lincoln, a radical move at the time, to be the first black man to be invited to discuss issues openly with a president, thus making the ideal expressed in the Declaration of Independence, “all men are created equal,” a reality. They managed to lead the country to eliminate slavery.

     Brian Kilmeade’s book deserves to be read and discussed. This is a book with amazing amounts of detail. It is well written, concise, and well researched, just look at the bibliography and the additional reading list provided. It challenges us to learn more about the events that Lincoln and Douglass participated in and led. What more could you ask? Go to your local bookstore, library, get a printed copy or kindle version online—just get a copy. You will not regret it.

Mac Smith. Siege at the State House: The 1879 Coup That Nearly Plunged Maine into Civil War. Downeast Books, 2022.

Photo by S.G.

     Most students of Maine history know of the election of 1879 and Joshua Chamberlain’s involvement. But most do not know the details of how near one political party came to steal an election. Mac Smith provides a reporter’s details that describe the players and events that came very close to launching a civil war in our home state of Maine. It was conducted by a small number of ambitious politicians who worked diligently to overturn the election of the governor, state representatives, and senators, all in the name of reform.

     First, some background. The presidential election of 1876 was concluded by a vote of a congressional commission along party lines. This commission was created to resolve disputes on the votes from three southern states and Oregon. The commission voted along party lines
and made Rutherford B. Hayes president. Hayes did not win the popular vote and was behind in the electoral vote until the commission’s vote awarded him all four states with their twenty electoral votes. As a result, all remaining U.S. Army troops were removed from the former
Confederate states. This agreement was known as the “Compromise of 1877.” Many Democrats, especially in the north, argued the election was stolen.

     In Maine, the Greenback Party had become the most successful third party in the second half of the nineteenth century. The Democrat Party (being smaller than the Republican Party) and the Greenbacks joined to form the Fusion Party, with the goal to take control of the state
legislature and the governorship away from the Republicans. The Maine constitution required the governor be elected with more than 50% of the votes. In the absence of a majority, the house and senate determined the winner. In 1878 the state house of representatives was controlled by the Fusionists and the senate was controlled by Republicans. The Republicans did not have the votes to elect a Republican, so they supported Dr. Alonzo Garcelon, a Democrat, as the least troubling of the two opponents. Unfortunately for the Fusion Party, Governor Garcelon’s leadership was not successful, and it looked bleak for them in the coming election.

     Why was the election in Maine so important to both the Fusion Party and the Republicans? Both parties were looking ahead to the presidential election of 1880. The Fusion Party had been successful in several states, had elected U. S. congressmen and, as a new party, was focusing on electing a president. Governor Garcelon had ambitions in that direction. The Republican Party was led by James G. Blaine, who also had his eye on the presidency and needed to deliver in Maine as a show of his political power.

     At that time Maine had an executive committee, elected by the state house of representatives and senate, as leaders of the administrative branch of the state government. The Fusion Party controlled the house and, with its members in the senate, had a majority. Hence, the executive committee was made up of leaders of the Fusion Party.

     State law required that each of Maine’s towns certify their election votes on a state form which was sent to the secretary of state. The certification was accomplished locally at an open town meeting and the form was then signed by the selectmen or town officials. The governor and the executive committee would meet at an open public meeting to certify the votes and tabulate the total votes for each state representative, each senator, and for governor. The winners were then invited to be sworn into their positions. In 1877 a new law was passed to prevent local and state officials from tossing out votes for minor issues (minor misspellings, missing middle initials, etc.) when the intent of the voter was clear.

     Mac Smith’s book addresses the many questions that emerged out of the entire process: Why did the executive committee have a new form printed for the towns to use to report their votes? Why were two individuals allowed to work with the executive committee without public
notification? Why did the final tally not match what was sent to the state? Why were the votes of entire towns or cities tossed out? What role did Joshua L. Chamberlain play in resolving this issue? These and many more questions are answered in this excellent book.

     The one criticism I have is the absence of footnotes and bibliography. Smith references his sources in the text, but footnotes/bibliography would have been helpful. Otherwise, it is a detailed telling of the story of a unique part of our state’s history. Get a copy of this book and learn how politics and corruption is not new. This is an excellent read.

Tom Huntington. Searching for George Gordon Meade: The Forgotten Victor of Gettysburg. Stackpole Books. Mechanicsburg, PA, 2013.

Gen. George G. Meade. Brady-Handy photograph collection, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division.

     This has become one of my favorite reads. Huntington’s book resembles Tony Horwitz’s A Confederate in the Attic. As one of the reviewers states on the back cover of the paperback edition:

“. . . Tom Huntington’s gripping personal ‘search’ for George Gordon Meade is unique and irresistible: A combination life story, military history, travelogue, and cultural Commentary.” 

–Harold Holzer

     Huntington writes Meade’s history and follows his paths from his hometown, Philadelphia, throughout his military career, to his death in 1872 in Philadelphia, while trying to answer these questions:

  • Who was George Gordon Meade?

  • What did he accomplish?

  • Why was he forgotten while other less qualified and successful generals were given much more credit?

     Along with writing about Meade, Huntington traveled the paths of Meade’s career. The commentary on what he found, and his sense of humor about the locations and present situations, make this an enjoyable and entertaining read. (For example, his description of Meade’s headquarters between a McDonald’s and the Comfort Inn.) This is especially true if you enjoy visiting Civil War sites and try to grasp what was there at the time of a battle. Tom Huntington’s commentary is true to the struggles of our time while educating the reader on the historical events.

     Huntington became an admirer of Meade. Yes, old “google eyes” was a good general, but with little appreciation for the role of reporters and politicians. He had Edward Crapsey, a reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer, drummed out of camp with a sign around his neck “libeler of the press” to the tune of “Rogues March.” This did not endear him to Crapsey or his fellow reporters. While other generals had similar feelings about reporters, few went as far as Meade to embarrass them. Meade’s punishment was to be denied credit for his accomplishments and to be ignored in their reporting—a persona non grata.

     There were several other factors that shaped Meade’s historical legacy. Meade believed his accomplishments would lead to promotions and he did not need to be a self-promoter to get his due. Sadly, he was naive in this regard. Compare Meade to Generals Phil Sheridan, Custer, and many others.

     General Meade’s success at Gettysburg alone should have made him one of the most respected generals of the Civil War. After all, he had just received the command of the Army of the Potomac just a few days prior and received little help to organize the army. He had but one order, do not leave Washington unprotected. After Gettysburg he had to command the Army of the Potomac with his superior looking over his shoulder. Most of his plans and accomplishments were awarded to others, such as Grant and Sheridan.

     It is also important to note that Meade did not write an autobiography praising his own accomplishments. Biographies are few and his personal letters were not published until his grandson did so years after his death, after he was all but forgotten.

     Late in his career Meade was put in command of the Atlantic District and had to deal with the “Fenian Affair.” The Fenian Affair involved Irish soldiers, veterans of the Union Army organizing to invade Canada to force Britain to free Ireland. Meade handled this diplomatically to stop and prevent the “Fenians” planned success, proving he was a much better politician and diplomat than even he suspected. The “Fenian Affair” is a forgotten part of our history that is intriguing and deserves our study.

     You will enjoy this read. Huntington provides a sympathetic history of George Gordon Meade in a very readable and enjoyable presentation. If you want to know more about the “Forgotten Victor of Gettysburg” this is an excellent book to start. It is well written, well researched, and includes an extensive bibliography. Go get this book at your library, bookstore, kindle, or online bookseller.

U.S. Civil War Museum

Harrisburg, PA

By Steven Garrett


Joshua L. Chamberlain CWRT President Steve Garrett. Photo by author.

     The U.S. Civil War Museum in Harrisburg is a stop each Civil War buff ought to put on their bucket list. Located at 1 Lincoln Circle in Harrisburg and associated with the Smithsonian it is a very worthwhile stop on your way to Gettysburg or other distinctions south. Stopping in the gift shop to purchase tickets we were presented with the sales display shown below.

Photo by author.

     Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain is everywhere. This is just an indication of the popularity of JLC. We can argue about whether all the attention is appropriate, but for the round table and Pejepscot Historical Center it is positive.

     The museum is organized by rooms by timeline following the history of the Civil War beginning with:

On the Second Floor

  1. A House Divided: A Clash of Cultures

  2. American Slavery: The Peculiar Institution

  3. First Shots, 1861

  4. Making of Armies

  5. Weapons & Equipment

  6. Campaigns and Battles of 1862

  7. Battle Map 1861-1862

  8. Camp Curtin

  9. Why Men Fought, 1861-1863

  10. Civil War Music

On the First Floor

  1. Gettysburg

  2. Costs of War

  3. Woman in the War

  4. Navy

  5. Campaigns and Battles of 1864-1865

  6. Battle Map

  7. Lincoln: War and Remembrance

     This museum will take from two to four hours of your time not counting pondering in the gift shop. One of my favorite rooms was “First Shots.” It placed you within Fort Sumter as the first shots were fired.

Photo by author.

     This is a very well-presented museum where there is something for everyone’s interest. In the room “Making of Armies” is the below picture of the 19th Maine.

Review by Steven Garrett

Wiley Sword.  Confederacy’s Last Hurrah: Spring Hill, Franklin & Nashville.  University Press of Kansas, 1993.  (This paperback edition was published by arrangement with HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., New York, 1992).  The initial hardcover was published with the title: Embrace An Angry Wind: Confederacy’s Last Hurrah: Spring Hill, Franklin & Nashville.

If you are looking for a book that describes in detail the planning, or lack of planning, of a key series of battles that helped determine the Civil War’s western theater, this book is a must-read.  It is a history about John Bell Hood’s generalship, who most historians blame for the destruction of the Confederacy’s key western army and the events that lead to that army’s demise.  Wiley Sword points to many factors that fault Hood but, also, to many that were beyond his control.

This book describes the events that took place during the Battles of Spring Hill, Franklin and Nashville.

First, was Hood’s non-attack upon General John Schofield’s Union troops near Spring Hill, when Hood’s forces had an opportunity to destroy a part of Union General George Thomas’s army. The opportunity was missed when Schofield led his troops down the Franklin-to-Columbia Pike, past the Confederate forces of Major General Benjamin Franklin “Frank” Cheatham forces, that were aligned less than 300 yards from the pike.

The second major blunder was the uncoordinated attacks at Franklin into the face of entrenched Union forces.  After that battle, General Schofield knew that they had inflicted major damage on General Hood’s Confederate Army, yet he was determined to depart Franklin as he was still outnumbered, and his army needed to resupply.  General Hood, angered by the army’s failure to overwhelm the Union forces, ordered a renewed attack.  The attack was preceded by an artillery barrage, but the Union forces were gone.

Why did Hood order the attack at Franklin into an entrenched foe?  Why did he order the attack over open land to be a bayonet charge?  Hood believed that valor and bravery would carry the day.  He had not learned that the rifled musket in the hands of an opponent behind entrenchments had changed war and tactics.  The result for the Battle of Franklin is best expressed by a Confederate veteran of the battle:

“Franklin was the grave of the Army of Tennessee.”

 The missed opportunity at Spring Hill had become a disaster at Franklin.

The drama turned upon General Thomas’s perceived slowness at Nashville and General Hood’s response.  The first was at least partly caused by General Thomas’s honest reports to General Halleck. Thomas waited for his forces to be consolidated which resulted in political fallout in Washington and with General Grant.  The second was General Hood convincing himself that he could tempt Thomas’s forces out of their entrenchments.

The author makes it clear that General Schofield had a long-festering negative relationship with General Thomas that began at West Point.  Schofield supported and/or provided direct reports that were negative on Thomas.  While there are no surviving records that General Schofield sent reports about Thomas directly to Washington and Grant, he may have indirectly contributed to undermining their trust in Thomas.  On December 9, 1864, Grant wired Stanton to send out a telegram relieving Thomas and placing General Schofield in command.  That telegram was delayed due to weather, cut telegraph lines, and the decision of the messenger who was to deliver the correspondence to General Thomas.

The morning of December 16th began with Schofield worried that Hood would attempt to flank him so he delayed the early attack plan until “. . . Hood’s intentions were known.”  General Thomas was upset by the delays and went to the front to investigate himself and ordered the attack.  Union dismounted cavalry, using their spencer repeaters, effectively drove the Confederate troops off the high ground and the Confederate flank was exposed.  Thomas then ordered the charge that destroyed the Confederate Army before it.  Nathan Bedford Forrest was left with the task to form a rearguard and protect what was left of Hood’s Army of Tennessee.  Only the cold rain, swollen rivers, and Forrest’s best effort saved the remainder of the army.  But, it was over, as was John Bell Hood.

If you are an admirer of General Thomas or are interested in the western theater, this book is a must-read.  Get it at your local bookstore, library, or online.  It is worth your time.

Ty Seidule. Robert E. Lee and Me: A Southerner’s Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause.  St. Martin’s Press. New York, 2020.

This is a very interesting book. It is about the author’s personal history of being raised in Virginia and Georgia, educated at Washington and Lee University, serving in the U.S. Army as a history professor at West Point, and his enlightenment about the “Myth of the Lost Cause;” especially how it painted Robert E. Lee. Lee was canonized by proponents of the “Lost Cause” as the greatest of American generals and the perfect southern gentleman. He only surrendered because the North had unlimited manpower and industrial capacity that overwhelmed his brilliance. Simply put, the South and Lee were predetermined to lose. Nowhere in the myth is it mentioned that the war was to retain the “peculiar institution;” that is, slavery.

In recent years various authors have documented the fallacy of the “Lost Cause,” but the myth was not always the dominant view of the Civil War. Professor Seidule correctly documents that until Civil War veterans began losing influence over the war’s narrative, the accepted view was that the war was to save the Union and free the enslaved people. At that time in the North, the Civil War was referred to as “The War of Rebellion,” caused by the slaveocracy. If you visit the Civil War monuments in Maine, you will see these terms used. Everyone knew that slavery and the slavocracy were the cause of the war. This all changed in the 1890s and early in the twentieth century when our political leaders focused on reconciliation. The “Myth of the Lost Cause” was presented by defeated leaders of the Confederacy and became the dominant view of our great national tragedy.

How this transition happened is a key part of our history. Professor Seidule traces the evolution by focusing upon the organization he served for over thirty years—the U.S. Army, the U.S. Military Academy, and Robert E. Lee.

I like this book very much, but I find it has its flaws. I find it incredulous that an American educated in any school could have bought the “Myth of the Lost Cause” as completely as Professor Seidule argues he did in the 1970s, the 80s, and 90s.  He was in high school in the 70s, college in the 80s, commissioned into the army in 1984, and taught military history at West Point until 2015. He mentioned how his wife refused to believe any of it and criticized him for believing any of it. She could not believe he would.

Nevertheless, it is a book well deserving your read. He presents a factual attack on “Myth of the Lost Cause” that leaves no doubt about the myth’s origin and falsehood. His review of the marble man leaves you no alternative than to agree with Professor Seidule. Robert E. Lee was a traitor who violated his oath to the United States of America, believed in slavery, and fought against the U.S. Army, resulting in the deaths of thousands of loyal U.S. soldiers. If you want a historical and factual argument against “The Lost Cause Myth,” this is a book you should read.  Professor Seidule wrote this book for the public and he succeeded. It is thorough, informative and easily read. Place this book on your reading list.

Review by Steven Garrett

Judkin Browning & Timothy Silver. An Environmental History of the Civil War. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 2020.

This is a very interesting and thought-provoking read. Recently there have been a number of authors who have written on little-investigated areas of our Civil War—this is one of those. It is unique because it investigates the environmental impacts of the war and the effects left on the country. First, note what the authors were investigating:

● Chapter 1: Sickness
● Chapter 2: Weather
● Chapter 3: Food
● Chapter 4: Animals
● Chapter 5: Death and Disability
● Chapter 6: Terrain
● Epilogue: An Environmental Legacy

Let me note just a few items covered. Among the “sicknesses” discussed was the impact that malaria had upon the veterans and their families when they returned home. Malaria was treated by quinine and, therefore, was suppressed but not cured. Hence, the veterans returned with a disease that left them with weakened resistance to many other diseases. In many cases they could not return to heavy labor, which was common for farmers and laborers of the time.

“Weather” played a much more important role in the battles than most historians have noted. One of many examples was Burnside’s Mud March. Much has been written about General Burnside’s failure, but there has been little investigation about the rare storm that disrupted his plans. Eleven inches of rain fell upon the clay-based soil in a very short period of time which made it nearly impossible to bring wagons and artillery over the roads. This is only one example.

“Food” production was not sufficient to feed the South prior to the war. For example, pork was a staple, but was imported from the North. The small farms in the South simply could not feed all of the enslaved people, let alone the armies in the field. Both sides stripped the areas of food to feed the soldiers and the animals necessary to maintain their armies. Since farming is labor dependent, how could food be produced when a large segment of the labor force was absent as a result of the war? This was especially true in the South.

Finally, let’s look at the environmental impact upon the “terrain,” especially around army camps. The armies required wood to build and heat small cabins for shelter, to raise fortifications, and to fuel the locomotives that brought supplies, transported soldiers, remounts, etc. This meant that the area would be stripped of all trees for miles around. This also meant that once an army remained in one area for any length of time they could not camp there again. The long-term impact was soil and wind erosion of the farmland in those areas.

This book is full of examples of the environmental impact upon the areas where the armies tramped. This is a new book that provides factors that are not considered in many histories of our Civil War. When presented in this way, the impacts are obvious and it took many years for the land and the society to recover. This is a book you should read to bring another perspective to the tragedy of our Civil War and its legacy.

This book is well worth your time. This is not only a good read, but a necessary read.

Review by Steven Garrett

Robert D. Hicks, Editor. Civil War Medicine: A Surgeon’s Diary. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 2019.

This is a unique book, very different from many Civil War histories. It is the diary of Assistant Surgeon James Fulton of the 143rd Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. The book is divided into two parts. The first part includes an introductory chapter detailing Dr. James Fulton’s background and the diary. It includes recipes for medications as well as his personal observations as he traveled through his army experiences. The second part includes scholarly essays “. . . that address and amplify the diary.”  That is, they provide us information that places Dr. Fulton in his time; the practice of medicine and Dr. Fulton’s education.

Doctor Fulton does not discuss his medical practice in detail, except some unusual cases.  One of those cases involved removing a bullet from a Confederate soldier’s neck. The soldier was shot in the eye, the bullet passed through his brain, and he survived! His diary includes observations of his surroundings and the tasks and responsibilities of a Civil War surgeon. In addition to treating wounds and illnesses, he was responsible for hospital tents, furnishings, supplies, medicines, diets, and reports. He prepared daily reports on his patients and reports on unusual wounds or diseases for the army medical records. He maintained his budget, including transfers between soldiers’ units and the hospital. He was responsible for patient diets, including the purchase of fruits and vegetables to give them the best opportunity to recover. He supervised his stewards and staff and even performed picket duty from time to time.

This is the personal story of a Pennsylvania country doctor’s initiation into the army. He was captured at Gettysburg but, as a doctor, was treated well. He treated Union and Confederate casualties, remaining at Gettysburg in charge of a couple of temporary hospitals. The book is not about strategy or tactics—he had no knowledge of such. This is a book of one country doctor’s experiences and observations while serving his country.

I enjoy first-person accounts. This one is unique in that it informs and puts you in a single young doctor’s place. Get this book and read what a Civil War doctor did. It was a long way from amputations.

Review by Steven Garrett

Sarah Handley-Cousins. Bodies in Blue: Disability in the Civil War North. The University of Georgia Press. Athens, Georgia, 2019.

A month or so ago I presented a review of Sarah Handley-Cousins’ journal article, “Wrestling at the Gates of Death: Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and the Nonvisible Disability in the Post-Civil War North” for our round table website. This journal article was published in 2016. This book includes that article, with some enhancement, as chapter four.

This book is an important and necessary study. Ms. Handley-Cousins considers the impact that veterans endured as Union soldiers and sailors after the war. She also discusses the cultural view of what it meant to be a man, how disability was defined in the second half of the nineteenth century, and how these cultural norms defined the veterans with wounds, especially nonvisible wounds.

Ms. Handley-Cousins’ book is structured as follows:

  • INTRODUCTION: Disability and the American Civil War
  • CHAPTER 1 – Gather the Invalids
  • CHAPTER 2 – Army of the Walking Sick
  • CHAPTER 3 – The United States Government Is Entitled to All of You
  • CHAPTER 4 – The Disabled Lion of Union
  • CHAPTER 5 – Man or Mercenary
  • CHAPTER 6 – The Long, Long Years of Misery

The author’s narrative begins by telling us what she is providing for the readers:

“While war wounds have often been interpreted as fitting outside of the larger narrative of disability in the United States, disability has long been relegated to the margins of Civil War history.”

 “. . . Despite attempts to transform war wounds into badges of honor, the stigma of disability and dependence remained.” (page 3)

A veteran’s disability, especially a disability that was not overtly seen, is studied as it impacted the veteran, the veteran’s family, and society. Just as important is how the veteran was seen as he was measured relative to the cultural perception of what it was to be a man, his ability to fulfill his role as a provider, husband, father, and contributor to his community.

Let us look at the content of each chapter:

Chapter 1. This chapter is a discussion of the Invalid Corps that was later renamed the Veteran Reserve Corps (VRC). It was created in 1863 in response to finding usable work for the soldiers who were not fit for the regular infantry but were capable to perform some duties thereby allowing those healthy soldiers to go to the front. The members of IC/VRC could retain their manhood by being valuable to the war effort; not being dependent upon family and others for their support. They provided for their family and avoided pauperism. Sounds good, but how did it work?

The IC/VRC carried its own stigma. Not intended, but a stigma especially for the majority that were assigned due to their suffering from malaria, dysentery, diarrhea, and other so-called camp diseases. Secondly, they were issued a unique uniform that made them distinct from combat units. They were seen as not real soldiers. Lastly, the I.C. designation was the same initials used by the Quartermasters Corp to condemn poor quality merchandise. I.C. equaled “Inspected, Condemned.”  So, the Invalid Corps became “Inspected, Condemned!” Captured Confederate soldiers began calling their IC guards “Rejected Yankees.” It is no secret why they were renamed to Veterans Reserve Corp, but the sigma stuck. Many soldiers worked the system as best they could to get back to their units to avoid becoming a condemned Yankee.

Chapter 2. This chapter discusses how illnesses affected soldiers. Very few wanted to go to doctors or the hospital as they could be determined to be too ill to serve in their unit and reassigned to the IC/VRC, if they continued to serve. However, falling asleep on duty or being absent without leave meant they could be fined, punished by loss of pay, and assigned hard labor, or worse. Therefore, the sick soldiers wanted to wait until they believed they were sick enough to be discharged. Military doctors were tasked to keep the rolls filled. Many doctors took the position that if the disease was not seen it did not exist. Hence, the army of the walking sick.

Chapter 3. This chapter discusses how the army owned all of you. During the war, the army medical department believed they had a great opportunity to study and learn about how to treat trauma. This included taking the amputated limb and disinterring bodies for study. Many soldiers and their families wanted a complete body for a good Christian burial and found this practice very difficult to accept. Matters were made worse when the Army Medical Corp began displaying limbs and bodies in the medical museum as objects of study.

Chapter 4. Please see my earlier review, as noted above.

Chapter 5. This chapter discusses the difficulty veterans had in gaining support from the government, especially those with nonvisible wounds, illness-related incapacity, or psychiatric disabilities related to their war experiences. In addition, the ideal of the citizen-soldier who served his country and returned to his occupation after the war, was problematic.

In the 1880s, as the veterans began to age, many applied for veteran pensions. In 1887 President Grover Cleveland began pushing back on the cost of these pensions. The cost of Civil War pensions was becoming one of the major costs for the government. Cleveland, who hired a Polish immigrant to serve for him, pursued the political stance that only “worthy” veterans (those with obvious wounds such as amputees) should get pensions. This placed many veterans, spouses, and families without any support.

Chapter 6. This chapter details examples the struggle of many veterans and their families to gain acceptance of a disability and uses case studies of veterans who suffered mental breakdowns due to wounds and experiences. Many were confined to asylums far from their homes and families. There was no understanding of the effects of head wounds and post-traumatic stress disorder that may not present until years after the event. This left the veteran and his family with few options. Often the family would have the veteran admitted to an asylum when they became too violent.

Epilogue. This section is a summary of the disabilities and suffering experienced by veterans and their families. She notes that some of the issues that plagued the Civil War veterans are still plaguing our veterans today. Organizations that promote support for veterans still use amputees front and center as examples of veteran sacrifice. But the sacrifices are not limited to amputees. The majority of veterans who need our support do not suffer in that manner.

This is a book and study about what service cost the Civil War veteran. It is a book we all must read to understand what they gave to free the slaves and save the union. This book is available as an ebook, kindle, and in print. Get it and read it. This subject may not make a good movie, but is critical to understanding the veterans.

Review by Steven Garrett

Brian F. Swartz. Passing Through the Fire: Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain in the Civil War.  Emerging Civil War Series. Savas Beatie LLC. El Dorado Hills, California, 2021.

This most recent Chamberlain biography is written by our friend Brian and author of the blog “Maine at War” which is the source of Brian’s first Civil War book, Maine at War Volume I: Bladensburg to Sharpsburg. Brian publishes a new story weekly on his blog which is found at  I highly encourage you to seek out this blog as Brian covers all aspects of the Civil War in Maine and the many individuals who participated or were impacted by the war.

Passing Through the Fire covers Chamberlain’s military career. It is not an extensive biography covering his entire life, but a study of his military experiences. It includes many photographs, most taken by the author while following Chamberlain’s path. Brian’s photographs, along with period photographs, graphics, and maps give a good view of the terrain where Chamberlain fought and the various individuals who were part of his experiences.

The book is structured as follows:

FOREWORD by Thomas Desjardin


CHAPTER ONE: The Professor Goes to War

CHAPTER TWO: Horror on the Heights

CHAPTER THREE: Mud and Mutineers

CHAPTER FOUR: Stand-up Fight at Little Round Top

CHAPTER FIVE: Bird-Colonel Chamberlain Would Do

CHAPTER SIX: The Death Angel Could Not Claim Him

CHAPTER SEVEN: I Don’t Feel Right Yet

CHAPTER EIGHT: Hell for Ten Minutes and We Are Out of It!

CHAPTER NINE: Useless Sacrifice at White Oak Road

CHAPTER TEN: On the Road Past Five Forks

CHAPTER ELEVEN: So Ended that 9th of April 1865

CHAPTER TWELVE: Towards Washington They Tramped


APPENDIX A: Joshua L. Chamberlain Sites to Visit in Maine

APPENDIX B: “Do not scorn what is brought in love”: The Complicated Relationship of Joshua and Fanny, by Ashley Towle, Ph.D.

APPENDIX C: Why Chamberlain? By Ryan Quint

Tom Desjardin’s foreword is valuable as he presents how the “Triumvirate” of Ken Burns, Michael Shaara, and Joshua Chamberlain helped to reintroduce America to our history.  Additionally, the advent of the internet and digitization of original data for researchers adds information, literally daily, to the story of our history. To quote Tom Desjardin:

It is in all of this context that makes the new work by Brian Swartz so valuable . . . It is not just the number of years . . . that make them valuable, but also their quality in terms of the newly discovered information made accessible . . . that enables a much more rich and robust depiction and understanding of Chamberlain’s military experience.

The Appendices provide additional information for the Chamberlain admirer to follow or contemplate. Appendices B and C address two questions that have been endlessly debated; Joshua and Fanny’s relationship and why Chamberlain has been so popularized.

This biography of those three-plus years of Joshua L. Chamberlain’s long life completely changed his life. He was transformed from an unknown college professor to a hero and admired leader. He carried wounds, disease, and mental stresses that he did his best to hide, but they remained and influenced who he really was. Brian F. Swartz has provided in an easy-to-read presentation of the military experiences of Joshua Chamberlain. Brian has left it to others to review the impact of the battles, diseases, and wounds upon Chamberlain. He has made it clear that his intent was to cover and understand the three impactful years of Joshua L. Chamberlain’s Civil War.

Go out and get a copy of this book. It is well worth your time and it will teach even a knowledgeable Civil War “buff” something new. Brian will be our speaker for the Joshua L. Chamberlain Civil War Round Table on January 13, 2022.

Review by Steven Garrett

David L. Keller. The Story of Camp Douglas: Chicago’s Forgotten Civil War Prison. The History Press. Charleston, S.C., 2015.

This is an interesting read about a part of the Civil War that has received little recognition from historians of the war. In fact, much of the ink on the subject is related to continuing the “Lost Cause Myth,” defending the south’s Andersonville prison, and the sad treatment of those incarcerated there. Also, most of what has been written has used total numbers to defend or support the author’s argument, as if all prisoner-of-war camps were identical. For example, the southern prison Belle Island was totally open with no shelter, and the northern prison Point Lookout, Maryland, had only tents for prisoner shelter. Camp Douglas provided barracks and Libby Prison was indoors in an old warehouse. Each prison was unique with its own features.

Keller describes Camp Douglas as it was; most buildings were built to be temporary housing. Construction and improvements were made continuously during the three-plus years it served as a prisoner-of-war camp. All of the improvements were in response to an obvious need and came later than necessary.

Keller divides the book into chapters that follow a dual narrative; the history of Camp Douglas and the history of Civil War camps:

  1. The Role of Chicago in the Civil War.
  2. Creation and Development of Camp Douglas
  3. Camp Douglas as a Reception and Training Center for Union Troops
  4. History of the Treatment of Prisoners-of-war in America
  5. Camp Douglas is Selected as a Prison Camp and Prisoners Arrive
  6. Camp Douglas and U.S. Prison Camp Leadership
  7. Prisoner Exchanges Under the Dix-Hill Cartel and the Oath of Allegiance
  8. Prison Life: Stories and Treatment from the Prisoner’s Perspective
  9. Prisoner Health and Medical Care
  10. Death in the Civil War and at Camp Douglas
  11. The Conspiracy of 1864
  12. Reasons for the Conditions and Death at Camp Douglas
  13. Other Union and Confederate Prison Camps

The author’s primary goal is to tell the story of Chicago’s Camp Douglas and, as a local historian preserving a seemingly lost history, to put that story into perspective. He does that task well. He also gives the reader good information on the other Civil War prison camps to support his argument that numbers alone—deaths and numbers incarcerated—do not tell the whole story.

This is an interesting read that should be on your shelf. Keller provides very good information on his subject and addresses many questions such as what exchange protocols were used, why the camps were built in specific locations, how the camp commanders were supported, what they ate, and medical treatment. It is informative and instructive on a poorly understood subject. Go to your local library, bookseller, or go online and get this book.

Review by Steven Garrett

Sarah Handley-Cousins. “‘Wrestling at the Gates of Death’: Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and the Nonvisible Disability in the Post-Civil War North.” Journal of the Civil War Era, Vol. 6, No. 2, June 2016.

At the Pejepscot History Center’s Chamberlain Legacy Lecture the presenter, Kanisorn “Kid” Wongsrichanalai, referenced Sarah Handley-Cousins’ first book: Bodies in Blue: Disability in Civil War North. After asking Professor Wongsrichanalai about his reference, it was acknowledged that the content of the above journal article was a chapter in her book.

Professor Handley-Cousins used Joshua L. Chamberlain as a case study of the impact of nonvisible disabilities and their impact upon the veterans who survived the war, but had to endure their impact upon them. What is unique about this article is that Professor Handley-Cousins addresses not just Chamberlain’s Petersburg wound and treatment during the war, but what Chamberlain lived with from the wound itself and from the surgeries he received. The author provides minute details of the wound and resulting healing—or lack of healing—until his death in 1914.

The Petersburg wound has been documented by various sources, including The Journal of Urology. But these documents did not address what Chamberlain experienced later in life. To quote Professor Handley-Cousins:

“This carefully constructed heroic public image, however, obscured a troubling dimension of the general’s life. Hidden beneath his blue uniform and fine suits, the wound from Petersburg quietly tortured Chamberlain.” (pg. 221)

The “. . . carefully constructed heroic public image . . .” was Chamberlain’s efforts to present himself as a virile and active man to support his election as Governor of the State of Maine, President of Bowdoin College, and his many presentations to veterans’ organizations, his public speeches, etc.

It was, however, next to impossible to hide his injury:

“Because of the damage to his urethra, he initially required a catheter, which created a fistula near the base of his penis that never healed. It leaked urine constantly left him susceptible to chronic bladder and testicular infections that caused him . . . unspeakable agony.” (pg. 221)

In 1883 Chamberlain resigned his position as President of Bowdoin College in order to travel to Philadelphia for surgery to close the fistula and clean up his wound to enable it to heal. Unfortunately, the surgery was not successful and he lived with the above condition until his death in 1914. His wound was not just physical, but was a wound to his Victorian manliness. Chamberlain was by no stretch the only soldier who suffered invisible, but debilitating wounds that made their lives very difficult. Men who tried to cover their disabilities by hard work suffered long years with their families. The 19th-century dominant Victorian views of what constituted manhood contributed to the veterans’ physical and mental suffering.

Yet, the sad truth is that the legacy of every war is the thousands of veterans with invisible disabilities who labor among us. Fortunately, we now have many more tools and public acceptance to treat our veterans with nonvisible disabilities.

Review by Steven Garrett

Tony Horwitz. Spying on the South: An Odyssey Across the American Divide. Random House, LLC, New York, 2019.  (Published with a new postscript by Geraldine Brooks and Tony Horwitz in Penguin Books in 2020.)

This is not your typical history book as the author admits when he writes:

“This book gave me the opportunity to do what I love most, a mix of travel, journalism, history and memory.”  (pg. 421)

Mr. Horwitz is writing about Frederick Law Olmsted’s three journeys and travelogue* while attempting to follow Olmsted’s path through the south and providing a running commentary of what he found in the modern “American Divide.” Horwitz knows his Olmsted. His commentary revolves around why many in the south and the “blue” states were attracted to President Trump. Horwitz, an admitted northeast liberal with strong opinions in support of the “progressive” side of the political spectrum, brought a lifetime of reporting and travel to this project. His home in Martha’s Vineyard, and his work places in Washington D.C. and New York, place him solidly in the elite category. However, he brought a personal respect for the views and issues that other Americans face. In the postscript he noted the time he spent aboard the coal barges on the Ohio River as a real educational experience. This is deep in the “rust belt” and coal mining country, where government policy stripped away opportunity; that is, closed steel mills, manufacturing facilities, and coal mines. Tony Horwitz became aware of the rift in opportunity in the USA and the impact upon the communities along the Ohio River valley. At the same time, the coal barges were delivering coal to power plants providing electricity for the electric cars, computers, and game machines they could only dream of providing for their families. Simply put, Horwitz learned that there were few similarities between the opportunities for sons and daughters from Martha’s Vineyard and the blue-collar sons and daughters born in West Virginia, Kentucky, etc. along the Ohio River valley, and in many of the small towns and rural areas he visited while following Olmsted’s journeys.

I personally can relate. I was born and raised in north central Indiana. During the 1950’s and 60’s you could not drive in any direction without seeing vibrant auto plants. In many cases the farms were owned by families who had homesteaded them, as did my mother’s family where I was raised. Today, the factories are either abandoned or replaced by much smaller and automated facilities. The family farms have been bought up and consolidated by absentee owners who run them as agri-businesses as the markets dictate. Very few of the family farms remain. Hence, the small towns that served the family farms are also dying as businesses disappear.

All the residents want is what every person wants; opportunity for their children not too far away so they can enjoy their children and grandchildren. When opportunity is removed it is replaced by abandonment, depression, suicide, alcoholism, drugs, and despair. Why do our political and business elites believe those negatively impacted would not seek other leaders? Are they that detached?

The people in rural and small-town America are hard working and proud. Their sons and daughters are asked to serve in the military to fight our wars or to escape poverty, lack of opportunity, or prejudices against them from the political class and social elites. This is the environment Horwitz found in the small towns, the rural south, and Texas.

Frederick Law Olmsted found something quite different in the 1850’s, but away from the cities and large plantations the result was similar. The small towns and rural communities were abandoned by the political elites and cotton autocracy that ran the government in the southern states and the federal government in Washington. The cotton autocracy included many in the north; banks, insurance companies, shipping and railroad companies, cotton merchants, mill owners, and distributors. The federal government played a key role as cotton, and the tariffs collected on it, were the major source of income for the federal government. Those on rural farms in the south and north, those in small towns and in the cities where the cotton autocracy had no interest, were ignored. Opportunity was up to those communities and their citizens to create for themselves.

In the 1850’s and in 2010’s, Olmsted and Horwitz visited many people in their travels. Olmsted visited poor farmers, freedmen, men and women, plantation owners, merchants, steam boat crews, gamblers, enslaved persons, and overseers. Horwitz visited coal barge crewmen, barmaids, mud run attendees, cowboys, sheriffs, historical society members, immigrants, grandmothers in Mexico, teachers, librarians, etc. Both Olmsted and Horwitz tried to understand the people they met in their travels. Both succeeded and failed. Both were surprised, even shocked, by the diversity they found in the south and especially Texas. At both periods in history the south and Texas were not a monolith, but an amazing collection of opposites.

Critics of Olmsted, and to a lesser degree Horwitz, have followed similar paths. The critics simply did not know how to take the multiple storylines. What was the plan and story being told and what linked all of them? How do you critique a book with so many stories? More importantly, why do they seek simple answers?

In the 1850’s, and currently, we need to learn and listen to each other. The ruling elite must reconnect with all of our country without judging and dividing us by race, class, and ideology. Unfortunately, our political elites care only for party power, personal gain, and privileges. Both of our major parties have failed the American people.

Olmsted’s book is a good read. He is a smooth writer who attempts to let others speak for themselves. He sometimes succeeded, but sometimes failed, when his personal views colored his perspective. Early in his travels in West Virginia a waitress nailed him when she said:

 “Let me guess,” she said in an exaggerated drawl. “Yankee boy, spyin’ on us hillbillies?”

Mr. Horwitz admitted she was too uncomfortably close to the mark.

A difference was brought to Horwitz between Olmsted’s time and our current time. In the 1850’s, when opportunity disappeared, people took to G.T.T. (gone to Texas) representing how many chose to go west for a new start. Olmsted followed them to Texas. Where could Horwitz go to duplicate G.T.T?  He chose to follow Olmsted and missed the significance of G.T.T.

Please read this book. It provides history, travelogue, and commentary wrapped in a very readable package. Horwitz makes you think and no higher praise can be said for an author. I applaud Mr. Horwitz’s attempt to “. . . reach across the divide.”  Few are making the attempt.

Unfortunately, Tony Horwitz died shortly after the publication of this book. We will miss him as few bring his willingness to look beyond our own narratives.


* Frederick Law Olmsted. (John C. Inscoe, Editor.) Selections from The Cotton Kingdom. Bedford/St. Martin’s.  Boston and New York, 2015.

Review by Steven Garrett

Abbott and Ellis Spear. The 20th Maine at Fredericksburg: The Conflicting Accounts of General Joshua L. Chamberlain and General Ellis Spear. Union Publishing Company, Union, Maine, 1989. (Note: Several related articles are also referenced following this review.)

While visiting with Peter and Cindy Dalton last week, Peter gave me a copy of the above little book. It is structured as follows:
● Forward by Thomas Desjardin.
● Chapter I, by Abbott Spear (Ellis Spears’ grandson) in support of his grandfather’s arguments; excerpts from Captain Samuel T. Keene’s Diary; excerpts from Col. Stockton’s report; and excerpts from Col. Vincent’s report with commentary.
● Chapter II, Joshua Chamberlain’s article “My Story of Fredericksburg,” from Cosmopolitan Magazine, January 1913.
● Chapter III, “My Story of Fredericksburg” and “Comments Thereon By One Who Was There.”
● Chapter IV, Commentary by Abbott Spear.
● Chapter V, “The Story of the Raising and Organization of a Regiment of Volunteers in 1862.” (Taken from Ellis Spear’s Recollections of the Civil War.)
● Chapter VI, “The Hoe Cake of Appomattox.” (Ellis’s presentation to MOLLUS.)
● Chapter VII, “The Element of Accident in War.”

This is a wonderful little book in which the Forward and Chapters I through IV outline the feud/difference of opinion between Joshua L. Chamberlain and Ellis Spear. Thomas Desjardin addresses the purported “feud” in the forward of this volume (and in greater detail in his article listed below).

In fairness, it is significant to note (as pointed out by Desjardin and others) that Ellis Spear’s commentary on this battle and on the Battle of Gettysburg changed as he aged. The real question is why Ellis Spear’s opinion on Chamberlain at Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, and Petersburg changed so dramatically. As noted in Susan Natale’s website collection of “Ellis Spear vs. Ellis Spear,” Ellis even changed his reporting on Chamberlain’s Petersburg wound. (See the article from the Journal of Urology for details of his wound by doctors who have investigated the medical records and with knowledge of Civil War medical practice.)

Thomas Desjardin argues in “A Broken Bond” that Chamberlain’s articles, published and embellished by Hearst publishing in the Cosmopolitan Magazine, led to the change in Spear. We now know, as Thomas Desjardin points out in “A Broken Bond,” that Chamberlain was upset by edits and/or embellishments made by Hearst writers to the point that he banished copies from his home. The original versions of Chamberlain’s articles, as they were submitted to Cosmopolitan Magazine, have disappeared. Hence, we will never know the true extent of the embellishments that Chamberlain and Spear found so objectionable. What we do know is that William Randolph Hearst was famous for sensationalizing in his publications. We do not believe Spear had a chance to talk to Chamberlain about his objections due to Chamberlain’s failing health and subsequent death, so we will never know how a personal conversation may have impacted his opinions.

Chapters V, VI and VII are taken from Ellis Spear’s writings and speeches. Each chapter is well worth reading—especially the chapter on “The Hoe Cake of Appomattox” —that shows Spear’s dry Downeast sense of humor relative to the rations received by the soldiers in blue.

Please take the time to read this locally written and published book. Much ink has been spread and opinions established regarding the “feud” and differences of opinion between Chamberlain and Spear. Read this book, followed with the material listed below, and then make your own decision.

Thomas Desjardin. “A Broken Bond: The Little Round Top Feud Between Joshua Chamberlain and Ellis Spear.” July 2017.

William J. Harmon and Charles K. McAllister, “The Lion of the Union: The Pelvic Wound of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain,” The Journal of Urology, Vol. 163, 713-716, March 2000. “Ellis Spear vs. Ellis Spear.” Especially see “Spear’s letter to the Portland Press.”

Review by Steven Garrett

Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States.  William Conway and the Conway Celebration at Camden, Maine, August 30, 1906.  Lefavor-Tower Company, Portland, Maine, 1906. (This book is in the public domain.  A link to the Internet Archive is provided following this review.)

This short little book is a documentation of the events honoring one of Maine’s first heroes of the Civil War, Quartermaster William Conway, a native of Camden, Maine.  The book is divided into two sections:

“William Conway, A Forgotten Camden Hero.”

Written by Acting Master John O. Johnson, this is an introduction, telling the story of William Conway’s refusal to lower the U.S. flag as part of the surrender of the United States Navy Yard at Warrington near Pensacola, Florida, on January 12, 1861.  The yard commander was surrendering to Florida troops prior to the beginning of the Civil War, just two days after Florida had passed a resolution of secession.  He was later found guilty at his court-marshal for conduct unbecoming.  When ordered to lower the flag, Conway’s response was:

“I will not do it sir!  That is the flag of my country under which I have served many years. I love it; and will not dishonor it by hauling it down now.”

This was from an enlisted blue-jacket, risking his life or imprisonment by disobeying an order from his commanding officer.

The short version of the rest of the story is that Quartermaster William Conway was rescued from his confinement by loyal navy forces.  He was honored before the ship’s personnel, as ordered by Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles, when Welles’ letter of commendation was read aloud to all in attendance.  He later received a gold medal given by admirers from the State of California in front of the ship’s personnel on the frigate USS Mississippi.  He had resumed his duty on the Gulf Blockade Squadron.  His health was failing and he died in 1865 at the Brooklyn Navy Yard—buried in an unmarked grave—an enlisted man forgotten to all except those who knew him.

“The Conway Celebration, Camden, August 30, 1906.”

Master John O. Johnson read a paper about William Conway at the MOLLUS Maine Commandery on December 5, 1905, in Portland, Maine.  This led the commandery to investigate how they could honor this forgotten hero.

  • Camden was to provide a “suitable boulder,” the Maine MOLLUS “would place on it a bronze tablet with an appropriate inscription.”
  • The North Atlantic Fleet was invited, including its flagship the battleship Maine.
  • The President and the Secretary of the Navy, while unable to attend, sent letters honoring William Conway.
  • A parade that included members of ships’ compliment and bands, members of the MOLLUS, and other dignitaries proceeded to the Camden Trotting Park. After local dignitaries welcomed the guests, Governor Cobb addressed the crowd. He was followed by General Joshua L. Chamberlain, who told the story of William Conway’s heroism on January 12, 1861.  Captain Johnson followed Chamberlain as the last speaker of the day.  The crowd then processed to the dedication and unveiling of the boulder on Elm Street in front of the school house.  Then the inscription on the plaque was read aloud:

 At this point the boulder and tablet were uncovered and the North Atlantic fleet fired a 21-gun salute to Camden’s native son and forgotten hero, William Conway, an honor no enlisted man had ever received.

When you travel through Camden, look for William Conway’s boulder.  It is still there, near downtown, in front of the old school house at the Corner of Elm Street (U.S. Rt. 1) and Union Street.

EDITOR’S NOTE: William Conway and the Conway Celebration at Camden, Maine, August 30, 1906, which includes many interesting photos and drawings, is available in .pdf format through the Internet Archive, at:

Review by Steven Garrett

Nicholas A. Basbanes.  Cross of Snow: A Life of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.  Alfred A. Knopf.  New York, 2020.

In preparation for a forthcoming presentation on Emily Dickinson and Henry W. Longfellow I was led to read and review this new biography.  It is a well written and researched book on one of America’s truly great writers who has been dismissed by many of our literature authorities in the twentieth and, to a lesser degree, the twenty-first century.  However, Longfellow still remains one of our literary treasures.  Who has not read “The Ride of Paul Revere,” “Evangeline,” or “Hiawatha?”  His quotes have become part of our language:

Into each life some rain must fall.

All things come round to him who will but wait.

Music is the universal language of mankind.

I heard the bells on Christmas Day

Their old, familiar carols play,

And wild and sweet

The words repeat

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

The human voice is the organ of the soul.

I hear the wind among the trees playing the celestial symphonies.

One if by land, two if by sea.

Longfellow. Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, reproduction number LC-DIG-pga-07632. (Cropped for presentation.)

All of these quotes and many more were given to us by Longfellow.  But who was Longfellow?  That is the mission of this new biography and the author has used new information not available to the earlier biographers.  His family did not allow former biographers to use his personal letters, or those of his two wives.  Their view was very Victorian—private life was to remain private.  However, now that this information is part of public record and no longer under the control of family members, the full picture of Henry W. Longfellow, Mary Storer Longfellow, and Frances Appleton Longfellow can be seen.  Nicholas Basbanes has provided a great service to all who are interested in Longfellow.  He shows us behind the fog of time and misinformation to who these people were their friends and associates and what motivated them.  Basbanes’ book is a biography of Henry W. Longfellow and his family.  It is not an analysis of his writing and poetry.  Rather, it is a biography of the man and his world that revolved around his wife and family.

Some have written that he separated himself from the great event of his time, the Civil War for example.  Nothing is further from the truth when you read his and his wives’ journals and letters.  Henry’s best friend was Charles Sumner.  Yes, Senator Charles Sumner, the radical abolitionist who was caned on the senate floor.  Even when the establishment in Boston and Cambridge ostracized Charles Sumner for his radical ideas, Henry and Fanny remained his good friends.  In fact, Fanny’s father could not stand Sumner, so Fanny would ensure no family members were present when Sumner visited.  Nathan Appleton, Fanny’s father and Henry’s father-in-law, was a wealthy cotton factory owner.  Maybe Sumner’s famous quote about “the unholy alliance between the Lords of the Lash and the Lords of the Loom. . .” hit a bit too close.  For this and other comments on the “alliance” Sumner was ostracized and denied access to opportunities in Boston and Cambridge, including his ambition to become a law professor at Harvard.  But he was always welcome at Henry and Fanny’s home.

So, was Henry W. Longfellow and his wife abolitionists?  Yes indeed, but in a quiet way.  Henry learned after Poems on Slavery to keep politics quiet.  He helped finance many projects to aid enslaved people, those who escaped slavery, and to educate them after the war.

Secondly, Henry and Fanny’s oldest child, Charles, enlisted and served in the army, against his parents’ wishes.  After Charles was wounded, Henry traveled to the war zone to find Charles and brought him home to recover.  Charles’ wound was severe enough that he never returned to the war.  In fact, Army doctors thought he would be paralyzed as the wound was near his spine.

Fanny died of an accidental fire on July 10, 1861, and just a year and one-half later Charles was lying in Virginia recovering from his wound.  Henry W. Longfellow, still grieving from the loss of his life partner, was caring for his son when he heard the Christmas bells, being rung to celebrate Christmas, mingling with cannonading in the distance.  This inspired his poem written a few months later in Cambridge, “Christmas Bells.”  This poem has been made famous as a yuletide song and was recorded by Bing Crosby in 1956.  Many other recording artists have recorded the song since with most listeners unaware of its author or it’s true meaning.  Additionally, the songs omit the stanzas that indicate its true source of Longfellow’s grief for himself and the nation:

Then from each black, accursed mouth

The cannon thundered in the South,

    And with the sound

    The carols drowned

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

It was as if an earthquake rent

The hearth-stones of a continent,

    And made forlorn

    The households born

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And in despair I bowed my head;

“There is no peace on earth,” I said;

    “For hate is strong,

    And mocks the song

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!”

Longfellow was a fellow Mainer, an ambitious hard-working man, private to a fault, who found meaning in his family.  Yet he suffered from the loss of his beloved wives, Mary Storer and Frances Appleton.  Both were articulate and deeply loved by an amazingly brilliant man.  Longfellow was a professor of modern languages and literature for twenty-five years who read and wrote in twelve languages.  He translated many pieces to English, including Dante.  He became very famous and wealthy from his writing.

This is one of the best biographies I have read.  Basbanes brings an icon to life and makes him human.  Yes, he had letters and journals not available to earlier biographers, but he does make this amazing man human and unmasks this man as the loving, feeling human being who cared for those less well off or who were enslaved.  His close friendship with Charles Sumner indicated much about his beliefs on the key issue of his day, slavery.  Longfellow, I believe, would approve.

Grab this book and read it.  It will open your eyes and possibly make you want to read some Longfellow.  My recommendation is to read some of his poems from his small book of Poems on Slavery and reread “The Ride of Paul Revere.”  It was written to warn Americans what they would lose if the disunion went forward.  Longfellow was the people’s poet for a reason.  He spoke to them.

Monument to 19th Century American poet and educator Henry Wadsworth Longfellow in Portland, Maine’s, Longfellow Square. Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, photograph by Carol M. Highsmith, reproduction number LC-DIG-highsm-45712.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The National Park Service website for the Longfellow House – Washington’s Headquarters National Historic Site (Cambridge, Massachusetts) provides interesting insights concerning Longfellow’s Poems on Slavery and related topics.

Review by Steven Garrett

Tony Horwitz. Midnight Rising: John Brown and the Raid That Sparked the Civil War. Picador, Henry Holt and Company. New York, 2011.

In preparation for reading our History Book Club selection for February, Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era, I determined it would be a good approach to brush up on John Brown’s history and purchased a copy of Tony Horwitz’s Midnight Rising: John Brown and the Raid that Sparked the Civil War. I chose this book as I’m a fan of Tony Horwitz’s writing and books.

Mr. Horwitz did not disappoint. The book is very readable and well researched. He began his journey in preparation to write this book by retracing the Captain’s march with other history buffs to celebrate the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry. Horwitz says:

I experienced a little of the time-travel high that Civil War reenactors call “period rush.” But walking in the footsteps of history isn’t the same as being there.

The questions Horwitz tried to answer was: Who was John Brown? Was he the delusional mad man portrayed by many? Was he a fanatic or was he the martyr who pursued bringing freedom to others to fulfill the dream of our Declaration of Independence? Maybe he was all or none of those things.
Horwitz structures his book into three parts:

Part One: The Road to Harpers Ferry
Part Two: Into Africa
Part Three: They Will Brown Us All

Part One is a background for understanding who John Brown was to become from his early life, family struggles, religious beliefs, early adoption of the abolitionist ideals, and his growing militancy. In addition, he came to the attention of a group of abolitionists that included the famous “Secret Six,” Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, et. al. In fact, Horwitz’s introduction to the “Secret Six” is alone worth the purchase of the book.

1. William Lloyd Garrison
2. Theodore Parker
3. Thomas Wentworth Higginson
4. Samuel Gridley Howe
5. George Luther Stearns
6. Gerrit Smith

Four of these men were Harvard graduates; one was a friend and advisor to Emily Dickinson and commander of the first black unit in the Army of the Potomac; one was a well-known and fiery minister; one was a soldier who traveled the world supporting multiple causes and married the author of the Battle Hymn of the Republic; one was the creator of the first and best-known abolitionist newspaper, “The Liberator;” and one was the source of the money and weapons for Brown and his followers. Most were Boston brahmins. Brown believed only one understood him—you’ll have to read the book.

Joshua Chamberlain’s wife, Frances Caroline Adams Chamberlain, attended Reverend Theodore Parker’s sermons with her biological family and wrote Lawrence about them. Brown had amazing connections for a near starving wool merchant/farmer with a large family to support from North Elba, New York. He also traveled to England to gain support for his cause. How could he manage that? Part One includes his sojourn into Kansas and his actions including the Pottawatomie Creek Massacre.

Part Two is the story of the Harpers Ferry Raid from its organization until Brown and his followers are captured or killed. It is a complete blow-by-blow description of the organization, raid, gun battle and bloody end of what was, in view of the slaughter to come, a minor affair. We know R. E. Lee, with assistance from Lieutenant J. B. Stuart, commanded the marines that ended the affair.

Part Three is the story of Brown and his six surviving followers after they are captured, tried and hanged. Horwitz goes into detail about how they were treated, their visitors, etc. The last part of this section is about the impact of John Brown’s raid. To quote Melville’s poem, “The Portent” (1859):

But the streaming beard is shown
(Weird John Brown),
The meteor of the war.

Many people saw what Brown saw—that his death and martyrdom was the catalyst that would bring on the war that would end slavery.

This book is well written and will interest those looking for the story. It is also very well researched and detailed to appeal to the historian. It is a very good account of John Brown the individual and the raid on Harpers Ferry. This is a book you need to put on the “must read” list. You will find it well worth your time.

Review by Steven Garrett

John C. Inscoe, editor, with an introduction. Selections from THE COTTON KINGDOM by Frederick Law Olmsted. The Bedford Series in History and Culture. Bedford/St. Martin’s. Boston, New York, 2015.

This small book is an abridgement of Olmsted’s selections from his original three volumes that documented his journeys through the south. Olmsted took on this journey in the employ of the New York Daily Times and his reports from the south were printed as an ongoing travel journey. Volume 1, A Journey in the Seaboard Slave States, published in 1856; Volume II, A Journey Through Texas, or A Saddle Trip Through the Southwestern Frontier, published in 1857; and Volume III, A Journey in the Back Country in the Winter of 1853, published in 1860. In response to the popularity of these three volumes, Olmsted’s British publisher asked him to develop a one-volume abridgement to bring his story to a broader market just as the Civil War was beginning. It was published in 1861, titled The Cotton Kingdom. These are selections from the abridgement intended to give undergraduates an introduction to Olmsted and his observations of the lost world of the pre-Civil War American south. The volume includes a preparatory introduction for the readers and students of this edition.

Olmsted clearly had an eye for detail and the human condition as he reported from the south. Though he was not an abolitionist, he reported on how slavery impacted both the white citizens and the enslaved people. Edmund Wilson reviewed Olmsted’s Cotton Kingdom in his book Patriotic Gore: Studies in the Literature of the American Civil War, when he explained Olmsted’s methodology:

“He talked to everybody, sized up everything and wrote it all down.”

The value of his work was the rarity of honest observation of the antebellum south for the residents of America. After reading this work, or one of the other editions, one could always question his objectivity. But it is fair to say he gave an excellent attempt to be true to himself and his subjects. He did interview plantation owners, wives, merchants, farmers, enslaved persons, freedmen, and fellow travelers. He traveled by ship, river boat, stagecoach, and horseback on roads that were well traveled and those that were little more than footpaths. He stayed in nice hotels and on the floor of cabins. Olmsted pursued the real south and addressed many questions like: How did it compare to the north, or at least New York and Long Island? Who lived there and what did they think?

This is a very interesting read. The title of John Inscoe’s introduction (“A Connecticut Yankee in King Cotton’s Court”) implies that Olmsted brought his own views to his observation, but as you read this little volume of selections, he was impacted by what he saw and heard. Go to your local library or bookstore and read this volume. You may be intrigued enough to want to read at least his 600+ page abridgement.

Review by Steven Garrett

Douglas R. Egerton. Thunder at the Gates: The Black Civil War Regiment That Redeemed America. Basic Books. Boston, 2016.

Thunder at the Gates, recommended by Noma Petroff for our history book club, is a well-written history of the famous 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, the 55th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, and the 5th Massachusetts Calvary. It is not a regimental history, per se, but a history of the impact of these three units on the perception of African-American troops as fighting units of the Union Army. This was understood by the officers and men of these units as they were trained, transported, and fought.

It is very difficult to read this book without comparing it to the movie Glory. The writers of Glory fictionalized the characters represented in the movie, yet the real individuals were a very interesting group. The writers also blended the characteristics of the members from the 54th and the 55th for the movie. None of this makes the story of the unit’s heroism less important, but makes it less historically accurate.

Professor Egerton’s detailed information about the individuals that made up the units and their officers makes it a valuable read. His contribution is humanizing the units through the stories of the real personalities that made up those units. Some of those individuals are Robert Gould Shaw, Edward Needles (Ned) Hallowell, and Norwood Penrose (Pen) Hallowell—all Boston Brahmin and abolitionists.  The Hallowell brothers were from a devout Quaker family. All of these men were veterans prior to signing on as the officers of the 54th Massachusetts.

Another real hero, if politicians and governors can be considered such being many miles from hearing the sing of a passing lead minié ball, was Massachusetts Governor John A. Andrew. Noma would not forgive me if I did not mention that Governor Andrew was a graduate of Bowdoin College. Governor Andrew began raising black regiments soon after the Emancipation Proclamation became the law of the land.  Ignoring the criticism from north and south of the Mason-Dixon, Governor Andrew forged ahead.  First to be organized was the 54th which included many freed and educated men from the north. The number of literate and freedmen made the 54th unique.

Other men who Professor Egerton follows in his narrative are: James Henry Gooding, Peter Vogelsang, Jr., Edward Hallowell, Lewis Douglass (son of Frederick Douglass), Stephen Swails, Nicholas Said, et. al. All had stories, all contributed to the fame of the 54th Massachusetts, and two became the first African Americans to be commissioned officers in the Union Army. Their individual stories, that some may find overly detailed, is the value of this particular work. Unlike the movie, we are presented with real people from various backgrounds with a singular goal—show the Union and the world that black men were willing combatants to free their race from slavery and save the Union. It was their right to fight for their race and their country in order to join as equal citizens. We know the struggle was not achieved in its full extent, but we all owe them for the example they gave us all.

This is a book that deserves your time. It is well written and, yes, very detailed, but that is its strength.  Professor Egerton presents the members of these units as individuals with individual goals and as part of a unit goal bigger than themselves. Get a copy and read this well-told story. It is well worth your time.

Review by Steven Garrett

Frederick Douglass. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written By Himself. A New Critical Edition by Angela Y. Davis including her “Lectures on Liberation.” Open Media Series, City Lights Books. San Francisco, 2010.

This little book is the first autobiography written by Frederick Douglass. He wrote three autobiographies covering his life as he evolved from a recently-escaped enslaved person (this narrative), to a national and international representative of freedom. The narrative is preceded by two letters written by leaders of the abolition movement, William Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Phillips. In this edition the narrative is preceded by Angela Y. Davis’s two “Lectures on Liberation,” that were preceded by an editor’s note and an introduction by Professor Angela Y. Davis.

This review only considers Frederick Douglass’s narrative and the William Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Phillips letters. Professor Davis’s lectures, her introduction, and the editor’s note are not being reviewed as they are separate from Douglass’s narrative.

This edition was developed to introduce students to Frederick Douglass, his writing about his journey to freedom, and the enslavement that he experienced. It is an amazing story that should be read. Born in Maryland, he describes how he did not know his white father. He did not know his mother well as she was sold to another plantation. She did visit him at night, but that did not last.

As a young boy Douglass was sent to Baltimore. While there he was relatively well treated and was initially encouraged to learn to read. He trained to be a ship caulker at a nearby shipyard, which gave him the ability to sell some of his labor for money. Although the majority of his earnings went to his enslaver, he learned how the system worked. In Baltimore he learned to read, learned a marketable trade, and got to know freedmen.

Later, he was sent back to his enslaver Mr. Thomas at the St. Michaels plantation where he was born. As a result of his education and experience in Baltimore, he was then sent to Mr. Covey, the local “slave breaker” where, for the first time in his life, he worked as a field hand. While there, he endured severe whippings for the first time and the long hours of a field hand. In Douglass’s own words:

I was unmanageable when I first went there, but a few months of this discipline tamed me . . . I was broken in body, soul, and spirit.

But Douglass did not lose his spirit. Angered by Douglass’s attempt to flee, Covey was determined to tie him up for a whipping. Covey struck him, but Douglass fought back. Again, in Douglass’s own words:

This battle with Mr. Covey was the turning-point in my life as a slave. It rekindled the few expiring embers of freedom, and revived within me a sense of my own manhood. . . . It was a glorious resurrection, from the tomb of slavery, to the heaven of freedom.

 By his refusal to be whipped, Douglass realized that Mr. Covey needed his reputation as the local “slave breaker” more than he needed to whip Frederick Douglass. They silently acknowledged a truce until his term with Mr. Covey ended on December 31, 1833. Frederick Douglass was sent to live and serve Mr. Freeland, whose farm was a few miles from St. Michael’s. Douglass respected Mr. Freeland for being open and frank and for not having any religion. Why was that so important? Douglass goes into detail about how society used religion to justify slavery, which he found especially repugnant.

Later, knowing that local enslaved persons wanted to learn to read, Douglass began a sabbath school. Douglass’s desire for knowledge awakened a desire for freedom. Only in freedom could he work to destroy slavery as an institution. He and a small number of enslaved people began planning their escape. Their plans were shattered when one of the accomplices informed on them and they were arrested and jailed. Eventually, their enslavers came and took all of the accomplices back to their plantations, but left Douglass jailed.

To Douglass’s surprise, he was sent back to Baltimore where he resumed working in the shipyards. His work continued until he was involved in a fight with four white apprentices and many white workers who beat him severely. His enslavers nursed him back to health and took him to the shipyard where his enslaver was foreman. He excelled as a ship caulker. He was driven by a desire for freedom and resented having to turn over his earnings to his enslaver. He had earned all of his wages―they were rightfully his.

Frederick Douglass again planned an escape, this time successfully. He arrived in New York City on September 3, 1838.

How I did so, – what means I adopted, – what direction I travelled, and by what mode of conveyance, – I leave unexplained, for the reasons before mentioned.

He would not, or could not, put others in harm’s way. His motto after arriving in New York was: “To Trust No Man!” However, he soon met someone he could trust, Mr. David Ruggles. Ruggles assisted him with a place to live and, after his soon-to-be wife reached New York, helped him to get to New Bedford, Massachusetts, where he secured employment in the shipyards. Douglass was soon involved in the abolition movement, an activity that gave him purpose.

This narrative is an amazing tale of the triumph of human spirit. Born a slave, forced to work under various enslavers, and brutalized by a “slave breaker,” he conquered the system to become a counselor to a president. No story could be more inspiring.

The William Lloyd Garrison & Wendell Phillip’s letters:

The Garrison and Phillips letters were included to introduce Frederick Douglass to his readers.

William Lloyd Garrison described how he was impacted by Douglass. It was one thing to talk about your beliefs and principles about the evils of human slavery, but another thing to have an articulate, escaped enslaved person describe what he had survived. Garrison was especially impressed with Douglass’s ability to describe his feelings and thoughts about his condition as an enslaved person. William Lloyd Garrison clearly described the beliefs of a white New England abolitionist. This letter is important to begin to understand that small number of abolition activists in the first half of the nineteenth century.

Wendell Phillips’ letter is different. He describes the dangers still present in “Old Massachusetts” for enslaved persons who were on the run. He referred to the discussions that led to the “Fugitive Slave Act.” While that law was not passed until 1850, it was a major political discussion as “slave catchers” tracked enslaved people north. Again, Wendell Phillips’s letter opens our eyes to what the abolitionist movement was fighting.

It is well to remember that the cotton industry was a big business. Southern plantations supported northern banking interests, shipping companies, and textile mills. Cotton tariffs were the largest source of income for the government. In short, the abolitionist movement was fighting the biggest money maker in the country and the political power behind it.

Review by Steven Garrett

Ronald C. White Jr. Lincoln’s Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks. New York, 2002.

President Abraham Lincoln considered his Second Inaugural Address his best speech. Frederick Douglass said: “The address sounded more like a sermon than a state paper.” Both were correct. Ronald C. White has provided what James McPherson described as: “In lucid prose, White explores each level and places the Second Inaugural in a broad historical and theological context.”

The speech was given on a rainy and muddy day, March 4, 1865. A crowd was waiting for Lincoln to give a speech about the army’s recent successes, triumphs, and the final demise of the Confederacy. They expected to hear about the forthcoming “reconstruction” and how the formerly enslaved people would be integrated into society.

The crowd included many veterans from hospitals in Washington, ex-Confederate soldiers who had fled the defeated army, African-American soldiers from the USCT units stationed around Washington, politicians, supporters, bureaucrats, their family members, Frederick Douglass, and John Wilkes Booth. Today, the speech is engraved in Indiana limestone opposite the Gettysburg Address at the Lincoln Memorial.

Abraham Lincoln wrote the Second Inaugural Address without editing by any other individual. It can be read as a summary of his ideas about the war and the future. Lincoln begins the address with:

“. . . at this second appearing, to take the oath of the presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first.”

Lincoln’s first inaugural address was a closely reasoned argument about how he would go forward. Lincoln now says that sort of address was not required. He went on to say that there have been many:

“. . . public declarations . . . on every point and phase of the great contest . . . The progress of our arms . . . is as well known to the public as to myself . . . With high hope for the future no prediction in regard to it is ventured.”

Lincoln began by telling his audience what the speech is not about. It was not about public declarations or progress of our arms and he offered no predictions. Lincoln then moved on to the second and third paragraphs of the speech. The second paragraph described the history of the coming war. In the third paragraph, the core of the speech, Lincoln described the cause of the war:

“One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves . . . These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.”

Lincoln indicated the cause of the war (above) and the fact that no one wanted the war, but all were willing to fight the war. He used the term “powerful interest” specifically to indicate that all of those interests were not located in the South. Slavery was a sin that stained all of America. Northern banks, shipping companies, ship outfitters and builders, mill owners, and many others—including the U.S. government—profited from the labor of enslaved people. Everyone understood that slavery, it’s proposed expansion and it’s continuing in the south, was the cause of the war. “All knew” whether they wished to acknowledge it or not.

Now that Lincoln had shown what caused the war, he moved to the faulty argument that the Bible justified the war, North and South:

“Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God . . .”

There are multiple meanings in this seemingly simple sentence. Lincoln had little patience with those who swore they knew God’s intent. White goes on to describe Lincoln’s theological views and those that influenced him. Here Lincoln argued that if God is a living God and had his own goal:

“The prayers of both could not be answered—that of neither has been answered fully.”


“It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces . . .”

Lincoln included a famous quote from the Bible (Matthew 7:1):

“. . . judge not that we be not judged.”

In other words, slavery was a national sin, not of sin of the South or not just a sin of those that profited, but of all Americans. All citizens that did not pursue the elimination of slavery to ensure the promise of the Declaration of Independence, that “all men are created equal . . .” and are responsible.

Lincoln’s third paragraph went on:

“The Almighty has His own purposes. Woe unto the world because of offenses . . . If we shall suppose the American slavery is one of those offences . . . He wills to remove and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offence came shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him.”

Again, Lincoln argued against man knowing God’s plan. He went further in acknowledging that slavery was an American sin. It was not just a sin of the South. What would be the punishment?

“. . . every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword
. . .”

This terrible war was punishment brought upon America for the 250 years of offence—slavery—and would not end according to man’s plan, but when a just punishment had been delivered, North and South. Lincoln’s reference as the final words of the key third paragraph were significant:

“. . . the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

These were not Lincoln’s final words as he moved on to the future, beginning with the most famous quotation from the second inaugural:

“With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

This was Lincoln’s vision for the future. Slavery was a sin by America, not just the South as noted above. Lincoln was aware of the major tasks before the country. He had said that this was not a task easily accomplished, but would take many more years than the four years of war. This included how we treated the defeated, the formerly enslaved people, the veterans and their widows and orphans, and each other. We ought not be looking for retribution, but look to “charity.”

Professor White provides a service in his thorough review and explanation of Lincoln’s development of the Second Inaugural Address. He captures the meanings of the language as understood in Lincoln’s time. This is not a normal book review as I focused on the speech, or subject of the book, as opposed to the delivery by the author, Ronald C. White Jr. His book is a presentation of Lincoln’s final great speech that was, in Lincoln’s own view, his best.

Go out and get this book. Read the speech aloud and ponder the old question, what if Lincoln had survived?

EDITOR’S NOTE: The complete text of President Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address (including an audio presentation) is located at the National Park Service Lincoln Memorial website at:

Review by Steven Garrett

Jennifer L. Weber. Copperheads: The Rise and Fall of Lincoln’s Opponents in the North. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

We are all familiar with dissent as part of our daily dose of news these last few years. If you are as old as this reviewer, you remember the anti-war dissent during the Vietnam War. Many in my generation were in the military and knew many in the anti-war movement, including veterans, or participated in the movement after being discharged. Anti-war movements have been part of the history of every war in which the U.S. has been involved. Professor Weber’s book, based on her dissertation, is a well-documented and written thesis of the northern Democratic party’s “Copperheads,” also known as “Peace Democrats,” during the Civil War.

Prior to Professor Weber’s book, the recognized expert on the Copperhead movement was Frank L. Clement. Clement’s three books argued that the “fire in the rear” was a fiction of Lincoln’s supporters. In other words, the opposition party’s argument against the president and party in office. After all, many in the Democrat Party supported the war—the so-called “War Democrats.” Professor Weber’s task is to provide an argument to displace this long-held view. The book is broken into three sections. Ms. Weber does not explicitly define these sections, but they become apparent as you read along with her:

• The development of the “Peace Democrat Movement.”
• The height of their influence.
• Their fall.

Who were these opponents of the war and what did they believe? Many were convinced that the war was unnecessary, at least initially for some and, for others, throughout the war. They believed that Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy would gladly return to the “Union” if given a chance. They argued to keep the constitution “as it is and the country as it was.” Hence, leave slavery alone where it exists. They argued that Lincoln and his abolitionist supporters were not fighting for the “Union,” but for freeing the slaves to destroy the institution of slavery. This argument was based on a racist view that the Peace Democrats played on fears—job losses to formerly enslaved people, mixing of the races, and violence against whites. The following became arguments against the war and Lincoln’s actions:

• The financial and human cost of the war.
• The suspension of habeas corpus.
• The presence of the draft.
• The fact that the war had become a war for emancipation.
• Lincoln was a tyrant who had contempt for the constitution.

The human cost argument followed the failures and successes of the Union Army and the increasing loss of life. The financial cost to the country included the federal government printing “greenbacks” and the introduction of new taxes to support the war. A separate part of this argument was directed at the economy of the northwest (the old mid-west economy), farms, and banks, due to the closing of the Mississippi River and the government’s removal of railroad rolling stock to support the military.

The suspension of habeas corpus argument was that Lincoln unlawfully and unconstitutionally used the suspension. Even after Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled the suspension was unconstitutional, Lincoln simply ignored him. Also, Lincoln used the power of arrest against leaders of the “Peace Democrats” movement, including newspapers and political leaders.

The draft was viewed as another unconstitutional expansion of the federal government. The Copperheads used this argument to encourage non-compliance to the draft and violence against those enforcing the draft law.

The war had become, as the Peace Democrat’s had warned, not a war for the Union, but a war for emancipation and the elimination of slavery. This argument used racial hatred and existing racial views to undermine the war effort.

Finally, the Peace Democrats argued that Lincoln was a tyrant who had contempt for the constitution. Actually, this argument was a catch-all for Lincoln’s sins against the constitution “as is.”

Why did the “Peace Democrats” / “Copperheads” fail?

• They tied their influence to the success and failures of the army, thereby alienating soldiers and sailors.
• They greatly underestimated Lincoln.
• They misread what Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy wanted. Davis said over and over the goal was independence, but the Copperheads never recognized that goal.
• They chose General George McClellan as a presidential candidate. McClellan was worse as a presidential candidate than he was as a general. (As a general he was a good trainer and organizer.)
• They overestimated their influence at the 1864 party convention by forcing the party platform and V.P. candidate, George H. Pendleton, on General McClellan. The party platform called for reconciliation with the south which offended the soldiers and sailors and turned them into republican supporters of President Lincoln.

This is a very good and important book on an overlooked part of our Civil War history. I highly recommend this book, particularly the last chapter. It is excellent and explains the Copperheads’ failures and the lack of any plan to implement their ideas other than criticism of Lincoln.

Review by Steven Garrett

Paul Kahan. The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant: Preserving the Civil War Legacy. Westholme Publishing, LLC. Yardley, Pennsylvania, 2018.

Paul Kahan has spoken at the Joshua L. Chamberlain Civil War Round Table, sharing his story on General Grant. His book has received praise as a balanced view of U.S. Grant and his presidency. Many histories of the Grant presidency concentrate on the corruption and scandals that were a part of the administration, especially those influenced or part of the “Lost Cause” mythology. After all, the “honor” of the south had to be preserved as opposed to the butcher, General Grant. Professor Kahan presents a more factual view of Grant and the accomplishments of his administration. First, let’s look at the structure of this book; that is, the Introduction and the chapters:

Introduction: “Mistakes Have Been Made”

Chapter 1: “There Are but Two Parties Now, Traitors and Patriots”

Chapter 2: “Whatever May Be the Orders of My Superiors, and Law, I Will Execute”

Chapter 3: “A Great Soldier Might Be a Baby Politician”

Chapter 4: “When I Said ‘Let Us Have Peace,’ I Meant It”

Chapter 5: “The Man and the Fanatic”

Chapter 6: “Nations, Like Individuals, Are Punished for Their Transgressions”

Chapter 7: “The Northern Mind . . . Runs Away from the Past”


Professor Kahan begins his book in the first sentence of the Preface by asking:

“With the recent outpouring of books about Ulysses S. Grant, you are forgiven if you wonder whether we really need another one. . . . However, each in its own way gives short shrift to Grant’s presidency.”

Professor Kahan goes on to describe the goal for his book:

“This short volume focuses on the unique political, economic, and cultural forces unleashed by the Civil War . . . and is designed to provide an overview of Grant’s tumultuous terms as President of the United States.”

 “. . . The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant: Preserving the Civil War’s Legacy is an evaluation of the Grant administration’s frequently overlooked successes and undeniable failures . . .”

In his eighth and final message to congress, Ulysses S. Grant said: “Mistakes have been made.” While that was true, he probably overstated it as there were many successes as well. Some of those were:

  • Reconstruction and use of the army to administer law and order to protect the freedmen.
  • Destruction of the Ku Klux Klan.
  • Creation of the Justice Department to secure the freedmen’s rights.
  • Appointment of the first black man and first Native American to positions within his administration.
  • Laying the foundation for Britain’s and America’s special relationship.
  • Avoiding war with Spain over Cuba.
  • Support of women’s suffrage.
  • Creation of the nation’s first national park.
  • Creation of the surgeon general’s office.
  • Creation of the predecessor to the National Weather Service.
  • And many more.

In addition, Grant faced many great obstacles:

  • Fractured congress that wanted the non-politician Grant simply to follow their orders.
  • The economy shifted from a war-time economy to a non-war time economy.
  • Violence in the south.
  • Indian issues in the west.
  • Worst depression in the nation’s history. Arguably worse than the “Great Depression.”
  • His corrupt appointees.
  • Congress, congress and congress . . .

Therefore, this book is about President Grant’s successes and failures, but it focuses on the successes. He tried to balance all the forces that wanted to see him as failing, in the south and the north.

This is a very good read that places Ulysses S. Grant much higher in the list of our presidents relative to their impact upon our national evolution and our successes. Professor Kahan quotes Senator John Sherman and Congressman James G. Blaine who recognized that Grant faced many, many issues. It was not reasonable to expect any administration to be successful with all those issues. The question ought to be: “Who could have accomplished as much?” Get a copy from your local library, bookstore, or download a copy and consider Professor Paul Kahan’s treatise. It will be worth your time.

Review by Steven Garrett

David W. Blight. Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2001.

Professor Blight’s book is an important, well researched, well written book linking the present with the Civil War by focusing on our memory of the war. His argument is that the real reason for the war, the elimination of slavery from the United States, was pushed aside and all but forgotten. The forces of the “Lost Cause” histories, both popular and professional, and the drive for reconciliation and reunification of the country, eliminated our memory of the real achievements of the Civil War and the achievements of African Americans during and after the war.

There is very little doubt that the general memory of the Civil War has been written by the forces of the “Lost Cause.” This is true for “mainstream” popular histories and most history textbooks. Some historians have acknowledged that the U.S. Civil War is the only war whose history and memory was written by the defeated. Nonetheless, there was plenty of evidence that the “Lost Cause” narrative lacked factual support. Since the early 1960’s, this narrative has been challenged. The real question of why this was allowed to happen is Professor Blight’s task.

Professor Blight argues that white Americans had amnesia about why the war was fought. The “Lost Cause” narrative argued that it was an issue of “states’ rights” rather than slavery. This was accepted either openly or subjectively, not considering whether it was a false narrative. In general, the “Lost Cause” was the dominant ideological view of the cause if you accept the view of popular histories, novels, most professional histories, movies (for example, The Birth of a Nation), etc. However, the African-American scholars, W.E.B. DuBois and others, have a much different view of the war’s cause and its memory. I would add other works by some, but not all, abolitionists, Quakers, and some church leaders. Additionally, if you visit Civil War monuments that dot many Maine small towns, you will find that the veterans clearly knew that they fought to eliminate slavery. Blight goes so far as to say that all Civil War veteran monuments are “… not truthful to the real cause of the Civil War, slavery.” This blanket statement is simply not true. There are many that do point to slavery as the cause.

Blight is especially harsh concerning the period that began soon after the war until just after WWI, and rightfully so. The movement to bring the prior Confederate States back into the union came at the price of the freedoms won during the war for the formerly enslaved peoples. Most of this was to sacrifice black Americans’ rights for political power. The result was the elimination of the enforcement of those rights by the army, the elimination of the first civil rights law by the southern democrat led supreme court, the introduction of “Jim Crow” laws, turning a blind eye to racial violence by the Ku Klux Klan and similar organizations, the enactment of state laws that segregated the races and, eventually, segregating the federal government under the first southern democratic president since the Civil War, and on and on. All of this was based on the false narrative, state’s rights, and the pursuit of political power.

How do I view Professor Blight’s book? Professor Blight has accomplished a necessary service by focusing on our memory of the Civil War. In some cases, I believe he takes his arguments too far. For example, the argument that historians, popular and professional, focus on battlefield experience as an effort to obliterate the role of African Americans and the promises made to them. Also, his statement about all Civil War veterans’ monuments. I do believe that his arguments are necessary to refocus our memory on the real cause of the war; slavery and the corresponding loss of control of the federal government with Lincoln’s election. This book is an important addition to any Civil War library. Like all good books, it forces the reader to think about what he or she knows about the Civil War and how the reason it was fought was lost.

Review by Steven Garrett

Jacqueline L. Tobin and Raymond G. Dobard, Ph.D. Hidden in Plain View: A Secret Story of Quilts and the Underground Railroad. Anchor Books, A Division of Random House, Inc. New York, 2000.

This is an unusual book, a book about quilts and their possible use to communicate with enslaved peoples who had escaped, but a valuable addition to anyone interested in answering the question:

“How did the escaped slaves know where to go when they sought freedom and the underground railroad?”

This is a very interesting tale as well as history. Jacqueline Tobin was in Charleston, South Carolina in 1994 to study the sweet grass baskets created in Charleston by African-American women, much as their ancestors had created. As Ms. Tobin walked through the market she found herself in front of a stall piled high with quilts of all colors. As she stood there remembering the quilts her grandmother made, an elderly African American walked slowly toward her and said:

“Did you know that quilts were used by slaves to communicate on the underground railroad?”

Ms. Tobin was not sure why this elderly woman was telling her this story, but she purchased a hand-made quilt from her. A number of months later, while looking at her quilt, she found the card the quilter had given her. She decided to call Mrs. Ozella McDaniel Williams to see if she would tell her more. Mrs. Williams told her she could not talk to her now, but she would tell her the story:

“…when you are ready.”

Mrs. Williams had added an element of intrigue and Ms. Tobin was hooked. She began researching how quilts were used to communicate. She looked for help from a respected expert, Professor Raymond Dobard, an art history professor at Howard University, who specialized in African-American quilts and their potential use on the underground railroad. Ms. Tobin tried to have Professor Dobard take over the project as she is white and was not sure if the African-American community would trust her enough to tell what they knew. Professor Dobard said “no” as Mrs. Williams had chosen her to tell the story and she should continue.

After three years of research, Ms. Tobin returned to Charleston and the marketplace, without informing Mrs. Williams. Mrs. Williams was sitting in her stall when Ms. Tobin first saw her among her quilts. When Mrs. Williams saw Ms. Tobin, she told her to bring some quilts, make herself comfortable, and:

“…write this down!”

Thus began the real oral history of how quilts were used by enslaved peoples seeking freedom to communicate on the underground railroad. What Ms. Tobin had found was something quilt researchers had sought for years:

“…an underground railroad code.”

This book goes on to trace the history of African cultural communication art and how enslaved people used this cultural oral memory and adapted it with other American influences to create secret forms of communication; for example, with quilts. Key to following this argument is an acceptance that the enslaved peoples brought the memory of their lost culture—art linked to secret social organizations common to the western African societies where they were captured. The book also traces the quilters’ use of Euro-American symbols to direct enslaved peoples through the underground railroad and on to the promised land in the north. The patterns and needed information had to be taught, shared, and memorized by those trusted enough to lead escapes.

The book includes a chapter on other communication forms such as, spirituals, singing, and dance. There is also a chapter about the different routes used in the network we call the underground railroad. Did you know that Frederick Douglas escaped by sea? African-American free men and sailors helped many escape as they could blend in as sailors on commercial ships serving southern ports. The primary routes, however, followed the Appalachian Mountains north to Cleveland or Detroit, where the enslaved people could get a ride across Lake Erie or cross the river to Ontario and freedom. After the “Fugitive Slave Law,” the enslaved peoples had to go to Canada to be safe.

Pick up this book for an enjoyable and intriguing read. There is an amazing amount of detail in this study. What it offers is oral history, passed down from great grandmother, with details of the secrets that were hidden in plain view. This is truly a unique and educational read. Read this book and enjoy.

Review by Steven Garrett

Kerck Kelsey. Israel Washburn Jr: Maine’s Little-Known Giant of the Civil War. Picton Press. Rockport, Maine, 2004.

After Kerck’s untimely death, I thought it would be a tribute to him to read and provide a review of one of his books as he was a long-time member and presenter for the Joshua L. Chamberlain Civil War Round Table. Like many, I have visited the Washburn home in Livermore, Maine and conducted a presentation there without considering Kerck’s involvement with that museum, the Washburn-Norlands Living History Center. Kerck’s work evolved from his master’s thesis and gives those of us interested in the key actors in the drama of Maine’s involvement in the American Civil War an introduction to one of the major forces behind Maine’s preparation and support of the U.S. Government’s conduct of the war.

Israel Washburn Jr. was a Whig, and later Republican, who rose through the ranks of politics to become governor just prior to the start of the war. Known as honest and hard working, his law office was in Orono. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in a district that had never elected a Whig. As a Whig, a party always in the minority, Israel spoke on their behalf on many occasions. He also saw the demise of the Whig party and led the political movement that established the Republican Party in Maine. This, as well as his reputation for hard work and honesty, served to promote his career in a time when self promotion was not considered proper.

Hon. Israel Washburn. Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Brady-Handy Collection, reproduction no. LC-DIG-cwpbh-02123.

Israel Washburn Jr. became governor as Lincoln was elected and southern states began to secede. It fell to Israel to organize Maine to a war footing; to recruit, train, and provide state troops for the defense of Washington City; and to furnish the army with the men it needed. He remained at his post for the first two years of the war, successfully organizing Maine’s resources to support the Union and ultimately removing slavery from the U.S.

In 1863, Israel accepted the post as Customs Collector for the Port of Portland, a post that he held until 1877. He was replaced by Lot Morrill. Washburn, like Joshua Chamberlain, had clashed with James G. Blaine and suffered the political consequences as both lost their bids to be U. S. Senator because they were not viewed by Blaine as loyal enough.

Washburn was, however, a leading citizen in Portland. He was a founder of the Portland Public Library, President and Trustee of the Maine Historical Society, Vice President of the Board of Trade, a Trustee of the Maine General Hospital, and active in the Universalist Church. He also was a longtime board member at Tufts College (that offered him its presidency a number of times, which he declined) and a board member of Westbrook Seminary.

In addition to his social activities, he became involved in a number of businesses, real estate, and railroads in Maine. As a popular and respected war governor, he was asked to give speeches regularly. His most famous speech was on July 4th in Cherryfield as part of the dedication to the town’s Civil War monument. He no longer tried to win voters and used the occasion to praise the changes won during the war, but warned of the centralization of too much power in the central government and the corruption therein. Perhaps he was thinking of James G. Blaine? Israel Washburn Jr. died of Bright’s Disease on May12, 1883, and is buried with his wife in Mount Hope Cemetery in Bangor.

Kerck’s biography is well written and thorough. It provides a biography of a lesser known, but very influential player in Maine’s history. If you wish to know more about Maine history from the 1840’s to the 1870’s and this key player, read this biography. After this read, take a trip to the Washburn-Norland’s Living History Center and consider how a family from an isolated farm on the edge of the wilderness managed to provide such leaders.

Review by Steven Garrett

Howard Bahr. The Year of Jubilo: A Novel of the Civil War. Picador USA: Henry Holt and Company. New York, 2000.

I always enjoy a good novel written about the Civil War and believe the genre can provide a picture that history books miss. Facts, dates, even biographies do not often tell the human story.

The New York Times Book Review describes this book as a “sweeping, cinematic story of rebellion, loyalty, revenge, and reawakened romance” set in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.

The Year of Jubilo is a story staged in the period just after the Confederate surrender and prior to the beginning of reconstruction, told from the viewpoints of the many characters in Cumberland, Mississippi. The lead character is Gawain Harper, a former teacher of literature and veteran of the CSA infantry who fought in many battles. He is walking home after receiving his parole and signing his allegiance to the U.S. Government. He has no idea what he will find at home, especially how he will find Morgan Rhea, the woman he left behind, whose locket and photo he carried during his service. He is worried as he knows what he has done and seen has changed him. Near Cumberland he meets Captain Harry Stribling, a returning CSA cavalryman. Their mutual situation quickly leads to a friendship.

The story is about our two returning veterans and the world they discover. A town destroyed by war, families trying to survive, Gawain and Morgan’s relationship, an officer of irregular Confederate troops planning to renew the rebellion, and on and on. The primary characters are:

• Gawain Harper
• Harry Stribling
• Morgan Rhea
• Judge Nathaniel Rhea (Morgan’s father)
• Aunt Vassar Bishop (Gawain’s aunt and my favorite character)
• Alex Rhea (Morgan’s younger brother)
• Uncle Priam (elderly former slave in the Harper family)
• King Solomon Gault (leader of the local irregulars)
• Old Hundred-and-eleven (town character and prophet so he says)
• Malachi Fish (Former slave chaser and local outcast)
• Lieut. Colonel Michael Burbuck (Commander of the Union troops stationed in Cumberland)
• Lieut. Rolfe von Armin (Commander of local Union provost)
• Sgt. Rafe Deaton
• L. W. Thompson (former Confederate spy, owner of the local tavern, former actor playing role of unionist)
• Xenophon, “Zeke.” (Harry’s horse)

The author writes well and paints a landscape of real characters trying to escape the war, its destruction, and their past. His style is very poetic, but in my opinion, his best asset is character development.

First, let’s look at the story. The first two chapters introduce us to the two themes. Chapter 1 introduces Gawain, a teacher at the local “Female Academy” who had no relationship to secession or fighting for slavery. He is, however, involved with Morgan Rhea whose father, Judge Nathaniel Rhea, will not bless Gawain’s relationship with his daughter if he does not join the fight to preserve their society. He joins the fight for love. Later, Morgan recognizes what her father did, what Gawain did, and is guilt ridden because of it.

Chapter 2 tells us about the King Solomon Gault, leader of the local irregulars, arriving at the home of Morgan Rhea’s sisters (they were vocal Unionists) in 1863 and killing both as an act of vengeance. Introducing us to the violence is always just below the surface.

The story evolves into a story of the renewing relationship between Gawain and Morgan, Gawain’s relationship with his Aunt Vassar, the new relationship with Morgan’s father, Gawain’s relationship with his former neighbors and fellow veterans, the town’s relationship with the Union troops stationed there, and the violence below the surface, represented by Solomon Gault and Captain Harry Stribling. While Gawain seeks to avoid violence and killing, he has seen too much of both, the violence is ever present. This violence was brought to the attention of everyone when, under orders from Solomon Gault, two Union troopers were killed by one of the irregulars. Everyone in town knew the source, but tried not to acknowledge it, except Aunt Vassar. Solomon was trying to force an over-reaction from the Union troops leading to a renewal of the war. When this fails, he travels to the Rhea home to kill the judge with whom he has an old grudge. Key to the story is Harry Stribling, but I cannot give everything away.

This is a good novel. It is well written, even poetic in its descriptions of the everyday scenes and relationships. While this is not about heroic charges or brave battle scenes, it describes the human response of returning and rebuilding the relationships that have been altered by war, violence, and the triumph of that which is human.

If you’re a reader of Civil War historical novels put this at the top of your list. It will not disappoint.

Review by Steven Garrett

Brian F. Swartz. Maine at War. Volume I: Bladensburg to Sharpsburg. Maine Origins Publications, An Imprint of Epic Page Publishing. Brewer, Maine, 2018.

Brian Swartz has been writing on Maine in the Civil War since beginning a column in the Bangor Daily News where he was a reporter and news editor for 27 years. His interest was natural as he was raised in Brewer. In his words:

“. . . we had to travel on that street (Chamberlain Street) at least a short distance no matter where we were headed.”

His interest began early and he was interested in pursuing more about Mainers:

“. . . a certain general, a certain regiment and a certain Pennsylvania hill . . . and I disparage neither the general or the regiment.”

This work began as a column in the Bangor Daily News in 2011, evolved into an online blog in 2012, and continues to this day with a weekly offering. Therefore, if you are interested in Maine history as it relates to the Civil War, Brian’s blog and its resultant publication in book form is required reading. His work evolved from his early columns and his blog. Volume I has 50 chapters, each a separate story about a Mainer. Some were famous and some were not, but they all had a story. Hence, you may open this book almost anywhere and find a very interesting story.

Let me provide a few examples as Brian is, above all else, a storyteller:

Chapter 1: “First Blood at Bladensburg: I Know My Wound Has Been A Severe One.” Brian’s book begins with a story about Congressman Jonathan Cilley. On February 24, 1834, Cilley lost his life in a duel with a southern defender of slavery. Many believed the duel was rigged to ensure Cilley’s death. It’s impact upon his son, Jonathan Prince Cilley, an officer in the 1st Maine Cavalry, fed his thirst for the blood of those wearing gray. Maine’s defense of the Union began long before Fort Sumter was fired upon.

Chapter 17: “All Ashore Who Are Going Ashore: My Sick Soldiers Were Scattered Everywhere.” This story is about Sarah Sampson who followed her husband, Lt. Col. Charles A. L. Sampson of the 3rd Maine Volunteer Infantry, to the front. Sarah adopted the Maine boys, nursing them through sickness and wounds.

Chapter 20: “The Inquiry About the Missing: I Almost Regret That I Did Not Die With the Brave Fellows.” This story is about the 1st Maine Cavalry at Middletown and Winchester. Middletown is where some of the 1st Maine’s companies were shattered and Winchester, where the 1st Maine earned its reputation as a fighting unit not to be messed with. The after-action report from the 2nd Maine Infantry and the 1st Maine Cavalry indicated losses that shocked the governor into sending investigators to inquire about what happened. The inquiry ended with the following quote from General Hatch, Chief of Cavalry, “. . . tells me that the conduct and coolness of Col. Doughty, his officers and men . . . and their steadiness under fire were equal to any veterans in the service.”

Chapter 25: “Balloon Handlers: we Keep the Balloon Anchored Down With 36 Bags of Sand.” This is the story about the 4th Maine Infantry boys who were reassigned to the Union Army Balloon Corps and Professor Thaddeus Lowe. Their task was to play out the ropes that secured the balloon, fill the balloon with hydrogen, and retrieve the balloon after it reported what the Confederate troops were doing. Second Lt. Arthur Libby and 28 members of the 4th Maine were reassigned to the Balloon Corps in April 1862. Since they moved the balloon (called an “air-craft” by the Balloon Corps) with all of its equipment by a converted coal barge, you could argue they were on the USA’s first air-craft carrier.

These are only a few samples of the stories within Maine At War, Volume I: Bladensburg to Sharpsburg. This is a wonderful book of stories about Mainers’ involvement in the Civil War and a great introduction to our shared history. These are great stories about real people. I am anticipating Volume II. Go to your library, or purchase this book. It is well worth your time. If you want to stay current go to the blog at

Review by Steven Garrett

A Very Good Movie

Pharaoh’s Army

There are many good movies and documentaries based upon the Civil War. I’m sure you each have your favorite. Some of these movies followed the prevailing ideology of the time. The “Lost Cause” had Gone with the Wind. The “Just Cause” had Gettysburg and Glory. And there are the many excellent documentaries lead by Ken Burn’s Civil War.

Pharaoh’s Army was not written to support an ideology but, as a base, uses an old folk story about a Kentucky boy who shoots a Union soldier and buries him in a sinkhole. The movie develops into a story about the Civil War in rural southeastern Kentucky where neighbors often supported opposite sides. In other words, it presents the Civil War in its most brutal and inhuman side.

The movie begins as Sarah Anders is bringing her young daughter’s body home for reburial after Union-supporting neighbors dug up her body—they wanted no Confederates in their community graveyard. Next, a group of Union cavalry, led by Captain John Abston, arrives at the Anders remote farm looking for provisions from the enemy. The experienced bummers find most of the hidden provisions and are preparing to leave when the youngest of the Union soldiers falls from the hayloft onto a pitchfork. He is too seriously injured to be moved. Captain Abston orders his rebel-hating troopers to settle in until the injured trooper is well enough to travel. This is the real beginning of Robbie Henson’s story: what happens when a poor Yankee-hating Confederate soldier’s wife and son must cohabitate with equally Rebel-hating Union troopers.

This is not a grand sweeping movie like Gettysburg or Gone with the Wind, but a story of real human suffering during the Civil War. It shows the cost of war, especially a civil war, to those caught up in it on a personal level.

This is the kind of movie one needs to see to balance the other movies made to sell tickets. This was a limited-released movie and became better known after its release on CD. The acting is very good. The setting, in the Cumberland Mountains of Kentucky, is haunting as a background to the stories of the human suffering on both sides. It speaks to the struggle to remain human when the events about you force responses you would never consider otherwise.

Rent or buy this CD and view this well written, directed, and acted movie. There are no great and sweeping battle scenes, no flamboyant generals leading charges, but it is a real story that gets at war in its brutal reality.

Review by Steven Garrett

Philip Gerard. Cape Fear Rising. John F. Blair, Publisher. Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 1994.

This is a historical novel about the violent events in Wilmington, N.C. in November 1898. As the author notes:

This novel was inspired by events that actually happened. Some of the characters are based on historical persons. In taking dramatic liberties with the action, the author has tried to remain true to the spirit of the facts. But this is fiction—only a storyteller’s history.

I enjoy a good historical novel as a form to teach history and to get to the real impact of historical events. This is true of Cape Fear Rising. The story is told through the eyes of a fictitious struggling reporter, Sam Jenks, and his school-teacher wife Gray Ellen Jenks. Most of the characters were real people who participated in the events described in the novel. Sam and Gray Ellen relocate to Wilmington, North Carolina, at the invitation of Sam’s cousin, for a new start in their lives and are instantly thrust into the complex issues evolving in Wilmington.

Wilmington had become a Mecca for middle-class blacks who had opened businesses, established a paper, and participated in the local government as elected officials and voters. But this did not please the old guard. The white old guard that proudly traced its influence back to the antebellum aristocracy and the pre-Civil War period culture. Secondly, the existing and newly elected government in Wilmington was “Fusionist.” A combination of Republicans, blacks, and white citizens willing to leave the past behind and work to move Wilmington forward as a marketing and seaport centered economy for everyone. Many of these new whites were former “Yankees.”

The old guard, using the local newspaper, worked to build a narrative that all good citizens were threatened by forthcoming black on white violence and the take-over of many jobs by blacks, leaving white unemployment rising.

Key characters in this drama in addition to Sam and Gray Ellen Jenks are:

● Colonel Alfred Moore Waddell–Civil War veteran with visions to return Wilmington back to its pre-Civil War glory. A time where everything was dominated by the elite Anglo-Saxons. He is an old-fashioned stump speaker who grabbed his time during the chaos created by the secret societies. He became the mayor after the events.
● Ivanhoe Grant–a firebrand black minister who pushes the black community towards fighting for their rights and place in society. He was, however, expecting the violence and pushed for it expecting federal intervention.
● Harry Calabash–Sam’s boss at the Wilmington newspaper who tries to teach Sam about all the plots and sub-plots evolving around them, who knows the truth and buries what he knows in bourbon.
● Alex Manly–Editor and publisher of the “black newspaper” who was the target of the white elites’ violence, but escaped to Philadelphia.
● Hugh MacRae–Leader of the secret society of elites who planned and instigated the chaos that quickly turned uncontrollable and violent.

The story revolves around Sam and Gray Ellen’s experiences while trying to understand the culture and events as the plots and counter-plots unfold around them. Both meet people they cannot understand as locals speak in code to these outsiders. Sam’s stories are edited to the point he cannot recognize his own stories and Gray Ellen, being a Yankee, cannot get a teaching job until a black administrator hires her to teach in a black school. This fact makes them a “persona non-grata” to the white elites. Both Sam and Gray Ellen struggled to understand, but fail until the events unfold around them.

Meanwhile, the “secret nine” organized by Hugh MacRae was meeting to plan the removal of the elected “Fusionist” government, to replace it with selected loyal candidates, to close Alex Manley’s newspaper, and to hire unemployed whites to replace blacks. All without significant violence.

This was going on as Sam and Gray Ellen arrived. Harry Calabash and others accustomed to the culture were able to determine what was about to happen. And Harry knew that once the take-over began violence would be hard to control. The violence began with the burning of the newspaper building where Alex Manley’s paper was housed, but it was relocated into the black part of town. This violence and its failure to stop the newspaper quickly got out of control leading to the killing of many leaders in the black community. Families fled to the cemetery and swamps to hide from the violence and killing.

It was clear that within the plan was a desire to remove black and Fusionists leaders from Wilmington. Many thinking they were on the “kill” list fled, leaving Wilmington to return to rule by the elites. Sam and Gray Ellen, and many others, were put on a train and instructed they were not to return as they were “undesirables.” Sam, who had submitted his story of the violence prior to their departure, seeing that it would never be published in Wilmington, rewrote their story. It was published in numerous northern papers guaranteeing his career. The sad truth of the events of November 1898 in Wilmington, North Carolina, became public.

This is obviously a story reflecting some of America’s saddest historical events. These events are difficult to confront and it is not easy to follow all the plots and counter-plots. But it is a good presentation of the saddest of events—nothing less than a coup—illustrating the complexities of the southern culture during reconstruction in a city that was seen up to that point as a success story.

I recommend this read.

Review by Steven Garrett

Lorien Foote. The Yankee Plague: Escaped Union Prisoners and the Collapse of the Confederacy. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 2016. (Kindle Edition)

There are some books that you become mesmerized by when reading. While this may not be everyone’s “cup of tea,” it grabbed me. This book covers a part of the Civil War experience I have not seen get this well-deserved treatment. What did the escaped Union prisoners experience getting back to Union lines and how they and others were impacted by the “collapse of the Confederacy?”

The author begins telling us about the Confederate response to advancing Union troops in relationship to relocating Union prisoners of war away from that advance. These relocations, and the guards assigned to guard the prisoners, were far from first-rate. Often the guards were interested in gaining distance away from the advancing Union troops and away from Confederate authority. Also, the Confederate command authority was confusing to the commanders and all those dependent upon them for direction. State authorities and the central government were not working together. Finally, there were local vigilante groups with uncertain allegiances.

Imagine you are trying to avoid capture where you do not know whose side anyone is on. Who do you trust? How do you gain food, shelter, and especially direction to safety? How to identify unionists and/or anyone opposing the Confederacy who will not turn you into the Confederate authorities? Also, imagine you are suffering from multiple diseases, undernourished, filthy, and disoriented? One of the Union escapees was a Bowdoin graduate!

Two groups stand out as helpers to the escaped Yankees, slaves, and white unionists. Both groups helped the escapees gain food, shelter, and avoid Confederate patrols, etc. Both groups put themselves in danger to help them. This is the untold story of escapees making their way to safety against many obstacles in an area of extreme chaos and the brave men, women, and children who helped them along their way.

This book raises many questions. Was the Confederacy’s collapse a real fact or did it ever have control within its borders? Did this chaos allow or encourage the evolution into violence, the KKK, and other similar groups?

In this reviewer’s opinion, this is a book you should read. It opens to debate the Civil War’s results in the south—race against race, neighbor against neighbor, relative against a relative. It destroyed all cultural standards; good or bad, and left chaos.

Get a copy or download this book to your Kindle. This is a worthwhile read that questions what happened in the south after the war.

Review by Steven Garrett

Benson Bobrick. Master of War: The Life of General George H. Thomas. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York, 2009.

General George H. Thomas was acknowledged as one of the best generals in the Civil War by both sides of that conflict. One outstanding question is: Why is he not as well known or acknowledged by historians as other successful Union generals? Benson Bobrick’s biography attempts to address this question.

Bobrick argues it is partly due to his personality—he was not a self promoter. Also, there was his heritage of being from Virginia and, lastly, his style of generalship. He prepared to have as many advantages as possible to restrict his casualties, for which his troops loved him.

George H. Thomas was a general who saw his task as much more than gallantly leading during combat. Taking care of his men; that is, being well trained, well fed, well clothed, well supplied, and well lead were all important. Coordinating the various branches of the army was also important to Thomas. Knowledge of the ground, supply routes, and knowing the leaders you faced were also important. Bobrick argues that Thomas knew and valued all aspects of being a general. He served his country before, during, and after the Civil War, until his untimely death.

There were reasons for his lack of fame:

● His early death may have contributed to his not gaining the respect and fame given to other Civil War generals, but he was not forgotten by those that served under his command.
● Thomas asked his wife to destroy his Civil War correspondence in the event of his death and she did. This left far fewer documents for future historians to ponder.
● Thomas did not approve of self promotion. Many generals had political support (for example, General Sherman’s brother, Senator Sherman or Senator Washburne’s support for General Grant).
● Thomas did not write an autobiography, perhaps because of his early death.
● Being a Virginian by birth might have been held against him.

Clearly, the “Rock of Chickamauga” was a leader and, as he proved at Chattanooga, was an outstanding general. He and his army destroyed General Hood’s army. No other Union general can claim that they destroyed their opponent as thoroughly as Thomas and the Army of the Cumberland.

But why did Grant issue orders, not delivered, to have him relieved? Bobrick argues that many of the politically motivated generals were jealous or fearful of Thomas’s growing fame. Their own desires for the future drove them to withhold support for Thomas. These arguments are the weakness of Bobrick’s biography. General Thomas did not need to tear down other generals to be recognized as one of the great Civil War generals. His actions accomplished his greatness.

Add this book to your shelf, but take Bobrick’s attacks on Grant, Sherman and others as misplaced and completely unneeded.

November  2019
Review by Steven Garrett

LeeAnna Keith. The Colfax Massacre: The Untold Story of Black Power, White Terror, and the Death of Reconstruction. Oxford University Press. New York, 2008.

The Colfax Massacre is a valuable addition to the library of anyone who is interested in the reconstruction period or who wants to better understand the difficulties of those responsible for the effort to bring freed men and women into American society. LeeAnna Keith uses one tragic event to highlight the issues and difficulties facing the federal government and its efforts to support the rights of citizenship for freed slaves in the south and, specifically, northern Louisiana.

Ms. Keith develops her narrative by introducing us to Henry Shreve, the removal of the “great raft” of the Red River (a hundred-mile long tangle of trees and debris) that opened the Red River area to development, and to the Calhoun family’s role in the Red River sugar and cotton plantation economy. Initially, Merrill Calhoun, and later his son William ‘Willie’ Calhoun, are key players in this tragic narrative. Merrill Calhoun became the example for Simon Legree in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s well-known novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

Willie then became the key player. After the Civil War, he supported the freed slaves by opening schools and providing a place of safety for them on the family plantations. He also married a woman of color. These acts placed him in direct opposition to the other plantation owners and the population of the area. Merrill Calhoun’s wealth allowed him to live apart from the source of his wealth—the slave-based sugar and cotton plantations. Willie, an invalid all his life due to a tragic accident, did not inherit the opinion that slaves were a separate species of humans. Whether due to his time in France or his ties to the Creole social circle, Willie was different than his neighbors. He openly supported the Union and, after the war, supported the efforts of reconstruction. Due to his father’s wealth, he was one of the few planters with the credit and financing to continue running the plantation. He also opened a store to supplement the business. Additionally, Willie entered politics supporting causes such as public education and other activities of the Freedman’s Bureau. These positions did not endear him to his neighbors. Willie’s wealth and position protected him, but not others involved in supporting the education and promotion of the freedmen.

Willie’s activities paralleled the return to power of the old power elites in Louisiana. Violence became a method to subdue the radical republicans and black voters. President Johnson’s support of the local and state governments, and the return to power of many influential former Confederates, brought the conflict to a head. U. S. Grant, as commander-in-chief of the army, sent General Sheridan to Louisiana as head of the military district. Sheridan dismissed the old-guard governor (Wells) and replaced him with a Republican. These actions further inflamed the old-guard power elites, especially as Sheridan used the power of the army to enforce voter registration, after which the black registered voters outnumbered the whites.

The Grant & Colfax Republican ticket further enraged the old guard. The emergence of the Klu Klux Klan, the White Camellia, the Southern Cross, the Seymour and Blair societies, suppressed the Republicans and black voters. Murder, hangings and general terrorizing of all opponents spread. These activities restricted the voters for the Republican ticket and, in addition to fraudulent vote counting, swung the election in Louisiana. Attacks against schools, supporting newspapers, and black businesses began next. Again, murder, hanging, and terror were used.

The freedmen and their white supporters did not sit still while all of this violence was occurring. Many had been soldiers during the Civil War and they quietly formed militia units, with veterans as leaders, acquired weapons, and began drilling. During the election of 1872, these militias escorted black and other Republican voters to the polls. As a result, dual governments and authorities for law enforcement were created.

After the infamous 1873 Mardi Gras parades in New Orleans, the dual governments’ issue came to a violent end at the Colfax parish courthouse. The black militia, finding the courthouse deserted, took over the building for the radical Republican and black government. Knowing trouble was on its way, the building was fortified.

A white-based band raided black homes on their way to Colfax. Each group patrolled to discover the strength and location of the other. The battle at Colfax parish courthouse occurred on Easter Sunday, 1873. Approximately 150 black militiamen defending the courthouse were surrounded and slain. The wounded were killed and some of the prisoners were hanged. For many years, the only monument to these brave men were the memories of their families. The old guard, many participants in the attack on the black militia and killing of the wounded, later raised a monument to the two whites who were killed and placed a plaque on the tree where the militia leaders were hanged. This event eliminated the black and Republican government in Louisiana. President Grant attempted to gain justice, but the newly seated representatives from the former Confederate States, and their party representatives in the north, stood in his way, as did the evolving recession and the effort in congress to reconcile with the south. The country moved on, but the Colfax Massacre was not forgotten.

This is a story we must reconcile with the results of the Civil War—soon the black code laws, Jim Crow laws, and segregation were in place. This is a book you should read. It is an interesting exploration of a low point in our history.

Comments are closed.