Maelstrom now available

Book 2 in the American Exceptionalism Series

Maelstrom, A Civil War Novel

(Ebook, Hardcover and paperback)

“I enjoyed this.” 

Harold Holzer, Lincoln Prize winner and Chair of The Lincoln Forum

"See Lincoln as you've never seen him before as he navigates the maelstrom of the Civil War."

Larry Schweikart, NYTimes #1 Bestselling author

Maelstrom tells the story of the greatest rivalry in American history. Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis led their nations in a must-win fight, and Maelstrom shows how each dealt with the same issues, countered the other’s moves, led their respective governments, and used their political powers to sway the outcome.

Read the first chapter free HERE.

Dixie Betrayed by Davis J. Eicher

Dixie Betrayed, How the South Really Lost The Civil War by Davis J. Eicher

The last words of Eicher’s book are “Jefferson Davis had lost his power as Confederate president — but not before the whole cause of the Confederacy was lost. Dixie was Betrayed.”

The title and these final words betray the worth of this book. Nearly twenty thousand books have been written about Lincoln and almost a hundred thousand about the Civil War. Less than an estimated twenty percent of these were written from a Confederate perspective and many of those were Lost Cause screeds. Since the Confederacy lost, official documents were often destroyed which requires a historian to rely on sources like newspapers, letters, and memoirs—and these are not nearly as well organized and indexed as Union sources. This may partially account for why relatively few Confederate histories have been published.  

Dixie Betrayed is a solid history of the Confederacy and does not attempt to propagate the Lost Cause myths. Eicher explains how the South lost, but betrayal played no role in it. The absence of an industrial base, limited manpower, naive political leadership, and a flawed constitution were the culprits.

The betrayal theme likely originated from an editorial meeting aimed at boosting sales, and it may have been effective for the launch. However, now Eicher’s book wears the title like an albatross, and it is perhaps overlooked by those seeking an erudite history of the Confederate States of America.

To understand the Civil War period, it is necessary to study the war from both sides. Dixie Betrayed by Davis J. Eicher provides the view from the Confederate side.

Memoirs of General W. T. Sherman

 

Memoirs of General W. T. Sherman by William T Sherman

In turns fascinating and boring. General Sherman wrote a valuable memoir for historians, but too much minutia for the casual Civil War buff. Sherman includes innumerable orders and other correspondence and describes his entire command structure every time there is a significant change or battle. Although historians, especially military historians, will find this invaluable, it can often be dull reading. Sherman frequently allows these documents to tell the story without presenting a description in his narrative. This means the reader must at least review the correspondence to gain a sense of the events.

Disappointedly, Sherman seldom shares his opinions or even thoughts about significant issues. It’s sort of the Jack Webb version of his life. When Sherman does express an opinion, it’s pure gold, especially the chapter when he recounts what he believes are the military lessons from the Civil War.

Book Review: A World on Fire

 

A World on Fire: Britain's Crucial Role in the American Civil War

Amanda Foreman

There are plenty of history books on the Civil War, but few books that convey another country’s perspective. Amanda Foreman has done history buffs a service by providing a British perspective of our great conflict. Foreman also provides fascinating details about spy operations in Canada and some information about French, Irish, and German participation as diplomats, soldiers, and observers. Not quite a world on fire, but it’s eye opening to learn how much our civil war affected other nations.

The greatest contribution of A World on Fire is additional insight into the issue of British and French recognition of the Confederate States of America. This was the biggest political battle of the war and Abraham Lincoln beat Jefferson Davis on what many believed should have been an easy Confederate victory. If recognition had come, the South probably would have achieved independence.

A World on Fire is a dazzling research effort with most of the narrative driven from personal letters, diaries, and official documents. Unfortunately, too much of this research made it into the book. The large tome sometimes takes a deep dive into a British person’s experience for no apparent reason other than that individual kept a good diary. The perspective of a common soldier or low level officer can be valuable and interesting, but it felt out of place in a book purportedly about foreign perspectives of the war because a soldier’s experience was similar independent of their nationality. The books also jumps around in a manner that seems unnatural, with characters resurfacing after a long absence without any reminders of who they were.

In all, A World on Fire is a rare glimpse of the American Civil War from a different perspective. Considering the number of books on the subject, that is an amazing accomplishment in and of itself.

Lincoln Book Review: The Trent Affair

 

The Trent Affair: The Diplomatic Incident that Nearly Brought Great Britain into the American Civil War

The Trent Affair claims historians pay the Affair short shrift, then promises to deliver new revelations about this diplomatic incident. The books primary value is quoting first source letters, newspaper articles, and official documentation. It is always useful to read first source material, but those presented do not provide a different perspective than historians have depicted. Granted, historians gloss over the nuts and bolts of the Affair, but it’s because the issue was resolved before it could impact the course of the conflict.

What if the Trent Affair hadn’t been agreeably settled. If Great Britain had entered the war on the Confederacy’s side, it was likely that the South would have won. That would have made the Trent Affair a huge deal. Jefferson Davis’s top diplomatic priority was to drag a European power into combat. Abraham Lincoln’s top diplomatic priority was to deny the Confederate States of America recognition by European powers. This book did not provide additional insights on how Lincoln outsmarted Davis. As you study the Affair, there are hints of backroom bartering but no evidence. When desired, Lincoln was fairly astute at maneuvering without leaving fingerprints.

This is an odd little book with poor transitions and scant narrative about quoted material. The photographs of the major participants are well known. In the end, the book added little understanding to this diplomatic fiasco. A pity because handled differently, the Trent Affair could have been the linchpin to the entire conflict.

Lincoln Book Review: The Shut Mouth Society

 

The Shut Mouth Society is my own Lincoln book. This modern day thriller is a typical chase novel à la Robert Ludlum. The Ludlum formula for this genre has a man and woman oddly meet to be accused of a crime and then chased by good guys and bad guys until they save themselves by unraveling a mystery that threatens social order. In my book, the mystery is a secret society formed after the Civil War that threatens to take control Mexico. The chase is launched when a small town police chief and renowned professor are asked to assess the validity of a pre-presidential document in Lincoln hand. Abe Lincoln is interwoven throughout the story as they must examine his life and motivations to solve the mystery.

I had done an enormous amount of research on Lincoln to craft an exciting story that was also historically accurate. These are book reviews but I’m too biased to rate The Shut Mouth Society as a work of fiction. (However, 405 Amazon readers have given it an average rating of 4.3 and the book was a finalist is the APA Glyph Awards for Best Novel.) This reading was to revisit my Lincoln research for my historical novel Maelstrom. I found no substantive errors. (However, if a set of dialogue begins with something like, “Some historians believe,” then what follows is not necessarily true. It only means that some credentialed authors believe it true. I believe I wrote the story in a manner where a reader will have no difficulty separating historical fact from speculation.)

All of that said, I believe The Shut Mouth Society is a fun way for readers to enjoy a rousing story and obtain a better understanding of our sixteenth president.

Lincoln Book Review: The Myth of the Lost Cause Vs. The Real Lincoln

 

This post deals with two books on the “Lost Cause.”

Thomas J. DiLorenzo presents the case for the Lost Cause in The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, while Edward H. Bonekemper argues against the Lost Cause in The Myth of the Lost Cause: Why the South Fought the Civil War and Why the North Won.

What is the Lost Cause? The basic tenants are as follows: the War of Northern Aggression had nothing to do with slavery; the South did nothing to provoke war; the Constitution included a right to secede and the South should have been allowed to leave peacefully; antebellum life in the South was prosperous, dignified, and just; slavery was already dying; Robert E. Lee deserved deification, U. S. Grant deserved demonization, the North deserves condemnation for engaging in total war; the South had no chance of winning, and most important of all, Lincoln was a despot who started the war by invading South. 

Basically, the Lost Cause is innocence victimized.

I chose these two specific books because they are both relatively recent (2003 and 2015) and each author presents their respective positions clearly, with entertaining gusto. On which side of this controversy did I land? You can probably guess, but this argument has raged for over one hundred and fifty years and these books will provide all the information you need to make up your own mind.

(These are research books for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)

Lincoln Book Review: Lincoln by Gore Vidal

I’m not a Gore Vidal fan. I thought Burr was a hash, especially from a historical perspective. Lincoln is a better novel, but still blemished due to Vidal’s penchant for showing off. A novel is a story, and the cardinal rule of storytelling is to never jerk the reader out of the story, but Vidal continuously interrupts his characters mid-scene to take a bow. Witty asides, overly clever dialogue, meaningless gossip, and focus on the trivial when the reader yeans for the big picture, are bad enough, but the near absence of transitions is jarring. Vidal goes from one scene to another with a whole different cast of characters without even a “by your leave.” It is like, “Hey, I veered off over here, catch up.” And you do, but it takes the rereading several sentences. By then the magic is gone.

The book is titled Lincoln, but Ol’ Abe comes across as a side character. He is explained by countless others that surround the supposed protagonist. Most of these characters come across as untrustworthy narrators. Characterization is not a Gore Vidal strong suit. Everyone seems similar and each carries a little of Vidal’s rapscallion nature. Vidal likes rogues, scoundrels, and outright villains and ascribes his characters' motivations to the dark side of human frailty.

Some historians have taken issue with the historical accuracy of Lincoln. As a historical novelist, I know strict adherence to facts presented in their proper order does not always lend itself to good storytelling. In this readers opinion, Vidal’s may skew events and people to his viewpoint but, for the most part, his violations are inconsequential. This is a well-researched book and Vidal’s relaying of events, large and miniscule, is generally accurate.

If you prefer history presented as a story, Lincoln is the best novel about Lincoln available ... until I publish Maelstrom.

Abraham Lincoln, by Lord Charnwood

 

Lord Charnwood published Abraham Lincoln in 1916. In order to get a clearer perspective of the Civil War, it helps to read books from multiple viewpoints. Lord Charnwood wrote only fifty years after the war, bringing an almost contemporaneous perspective to his depictions. His biography has the advantage of proximity but with enough time elapsed to dampen the passions of the moment. More important, as an English depiction, it is a simultaneously a distant point of view. It is a distance of more than nautical miles. Lord Charnwood also brings the bias of English nobility to his descriptions. This is exceptionally important in gaining an understanding of the diplomatic imperative for both sides. The Confederacy desperately sought European recognition of their legitimacy, while Lincoln did everything in his power to deny international recognition and suppress arms and funding from abroad. Lincoln’s success was arguably pivotal to eventually making victory possible.

 Abraham Lincoln, by Lord Charnwood can be a tough read. A simple, declarative sentence is beyond the baron. This is partly due to the style of the times and partly the way of academics who feel a need to qualify every utterance. Once the reader adjusts to the wordily writing, nuggets of rare perspective make the effort well worthwhile. For example, Thomas Jefferson is not one of my favorite Founders and Lord Charnwood seems to have shared some of my reservations. He also makes other political observations that an American might be reluctant to express.

If you have an interest in the mid-nineteenth century, Abraham Lincoln by Lord Charnwood can be an enlightening read.

The Truth of the War Conspiracy of 1861 by H W Johnstone

 

This booklet was published in 1921 by a veteran of the Civil War. The author’s intent is to advocate for The Cause and expose the “truth.” I’ve read several modern-day defenses of The Cause, but I wanted to get the perspective of someone closer in time to the conflict. A participant was even better, although Johnstone served for only an unexplained eight months. Unfortunately, time and participation provided few novel insights. I shouldn't have been surprised because years earlier Jefferson Davis had articulated the dogma of The Cause in his two histories of the Confederated States of America.

Johnstone presents the case that a duplicitous President Lincoln started the war by reinforcing Forts Sumter and Pickens, the last Union military presence in the seceded states. First, the duplicitous part. In his inaugural, Lincoln said, “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government.” All other military installations had been confiscated prior to his inaugural, so he could only have been speaking about Sumter and Pickens.

What act started the war? Secession of seven states in response to the election of a Republican or Lincoln taking office despite threats of assassination? The confiscation of Federal property under threat of physical attack or denial of weapons, munitions, and battlements to a belligerent? Does relentless bombardment of Sumter constitute an act of war or providing food and water to those starving soldiers? The South had been threatening war ever since a split Democratic Party guaranteed the election of a Republican. They made good on their threats.

Despite the reality of the situation, Johnstone paints Lincoln as despotic for not surrendering to the demands of the seceded states. Prior to inauguration, did he distance himself from Seward and the Peace Conference? He did. In his mind, he did not yet have authority to intervene. Did he dispatch war ships to accompanying the resupply ships? He did, but he sent the South Carolina governor a message that he would peaceably resupply the fort unless met with resistance. To deal with resistance if encountered, he needed naval war ships. Did Lincoln maneuver to put Jefferson Davis in a box? He did. And he did this successfully because he was a better politician.

Johnstone was right about one thing. The war could have been avoided if Lincoln had acceded to every demand. Forever. 

Since the Constitutional Convention, slave states had been demanding that the North acquiescence to their peculiar institution or they would bolt. Bolt they did. Not over slavery in their own states, but because the Republican platform vowed to use federal powers to stop any further expansion of slavery.

Perhaps the war was inevitable. Once the South was independent, new demands of their neighbor would never cease. Sooner or later, there would be one demand too many.

Bitterly Divided: The South's Inner Civil War

 

Bitterly Divided by David Williams makes sense. If the political establishment in a bunch of states decided to secede, there would obviously be inhabitants who retained a stronger loyalty to the United States of America. After all, they had been proud U.S. citizens for their entire life. I bet you saw a but coming. The but is that although Williams presents voluminous evidence of insurgence within the CSA, it is not clear that it materially hampered the Confederacy’s war efforts until the last year or so.

The catchphrase, ‘rich man’s war, poor man’s fight,’ may have been a truism, but Southern men continued to fight until victory became hopeless or they received news from home that their families were starving. Williams contends that slaveholders masterminded the war but, for the most part, non-slave holders fought it. Three-fourths of southern whites owned no slaves, so arithmetic alone proves Williams correct. 

Statistical data shows that by every economic measure, the North far outperformed the South. The only area where the South exceeded the North was in income disparity. Williams writes: “On the Civil War’s eve, nearly half the South’s personal income went to just over a thousand families.” The rich were very rich and few in number. The uneducated poor white were as omnipresent as slaves. 

At the start of the war, a recruitment broadside oddly read, “To arms! Our Southern soil must be defended. We must not stop to ask who brought about the war, who is at fault, but let us go and do battle… and then settle the question who is to blame.”

Today, that poster may not appear convincing, but decades of Democrat propaganda had bred hatred for Yankees and instilled fear of “Black Republicans.” Repeatedly, poor whites were told that freed slaves would “come into competition, associate with them and their children as equals—be allowed to testify in court against them—sit on juries with them, march to the ballot box by their sides, and participate in the choice of their rulers—claim social equality with them—and ask the hands of their children in marriage.”

When the conflict began, relentless propaganda claimed the North had invaded the South, but the Confederate Army was a reality well before Manassas. Prior to that opening battle, the North had only resisted Confederate confiscation of United States property in the seceded states. Still, men believed that they went to fight an enemy that had violated the hallowed land of the South. Why?

Jefferson Davis believed slavery gave every white person an elevated position in society independent of their lot in life. Were the poor fighting to retain this artificially elevated position? Not sure, but I’ll keep reading to find the answer.

(This is a research book for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)

Is the word "all" the most important word in the Declaration of Independence?

 

Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were interesting characters. Exactly the type of characters a novelist needs to carry a story. In writing Maelstrom, I had a scene where Lincoln addresses Congress after a recess. (As customary at the time, his address was read by a clerk.) Not much has happened during the recess. Eleven states had seceded from the Union, Fort Sumter had been bombarded and surrendered, a piece of Virginia had been occupied, and Lincoln had exceeded his executive powers to spend unauthorized money, build an army, and suspend habeas corpus among other things.

He desperately needed Congress to backfill behind him.

This was a crucial address. Important for Lincoln and the country. The address was not one of his well-known speeches, but I was struck by the clarity and simplicity of the explanation of why he took these actions.

Lincoln said it was a struggle for maintaining a form of government “whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men—to lift artificial weights from all shoulders—to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all—to afford all an unfettered start, and a fair chance in the race of life.”

On the cusp of war, Lincoln repeatedly used the word “all.” He had previously stated that this was the most important word in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence and had reputedly written that word over and over again on pieces of paper.

I cannot think of a loftier goal for government. Perhaps in this age of divisiveness, we should all write the word “all” over and over again.

A Short History of the Confederate States of America

 

After the Civil War, Jefferson Davis spent two years in prison without trial. He was released on bail and a year and a half later, the government finally dropped the treason charges against him. In 1877 he retired to Beauvoir, where he wrote, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. This was a two-volume tome of over 1,500 pages. I did not read this book. I tried, but I kept following asleep. Luckily, ten years later, Davis wrote A Short History of the Confederate States of America. Roughly one-third in length, “A Short History” covers the same ground and is more readable.

Davis writing style is clear for modern readers, but I would recommend a good understanding of the war to provide context for his narrative. That said, for a thorough understanding of a major historical event, it always best to get the story from the horse’s mouth. The Davis perspective may be biased, but those perspectives did not change between the war and the writing of his memoir. That consistency makes this book valuable for understanding the motivations for war.

Davis extols victories and offers strained excuses for errors and failures. In Davis’ mind, nothing was his fault, the Confederacy was always honorable, the Union always vile. For those not imbued with The Cause mythology, this heavy-handed prejudice can be off-putting, but I found it helps understand the ethos of the period.

Most history books are written by winners. If you don’t study the losers, then you have an incomplete picture. An example would be the hallowed Federalist Papers. There is a collection of opposition opinion pieces called the Anti-Federalist Papers. I suggest reading both and I highly recommend Jefferson Davis’ A Short History of the Confederate States of America.

(This is a research book for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)