American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

We do have a separate book forum but it's about as lively as an actual library, so I thought I'd post this here.

I recently read, back to back, two books on the First Battle of Bull Run. The first was "Donnybrook" by David Detzer (2004) and the second was "The Early Morning of War" by Edward Longacre (2014).

I won't go into a ton of detail with the books because you all know the history. But if I had to point you towards one book over the other - I would point at Donnybrook. The writing style of Detzer was less formal and more amusing than the more academic style of Longacre. Detzer was also able to tell the full story of the First Manassas Campaign in just over 300 pages while Longacre told it in just about 450 pages. I was hoping I would "learn more" from Longacre's bigger book... but I didn't. While Detzer would give you the facts and the interesting stories, Longacre would give you facts, maybe a story, and then a lot of fluff. I found Detzer's conclusions often more interesting and thoughtful than Longacre's.

I also appreciated that Detzer admitted when the history wasn't clear. While starting the discussion of the fighting on Henry House Hill, Detzer made it clear that the primary sources of the events on that part of the field are extremely contradictory and that any attempt to definitively determine the sequence of events is wasted time. Detzer still covered the fighting in detail but often pointed out how often participants disagreed on the movements of their units, the times, the direction they were facing, and even what the orders were. All of these were a result of two very unprepared armies, and leaders, fighting a battle that neither army was prepared for. Longacre makes no such admission that the events were contradictory and confusing and drones on for quite a while trying to make sense of the swirling fighting around Henry Hill. At the end of Longacre's account of the battle I felt exhausted and a bit perplexed.

I know someone is wondering which had better maps in the book. I've gotten to the point in life that I just use Gottfried's series of books for maps and never rely on the maps within any book. I will never understand why publishers don't invest more money in maps for their books... but I guess they do cost money and so in order to keep costs down they sacrifice the maps.

If you are going to read one of these books on the Battle of First Bull Run - read Donnybrook. I believe Detzer makes an excellent case that the scapegoat for the Union, Robert Patterson, was treated unfairly and that the real fault of the Union disaster rested with McDowell's poor staff which totally failed in every way on the day of battle. McDowell and Winfield Scott are also given much of the blame by Detzer in his history (and rightfully so). Overall, a very good book on the first major battle of the war.

If anyone has read either of these and has anything to add, feel free. You may disagree and my feelings won't be hurt at all


I'm reading Timothy B. Smith's "Corinth 1862" at present. I will let you know what I think when I am done.

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Winfield Scott was a professional soldier pushed into launching a campaign with a general he didn't choose and a plan he didn't endorse. He should have resigned rather than let Lincoln and the newspapers dictate the timetable. The Yankees got what they deserved at Bull Run.

_________________
BG Thomas "Tex" McSwain
Kansas Raiders

I'm start Donnybrook based on your recommendation.

_________________
Lt. Kent Scarbrough
5th Brigade
Swanson's 1st Division
Isgro's 1st Corp
Army of Northern Virginia

Love many, trust few, do harm to none.

Just finished "Donnybrook" by David Detzer (2004), excellent book that Gen. Strickler had recommended. It is written in a very engaging manner, telling the viewpoints of the leaders and individual soldiers from well before the beginning of the battle to the Union withdrawal from Centerville. The author spend time examining lore and speculations and basic rumors, explaining often where they began and if there was any real basis for each. Very detailed in all aspects but not to the point of slowing the narrative. It was well sourced and well cited. Great book to get a real sense of the battle and the leaders and troops at the time.

_________________
Lt. Kent Scarbrough
5th Brigade
Swanson's 1st Division
Isgro's 1st Corp
Army of Northern Virginia

Love many, trust few, do harm to none.

Good to hear you enjoyed it

The author convinced me that you can't use Patterson as a scapegoat for the Union defeat as he was led to believe the battle was already fought and done before he retreated back to Pennsylvania (and since Johnston was still in his front he had succeeded in his role). Poor communication by Winfield Scott really screwed over Patterson who was already facing a ton of issues trying to keep undisciplined, poorly fed and equipped, 90-day state volunteers from quitting and walking back home.

Detzer wrote two prequels dealing with the firing on Fort Sumter and then another on the two or three weeks after the firing on Sumter. The books were good, not great. The one on Sumter was better.

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012