The Mistakes of the Federal Commanders at Cross Keys and Port Republic

Stonewall Jackson

by Joshua Horn
from Conquering the Valley by Robert Krick

On June 8th, 1862, the Confederate army in the Shenandoah Valley, commanded by Stonewall Jackson, was camped near Port Republic, a small village near the convergence of South River and North River into the South Fork of the Shenandoah. Two Federal armies commanded by Maj. Gen. John C. Fremont and Maj. Gen. James Shields respectively were converging on Jackson from two different directions. Richard Ewell, Jackson's second in command, faced Fremont north of Port Republic, near a small crossroads called Cross Keys, and Shield's army was preparing to move toward Jackson at Port Republic from the east. In the next two days, June 8th and 9th, the Confederates fought and won two battles. If the Confederates had lost these battles, Richmond would have been captured, and the war would have been over. These victories were won primarily because of the mistakes that the Union Generals made. We will now look at those mistakes in detail.

On June 8th the Federal army under Fremont moved out to attack Ewell, whose troops were placed in a strong position on a wooded hill overlooking a stream. General Trimble, commanding the brigade on the right, obtained permission from Ewell to advance his troops to a strong position across the creek. Soon after he moved there, they saw a single Union regiment, the 8th New York, moving toward them across the field. The Federals advanced and drove in the Confederate skirmishers. Skirmishers are a thin line of men in front of a larger body, to alert the main body of any enemies that are ahead. As the Federals marched across the field, suddenly the hidden Confederates jumped up from behind a wooden fence and poured in a volley. The 8th NY was destroyed. They suffered more than 250 casualties, making that volley one of the deadliest in the entire war. This regiment suffered these loses because of a simple mistake that their commanding officer made. He should have sent ahead two or more companies as skirmishers. If the 8th NY would have done this, they would have been alerted of the presence of Confederates ahead, and would not have suffered these terrible casualties.


On the center and left, after heavy artillery duel, two Union brigades moved forward and engaged in a firefight with the Confederates. By this time Fremont's left was being driven back by repeated attacks by Trimble, and he decided to stop the attack after a short time. This was virtually the end of the battle of Cross Keys. Fremont attacked the left and center very badly. There was no chance that the Unions could take the Confederate's strong position on the ridge by simply marching up to it and opening fire. Fremont was too cautious in his attack. He should have attempted a flanking movement, or at least charged the Confederate line vigorously. He did nether, and consequently lost the battle of Cross Keys.

A Civil War Battle

On the night of June 7/8, Jackson decided to pull Ewell from in front of the defeated Fremont, and concentrate his entire army on the advance force of Shield's army, under the command of General Erastus B. Tyler. On the morning of June 8th, Jackson's army began to move slowly across a rickety wagon bridge built during the night. The soldiers could only cross in single file, and so the troops were very slow in crossing. As soon as the Stonewall Brigade crossed the bridge, Jackson sent them forward. Tyler had placed his cannons in a very good position on a hill called the Coaling. There they could sweep the plain below across which the Confederates were advancing. Jackson split the Stonewall Brigade into two groups, sending half to capture the Coaling, and half to make a feint on the plain. Tyler therefore moved his troops into position between the Coaling and the Shenandoah River. This was a mistake. Instead of positioning his troops to resist the Confederate feint, he should have put many more troops to guard the Coaling.

The next problem is that Tyler used his reserves, the 84th and 110th Pennsylvania, unwisely. As the Confederates attacked different portions of the line, he moved the reserves to the threatened part of his line. But when the reinforcements reached the threatened part, the crisis was already over. Therefore when the Confederates attacked the Coaling in strength, the reserves were on the other side of the battlefield. If the 84th and 110th PA had been on the scene, the Confederates would probably have lost the battle. Tyler did not realize that the Coaling was the key to the location, and so he did not focus his reserves on that area.


The last mistake that the Union generals made at the battles of Cross Keys and Port Republic was Fremont's. After Jackson pulled back Ewell's troops from in front of Fremont, he pursued very slowly. The troops and officers even had time to make breakfast. They did not march the five miles to Port Republic until noon, and by then the Confederates had burned the bridge over the North River, which meant that Fremont was stranded on the other side within sight of Tyler's retreated army. If Fremont had pursued vigorously, the Federals could have easily destroyed Jackson's army, which was having trouble enough with just Tyler. This one mistake of not pursuing cost the Unions the battle.


We have just examined five of the Union commander's mistakes at the battles of Port Republic and Cross Keys. These are that the 8th New York Regiment moved toward the Confederate position without skirmishers, that Fremont did not attack Ewell's center vigorously, that General Tyler did not put enough troops on the Coaling, misused his reserves, and finally Fremont pursued the Confederates slowly. These mistakes resulted in the defeat of the Federal armies, which greatly outnumbered Jackson. This defeat had great implications on the war. At this time as Jackson was fighting in the Shenandoah Valley, Gen. George B. McClellan was sieging Lee at Richmond. If Jackson had been defeated at Port Republic, he could not have reinforced Lee and defeated McClellan during the Seven Day's battle. If Fremont and Tyler had defeated Jackson, the war would have ended much sooner. The battles of Port Republic and Cross Keys are great examples of how little things can have great impact.



1 Krick, Robert K. Conquering the Valley (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 2002) p. 179

The Logical Fallacies in Erasmus’ Arguments

Martin Luther, Author of The Bondage of The Will

by Joshua Horn

from Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther

buy The Bondage of the Will

In 1525 Martin Luther published a book entitled, De Servo Arbitrio, or in English, Bondage of the Will. He wrote it in response to On Free Will by Desiderus Erasmus. In his book, Erasmus argued that man has free will and he must chose to be saved. Luther replied to him in Bondage of the Will and pointed out many flaws in his arguments. Three of the most important flaws were that Erasmus twisted scripture to meet his own interpretation, that he rejected the Bible rather than split with the Pope, and lastly that he contradicted himself in his definition for free will.

The first of Erasmus’ flaws was that he frequently twisted scripture to match his own opinions. When he deals with the text where God says that he hardened Pharaoh's heart¹, he claims that God really meant that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Luther says, “When God says: ‘I will harden the heart of Pharaoh’, you change the persons, and take it thus: ‘Pharaoh hardens himself by my long-suffering’!”² When the Bible says this, “I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing,”³ Erasmus says that “‘nothing’ may mean the same as ‘a little imperfect something.’”⁴ This is clear twisting of the words of scripture. If you take that nothing means ‘an imperfect little something’, than most of the doctrines of the Bible fall apart. From these two examples it is clear that Erasmus was forced to twist the words of scripture to make them fit with his position.

Erasmus’ second logical fallacy is that he would rather give up the scriptures than contradict the Pope. He was so afraid of contention that he was willing to give up what he knew was true rather than fight for it. Luther says this to Erasmus, “For your teaching is designed to induce us, out of consideration for Popes, princes, and peace, to abandon and yield up … the sure word of God. But when we abandon that, we abandon God, faith, salvation, and all Christianity!”⁵ The Bible says in Matthew 10:28, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”⁶ The basic problem is that Erasmus feared man more than God.

Erasmus admitted in his book that free will is a slave to sin and can not will to do anything good. He says that, “the human will after sin is so depraved that it has lost its freedom and is forced to serve sin, and cannot recall itself to a better state.”⁷ But later in the book he claims that a human can will to seek God! This is a clear contradiction. Luther says this, “You say that ‘free-will’ is a power of the human will by which a man can apply himself to good; but here you say, and and approve of its being said, that man without grace cannot will good.”⁸ Erasmus realized that free will could not do any good, but he still contradicted himself and said that it is man who chooses to be saved.

We have just seen Erasmus' three most important mistakes. They are that he twisted the words of scripture, that he rejected the Bible rather than split with the Pope, and thirdly that he contradicted himself in his definition of free will. After Luther pointed out Erasmus' fallacies and destroyed his arguments, there were no good arguments left for free will. Many people today who defend free will have the same problems and make the same logical fallacies as Erasmus did when arguing with Martin Luther. Being able to recognize these problems can help us defend the Biblical doctrine of the will.

1 Exodus 7:13, etc.

2Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 2003) trans. J. I. Packer and O.R. Johnston, p. 195

3 John 15:5, KJV

4 Bondage of the Will, p. 260

5 Ibid, p. 91

6 Matthew 10:28, KJV

7 As quoted in Bondage of the Will, p. 145

8 Ibid, p. 145

Buy The Bondage of the Will Here

Three of Knox's most important traits that were used by God in the Scottish Reformation and how were they used

based on Trumpeter of God by William Stanford Reid

The author of Trumpeter of God is William Stanford Reid. John Knox was a godly man who was one of the important reformers in the Scottish Reformation. One of the things that he is most known for is his book, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Regime of Monstrous Women. He is also known for his conversations with Mary Queen of Scots about the sermons he had preached before her. Some of the most important characteristics to the Scottish Reformation he showed in his life were respect for authority, boldness, and trust in God. It seems that without these characteristics the Reformation in Scotland would not have been nearly as useful as it was, but it is clear that God provided it with John Knox who was one of the main figures in it.

John Knox's first trait that will be discussed is respect for authority. This was one of the traits that was important to John Knox in his conversations with Mary Queen of Scots. John Knox was one of the of people who agreed that Mary should be dethroned for not doing her duty towards the people, but he also said that she should be restored to her throne if she repented. This is what he said:

And therefore it shall be profitable to your Majesty to consider what is the thing your Grace's subjects look to receive of your Majesty, and what it is that ye ought to do unto them by mutual contract. They are bound to you and that not but in God. Ye are bound to keep the laws unto them. Ye crave of them service: they crave of you protection and defense against wicked doers. Now, Madam, if ye shall deny your duty unto them . . . think ye to receive full obedience of them? I fear Madam, ye shall not.¹

Knox is saying why he thinks that she should be dethroned and his beliefs on her responsibility. In his first conversation with her about him preaching against princes rejoicing over the destruction of Christians which she believed was against her:

When Mary heard of his criticisms she promptly summoned Knox to Holyrood, where, surrounded by some of her court including Moray, Morton, and Lethington, and the guards who had reported his statements, she accused him of speaking irrelevantly of her, of stirring up the people against her, and exceeding the bounds of his text. Thereupon he proceeded to outline to her his sermon in which he had made no direct reference to her. Apparently realizing that she had no ground for complaint, she then spoke more kindly to him saying that if she did anything of which he did not approve he should come to her privately.²

Knox did not refuse to come to her, or tell her that he was right even if he did say things against her, but instead he kindly shows her how he was not speaking directly to her. Here it is seen that he respected the authority in his defense and in what he was being called about to do. Even though Knox respected the authority, he still was very bold in preaching the gospel and speaking the truth to Queen Mary.

The second characteristic was that John Knox was bold before Queen Mary and would not stop preaching when she told him to. “Knowing that [Mary's command for him to speak privately] would inhibit [Knox's] freedom to preach, he pointed out that he was called to the public ministry not to wait at princes' doors to whisper in their ears. If she wished to hear his views on any matter she could do so by attending the services in St. Giles.” ³ He would only speak the truth and not what people wanted him to say but what God wanted him to say. If he saw a problem with something he would preach a sermon on it; He did not care if whoever had the problem wanted him to preach against it even if it was the Queen. Queen Mary did not like this because if he saw a problem in her then he would preach a sermon against it and she did not like this because he revealed her sins to her and all of the rest of the nation. He believed that the church was a separate sphere of authority from the church and the civil government could not control the church. He did not think that the ruler should be able to make him be quiet or limit what he could preach. Because of this reason Mary tried to get him to stop preaching but he believed that God wanted him to speak the truth and was not afraid of Queen Mary's threats.

Here it is also see that John Knox trusted in God when Queen Mary threatened him so he was not afraid. After Queen Mary had threatened him, “some were surprised at his lack of fear, but his reply was, ^'I have looked in the faces of many angry men, and yet have not been afraid above measure'. Mary had again failed to silence the one whom she regarded as the chief obstacle to her plans to re-establish [Roman-Catholicism] in Scotland.”⁴ This shows that he was not afraid of the threats by Mary, and also because the Parliament was in favor of him they would not let Queen Mary carry out her threats against him. The reason for this was that he feared God and he did not fear man's threats. He was not a man to preach what the rulers wanted him to. Mary did not like him speaking but there was no way that she could shut him up.

Here is an explanation of why respect for authority, boldness, and trusting in God were the most important traits that were useful to him in the Scottish Reformation and his conversations with Queen Mary. The respect for authority was one of the most useful traits in his conversations with Queen Mary, but he would not of been as useful to the Reformation if he had not preached his message with boldness. He would not have had so much boldness had it not been for his belief in God and his trust in him to protect him from his enemies. Because of this it seems that his trust in God was the most important trait because if he did not have it he would not have had the ability to be bold because he would not have had anything to trust in and Mary would not have called him if he had not spoken bold things which offended her.

• 1William Stanford Reid, Trumpeter of God (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons), 229 Quoting John Knox

• 2William Stanford Reid, Trumpeter of God (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons), 227

• 3William Stanford Reid, Trumpeter of God (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons), 227

• 4William Stanford Reid, Trumpeter of God (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons), 227-8

Click Here to buy Trumpeter of God: A Biography of John Knox

Why the Army of Northern Virgina Surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse

by Joshua Horn
from Lee's Lieutentants by D. S. Freeman

Buy the Books Here

On April 9^th, 1865 Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virgina to U. S. Grant near Appomattox Courthouse. This was the same army that for the past four years had defeated army after army. It was the same army that had won brilliant victories such as Bull Run, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. What caused this army to be forced to surrender? Douglas S. Freeman says this in his book, Lee's Lieutenants, “Wherever the blame might be placed, it did not rest on the men in the ranks.”¹ If it was not the soldiers' fault, what was the cause of this defeat? There were three main causes: lack of troops, inadequate command, and the troop's hunger and fatigue.

As the Civil War progressed, the Confederate army began to have less and less troops. They had been outnumbered throughout the whole war, but as the war neared its close, the Confederates had the recurring problem of not being able to replace the troops that they lost. For example, at the Battle of Fredericksburg, in the middle of the war, the Union Army numbered about 114,000 while the Confederates numbered 72,500. When the siege of Petersburg was finished, just a few weeks before the end, 45,000 Confederates were opposing over 100,000 Federals. When the Army of Northern Virgina surrendered, only 27,000 troops were left.

Near the end of the war, the Union's cavalry sent raids to destroy all the railroads running to Richmond. The goal of these attacks was to cut off supplies and reinforcements to the troops defending the Confederate capital. While the infantry was trying to hold an eleven mile front of trenches against the more powerful Union infantry, it had to send out more troops to defend attacks at the railways it still had in operation. This weakened the meager forces holding the trenches, until they had only 1,000 troops per mile of trenches. Because many of the railroads were captured by the enemy, and also because of the incompetence of the Confederate quartermaster department, the soldiers were very short on food and other supplies that were necessary for the army to operate.

Much of the hard, constant fighting near the end of the war was at close quarters. Several times the troops were driven back from their positions, and the commanders had to lead their troops forward personally to retake the ground they had lost to the enemy. This created many casualties among the command. Douglas S. Freeman writes, “More frequent battles at close quarters had prompted officers to take more desperate personal risks when their men fought somewhat less well and the Federals fought better.”² As an example, there were only eighty-five colonels with Lee when he surrendered, even though 200 were required to command the regiments he had.³ Because of this killing off of the officers, fit officers of lower rank could not be found to replace those who were killed in higher positions. This resulted in men being put in positions that they were not fit for. Inexperienced or incapable generals did not lead the soldiers as well, which resulted in more defeats for the army.

On April 2, the Union army penetrated the thin Confederate line, forcing the Confederate army to abandon Richmond and retreat. They tried to reach to one of the few railroads in operation, to receive rations and travel down to North Carolina to join up with another army. They were forced to march quickly, so that they were not caught and pinned down by the powerful Union army. Because of this need for speed, the soldiers were ordered to march all day and night. Added to this hardship was the fact that they did not have any food for several days. One soldier said, “The constant marching and fighting without sleep or food are rapidly thinning the ranks of this grand old army. Men who have stood by their flags since the beginning of the war fall out of their ranks and are captured, simply because it is beyond their power of physical endurance to go any farther.”⁴ All but the most tough and loyal troops fell out of ranks from hunger and fatigue.

On the night of April 6^th, the Confederate column which was marching to the railroad was split up by Federal troops because of a misunderstanding between the tired generals. Greatly outnumbered, half the army surrendered after a short but desperate fight. The other half of the army was finally cut off and surrounded on April 8^th, and Lee realized that the tired troops were too outnumbered to be able to fight their way out. The army surrendered on April 9^th, 1865.

We see that there were several reasons why Lee was forced to surrender. His army was driven back and finally surrounded because of the lack of troops and also because they had been marching and fighting for several days without food or sleep. This situation was worsened by the fact that there were not enough good commanders to lead the troops well. These are the three main reasons why Lee's army was forced to surrender.

1Douglas Southall Freeman, Lee's Lieutenants, a Study in Command (New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons) volume 3 Gettysburg to Appomattox, p. 189

2Ibid, p. 547

3Ibid, p. 744

4Ibid, p. 718

Buy the Books Here

Durham Book Sale

Last week we went to the Durham library book sale. This is the second one we have gone to. The first one was in the spring. It is one of the best book sales around. All the hardbacks are $1 and paperbacks are 50 cents, except for some old books. One of the books I got was The Officer's Guide, A ready Reference on Customs and Correct Procedures Which Pertain to Commissioned Officers of the Army of the United States.

Some more books I bought

Here are the titles of the ones I got:

• The Gulag Archipelago
• The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
• A Tale of Two Cities
• Martin Chuzzlewit by Charles Dickens
• Great Expectations by Charles Dickens
  
• The Gallant Hood (a biography of the Confederate General John Bell Hood)
• Espionage and Counterespionage

We enjoy Charles Dickens books very much. We listen to them in the car when we go on long trips. My favorite so far is the Pickwick Papers.

Scotland - Pictures

Old books that I bought

The train driving over a bridge near the Jacobite monument.

Scotland - Day 9

We are skipping yesterday for sake of time.

Today we rode on the "The Jacobite" Railway, which runs from Fort William to a small fishing village called Mallaig. It is a steam train that goes through the beautiful Highland country, and passes the bay where Bonnie Prince Charlie raised his standard at a place called Glenfinnan. We had a really fun time. Mr. Zahm sang some songs for us, and we talked with the others on our tour. We arrived in Mallaig and ate lunch (the normal fish and chips for some) and walked around the souvenir shops while we waited for the train to leave.

When we got back from the train ride, we walked down the street and  went to several shops, including the grocery and a used book store. There Daddy got around 15 books and I bought 3. We found four R. M. Ballantyne books there, which was exciting. The owner was nice enough to ferry the books to our apartment for us. After shopping we returned home to cook dinner and consider how to fit these purchases into our suitcases!

---
Joshua

How Basic Economics Lines up with the Bible

by Joshua Horn

I read Basic Economics in the spring of 2008. It is by Calence B. Carson, and it advocates a free market economy. For this report, we will examine whether this book speaks of Biblical things, or if it is contrary to the Bible. We will look at what it says about private property, morality, and the welfare system.

In this book, the author advocates private property. He says that there can not be common property, because in the end someone has to control the use of the property. The Bible speaks a lot about private property. For example,

“Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.”
(Deuteronomy 5:21 KJV)

From this passage we see that property is not supposed to be shared by everyone, or your neighbor would not have an ox, it would be shared by you and him. In Basic Economics, the author shows what a disaster communism was in Russia during and around World War II. Communism says that everything should be held in common. Communism also rejected God and other spiritual things. When the Communists in Russia rejected God, and the things that He created, like private property, they should not have been surprised when they failed.
Another thing talked of in this book is how morality plays into economics. Carson says that morality is necessary, whether taught in church or elsewhere, because if everyone did what was best for them in the moment, without thought of whether it is good and right or not, it would be impossible to do business. People would constantly lie, cheat, and steal to get the best temporal result. The Bible says,

“Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
(Exodus 20:13-16)

Here God stopped people who obeyed his laws from destroying the economy by commanding them not to do what is right in their own eyes. One thing that the author of Basic Economics does not emphasize is that the only way to give people a real morality is to teach them about Christ and God and why they must obey Him as their creator.

Another thing that this book speaks of is the welfare system. In the end of the book, he goes through several different economics systems from history, and this is one of them. The basic idea of this system is to take from those who have goods, and give to those who do not have them. It is an economic system where the government controls the production of all goods, and also the distribution of them. Those who advocate this system say that everyone should get paid by the government, even if they can not provide for themselves. The Bible says, “The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing: but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat.” (Proverbs 13:4) Carson says that the government should not give people money. It is not their job, but rather the person's family or the church should provide for them. The Bible says that if there is a widow who does not have a family, the church should support her. (I Timothy 5:3-16) The Bible tells us that the government should not have a welfare system.

Here I have shown a few examples of how this book does, and does not, line up with scripture. I have shown it in these situations: private property, morality and the welfare system. I think that in general Carson aligns pretty closely with the Bible, but he does not reference it explicitly. He just recommends what practically works the best, and because of the way God set it up, it works out right. I think that even though most of his ideas are biblical, it would have improved the book if he had put more scripture in it.

Buy this book from Amazon.com: Basic Economics

Lee's Lieutenants, a Study in Command – Volume 1 Manassas to Malvern Hill

Lee's Lieutenants, a Study in Command – Volume 1 Manassas to Malvern Hill

by Joshua Horn

book by Douglas Southall Freeman

Lee's Lieutenants is a three volume work written by Douglas S. Freeman. It is biography of Lee's lieutenants: the generals of the Confederate army during the American Civil War. It is a biography of all of them – how they led their troops, interacted with each other, and how they fought battles. I started reading this book January 17, 2008 and finished March 13, 2008. This book is 731 pages of reading, not including the Appendix.

Even though it was intended to be about the generals under Robert E. Lee, it starts at the beginning of the war, when Lee was not in command, to give a background of the characters who where under Lee. When the book beginnings, P. T. Beauregard, the hero of Fort Sumter, comes to take command of the Army in Virgina. He has a tendency to make great plans, but not be able to do them. He takes command of the army, and fights his first battle. This battle was the first battle of Manassas, called by the Unions the first battle of Bull Run. Joseph E. Johnson was really in command in this battle, but Beauregard pretended that he was in command. Even though Manassas was a Confederate victory, it was not well planed by Beauregard. He sent out many conflicting order which confused the generals under him.

After Manassas, Beauregard was moved to a different arena of war because of his conduct as Manassas, and Johnson remained in command. Johnson was from the United States Army, and he had a bad relationship with President Jefferson Davis and the Secretary of War. Johnson retreated before the Union army twice, and was criticized for destroying stores when he should have brought them with him. Finally, Johnson was trying to hold of the Unions just a few miles away from Richmond. He had to prevent two Union Armies from joining up. He attacked a part of the Union army that was stationed at Seven Pines. He needed to overpower them before they could receive reinforcements. Johnson's plan was very complex, and his subordinates made mistakes. The most important thing that happened in the battle was that Johnson was wounded. He could no longer command the army, so Robert E. Lee was put in command.

During this time, General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson and Richard Ewell had been campaigning in the Shenandoah Valley. Jackson fought several battles, and did very well. Then he and his army moved to Richmond to drive back the Unions from before the capital. This series of battles in driving the Unions back was called the Seven Days Battles, and occurred from June 25 to July 1, 1862. Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, and several other subordinates, developed a plan where the army currently before Richmond would attack from the front and Jackson would attack the Union's rear. Jackson's troops did not march fast enough, because of muddy roads. The Unions got news of the plan and began to retreat. The Confederate army began to pursue them. Here is what Freeman says of this campaign:

“The strategic aim of the campaign had been achieved despite bad-co-ordination, worse tactics and the worst imaginable staff work: Richmond had been relieved. McClellan no longer was at the city's gates.”1

The bad tactics of the generals resulted in two of them being removed from their place in the Army of Northern Virgina.

There are many characters in this book. One is Robert E. Lee. Before he became the commander of the Army of Northern Virgina, he was a military adviser to the President. One of his strong points was keeping the peace between generals. He knew the President well after working with him, and so he had a better relationship with him than Johnson did.

Stonewall Jackson is another important character. After commanding the First Brigade, he was appointed commander of the “Army of the Valley” in the Shenandoah Valley. During this campaign he did very well, and he used his infantry, artillery and calvary together better than any other general. He was very strict in disciple, and kept his plans well hidden. Sometimes he created problems by not telling his generals what the plans where.

I think this book is useful to learn about the Confederate generals who served under Lee and his predecessors. It does not provide an overview of the Union side, or different fronts in the war, but it does do a good job of speaking of the battles and commanders in Virgina. I like the way the author wrote it, and I am looking forward to finish the other two volumes.

1Douglas Southall Freeman, Lee's Lieutentants, a Study in Command (New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons) volume 1, p. 604

Buy this book from Amazon.com: Lee's Lieutentants

Scotland Book Recomendation

Here are the books that we read before we went to Scotland a few years ago. If you click on the title, it will take you to a page where you can buy the book. Here are our blog posts we did about it a year afterwards: Horn Herald March 2007

Tales of a Scottish Grandfather by Sir Walter Scott
Originally written to his grandchildren about Scottish history, we read most of these books by Sir Walter Scott before we went to Scotland:

Volume 1- From Bannockburn to Flodden

Volume 2 -From Gileskirk to Greyfriars

Volume 3 - From Glencoe to Stirling

Volume 4 - From Montrose to Culloden

Memorial to Bonny Prince Charlie where he returned to Scotland

G. A. Henty Books based in Scotland:
Bonnie Prince Charlie

In Freedom's Cause

Castle Campbell

The Scottish Worthies - A book about most of the Scottish Reformers.

Stories of the Covenanters in Scotland - A book of three short stories about covenanters in Scotland, originally printed in the late 1800's.

Crown and Covenant Series - This is a series of three books by Douglas Bond. They are historical novels based in Scotland in the time of the covenanters. The three books are Duncan's War, King's Arrow and Rebels Keep.

Books on Scottish Battles:

Stirling Bridge and Falkirk 1297 - 98 William Wallace's rebellion

Bannockburn 1314 - Robert the Bruce's Greatest Victory

Culloden Moor 1746 - The death of the Jacobite cause

Other Books my Father Read:

John Knox - Trumpeter of God

Blind Harry's Wallace

The Life and African Explorations of Dr. David Livingston

Books

We bought a total of 24 books on the Faith & Freedom Tour. Altogether the thicknesses add up to two feet. That means that each book is approximately one inch thick. The total number of pages is 8237, and the average is 340 pages. We still have not read all the ones from other years. I enjoyed the tour very much. I really liked Lexington and Concord.