What do you think?
Rate this book
Littlefield History of the Civil War Era
War on the Waters: The Union and Confederate Navies, 1861-1865
Although previously undervalued for their strategic impact because the represented only a small percentage of total forces, the Union and Confederate navies were crucial to the outcome of the Civil War. In "War on the Waters," James M. McPherson has crafted an enlightening, at times harrowing, and ultimately thrilling account of the war's naval campaigns and their military leaders.
McPherson recounts how the Union navy's blockade of the Confederate coast, leaky as a sieve in the war's early months, became increasingly effective as it choked off vital imports and exports. Meanwhile, the Confederate navy, dwarfed by its giant adversary, demonstrated daring and military innovation. Commerce raiders sank Union ships and drove the American merchant marine from the high seas. Southern ironclads sent several Union warships to the bottom, naval mines sank many more, and the Confederates deployed the world's first submarine to sink an enemy vessel. But in the end, it was the Union navy that won some of the war's most important strategic victories--as an essential partner to the army on the ground at Fort Donelson, Vicksburg, Port Hudson, Mobile Bay, and Fort Fisher, and all by itself at Port Royal, Fort Henry, New Orleans, and Memphis.
McPherson recounts how the Union navy's blockade of the Confederate coast, leaky as a sieve in the war's early months, became increasingly effective as it choked off vital imports and exports. Meanwhile, the Confederate navy, dwarfed by its giant adversary, demonstrated daring and military innovation. Commerce raiders sank Union ships and drove the American merchant marine from the high seas. Southern ironclads sent several Union warships to the bottom, naval mines sank many more, and the Confederates deployed the world's first submarine to sink an enemy vessel. But in the end, it was the Union navy that won some of the war's most important strategic victories--as an essential partner to the army on the ground at Fort Donelson, Vicksburg, Port Hudson, Mobile Bay, and Fort Fisher, and all by itself at Port Royal, Fort Henry, New Orleans, and Memphis.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published August 10, 2012
41 people are currently reading
705 people want to read
About the author
James M. McPherson
171 books713 followersJames M. McPherson, Ph.D. (Johns Hopkins University, 1963; B.A., Gustavus Adolphus College (St. Peter, Minnesota), 1958) is an American Civil War historian, and the George Henry Davis '86 Professor Emeritus of United States History at Princeton University. He received the Pulitzer Prize for Battle Cry of Freedom, his most famous book. He was the president of the American Historical Association in 2003, and is a member of the editorial board of Encyclopædia Britannica.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews
September 24, 2021
“Accompanied by two gunboat consorts, the [CSS] Virginia headed toward Newport News, where two sailing frigates were anchored: the fifty-gun USS Congress and the twenty-four gun USS Cumberland. Firing a broadside at the Congress as he passed, [Captain Franklin] Buchanan steamed toward the Cumberland as the Virginia’s powerful 7-inch Brooke rifles riddled the helpless frigate, whose shots in return “struck and glanced off,” in the words of one Northern witness, ‘having no more effect than peas from a pop-gun.’ Following up on [John Mercer] Brooke’s experiments with tallow grease, Buchanan had the ship coated with it ‘to increase the tendency of the projectiles to glance.’ The Virginia plowed straight into the starboard side of the Cumberland and sent her to the bottom. Virginia’s ram stuck in the Cumberland and almost took her down with the Union frigate until the ram broke off and freed the Confederate ironclad. The guns of the Cumberland kept firing until the water closed over them…”
- James McPherson, War on the Waters: The Union & Confederate Navies, 1861-1865
Rhett Butler led me here.
Recently, I finished Gone with the Wind, the controversial classic set in Georgia during the American Civil War. Despite many virtues, Margaret Mitchell’s novel has a certain penchant - to put it mildly - for historical distortion. Her take on Reconstruction, for instance, has only a tenuous grasp to reality.
Nonetheless, the one thing Mitchell gets perfectly right is the slow stranglehold of the Union blockade. Derided as ineffective by Unionists and Confederates alike, it exists in the shadows of Civil War historiography, often ignored in favor of the titanic battles on land, the blockade is mostly remembered for the blockade runners that stole through it on moonless nights.
Mitchell’s Rhett Butler, of course, made his fortune stealing away from Southern shores, bringing cotton to London, selling it at fabulous profits, and then purchasing luxury goods for resale on the black market. As Gone with the Wind progresses, though, those luxury goods start to become scarcer, along with more important items such as flour, sugar, and salt. Some of Mitchell’s best-drawn scenes show her protagonist, Scarlett O’Hara, trying to survive in a land that has been cut off from resupply.
Gone with the Wind set me to thinking about the naval operations of the Civil War. And that, in turn, led me to James McPherson’s War on the Waters.
McPherson is best known for his expansive Pulitzer Prize-winning doorstop Battle Cry of Freedom, which might be the best one-volume book on the Civil War ever produced. War on the Waters is much different. At 225 pages of text, it is slim and concise and shorn of extraneous details. It provides a crisp, fast-paced overview of naval operations, but lacks that extra-something that the best histories provide.
As for coverage, McPherson states at the outset what he plans to show:
Of course, the respective successes for North and South were relative to their efforts and abilities. The North scored big strategic victories, especially with combined operations that captured Fort Henry, New Orleans, Vicksburg, Mobile Bay, and Fort Fisher. These battles, with the exception of Vicksburg, don’t really have the cachet of Chancellorsville or Gettysburg. Yet they were just as important – if not more so. The capture of New Orleans, for instance, took the South’s largest city and busiest port off the chess board.
The South was always on the defensive, meaning that a “win” for them meant, for example, keeping Charleston out of Union hands, rather than conducting offensive operations of their own. Still, McPherson shows how well the Confederacy conducted asymmetric warfare. Despite having a much smaller industrial base, they utilized advanced (for the time) technologies such as underwater mines (known then as torpedoes) and a submarine. (Ironclad vessels predated the American Civil War, meaning the eventual clash of the Monitor and the Virginia, a.k.a., the Merrimac was more an inevitability than a turning point in naval warfare).
The through-line of War on the Waters is the Union blockade. The brainchild of General Winfield Scott and his much-maligned (though ultimately successful) Anaconda Plan, the blockade was always a work in progress. With the help of Great Britain (who eventually had to pay up), the South took advantage of ever-faster, ever-sleeker runners, swift ships burning smokeless anthracite coal to outrun their pursuers. Most blockade runners were successful. But that is not nearly the point.
War on the Waters is gracefully written, it has very nice maps, and it comes with McPherson’s easy knowledge of the Civil War, which he has spent a lifetime accumulating. Still, this isn’t a great book. It’s just too thin. It lacks in-depth treatment of the battles, colorful portraits of the participants, and the extra details that bring history to life. (For instance, when McPherson discusses sailors greasing the sides of their vessels, he refers to “ship’s slush,” without defining the term. I figured it was something gross. Turns out, it’s the grease skimmed from the top pot of boiling salt pork. So, yeah. Gross).
Despite this, McPherson does a commendable job of highlighting the importance of the blue and brown water navies of the Civil War. The Union Navy, despite being grossly underfunded in comparison to the Army, did as much as anyone to secure a Northern triumph. Their capture of Southern ports, their disruption of rebel supply lines, and their severing of the Confederate states, did much to make a Union victory a military (if never a political) probability.
- James McPherson, War on the Waters: The Union & Confederate Navies, 1861-1865
Rhett Butler led me here.
Recently, I finished Gone with the Wind, the controversial classic set in Georgia during the American Civil War. Despite many virtues, Margaret Mitchell’s novel has a certain penchant - to put it mildly - for historical distortion. Her take on Reconstruction, for instance, has only a tenuous grasp to reality.
Nonetheless, the one thing Mitchell gets perfectly right is the slow stranglehold of the Union blockade. Derided as ineffective by Unionists and Confederates alike, it exists in the shadows of Civil War historiography, often ignored in favor of the titanic battles on land, the blockade is mostly remembered for the blockade runners that stole through it on moonless nights.
Mitchell’s Rhett Butler, of course, made his fortune stealing away from Southern shores, bringing cotton to London, selling it at fabulous profits, and then purchasing luxury goods for resale on the black market. As Gone with the Wind progresses, though, those luxury goods start to become scarcer, along with more important items such as flour, sugar, and salt. Some of Mitchell’s best-drawn scenes show her protagonist, Scarlett O’Hara, trying to survive in a land that has been cut off from resupply.
Gone with the Wind set me to thinking about the naval operations of the Civil War. And that, in turn, led me to James McPherson’s War on the Waters.
McPherson is best known for his expansive Pulitzer Prize-winning doorstop Battle Cry of Freedom, which might be the best one-volume book on the Civil War ever produced. War on the Waters is much different. At 225 pages of text, it is slim and concise and shorn of extraneous details. It provides a crisp, fast-paced overview of naval operations, but lacks that extra-something that the best histories provide.
As for coverage, McPherson states at the outset what he plans to show:
The four years of the Civil War can be divided into five overlapping parts in which naval clashes paralleled and in part produced a first wave of Union victories in 1861-62, successful Confederate resistance in 1862-63, a revival of Northern momentum in the latter half of 1863, Confederate resuscitation in early 1864, and final Union triumph from the second half of 1864 through the end of the war.
Of course, the respective successes for North and South were relative to their efforts and abilities. The North scored big strategic victories, especially with combined operations that captured Fort Henry, New Orleans, Vicksburg, Mobile Bay, and Fort Fisher. These battles, with the exception of Vicksburg, don’t really have the cachet of Chancellorsville or Gettysburg. Yet they were just as important – if not more so. The capture of New Orleans, for instance, took the South’s largest city and busiest port off the chess board.
The South was always on the defensive, meaning that a “win” for them meant, for example, keeping Charleston out of Union hands, rather than conducting offensive operations of their own. Still, McPherson shows how well the Confederacy conducted asymmetric warfare. Despite having a much smaller industrial base, they utilized advanced (for the time) technologies such as underwater mines (known then as torpedoes) and a submarine. (Ironclad vessels predated the American Civil War, meaning the eventual clash of the Monitor and the Virginia, a.k.a., the Merrimac was more an inevitability than a turning point in naval warfare).
The through-line of War on the Waters is the Union blockade. The brainchild of General Winfield Scott and his much-maligned (though ultimately successful) Anaconda Plan, the blockade was always a work in progress. With the help of Great Britain (who eventually had to pay up), the South took advantage of ever-faster, ever-sleeker runners, swift ships burning smokeless anthracite coal to outrun their pursuers. Most blockade runners were successful. But that is not nearly the point.
When [Confederate diplomat] John Slidell presented to French officials yet another list of vessels that had run the blockade, they asked him “how it was that so little cotton had reached neutral ports.” Slidell answered that most of the successful runners had small cargo capacity, and “the risk of capture was sufficiently great to deter those who had not an adventurous spirit from attempting it…” The true measure of the blockade’s effectiveness was not how many ships got through or even how many were captured, but how many never tried.
War on the Waters is gracefully written, it has very nice maps, and it comes with McPherson’s easy knowledge of the Civil War, which he has spent a lifetime accumulating. Still, this isn’t a great book. It’s just too thin. It lacks in-depth treatment of the battles, colorful portraits of the participants, and the extra details that bring history to life. (For instance, when McPherson discusses sailors greasing the sides of their vessels, he refers to “ship’s slush,” without defining the term. I figured it was something gross. Turns out, it’s the grease skimmed from the top pot of boiling salt pork. So, yeah. Gross).
Despite this, McPherson does a commendable job of highlighting the importance of the blue and brown water navies of the Civil War. The Union Navy, despite being grossly underfunded in comparison to the Army, did as much as anyone to secure a Northern triumph. Their capture of Southern ports, their disruption of rebel supply lines, and their severing of the Confederate states, did much to make a Union victory a military (if never a political) probability.
October 5, 2020
Web-feet In The Civil War
In his breadth of knowledge, lucid writing, and passion for his subject, James McPherson remains among the best of Civil War historians, For many years Professor of history at Princeton University, McPherson has the rare gift of appealing to both academic and lay readers. In his latest book, "War on the Waters: The Union & Confederate Navies, 1861 -- 1865 (2012), McPherson focuses on the role of the navies in the Civil War. He argues persuasively that students of the war tend to understate the importance of the navies in the war's outcome. This is particularly the case, he argues, for the Union Navy. The book enhanced my knowledge of a sometimes overlooked aspect of the war.
The focus of the book is on the Union Navy in that it was far larger than the Confederate Navy and ultimately more successful. Thus, McPherson begins by quoting Abraham Lincoln in 1863 on the navy's role in the Vicksburg campaign. "Nor must Uncle Sam's Web-feet be forgotten. At all the watery margins they have been present. Not only on the deep sea,the broad bay, and the rapid river, but also up the narrow muddy bayou, and wherever the ground was a little damp, they have been and made their tracks." In McPherson's book, the reader follows "Uncle Sam's Web-feet" in the oceans, rivers, swamps, and bayous.
McPherson also praises the Confederate navy for its ingenuity and spirit and for doing much with little. Without the industrial resources of the North, the Confederacy led in the development of ironclad ships, torpedoes, and submarines.In its Secretary of the Navy, Steven Mallory, the Confederacy had a gifted and innovative leader whom McPherson obviously admires.
In a relatively short book McPherson explores naval battles, large and small, on the sea and on the rivers. For both the Union and the Confederacy, he describes battles in which the navy had the sole responsibility as well as battles showing the cooperation, or its lack, between the navy and the army. The book describes naval leaders and heroes on both sides as well as the mixture of boredom and hard, dangerous fighting that awaited the sailors. McPherson also emphasizes the activities of the navies as they impacted politics and the conduct of foreign affairs.
The Union instituted a blockade of the South at the outset of the war, and the effectiveness of the blockade has long been a subject of debate among students. McPherson argues that the blockade was a major factor in the Union's success, concluding that by isolating and weakening the South and depriving it of supplies, the blockade "may have been just enough to tip the balance to Union victory."
The book is organized chronologically following, so to speak, the ebb and flow of battle. McPherson sees the history of the Civil War and of naval activity as falling into five overlapping parts, developed in his text: 1.a series of early Union naval victories in 1861-1862 on the Eastern seaboard and the captures of Fort Henry and Fort Donelson which paved the way for Union success in the West, and Farragut's taking of New Orleans; 2.Successful Confederate resistance in 1862, including the construction of the Virginia, the development of torpedoes,and the use of commerce raiders, including the CSS Alabama, 3. The Union success culminating with the taking of Vicksburg, in which the navy played a critical role 4. Confederate victories in the Western theater and its development of the submarine. These successes were short lived given Farragut's dramatic victory at Mobile Bay, Alabama. 5. The final months of the war, including the fall of Fort Fisher on the North Carolina coast.
There is a good narrative thread in the story. For example, I always was puzzled about how the Union navy was able to run past the formidable batteries of Vicksburg prior to set up Grant's land campaign below the city. McPherson's discussion about running fortifications at Vicksburg and elsewhere earlier in the war, helped me understand what was at stake in this type of action. The book is also filled with details about naval actions I hadn't heard of before. For example, McPherson describes the Union's near disastrous 1864 Red River Campaign in Louisiana. Union Admiral Porter's fleet sailed up the Red River and almost became stranded when the water level of the river lowered. An Army Lieutenant Colonel, Joseph Bailey,who had built dams in logging operations in civilian life, was able to organize the building of a dam on the Red River which allowed the stranded ships to retreat safely.
McPherson writes with flair, treats the characters in his book with respect, and illuminates the role of the navies in the conduct and outcome of the Civil War. The book will have most appeal to readers with a good broad overview of Civil War military history. It is an impressive, readable account of the importance of the Union and Confederate navies.
Robin Friedman
In his breadth of knowledge, lucid writing, and passion for his subject, James McPherson remains among the best of Civil War historians, For many years Professor of history at Princeton University, McPherson has the rare gift of appealing to both academic and lay readers. In his latest book, "War on the Waters: The Union & Confederate Navies, 1861 -- 1865 (2012), McPherson focuses on the role of the navies in the Civil War. He argues persuasively that students of the war tend to understate the importance of the navies in the war's outcome. This is particularly the case, he argues, for the Union Navy. The book enhanced my knowledge of a sometimes overlooked aspect of the war.
The focus of the book is on the Union Navy in that it was far larger than the Confederate Navy and ultimately more successful. Thus, McPherson begins by quoting Abraham Lincoln in 1863 on the navy's role in the Vicksburg campaign. "Nor must Uncle Sam's Web-feet be forgotten. At all the watery margins they have been present. Not only on the deep sea,the broad bay, and the rapid river, but also up the narrow muddy bayou, and wherever the ground was a little damp, they have been and made their tracks." In McPherson's book, the reader follows "Uncle Sam's Web-feet" in the oceans, rivers, swamps, and bayous.
McPherson also praises the Confederate navy for its ingenuity and spirit and for doing much with little. Without the industrial resources of the North, the Confederacy led in the development of ironclad ships, torpedoes, and submarines.In its Secretary of the Navy, Steven Mallory, the Confederacy had a gifted and innovative leader whom McPherson obviously admires.
In a relatively short book McPherson explores naval battles, large and small, on the sea and on the rivers. For both the Union and the Confederacy, he describes battles in which the navy had the sole responsibility as well as battles showing the cooperation, or its lack, between the navy and the army. The book describes naval leaders and heroes on both sides as well as the mixture of boredom and hard, dangerous fighting that awaited the sailors. McPherson also emphasizes the activities of the navies as they impacted politics and the conduct of foreign affairs.
The Union instituted a blockade of the South at the outset of the war, and the effectiveness of the blockade has long been a subject of debate among students. McPherson argues that the blockade was a major factor in the Union's success, concluding that by isolating and weakening the South and depriving it of supplies, the blockade "may have been just enough to tip the balance to Union victory."
The book is organized chronologically following, so to speak, the ebb and flow of battle. McPherson sees the history of the Civil War and of naval activity as falling into five overlapping parts, developed in his text: 1.a series of early Union naval victories in 1861-1862 on the Eastern seaboard and the captures of Fort Henry and Fort Donelson which paved the way for Union success in the West, and Farragut's taking of New Orleans; 2.Successful Confederate resistance in 1862, including the construction of the Virginia, the development of torpedoes,and the use of commerce raiders, including the CSS Alabama, 3. The Union success culminating with the taking of Vicksburg, in which the navy played a critical role 4. Confederate victories in the Western theater and its development of the submarine. These successes were short lived given Farragut's dramatic victory at Mobile Bay, Alabama. 5. The final months of the war, including the fall of Fort Fisher on the North Carolina coast.
There is a good narrative thread in the story. For example, I always was puzzled about how the Union navy was able to run past the formidable batteries of Vicksburg prior to set up Grant's land campaign below the city. McPherson's discussion about running fortifications at Vicksburg and elsewhere earlier in the war, helped me understand what was at stake in this type of action. The book is also filled with details about naval actions I hadn't heard of before. For example, McPherson describes the Union's near disastrous 1864 Red River Campaign in Louisiana. Union Admiral Porter's fleet sailed up the Red River and almost became stranded when the water level of the river lowered. An Army Lieutenant Colonel, Joseph Bailey,who had built dams in logging operations in civilian life, was able to organize the building of a dam on the Red River which allowed the stranded ships to retreat safely.
McPherson writes with flair, treats the characters in his book with respect, and illuminates the role of the navies in the conduct and outcome of the Civil War. The book will have most appeal to readers with a good broad overview of Civil War military history. It is an impressive, readable account of the importance of the Union and Confederate navies.
Robin Friedman
July 20, 2017
James McPherson’s War on the Waters: The Union and Confederate Navies, 1861-1865 is a thorough, well-written, and short (only 226 pages of text) history of the maritime and riverine operations of the Federal and Rebel navies during the Civil War. McPherson does his usual excellent job in elucidating the key strategic importance of naval contributions to Union victory and Confederate defeat. He does honor to the sacrifices of sailors on both sides. One fascinating aspect of the story is the role of African-American sailors in the U.S. Navy. Black sailors served in considerable numbers in the antebellum navy, unlike the all-white army, but during the Civil War African-American enlistments rose to comprise 17% of naval enlisted personnel as opposed to only 7% of the army. The cover art of McPherson’s book is William Heysham Overend’s well-known late 19th century oil painting entitled “An August Morning with Farragut: the Battle of Mobile Bay.” Note the black gunner in the foreground.
I recommend McPherson’s book to Civil War buffs and casual readers alike.
I recommend McPherson’s book to Civil War buffs and casual readers alike.
December 14, 2014
McPherson is certainly a historian of considerable stature and this brief work is one befitting an author of his eminence. It made me wonder why so many other histories of the Civil War fail to give the naval accomplishments of the Union their deserved credit especially during the war's early stages when the Union Army was stumbling over its own feet. A very good book and worth reading.
November 13, 2021
Decent introduction, but like many books purportedly converting both the Union and Confederate navy, this book is primarily Union.
This is a factor that the Union had more ships and success, but the Confederate Navy is in some ways more fun as a result.
This is a factor that the Union had more ships and success, but the Confederate Navy is in some ways more fun as a result.
November 12, 2020
As an Emeritus, he's still as smooth as a Pullitzer. The narration leans towards the Union side, if only because the Confederate Navy was, for all its assymetrical resourcefulness, often reacting to amphibious operations. The effectiveness of the blockade transpires like an anaconda,beyond questioning.
July 4, 2013
This was my Mother's Day gift from my spouse, and boats are HIS thing. I thought, Psssh. RIGHT. But since I strive to be a scholar of the American Civil War and the navy is about the only stone (as opposed to gravel, metaphorically) that I've left unturned, I started in. No, I FELL in.
First of all, it has to be recognized that McPherson is undeniably the USA's #1 living Civil War scholar. His status as professor emeritus at Princeton has been well earned. When he decides to delve into some aspect of Civil War history, he finds his primary sources wherever he has to go. So, though he is an old man, he went on those waters. He walked where soldiers trod in order to get to the forts he, too, visited. He believes that in order to understand how any battle unfolded, on land or sea, you'd better get a sense of the geography. This is what a serious scholar looks like.
Then he tracked down the letters and journals of the key players. Once his tools were out and he was ready to go, he stated his bold thesis and then methodically proved it. And it is something of a startling thesis to me. He says that without the navy's contributions, the war could not have been won.
When Grant says it, one wonders if it was a diplomatic gesture toward the seamen who so tenaciously pounded away during the siege of Vicksburg. How many times have you heard someone who is receiving an award say, "I would not be here tonight if it were not for the support of..." (whoever)?
When McPherson says it, I sit back and say, "Whoa."
He takes his case and spins it into an enjoyable narrative, for those interested in the American Civil War. There are maps with just exactly the right amount of detail to prove the point. Photographs are clear as a bell (remember that this is the first U.S. war in which photography was available, though not so much for action shots...but for a naval battle? Certainly!).
So although my husband never reads anything on this site, Honey? Sorry to have misjudged you. And I forgive you for stealing it back to read when I was thirty pages from the end. Do you forgive me for stealing it back? You can finish it now if you like!
And to other readers who are Civil War buffs: why are you still on this page? You should be on another screen, ordering the book!
First of all, it has to be recognized that McPherson is undeniably the USA's #1 living Civil War scholar. His status as professor emeritus at Princeton has been well earned. When he decides to delve into some aspect of Civil War history, he finds his primary sources wherever he has to go. So, though he is an old man, he went on those waters. He walked where soldiers trod in order to get to the forts he, too, visited. He believes that in order to understand how any battle unfolded, on land or sea, you'd better get a sense of the geography. This is what a serious scholar looks like.
Then he tracked down the letters and journals of the key players. Once his tools were out and he was ready to go, he stated his bold thesis and then methodically proved it. And it is something of a startling thesis to me. He says that without the navy's contributions, the war could not have been won.
When Grant says it, one wonders if it was a diplomatic gesture toward the seamen who so tenaciously pounded away during the siege of Vicksburg. How many times have you heard someone who is receiving an award say, "I would not be here tonight if it were not for the support of..." (whoever)?
When McPherson says it, I sit back and say, "Whoa."
He takes his case and spins it into an enjoyable narrative, for those interested in the American Civil War. There are maps with just exactly the right amount of detail to prove the point. Photographs are clear as a bell (remember that this is the first U.S. war in which photography was available, though not so much for action shots...but for a naval battle? Certainly!).
So although my husband never reads anything on this site, Honey? Sorry to have misjudged you. And I forgive you for stealing it back to read when I was thirty pages from the end. Do you forgive me for stealing it back? You can finish it now if you like!
And to other readers who are Civil War buffs: why are you still on this page? You should be on another screen, ordering the book!
July 21, 2017
A few years ago I decided I wanted to read a naval history of the Civil War. To my surprise, I learned that, for all that has been written about the conflict, there are relatively few books about its naval aspects and the ones I found (Musicant's Divided Waters, Tucker's Blue and Gray Navies) proved disappointing. Had I waited a little longer I would have discovered that this book was a perfect fit for my needs, as James McPherson brings his expertise as the nation's foremost Civil War historian to the study of its naval aspects. Drawing upon both primary sources and secondary studies he surveys the various components of the naval war, from the Union blockade that was a critical dimension of the conflict to the revolutionary development of steam-powered ironclads, all of which he describes in his clear and assured prose. If there is a complaint to be made about this book it is that the apparent parameters of the Littlefield series for which he wrote it limited the amount of depth in which he can explore his subject, yet within its confines he has provided the best single-volume history of the Civil War at sea there is or is likely to be for some time to come.
November 2, 2022
Audible.com 8 hours 55 min. Narrated by Joe Barrett (A)
I'm dipping my toe into the fathom less seas that make up all the books written about the American Civil War; its history, battles, characters, causes, effects, and more. Some have given this subject their whole life to this study and never finish. I want to learn more about all but at 75, I don't want to get bogged down with details nor do I want to bored to sleep by poor readers.
I've never thought much about the navies of the the North and the South during this war because the preponderance of battles were fought on land. This interesting book opened up my mind to how much influence the lengthy coastline from Maine to Texas and the Mississippi River and other rivers had during the war. This was the first war in which the great frigates that had been so important in the War of 1812 were outmoded by the invention of the steam engine. This also saw the pioneering designs of ships made of metal rather than timber "ironclads," and even the the first submarines. Also while the army was slow to embrace escaping slaves added to their forces, the Navy of the North found that that they were not only very adaptable as hands on boats, but they also brought a wealth of knowledge of the waterways. A much greater number of black men fought and died as valued members of the Navy than in the Army.
Earlier this month I read Mornings on Horseback by David McCullough about Theodore Roosevelt's early life. Theodore's parents were married a few years before the beginning of the Civil War and his mother was from a prominent Georgia family. She had two brothers who enlisted in the Confederate Army. Her eldest brother James Bullock was sent instead to England by the Confederacy to serve there behind the scene as a businessman engaged in contracting the services of English ship builders for the South. Although England had already determined that they would remain neutral during the war, James was already a well-connected merchant and seaman in Liverpool and before the government could prove anything, two ships were already headed across the Atlantic to plague the U.S. merchant marine vessels and the whaling ships until the end of the war. The C.S.S. Alabama and the C.S.S. Florida caused great financial losses in seizing cargo or burning ships with impunity and even greater frustration in failure to be captured "like finding a needle in a haystack." A few years after the war, when the Roosevelts took their first family visit to Europe, they landed in Liverpool and were warmly welcomed by Uncle James and stayed with family before setting out to explore the English countryside. James was later to encourage an older Theodore in writing a history of the War of 1812, and so War on the Waters::The Union and Confederate Navies and Uncle James are connected now in my mind.
This was an more engaging book to me because the connection, but it held my interest throughout the book.
I'm dipping my toe into the fathom less seas that make up all the books written about the American Civil War; its history, battles, characters, causes, effects, and more. Some have given this subject their whole life to this study and never finish. I want to learn more about all but at 75, I don't want to get bogged down with details nor do I want to bored to sleep by poor readers.
I've never thought much about the navies of the the North and the South during this war because the preponderance of battles were fought on land. This interesting book opened up my mind to how much influence the lengthy coastline from Maine to Texas and the Mississippi River and other rivers had during the war. This was the first war in which the great frigates that had been so important in the War of 1812 were outmoded by the invention of the steam engine. This also saw the pioneering designs of ships made of metal rather than timber "ironclads," and even the the first submarines. Also while the army was slow to embrace escaping slaves added to their forces, the Navy of the North found that that they were not only very adaptable as hands on boats, but they also brought a wealth of knowledge of the waterways. A much greater number of black men fought and died as valued members of the Navy than in the Army.
Earlier this month I read Mornings on Horseback by David McCullough about Theodore Roosevelt's early life. Theodore's parents were married a few years before the beginning of the Civil War and his mother was from a prominent Georgia family. She had two brothers who enlisted in the Confederate Army. Her eldest brother James Bullock was sent instead to England by the Confederacy to serve there behind the scene as a businessman engaged in contracting the services of English ship builders for the South. Although England had already determined that they would remain neutral during the war, James was already a well-connected merchant and seaman in Liverpool and before the government could prove anything, two ships were already headed across the Atlantic to plague the U.S. merchant marine vessels and the whaling ships until the end of the war. The C.S.S. Alabama and the C.S.S. Florida caused great financial losses in seizing cargo or burning ships with impunity and even greater frustration in failure to be captured "like finding a needle in a haystack." A few years after the war, when the Roosevelts took their first family visit to Europe, they landed in Liverpool and were warmly welcomed by Uncle James and stayed with family before setting out to explore the English countryside. James was later to encourage an older Theodore in writing a history of the War of 1812, and so War on the Waters::The Union and Confederate Navies and Uncle James are connected now in my mind.
This was an more engaging book to me because the connection, but it held my interest throughout the book.
November 2, 2021
Have read only a little about the Civil War, so was not familiar with this author. Reviews indicated he is much praised. I can see why. I do enjoy reading about naval and maritime history. This was an exciting read with a smooth and clear narrative. A must read for a Civil War buff. Only 225 pages filled with numerous accounts of brown water (rivers) and blue water ( ocean) battles and strategies between the Confederate and Federalist Navies. Numerous maps included. I came away with a greater knowledge of this apparently less known part of the war. The Navy did not win the war but played an important role.
January 31, 2013
While short, 220 pages, this a very good overview of naval operations in the civil war on both sides. Dr Mc Pherson does his usual excellent job of giving us a very readable history.
The book covers the ebb and flow of the war on the waters – not just the blue water navy, but the war on the rivers also. He breaks it down to 5 different phases. Dr. McPherson weaves a good tale on the problems the Union Navy had with unreasonable expectations that the public developed from their early successes at New Orleans and Ft. Donalson, esp about the blockade. He also covers the interservice rivalry in both the attempts to capture Southern ports, and who would control the brown water Navy, the Army or the Navy. He also covers the rivalries between the various admirals in the Union fleet. One fact that I didn’t know was that there hadn’t been any admirals in the Navy until the Civil War. This caused command problems in joint ops with the Army.
I found interesting is the use that the Navy made of “contraband” slaves. At the high point about 17% of the sailors in the Navy were black vs about 7% of the Army. Also they were enlisted in the regular navy – not the volunteers as in the Army.
As always Dr. McPherson has a very reader friendly writing style. I find this book both an easy read and very informative.
I would highly recommend this book
The book covers the ebb and flow of the war on the waters – not just the blue water navy, but the war on the rivers also. He breaks it down to 5 different phases. Dr. McPherson weaves a good tale on the problems the Union Navy had with unreasonable expectations that the public developed from their early successes at New Orleans and Ft. Donalson, esp about the blockade. He also covers the interservice rivalry in both the attempts to capture Southern ports, and who would control the brown water Navy, the Army or the Navy. He also covers the rivalries between the various admirals in the Union fleet. One fact that I didn’t know was that there hadn’t been any admirals in the Navy until the Civil War. This caused command problems in joint ops with the Army.
I found interesting is the use that the Navy made of “contraband” slaves. At the high point about 17% of the sailors in the Navy were black vs about 7% of the Army. Also they were enlisted in the regular navy – not the volunteers as in the Army.
As always Dr. McPherson has a very reader friendly writing style. I find this book both an easy read and very informative.
I would highly recommend this book
December 17, 2012
Engrossing account of the Civil War at sea. Despite the title, McPherson focuses overwhelmingly on the Union side, showing the frustrations of maintaining their blockade of Southern ports and operations on the Mississippi River. Coordinating land-sea operations with the Army stands out as a particular bugbear, causing Vicksburg and Charleston to last longer than they ought. The vastly outmanned Confederacy must resort to contraptions like ironclads, mines and submarines to keep pace. McPherson's accounts of specific campaigns are succinct; more interesting are his description of personalities, from the heroic David Farragut to the arrogant Samuel DuPont and impish Confederate raider Raphael Semmes. Recommended for Civil War buffs.
November 18, 2022
A much needed overview of the battles of the Union and Confederate navies. The author dives into the story of the blockade runners as well as conventional naval operations during the conflict. Along the way we become acquainted with many persona and many key events of the Civil War. If you are new to the subject, this book is a great starting point for deeper understanding.
July 21, 2014
A typically fascinating account from one of the foremost historians of the period. Provides a welcome and highly accessible narrative illuminating one of the most overlooked aspects of the American Civil War.
January 6, 2016
Excellent Overview of naval activity during the US Civil War.
December 29, 2020
The Union dominated the seas and even rivers during the the Civil War, and this history describes how. To a large extent it was blessed with able and energetic leadership of the navy almost from the start. It was of course not flawless, but Secretary of the Navy Wells managed to build up a fleet, find personnel based on talent instead of seniority, and correct mistakes to rally from setbacks.
Obviously the North had a significant advantage in material, but they were also trying to manage a blockade of a mind-numbingly huge coastline and get gunboats on rivers controlled by Southern fortifications. And they were facing a fairly innovative Confederate leadership, who were quick to create ironclads. The North certainly could have failed; instead for most of the war the confederate successes on the waters were limited to raids against merchant ships and blockade running, rather than the sorts of upsets seen on land.
The coordination with the army was also impressive; the ego and arguments that often hampered joint operations was fairly limited. Certainly individuals exhibited those traits, but Grant and Wells (and Lincoln) grasped the value of combined actions and repeatedly the Navy was able to play a key role in land based campaigns on the Mississippi basin.
Obviously the North had a significant advantage in material, but they were also trying to manage a blockade of a mind-numbingly huge coastline and get gunboats on rivers controlled by Southern fortifications. And they were facing a fairly innovative Confederate leadership, who were quick to create ironclads. The North certainly could have failed; instead for most of the war the confederate successes on the waters were limited to raids against merchant ships and blockade running, rather than the sorts of upsets seen on land.
The coordination with the army was also impressive; the ego and arguments that often hampered joint operations was fairly limited. Certainly individuals exhibited those traits, but Grant and Wells (and Lincoln) grasped the value of combined actions and repeatedly the Navy was able to play a key role in land based campaigns on the Mississippi basin.
January 28, 2022
A solid and focused look at an underappreciated but critical element of the American Civil War.
From blockades and their runners, to privateers and prizes, riverboats and all the damned torpedoes, McPherson's 2012 "War on the Waters" covers the formation and employment of the respective Union and Confederate navies during the Civil War in an informative and enjoyable survey.
So says McPherson at the end of this brief little history. Just as the respective armies began to employ new weapons and tactics, so too did both navies. Whether it was the development of the first periscopes, submarines, or ironclads, the American Civil War was just as much a technological leap forward for naval warfare as it was for land warfare.
McPherson covers all the high points listed above in more detail than you'd get in larger ACW surveys. This is less an academic work than a general survey of a specific topic. McPherson's writing and attention to compelling details are always present and engaging and help give the reader a far greater appreciation of the critical importance that naval power had in the Civil War.
McPherson closes "War on the Waters" appropriately -- The Union Navy didn't win the Civil War, but the war couldn't have been won without it.
From blockades and their runners, to privateers and prizes, riverboats and all the damned torpedoes, McPherson's 2012 "War on the Waters" covers the formation and employment of the respective Union and Confederate navies during the Civil War in an informative and enjoyable survey.
So says McPherson at the end of this brief little history. Just as the respective armies began to employ new weapons and tactics, so too did both navies. Whether it was the development of the first periscopes, submarines, or ironclads, the American Civil War was just as much a technological leap forward for naval warfare as it was for land warfare.
McPherson covers all the high points listed above in more detail than you'd get in larger ACW surveys. This is less an academic work than a general survey of a specific topic. McPherson's writing and attention to compelling details are always present and engaging and help give the reader a far greater appreciation of the critical importance that naval power had in the Civil War.
McPherson closes "War on the Waters" appropriately -- The Union Navy didn't win the Civil War, but the war couldn't have been won without it.
March 7, 2025
Naval history is rad. I cross over the Monitor Merrimack bridge tunnel every day and literally work on naval ships but I didn’t know a ton about Civil War naval history beyond the absolute basics.
One of our local museums has the original turret from the Monitor. They normally keep it under water in a tank to protect it from deterioration. However, Saturday is the anniversary of the battle and they’re draining the tank and giving tours of it. I’m pretty pumped to go and I wanted to knock out a quick audiobook on the topic. It’s such a cool history and this book did a great job of bringing it to life.
Honestly I enjoyed the battles up and down the western (at the time) US. It was interesting to hear about battles like Vicksburg from a naval perspective.
This book was cool and was a nice quick primer. Add it to the list of topics I need to study more.
One of our local museums has the original turret from the Monitor. They normally keep it under water in a tank to protect it from deterioration. However, Saturday is the anniversary of the battle and they’re draining the tank and giving tours of it. I’m pretty pumped to go and I wanted to knock out a quick audiobook on the topic. It’s such a cool history and this book did a great job of bringing it to life.
Honestly I enjoyed the battles up and down the western (at the time) US. It was interesting to hear about battles like Vicksburg from a naval perspective.
This book was cool and was a nice quick primer. Add it to the list of topics I need to study more.
February 9, 2020
This is the first McPherson book I have read and I enjoyed it immensely. It reads more like a historical narrative then a dry textbook but is just as informative. The significance of the Navy in the Unions victory during the war is laid out in incredible detail. This is supported by detailed diagrams showing the troop and ship movements of the important engagements throughout.
June 16, 2024
I knew about the Anaconda Plan and the importance of gunboats in the battles for Vicksburg, Shiloh and elsewhere but until I read this book I didn’t realize the vast scope of the naval war from 1861-1865. Also, the rapid advance in technology in those few years was just amazing. It was the first real modern war.
November 28, 2021
Serviceable linear overview of the U.S. Civil War naval war, blue water and riverine, written in McPherson's accessible style. Probably an unfair comparison but I found the book less engaging than some of his other works, which might be because of particular subject, the format of the book, or a combination of the two. It does convey the importance of the navy in defeating the Confederacy going well beyond the Monitor-Merrimack aspect and emphasizing the role of David Farragut as one of the essential Union military leaders, perhaps without counterpart in the CSA. It also explains why some commanders disappeared from the war (e.g. Andrew Foote) and goes in greater detail of the character of others such as Raphael Semmes, David D. Porter, and others seldom touched on. A worthwhile read though Civil War buffs might not find it as meaty a work as some of the author's other works.
October 14, 2013
I'm a unrepentant, biased American Civil War naval enthusiast, so when I saw War on the Waters: The Union and Confederate Navies, 1861-1865 at my local library, it was a selection that didn't require much thought, especially with the added spur of the author being James McPherson, author of one of my favorite overall Civil War histories, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. In War on the Waters, McPherson narrows his focus somewhat to do justice to an underappreciated pillar of the great Union victory. Both Abraham Lincoln and General Ulysses Grant (who worked hand in hand with Western Admiral David Porter, so he knew what he was about) lauded the Union Navy in the highest terms, giving them credit for contributing to the ultimate outcome of victory. Indeed, the Union Navy in particular, was a good value. Of the 3 billion dollars spent by the Union on the American Civil War, the entire naval budget for all years of the war came to less than 18%. For that amount, the Navy maintained an active (if only gradually effective) blockade, and either contributed to or was the sole participant in the capture of several Confederate cities and fortifications, including three Confederate state capitals. McPherson does not allow his history to become partisan, though he does, perhaps, linger on the accomplishments of the Union Navy overall-- which I suspect is a result of poor or non-existent record keeping on the part of the Confederate Navy more than anything else. Credit is given to the strategic focus of the Confederate Navy-- they could not match the Union Navy hull for hull, so they had to innovate to force the blockade and keep their ports open. Blockade running and shallow draft casemate gunboats were the main focus of Confederate naval ingenuity, which matched the South's greatly diminished industrial base. McPherson recounts the events, great and small, with a masterful pen. Along with the facts and figures is an engrossing account of the political side of the Union Navy-- one reads of the intrigues and back-biting, the political infighting inside the service and outside. I was left with a greater appreciation of the true naval hero, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Wells-- riding heard on a squabbling pack of Admirals and Commodores, forcing a giant leap in naval innovation from wooden sailing frigates to ironplated steam powered cruisers, and all the while closing off and constricting the Confederacy's strategic options. It was a monumental task. McPherson's book is hardly in depth but it is a good broad brush history of the naval action on both sides during the American Civil War, and I enjoyed reading it.
September 15, 2015
There is no argument that the naval contributions to the American Civil War are largely ignored in the realm of Civil War academia. The few volumes which contribute to these discussions are often times narrowly focused and tend to feel constrained by their own subject matter. In James M. McPherson’s War on the Waters, that feeling is overcome by the complete treatment which the author gives his subject. In this one book, McPherson gives us a look into the world of both the Union and Confederate Navies which stands as work which fills in the gaps of many Civil War libraries.
James M. McPherson needs no introduction. He is the author of the great one volume work on the American Civil War Battle Cry of Freedom. He has also authored many other works including Tried by War, The Mighty Scourge, and What They Fought For, 1861-1865. He is the George Henry Davis ’86 Professor of History Emeritus at Princeton University and is one of the most respected names in the annals of Civil War academia. He is also the winner of the Pulitzer Prize and two Lincoln Prizes. This work, War on the Waters, is also part of the Littlefield History of the Civil War series being printed by the University of North Carolina Press.
There are a lot of things which I can say about this book, but one of the most important things which stood out to me as a reader was the even temperedness of the work. McPherson gives us a look into both the Union and Confederate Navies and explains their organizations and the government involvement in the departments. He gives a full blown narrative on the very thing Civil War students and readers have been asking for. Instead of bogging down the narrative with chapters on the minutia, he uses the events of the war to bring out the details which are so very important to a work such as this. Because of this, the narrative flows quite smoothly and he brings about the charm and reality in this work as he did with his ever popular Battle Cry of Freedom. Throughout the text, there are a great many maps and photographs which are placed to aid the reader and they are a welcome addition. These elements not only bring about a book which is accessible for Civil War students, it is a book which is accessible to the entire genre and should be welcomed as an addition to Battle Cry of Freedom.
I highly recommend this book to everyone interested in the American Civil War. Mr. McPherson has outdone himself this time by bringing this often overlooked subject into a more cohesive narrative. I feel as though the work and research placed in this book is top notch and should be used as an example for the ages to come. Most importantly, this book adds a great deal of depth to any library. Mr. McPherson should be praised for the work he has done here in his already exceptional career in Civil War writing.
Matthew Bartlett - Gettysburg Chronicle
James M. McPherson needs no introduction. He is the author of the great one volume work on the American Civil War Battle Cry of Freedom. He has also authored many other works including Tried by War, The Mighty Scourge, and What They Fought For, 1861-1865. He is the George Henry Davis ’86 Professor of History Emeritus at Princeton University and is one of the most respected names in the annals of Civil War academia. He is also the winner of the Pulitzer Prize and two Lincoln Prizes. This work, War on the Waters, is also part of the Littlefield History of the Civil War series being printed by the University of North Carolina Press.
There are a lot of things which I can say about this book, but one of the most important things which stood out to me as a reader was the even temperedness of the work. McPherson gives us a look into both the Union and Confederate Navies and explains their organizations and the government involvement in the departments. He gives a full blown narrative on the very thing Civil War students and readers have been asking for. Instead of bogging down the narrative with chapters on the minutia, he uses the events of the war to bring out the details which are so very important to a work such as this. Because of this, the narrative flows quite smoothly and he brings about the charm and reality in this work as he did with his ever popular Battle Cry of Freedom. Throughout the text, there are a great many maps and photographs which are placed to aid the reader and they are a welcome addition. These elements not only bring about a book which is accessible for Civil War students, it is a book which is accessible to the entire genre and should be welcomed as an addition to Battle Cry of Freedom.
I highly recommend this book to everyone interested in the American Civil War. Mr. McPherson has outdone himself this time by bringing this often overlooked subject into a more cohesive narrative. I feel as though the work and research placed in this book is top notch and should be used as an example for the ages to come. Most importantly, this book adds a great deal of depth to any library. Mr. McPherson should be praised for the work he has done here in his already exceptional career in Civil War writing.
Matthew Bartlett - Gettysburg Chronicle
December 1, 2012
After reading a ton of books this year for research, it was refreshing to pick up something just for fun on one of my favorite topics (Civil War) by an author I only know by reputation (I haven't read "Battle Cry Of Freedom" yet). I made a great choice. McPherson is a very good writer and he does a good job of putting together a history of Civil War naval warfare. This was a very fast and very enjoyable read.
The main shortcoming of this book is that it's simply too short at only a little over 200 pages. Some minor operations get mentioned in very brief passing or skipped entirely and there is a severe shortage of background information on some aspects like the ships themselves.
The main shortcoming of this book is that it's simply too short at only a little over 200 pages. Some minor operations get mentioned in very brief passing or skipped entirely and there is a severe shortage of background information on some aspects like the ships themselves.
December 5, 2013
Learned a lot about the Union Navy during the Civil War.
October 29, 2015
One of my favorite books on any subject. So much good stuff in one small book. In this book, McPherson rules the waves!
January 13, 2022
With the exception of the Monitor vs. Merrimack (CSS Virginia), naval battles get short shrift in Civil War books. McPherson certainly fills that gap with War on the Waters, The Union and Confederate Navies, 1861-1865. Land battles were certainly decisive, but the Union may have lost the war without Gideon Welles and the Navy Department. McPherson even makes a strong argument that Rear Admiral David Glasgow Farragut deserves to be ranked with generals Grant and Sherman when giving credit for the Union victory.
Inventions and innovations by both the Confederate States and the United States revolutionized naval warfare. Steam-powered ships, screw propeller driven ships, ironclads, submarines, weaponry, and naval tactics all made major advancement during those four years. By Appomattox, the United States owned the largest navy in the world, and arguably the most technologically advanced.
War on the Waters does an admirable job of describing blue water and brown water (river) battles and in explaining the significance of each clash. I found the battles that required cooperation between the Army and Navy of particular interest. As an added bonus, International law on blockades is more fully described than in other history books.
McPherson’s no nonsense writing style can sometimes verge on dull, but he always pulls the reader back to the narrative in the nick of time.
I recommend this book to all those who have an interest in the Civil War, naval battles, technology advancement, or military politics. War on the Waters is informational and a good read.
(This is a research book for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)
Inventions and innovations by both the Confederate States and the United States revolutionized naval warfare. Steam-powered ships, screw propeller driven ships, ironclads, submarines, weaponry, and naval tactics all made major advancement during those four years. By Appomattox, the United States owned the largest navy in the world, and arguably the most technologically advanced.
War on the Waters does an admirable job of describing blue water and brown water (river) battles and in explaining the significance of each clash. I found the battles that required cooperation between the Army and Navy of particular interest. As an added bonus, International law on blockades is more fully described than in other history books.
McPherson’s no nonsense writing style can sometimes verge on dull, but he always pulls the reader back to the narrative in the nick of time.
I recommend this book to all those who have an interest in the Civil War, naval battles, technology advancement, or military politics. War on the Waters is informational and a good read.
(This is a research book for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)
March 5, 2024
I really enjoyed this history of naval warfare during the Civil War. Most books about the war focus on the clash of armies, which is correct, I suppose, since soldiers did much more of the fighting and dying in the conflict. But in War on the Waters, McPherson (who is an expert on every aspect of the war) points out that while the Union Navy received only one twelfth of the Union's resources, it should get a big chunk of the credit. The Union navy captured a number of Southern cities on its own or with an assist from the army, blockaded southern ports, strangled the confederate economy, and wreaked havoc wherever the water was deep enough for their boats to penetrate.
And while the Confederates were massively outgunned, they performed miracles with what scanty resources they had. They built the first iron clad ever to fight by sea as well as a couple of submarines. They also employed torpedoes (which we would now call mines) which were a low cost weapon that struck terror in union naval captains.
The duel between the Alabama and the Kearsarge, the slugfest between the Merrimac and the Monitor, the Battles of New Orleans and Mobile Bay, it's all here and a lot more besides. Exciting and interesting.
And while the Confederates were massively outgunned, they performed miracles with what scanty resources they had. They built the first iron clad ever to fight by sea as well as a couple of submarines. They also employed torpedoes (which we would now call mines) which were a low cost weapon that struck terror in union naval captains.
The duel between the Alabama and the Kearsarge, the slugfest between the Merrimac and the Monitor, the Battles of New Orleans and Mobile Bay, it's all here and a lot more besides. Exciting and interesting.
March 9, 2025
McPherson is one of the great historians and this book is meticulous in detail and, well, detail. My problem in not giving it more stars is that it's too much a sequence of events without a great deal of analysis. Why did the US Navy begin building two-turret monitors? They just turn up. How were the unending number of sunk ironclads repaired so quickly on the front lines? Ht points out that the Monitor won a tactical victory but not a strategic one over the Virginia. Yet the Virginia's (Merrimack's) goal was to break the Union blockade using better technology to overcome superior numbers. It was prevented from doing that, never to emerge to seriously fight again, and that IS a strategic victory.
The few sketches and photos are hard to read and don't help the reader understand the locations and tactics. There are no photos of the groundbreaking submarine, the Hunley, yet I have photos of it having visited the recovered craft in North Charleston. The author never mentions in detail the conditions aboard Union and Confederate ships in any detail, such as sanitation, capacity for munitions, effects of ramming, etc.
The few sketches and photos are hard to read and don't help the reader understand the locations and tactics. There are no photos of the groundbreaking submarine, the Hunley, yet I have photos of it having visited the recovered craft in North Charleston. The author never mentions in detail the conditions aboard Union and Confederate ships in any detail, such as sanitation, capacity for munitions, effects of ramming, etc.
June 5, 2019
Historian James M. McPherson, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the fine Battle Cry of Freedom (1988), here provides an excellent summary of Civil War naval warfare. With refreshing conciseness, he actually begins the book with an eight-page precis and then goes on to provide careful, sensible assessments of virtually every naval development during the war. McPherson emphasizes the Union navy over the Confederate both because more Union records survived the war and because Union naval dominance—especially conduct of the blockade—was critical to the outcome of the war.
Considering the comparatively few lives lost and limited money spent—about a twelfth of the Union military budget—“the nation got more than its money’s worth.” (224) Though not discounting the importance of Confederate blockade running, the important measure, argues McPherson, is not how many blockade runners made port but how much importing and exporting the Confederacy might have done had there been no blockade.
Considering the comparatively few lives lost and limited money spent—about a twelfth of the Union military budget—“the nation got more than its money’s worth.” (224) Though not discounting the importance of Confederate blockade running, the important measure, argues McPherson, is not how many blockade runners made port but how much importing and exporting the Confederacy might have done had there been no blockade.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews