What do you think?
Rate this book
The Horrid Pit: The Battle of the Crater, the Civil War's Cruelest Mission
The story of one of the most violent yet least-known episodes of the Civil War — the daring excavation of the longest military tunnel in history.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published July 19, 2007
2 people are currently reading
69 people want to read
About the author
Alan Axelrod
176 books53 followersAlan Axelrod, Ph.D., is a prolific author of history, business and management books. As of October 2018, he had written more than 150 books, as noted in an online introduction by Lynn Ware Peek before an interview with Axelrod on the National Public Radio station KPCW. Axelrod resides in Atlanta, Georgia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
September 14, 2024
A number of books have been written about the Battle of the Crater. So maybe someone has already written the book I was expecting this one to be. Considering the whole episode was one of the most dramatic and unusual of the entire Civil War, I found much of this book to be surprisingly… well, kind of dull.
The prologue is typically where an author tries to grab you, perhaps by laying out the narrative’s most dramatic event and then using the rest of the book to fill in the details. And what dramatic events this story provides! Union forces dug a tunnel under the Confederate defenses of Petersburg, filled it with gunpowder, blew it up (creating the “crater”), stormed the Confederate lines and launched a battle that ended in a disappointing and disastrous failure.
Given all that material to work with, this book’s prologue introduces the story by dryly describing the staid post-battle Court of Inquiry that was convened to hear testimony and parcel out blame for what went wrong - a decidedly undramatic way to start this particular tale. It only began to make sense later, when it became clear that Axelrod doesn’t seem as interested in the actual blast and battle that led to the inquiry, as he is in writing about the inquiry itself, with the blast and battle as a backdrop to his frequent and lengthy transcriptions of testimony that jarringly interrupt the narrative flow, and obscure rather than support whatever point he's trying to make.
The main narrative describes how the plan was conceived and how it was carried out. The climactic blast occurs about halfway in, since there’s still much more story to tell afterward - the blast, after all, was not the main event, but a mere prelude to the subsequent ground assault. That assault, as it turns out, was poorly planned with tired troops - many of whom sought shelter in the crater and became sitting ducks under Confederate fire, while others were ordered to go through rather than around the crater and found themselves in the same position.
Rather than letting this narrative play out, though, Axelrod largely tells the tale through the lens of the inquiry that followed. Large block quotes of after-action testimony from Union officers defending their actions appear at the very point of the narrative when those actions are occurring. It has the odd effect of providing a postmortem to events that haven’t even been fully described yet, second-guessing decisions as they’re made even before we know how they turned out. To me, this structure was just clunky and complicated - it would have been better to just tell the story first and provide a well-paraphrased postmortem after the events described, rather than trying to mix them all together and tell so much of the story through lengthy direct quotes. If I wanted to read so much of the Court of Inquiry’s report, I could have read that instead of this.
The emphasis on the inquiry reveals what Axelrod is really interested in - not, apparently, telling a dramatic story of what happened and how, but quickly getting the main facts across so he can instead spend more time considering what went wrong and looking to assign blame as to who was at fault. There is much bickering between Union Generals Burnside and Meade, as quoted in letters from each, and Axelrod himself is particularly contemptuous of Gen. James Ledlie, the “lead commander in a major assault - an assault that might well have shortened the war,” he writes, who “was a drunken, incompetent, and cowardly military non-entity.”
In the end, Burnside was relieved of command and the war dragged on for another eight months after the missed opportunity that was the Battle of the Crater.
All of the elements of the story are in this book - the surreptitious construction of the tunnel, the explosion, the confused and disorganized assault, as well as the disproportionate losses suffered by Black Union troops. It’s a compelling story, but it's told here in what I thought may have been the least compelling way. I give it a rather unenthusiastic three stars, because anything less might suggest that there’s something inaccurate or irresponsible about the book, and that’s not the problem here. Potential readers should just know what they’re getting - an analysis of the Court of Inquiry’s findings, and not so much a compelling narrative of one of the war’s most dramatic and unusual events. There are other books for that - one of which I might have been better off reading instead.
The prologue is typically where an author tries to grab you, perhaps by laying out the narrative’s most dramatic event and then using the rest of the book to fill in the details. And what dramatic events this story provides! Union forces dug a tunnel under the Confederate defenses of Petersburg, filled it with gunpowder, blew it up (creating the “crater”), stormed the Confederate lines and launched a battle that ended in a disappointing and disastrous failure.
Given all that material to work with, this book’s prologue introduces the story by dryly describing the staid post-battle Court of Inquiry that was convened to hear testimony and parcel out blame for what went wrong - a decidedly undramatic way to start this particular tale. It only began to make sense later, when it became clear that Axelrod doesn’t seem as interested in the actual blast and battle that led to the inquiry, as he is in writing about the inquiry itself, with the blast and battle as a backdrop to his frequent and lengthy transcriptions of testimony that jarringly interrupt the narrative flow, and obscure rather than support whatever point he's trying to make.
The main narrative describes how the plan was conceived and how it was carried out. The climactic blast occurs about halfway in, since there’s still much more story to tell afterward - the blast, after all, was not the main event, but a mere prelude to the subsequent ground assault. That assault, as it turns out, was poorly planned with tired troops - many of whom sought shelter in the crater and became sitting ducks under Confederate fire, while others were ordered to go through rather than around the crater and found themselves in the same position.
Rather than letting this narrative play out, though, Axelrod largely tells the tale through the lens of the inquiry that followed. Large block quotes of after-action testimony from Union officers defending their actions appear at the very point of the narrative when those actions are occurring. It has the odd effect of providing a postmortem to events that haven’t even been fully described yet, second-guessing decisions as they’re made even before we know how they turned out. To me, this structure was just clunky and complicated - it would have been better to just tell the story first and provide a well-paraphrased postmortem after the events described, rather than trying to mix them all together and tell so much of the story through lengthy direct quotes. If I wanted to read so much of the Court of Inquiry’s report, I could have read that instead of this.
The emphasis on the inquiry reveals what Axelrod is really interested in - not, apparently, telling a dramatic story of what happened and how, but quickly getting the main facts across so he can instead spend more time considering what went wrong and looking to assign blame as to who was at fault. There is much bickering between Union Generals Burnside and Meade, as quoted in letters from each, and Axelrod himself is particularly contemptuous of Gen. James Ledlie, the “lead commander in a major assault - an assault that might well have shortened the war,” he writes, who “was a drunken, incompetent, and cowardly military non-entity.”
In the end, Burnside was relieved of command and the war dragged on for another eight months after the missed opportunity that was the Battle of the Crater.
All of the elements of the story are in this book - the surreptitious construction of the tunnel, the explosion, the confused and disorganized assault, as well as the disproportionate losses suffered by Black Union troops. It’s a compelling story, but it's told here in what I thought may have been the least compelling way. I give it a rather unenthusiastic three stars, because anything less might suggest that there’s something inaccurate or irresponsible about the book, and that’s not the problem here. Potential readers should just know what they’re getting - an analysis of the Court of Inquiry’s findings, and not so much a compelling narrative of one of the war’s most dramatic and unusual events. There are other books for that - one of which I might have been better off reading instead.
September 3, 2019
I found this book to be very educating. It provided an overview of the battle without descending into the minutiae books like this usually do. The author interspersed testimony from the court inquiry within the text and it flowed very well. I would recommend this book to anyone with a specific interest in Civil War battles in the East. A very good read.
August 9, 2011
At the seige of Petersburg the Union had a chance to end the war one year earlier than it actualy ended according to author Alan Alexrod. This could of been accomplished by blowing a mine under a part of the Confederate line and this would have enabled the Union troops to pour in and route the defenders. Although only 2/3rds of the powder needed was used, the mine worked and blew a gap in the lines. The troops were poised to flood in. BUT there was one problem, the general, Lindle, who was to send in the soldiers and tell them where to go was shit-faced DRUNK at 4 in the morning, so the soldiers did not know where the hell to go and instead of going around the side of the crater created by the mine-blast they walked right into it and could not crawl out fast enough before the South was able to recover from the shock. At that point it was shooting fish in a barrel. After the first Union soldiers poured in they were followed by others and it created a log jam. Drinking on the job is not the best way to run an organization, much less a division of soldiers. One time I got so blitzed on Long Island ice teas that when the taxi driver left me out on the way home I realized that he had let me off at the wrong side of Olympic Park and I had to stagger through the park on my way home. The next day I had to interview a teacher in the afternoon, but I was so hung over, I had difficutly recognizing what a nut he was and ended up hiring him. Immdiately, the students started to complain about him and we had to let him go and find someone else-which was not always easy in the middle of a term. So, you can see that booze can have a negative impact on decision making. Of course, in Lindle's case, he could not even write a simple command. Don't drink and command! Oh, another devision commander-Ferraro, who later became a writer of popular books on dancing, joined him for some "stimulants" at the time of the attack and his troops also were not commanded.
Ferearro's troops were black regiments and should have gone in first, being much fresher than the white regiments, but for political reasons they were held back. We find out in the book that the rebels would show no quarter to the black troops or the white officers who led them. Consequently many murdered after they surrendered.
Axelrod does a great job of showing how important this crater could have been had the union command been effective. Instead, it was the Confederates who showed an ability to command and saved the day for them.
Read this book.
I think a movie could be made from this! I recommend using Jude Law as a good lucking Rebel who realizes he might get shot before he gets a chance to sleep with Nicole Kidman and runs away. Would that not make a good movie?
While I was reading this I got the impression that 1,000s were being killed, however it was more like 500 yankees. They talked about the ground being covered by bodies and I suppose 500 will do. I am just saying this, because as I read battle histories, it always sounds like more are being killed. Muderous cross-fire sounds like it would get everone, but of the 15000 that went into the pit or were on the flanks-500 died and around 3500 were injured or captured.
New Vocabulary-cheval-de-friese
abatis
Ferearro's troops were black regiments and should have gone in first, being much fresher than the white regiments, but for political reasons they were held back. We find out in the book that the rebels would show no quarter to the black troops or the white officers who led them. Consequently many murdered after they surrendered.
Axelrod does a great job of showing how important this crater could have been had the union command been effective. Instead, it was the Confederates who showed an ability to command and saved the day for them.
Read this book.
I think a movie could be made from this! I recommend using Jude Law as a good lucking Rebel who realizes he might get shot before he gets a chance to sleep with Nicole Kidman and runs away. Would that not make a good movie?
While I was reading this I got the impression that 1,000s were being killed, however it was more like 500 yankees. They talked about the ground being covered by bodies and I suppose 500 will do. I am just saying this, because as I read battle histories, it always sounds like more are being killed. Muderous cross-fire sounds like it would get everone, but of the 15000 that went into the pit or were on the flanks-500 died and around 3500 were injured or captured.
New Vocabulary-cheval-de-friese
abatis
January 8, 2012
The Horrid Pit covers the story of the Battle of the Crater and one of the most interesting failures of the Union Army in the history of the Civil War. The idea was conceived by a group of Pennsylvanian Coal Miners who proposed a plan of building a mine underneath the defensive works of Petersburg and blowing up the area underneath creating a path for the Union forces to go through. General Burnside who was desperate to avoid a long siege took the plan to his superiors who not so much blessed it as they did not put a stop to it. It was the start of what would lead to an almost epic failure and the slaughter of Union soldiers. The mine was a feat of engineering ingenuity and went fairly well considering the difficulty involved of building a shallow mine that distance.
Once the mine was blown is when the problems began. The initial explosion shook the confederates (and the union soldiers who witnessed it) causing disarray and confusion as Union soldiers poured through the tunnel and area surrounding the breastworks. Unfortunately for the Union from that point forward everything came apart. Poor coordination and lack of support caused a slaughter as confederates stood atop the crater and rained fire on the incoming Union soldiers. A virtual no mans land quickly emerged and a preview of the horrors that would occur in World War 1 were played out as soldiers on both sides charged and counter charged. With nearly 5,500 killed in the course of this battle it was a disaster for the union and drained precious bodies from the confederate cause. The loss of the black battalion who was given no quarter by the Confederates and was often bayoneted as they threw down the arms was a low point for confederate gallantry. Overall the story is told very well and the essential details are covered clearly and concisely. Well worth the time to read.
April 15, 2014
This is another focused part of the Civil War (in this case Petersburg) that might be geared more towards developed interest or “buff’s” to a degree. The story is intriguing and well worth reading – as this a part of history less told compared to others during the war. You can almost see it being a movie (actually the start of cold mountain gave some insight – but then a terrible movie commenced – I digress). The idea, engineering, risks involved, tragic execution – it has all the components. The basic premise is – build a tunnel underground – breach beneath enemy lines – house a significant explosive depot / mechanism under their encampments – blow it and the surrounding area – coordinate an attack into enemy lines at the same time. You get to see a bit of evolution in war strategy and tactics that began to creep in towards the end of the Civil War. The idea may have been bizarre and haphazard – but it shows you how engineering began to play a big role (also when you consider trench warfare compared to old military approach). For those who understand some of the struggles the Union had with commanders and leadership – you will appreciate some of the ineptness involved on that level. I think it is good book to read.
May 17, 2015
As a graduate student, I recently wrote a research paper on this battle. Axelrod’s book is a good start to the topic. He is very detailed, yet not too analytical. More importantly, he’s very clear on how he feels about the characters involved. The most fun thing about reading this book is how Axelrod is so blunt about the stupidity of the leaders that caused this military blunder.
The gist of the book details how such a great opportunity to win Petersburg, and in all the war, was a result of poor leadership, and blatant neglect by the commanders involved.
A great read.
The gist of the book details how such a great opportunity to win Petersburg, and in all the war, was a result of poor leadership, and blatant neglect by the commanders involved.
A great read.
May 3, 2012
I think the subject was well researched and the book well written. I don't recall that the battle was mentioned in the history classes I took. I read the book because my great-great grandfather was killed there. If things had gone according to Burnside's original plan, it might have been the last battle of the Civil War - 8 months and thousands of casualties earlier than April 1865.
February 9, 2021
I read this before visiting the Petersburg battlefield for the 154th anniversery of the Battle of The Crater. Complete minmanagement by the "Olde googly eyed snapping turtle" led directly to this Union embarrasment. This book is a great recap of what led up to the battle, the engagement itself as well as the inquiry that took place afterwards.
October 21, 2012
The battle of the crater was a tragedy. Good history on the battle.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews