What do you think?
Rate this book
Campaigns and Commanders
The Early Morning of War: Bull Run, 1861
When Union and Confederate forces squared off along Bull Run on July 21, 1861, the Federals expected this first major military campaign would bring an early end to the Civil War. But when Confederate troops launched a strong counterattack, both sides realized the war would be longer and costlier than anticipated. First Bull Run, or First Manassas, set the stage for four years of bloody conflict that forever changed the political, social, and economic fabric of the nation. It also introduced the commanders, tactics, and weaponry that would define the American way of war through the turn of the twentieth century.
This crucial campaign receives its most complete and comprehensive treatment in Edward G. Longacre’s The Early Morning of War. A magisterial work by a veteran historian, The Early Morning of War blends narrative and analysis to convey the full scope of the campaign of First Bull Run—its drama and suspense as well as its practical and tactical underpinnings and ramifications. Also woven throughout are biographical sketches detailing the backgrounds and personalities of the leading commanders and other actors in the unfolding conflict.
Longacre has combed previously unpublished primary sources, including correspondence, diaries, and memoirs of more than four hundred participants and observers, from ranking commanders to common soldiers and civilians affected by the fighting.
The book is published by University of Oklahoma Press.
“Edward Longacre has applied his considerable skills as a biographer to a vivid piece of American history, injecting humanity and fresh insight to the story of the Civil War's first major battle.” (John Hennessy, author of Return to Bull Run)
"Extensively researched and full of fresh insights and information… offers a remarkably thorough, highly readable account…" (Ethan S. Rafuse, author of McClellan's War)
This crucial campaign receives its most complete and comprehensive treatment in Edward G. Longacre’s The Early Morning of War. A magisterial work by a veteran historian, The Early Morning of War blends narrative and analysis to convey the full scope of the campaign of First Bull Run—its drama and suspense as well as its practical and tactical underpinnings and ramifications. Also woven throughout are biographical sketches detailing the backgrounds and personalities of the leading commanders and other actors in the unfolding conflict.
Longacre has combed previously unpublished primary sources, including correspondence, diaries, and memoirs of more than four hundred participants and observers, from ranking commanders to common soldiers and civilians affected by the fighting.
The book is published by University of Oklahoma Press.
“Edward Longacre has applied his considerable skills as a biographer to a vivid piece of American history, injecting humanity and fresh insight to the story of the Civil War's first major battle.” (John Hennessy, author of Return to Bull Run)
"Extensively researched and full of fresh insights and information… offers a remarkably thorough, highly readable account…" (Ethan S. Rafuse, author of McClellan's War)
Audible Audio
Published December 27, 2017
12 people are currently reading
114 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
March 31, 2024
The Early Morning of War has become one of my favorite books dealing with a single campaign of the War Between the States. This was my second time through, having read it originally several years back.
Mr. Longacre's writing style is quite enjoyable, and his biographical look at all of the commanders followed in the narrative is divided into two categories. The first are the major players, the commanders of armies, and these four men: Beauregard, McDowell, Johnston, and Patterson. These four men receive considerably more detail than the Division, and Brigade commanders (Corps' were not yet formed by either side, and wouldn't be until the spring of 1862), such as Jackson, or Sherman.
As much detail as Longacre devotes to biographical looks at the various movers and shakers, it never takes over the main narrative which is an analysis of the military, and some political, events which overtook the opposing sides in the summer of 1861 in northern Virginia. Longacre's analysis is sound, and he is objective, treating both sides fairly, and does not demonize.
He does, however, go to some lengths to set some of the established narrative straight through corrective analysis, and he does bust some myths. First Manassas is one of the more studied battles, and campaigns, of the entire war so one would think that any historian wouldn't have more to add, and Longacre proves them wrong, here.
First and foremost Longacre established Irvin McDowell as a man with more than a minor bit of capabilities who was hampered by an untried, barely trained army, as well as political interference from the Lincoln Administration whose grasp of strategy and the military arts, at this stage in particular even less than amateur, were a major source of friction for McDowell.
McDowell did the best that he could, what with an army that really did, at times, resemble more of an armed mob than an actual army, and whose officers were as equally untried, in many cases, as the men.
Patterson, commander of the Federal Army of the Shenandoah around Harper's Ferry, typically a whipping boy and poster child for military incompetence, is looked at far more sympathetically by Longacre than in pretty much all the other studies on the campaign I have read. Joseph Johnston is treated a bit more harshly, however.
Joe Johnston is a very polarizing figure, maybe not as much as Braxton Bragg, or George McClellan, but he is certainly in the top tier of those who cause more argument and debate than anything else for historians. Mostly I feel that the more modern trend of criticizing Johnston, and attempting to rehabilitate more aggressive Southern commanders, like Beauregard, or Hood, is warranted.
In these pages Beauregard, too, comes under close scrutiny, and he too doesn't come off as favorably as McDowell in Longacre's estimation, and for the most part, I found Longacre's analysis sound. However, Beauregard did do quite a few things correctly (recognizing the strategic vitality of Manassas Junction, setting up along the Bull Run tributary, and ensuring that the main Southern forces concentrated on his position, as opposed to elsewhere, even if his own motivations for that were not entirely altruistic for the cause [no General is, when it comes down to it, men who aren't ambitious tend to make poor Generals]), and he is the only main figure who I think the author was a tad too harsh on. That said, rehabilitating McDowell is perfectly valid, and Longacre does a good job towards getting that particular ball rolling in that regard.
The main campaign narrative follows both sides from the initial mustering of the forces, and their assembly into northern Virginia and the Washington DC area, through the movements in the Shenandoah, and across the Potomac and on into Virginia herself, and a bloody destiny. Longacre downplays the significance of the strategic rail movement of Johnston's forces from Winchester to Manassas Junction, pointing out that the time it took to ride the rails, especially considering only so much of the Army could be transported at a time, could have been done via leg marching overland.
That may be true, but the fact is that Johnston did utilize one of the first major strategic rail movements in all of military history. So yes, Americans, and Southerners will crow about it.
And Johnston's forces arrive none too soon, as McDowell's boys begin their major strike to break apart Beauregard's forces along Bull Run at the same time that Johnston's boys arrive from the Shenandoah.
Even with Johnston's reinforcements both sides are about equal, at roughly 30,000 men each. And both are equally as untried, and untested, and barely trained as the other. Americans will have to learn the art of war the hard way: through sheer blood soaked experience. Most of the officers of both sides had received some sort of professional military education, either at West Point, or some of the other State military academies (VMI, the Citadel, Norwich, etc...). But both sides are commanded by men who, mere months, in some cases weeks, prior were several ranks junior to their current position. And experience on the Frontier, and in Mexico, simply could not prepare them for the test to come along the hills, farms, and rolling meadows alongside Bull Run.
McDowell's tactical plan of marching a large portion of his Army around the wide left flank of the Confederate position, while pinning them in place with pressure against the various ford's of Bull Run, has to rank as one of the very best tactical/operational plans ever conceived by a Civil War General (even though it ultimately failed, Hooker's plan for the Chancellorsville Campaign is likewise as under-recognized for its near brilliance in conception). McDowell was, after all a Staff Officer prior to the War, and his planning showcases it.
However, McDowell simply lacked the character and temperament to be a truly competent field commander, while Beauregard, and even Johnston, did. (Though Beauregard would also learn to become a quite capable Staff Officer himself, later on. Even with his penchant for flights of strategic fancy.) When the thunder of battle began to peal, McDowell's shortcomings came to the fore.
The ensuing battle itself was a very chaotic affair, and without going into a blow by blow retelling of it in a review, I will simply say that Longacre's account of the Battle, roughly 150 or so pages worth, is perhaps the best written on the battle. Utilizing plenty of first-hand accounts, but not going down the Napoleonics route of letting them overwhelm the narrative, (Sir John Keegan rightly referred to that as lazy historiography), Longacre showcases the colorful cacophony of battle, as well as its tragic horror, all without going down the path of being lurid.
Overall I really have to heartily recommend this work. It stands as my personal favorite of the First Manassas works out there, and while you can find something to argue with in Edward Longacre's analysis, the end result is a solid study of the entire campaign that now has to stand as the standard of how to study this campaign, and battle, moving forward.
Mr. Longacre's writing style is quite enjoyable, and his biographical look at all of the commanders followed in the narrative is divided into two categories. The first are the major players, the commanders of armies, and these four men: Beauregard, McDowell, Johnston, and Patterson. These four men receive considerably more detail than the Division, and Brigade commanders (Corps' were not yet formed by either side, and wouldn't be until the spring of 1862), such as Jackson, or Sherman.
As much detail as Longacre devotes to biographical looks at the various movers and shakers, it never takes over the main narrative which is an analysis of the military, and some political, events which overtook the opposing sides in the summer of 1861 in northern Virginia. Longacre's analysis is sound, and he is objective, treating both sides fairly, and does not demonize.
He does, however, go to some lengths to set some of the established narrative straight through corrective analysis, and he does bust some myths. First Manassas is one of the more studied battles, and campaigns, of the entire war so one would think that any historian wouldn't have more to add, and Longacre proves them wrong, here.
First and foremost Longacre established Irvin McDowell as a man with more than a minor bit of capabilities who was hampered by an untried, barely trained army, as well as political interference from the Lincoln Administration whose grasp of strategy and the military arts, at this stage in particular even less than amateur, were a major source of friction for McDowell.
McDowell did the best that he could, what with an army that really did, at times, resemble more of an armed mob than an actual army, and whose officers were as equally untried, in many cases, as the men.
Patterson, commander of the Federal Army of the Shenandoah around Harper's Ferry, typically a whipping boy and poster child for military incompetence, is looked at far more sympathetically by Longacre than in pretty much all the other studies on the campaign I have read. Joseph Johnston is treated a bit more harshly, however.
Joe Johnston is a very polarizing figure, maybe not as much as Braxton Bragg, or George McClellan, but he is certainly in the top tier of those who cause more argument and debate than anything else for historians. Mostly I feel that the more modern trend of criticizing Johnston, and attempting to rehabilitate more aggressive Southern commanders, like Beauregard, or Hood, is warranted.
In these pages Beauregard, too, comes under close scrutiny, and he too doesn't come off as favorably as McDowell in Longacre's estimation, and for the most part, I found Longacre's analysis sound. However, Beauregard did do quite a few things correctly (recognizing the strategic vitality of Manassas Junction, setting up along the Bull Run tributary, and ensuring that the main Southern forces concentrated on his position, as opposed to elsewhere, even if his own motivations for that were not entirely altruistic for the cause [no General is, when it comes down to it, men who aren't ambitious tend to make poor Generals]), and he is the only main figure who I think the author was a tad too harsh on. That said, rehabilitating McDowell is perfectly valid, and Longacre does a good job towards getting that particular ball rolling in that regard.
The main campaign narrative follows both sides from the initial mustering of the forces, and their assembly into northern Virginia and the Washington DC area, through the movements in the Shenandoah, and across the Potomac and on into Virginia herself, and a bloody destiny. Longacre downplays the significance of the strategic rail movement of Johnston's forces from Winchester to Manassas Junction, pointing out that the time it took to ride the rails, especially considering only so much of the Army could be transported at a time, could have been done via leg marching overland.
That may be true, but the fact is that Johnston did utilize one of the first major strategic rail movements in all of military history. So yes, Americans, and Southerners will crow about it.
And Johnston's forces arrive none too soon, as McDowell's boys begin their major strike to break apart Beauregard's forces along Bull Run at the same time that Johnston's boys arrive from the Shenandoah.
Even with Johnston's reinforcements both sides are about equal, at roughly 30,000 men each. And both are equally as untried, and untested, and barely trained as the other. Americans will have to learn the art of war the hard way: through sheer blood soaked experience. Most of the officers of both sides had received some sort of professional military education, either at West Point, or some of the other State military academies (VMI, the Citadel, Norwich, etc...). But both sides are commanded by men who, mere months, in some cases weeks, prior were several ranks junior to their current position. And experience on the Frontier, and in Mexico, simply could not prepare them for the test to come along the hills, farms, and rolling meadows alongside Bull Run.
McDowell's tactical plan of marching a large portion of his Army around the wide left flank of the Confederate position, while pinning them in place with pressure against the various ford's of Bull Run, has to rank as one of the very best tactical/operational plans ever conceived by a Civil War General (even though it ultimately failed, Hooker's plan for the Chancellorsville Campaign is likewise as under-recognized for its near brilliance in conception). McDowell was, after all a Staff Officer prior to the War, and his planning showcases it.
However, McDowell simply lacked the character and temperament to be a truly competent field commander, while Beauregard, and even Johnston, did. (Though Beauregard would also learn to become a quite capable Staff Officer himself, later on. Even with his penchant for flights of strategic fancy.) When the thunder of battle began to peal, McDowell's shortcomings came to the fore.
The ensuing battle itself was a very chaotic affair, and without going into a blow by blow retelling of it in a review, I will simply say that Longacre's account of the Battle, roughly 150 or so pages worth, is perhaps the best written on the battle. Utilizing plenty of first-hand accounts, but not going down the Napoleonics route of letting them overwhelm the narrative, (Sir John Keegan rightly referred to that as lazy historiography), Longacre showcases the colorful cacophony of battle, as well as its tragic horror, all without going down the path of being lurid.
Overall I really have to heartily recommend this work. It stands as my personal favorite of the First Manassas works out there, and while you can find something to argue with in Edward Longacre's analysis, the end result is a solid study of the entire campaign that now has to stand as the standard of how to study this campaign, and battle, moving forward.
November 17, 2020
Excellent. Battle descriptions are of “can’t put down the book” level quality. He wrote this for the Campaigns and Commanders series, so he focuses well on command decisions and background of officers from the commanders down to regiment level. Maps are effective and good quality.
November 9, 2014
love this book
June 21, 2023
This book explores the first major battle in the U.S. Civil War; that is, the First Bull Run fought in July of 1861. The result of the battle was an embarrassing defeat to the Union Army. The author’s work is well researched as he uses official correspondence, official records, personal letters, diaries and journals from both military, political and civilian sources to document this battle, its lead-up and its aftermath. A very informative read on a subject that is surprisingly not as well covered as most Civil War battles. The author makes it clear that neither the North or the South was ready for the war. Neither side really knew what they were in for by mobilizing for war against one another. The U.S. only had a small standing army of approximately 16,000 troops early in 1861 and most of those troops were in the western territories. They lacked the skill and experience of coordinating large forces and commanding multiple regiments in a combined action. Numerous militia forces were called to Washington to join the effort to squash the rebellion. These troops had little or no training in combat readiness. Yet, newspaper editors and publishers pushed the army and the governments into taking action. Now, approximately 30,000 troops on each side were thrust unprepared into battle. Each army’s logistical operations were poorly coordinated and provided ineffective support for their troops. Ultimately, this lack of logistical support was the reason the Confederate forces could not and did not follow-up their victory at First Bull Run by pursuing the Union army all the way to Washington D.C.
May 13, 2020
Antietam. Fredericksburg. Chancellorsville. Gettysburg. Shiloh. Richmond. These are the names that echo through history as the battlefield embodiments of the war. Frequently lost in the shuffle, so to speak, is the Battle of First Bull Run, the messy opening salvo of the Civil War. Longacre devotes hundreds of pages to this oft-overlooked battle, a fitting tribute to the complexities of the battle lost to the primary narrative of stoic Confederates facing down skedaddling Yankees.
The book is laden with details of the battle itself, down to every movement and maneuver on both the Union (Army of Northeastern Virginia) and Confederate (Army of the Potomac) sides. However, Longacre doesn't just deliver a blow-by-blow battlefield account, but also finely painted portraits of the principal characters and enough engrossing details of the overall political and military situations to lend the narrative a gravity beyond the minutiae of Bull Run itself.
In coloring in the shades of grey between the black-and-white historiography and popular imagination of the battle, Longacre is to be commended. While dry in parts, "The Early Morning of War" is a fascinating look into Bull Run and its significance for the war that unfurled for four long, bloody years afterward.
The book is laden with details of the battle itself, down to every movement and maneuver on both the Union (Army of Northeastern Virginia) and Confederate (Army of the Potomac) sides. However, Longacre doesn't just deliver a blow-by-blow battlefield account, but also finely painted portraits of the principal characters and enough engrossing details of the overall political and military situations to lend the narrative a gravity beyond the minutiae of Bull Run itself.
In coloring in the shades of grey between the black-and-white historiography and popular imagination of the battle, Longacre is to be commended. While dry in parts, "The Early Morning of War" is a fascinating look into Bull Run and its significance for the war that unfurled for four long, bloody years afterward.
May 21, 2018
This book was a disappointment. I had read several of the author's other works and this was by far the worst of the ones I've read. The story is rather choppy and the author digresses too much from the subject at hand. I was working on this book for almost three weeks, which is a long time for me to complete a book.
June 8, 2025
This may be the most complete book on the Battle of First Bull Run. It reads well and is well researched. However, Longacre makes a couple of weakly supported leaps in his analysis of events and why things happened the way they did.
January 28, 2024
Great book on the civil wars first battle highlighting all the massive mistakes that helped shape the battle before it began. Long read but worth it.
May 29, 2024
Excellent read. Very detailed.
December 18, 2025
A decent look at the First Bull Run Campaign. Longacre goes into great detail about the prelude to the battle and offers brief biographical portraits of the major leaders. A good book, but could be quite dry at times and wasn't as engaging as I'd hoped.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews