Not War But Murder: Cold Harbor 1864

by Ernest B. Furgurson

On the morning of Friday, June 3, 1864, Generals Ulysses S. Grant and George G. Meade brought their overland campaign against Richmond to its climax in an all-out assault on Robert E. Lee's entrenched Rebels at Cold Harbor, less than ten miles outside the Confederate capital. The result was outright slaughter--Grant's worst defeat, and Lee's last great victory. Though Grant tried afterward to forget the battle, and historians have often misunderstood its importance, Cold Harbor remains what Bruce Catton called "one of the hard and terrible names of the Civil War, perhaps the most terrible one of all."

Now Ernest Furgurson, an eloquent narrator and analyst of the war, tells the harrowing story of this pivotal conflict. Like his earlier account of the Battle of Chancellorsville, his latest work is rich in detail and revealing Federal generals consume a champagne lunch while more than a thousand of their wounded lie untended on the field. The Confederate Congress votes itself a 100 percent pay raise while bread prices skyrocket in the South. An angry Union surgeon saws off the leg of a malingerer. Yankee and Rebel soldiers, slipping between the lines after dark to rescue the wounded, find themselves in the same hole and negotiate a private truce.

Furgurson explores the minds of both privates and commanders, showing how friction between the overconfident Grant and the irascible Meade proved disastrous; how Lee, with fewer than half as many troops as Meade, repeatedly outmaneuvered Union forces; and how Northern election-year politics influenced Grant's strategy, pressing him to try to win the war with one final head-on attack.

Cold Harbor was a watershed moment of the Civil War. After Grant's defeat, the struggle dragged on; the war of maneuver became a war of siege, and stand-up attack gave way to trench warfare--tactics that would become familiar in France half a century later. Above all, Cold Harbor was the most uselessly bloody, one-sided battle of the war, whose terrible human cost is captured in one chilling diary entry, scrawled by a mortally wounded "June 3, Cold Harbor. I was killed."

Genres: Civil War, History, American Civil War, Nonfiction, American History, Military History, 19th Century

328 pages, Hardcover

First published May 30, 2000

Reviews

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

As I stated last year, I think I've read more books about the American Civil War than any other historical event. And here is yet another book on the ACW. This one is about the Battle of Cold Harbor, Virginia, in 1864. Not as famous as Gettysburg or Shiloh or some other battles, Cold Harbor was second to no other battle for sheer horror. It was a part of Gen. Grant's Overland Campaign in 1864 to push on to Richmond and destroy Gen. Lee's army. After pressing forward after the Wilderness and Spotsylvania at terrible cost, Grant faced Lee at Cold Harbor less than ten miles from Richmond. Grant believed that with one more push, he could break Lee's army and take Richmond, ending the war before the 1864 election in November (and assuring Lincoln's reelection). Instead, Grant's army assaulted Lee's well-entrenched army on June 3, 1864, and it was a slaughter. It was the most useless, one-sided battle of the war-Grant's worst defeat and, as it turned out, Lee's last victory. Ferguson tells the story giving us a lot of anecdotes that reveal what life -and death-was like for the common soldiers on both sides. He also examines the thinking of the commanders on the ground. He explains that the disaster of Cold Harbor was due very much to the friction between Grant and George Meade. Meade, the victor of Gettysburg, was the commander of the Northern Army of the Potomac, but Grant was overall commander of all Union armies, and by traveling with Meade, was looking over his shoulder continuously. This led to a divided command. As far as I know, no one has ever discussed this issue. It seems to me it would have been more efficient for the command structure if Grant had replaced Meade with one of his own men, such as William F. "Baldy" Smith. Perhaps the war would have been shortened, perhaps not. As it was, due to Cold Harbor, morale plummeted in the AoP, but then Grant pulled off a coup. He swiftly crossed the James River with his army to get to the south of Richmond. Ferguson says Lee was not surprised by the move, but he was surprised by the speed with which Grant executed that move... In the end, Lee was trapped in Petersburg, besieged by Grant. The end was only a matter of time...

[Katherine Addison · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is about Cold Harbor, blow by terrible blow. Furguson (and, yes, it really is spelled with two u's, although if you want to find him on Amazon, you have to spell it Ferguson) is an excellent writer, very thoughtful and interested in reconstructing, as much as is possible, the psychology of the people involved, especially Meade and Grant, to figure out WHY Cold Harbor happened the way it did. Neither Meade nor Grant comes out of it looking terribly good, Meade for letting his wounded amour propre get in the way of doing his job, Grant for NOT PAYING ATTENTION to the effects of his orders.

Grant and Lee both have a certain amount of trouble---Lee not so much here, where all the Confederates were doing was holding a defensive line, but definitely at Gettysburg---wherein they want their generals to do their jobs without being told HOW. They want to be able to say, "Do this," and have their subordinates figure out how to make it happen. Sometimes this works out great (e.g., Lee and Jackson), and then sometimes it really really doesn't, as with Grant and Meade and their major generals at Cold Harbor, where the major generals desperately need someone who can see the big picture to be telling them, not so much what to do, as when to do it. They had no good way of coordinating attacks among themselves, and so they went haphazardly and without supporting each other, and the result of THAT was inevitable defeat.

[Shelly♥ · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. Although I've visited Cold Harbor several times, even taking a guided tour through part of it, this book brought the story to life and gave me an understanding that I'd not yet had on the actions there in 1864.

It's well written, combining first person accounts with the historical record. The author has a steep bibliography. He has managed to pull out the bits that explain the action without getting bogged down in overtelling the story. He especially addresses the command issues that the Union army faced, and how they contributed to the heavy losses. Cold Harbor was a brutal and vicious action, and this book will definitely help clarify what happend in those days.

I recommend for all my Civil War friends and really anyone who loves military history.

[Glenn Robinson]

Superb account of one of the bloodiest one sided battles of the war of rebellion. Cold Harbor cost the North thousands of men that needlessly died. Some of the Northern Generals viewed this battle as pure murder on the part of Meade and Grant. Excited to know that my great great grandfather fought here and did well against the South. Well researched, well written. General Grant did not like this one battle brought up and rarely spoke of it afterwards. This battle saved Richmond and was one of the prime reasons why the war went on for almost one more year. General Lee did a superb job at marshaling his meager resources and his troops out fought, out maneuvered and outlasted the North.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well researched comprehensive history of the events preceding the crucial 10 minutes of slaughter on Jun 3, 1864, the battle itself and the aftermath. The motives of the Union command, Grant, Meade and the Corps commanders are explored. The battle marked the transition from direct massed assaults to siege warfare. Never again would men's lives be expended so recklessly.

[Mark Klinepeter · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good book about one of the worst battles of the Civil War. I like the mixing of what the generals are saying and what the common soldiers did and saw. Well researched and written.

[Sean Chick · Rating 4 out of 5]

The combat portion is a bit short but there is plenty on the lead up to the battle.

[David Elkin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very different look at Grant, Meade and the campaign. Some very excellent points made. Quick and easy read. I was reading a pre-pub edition so I did not have any maps in the book. I enjoyed the candid appraisal of how the "dual-command" of the AotP by Grant and Meade lead much to the terrible decision to attack a fortified position head on. Grant really did under estimate Lee's ability to respond.

Worth a look

[Jack Porter · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought it was a good historical account of a disastrous campaign that demonstrated how not to fight a war. The loss of the Union troops was incredible. It showed how personal rivalries and jealousies among leaders results in suffering and death for the troops. The failure of Grant to maintain clear unity of command was one important factor. Meade's jealously of Grant got in the way of his ability to make clear and decisive choices. Communication was poor in terms of clarity, content and timeliness. Reconnaissance was neglected or not thoroughly done. Leadership neglected or did not believe reports of officers in the field. After continued slaughter in spite of courageous fighting officers and troops saw and understood the futility of what was being ordered. Later Grant regretted this battle. The book goes into great detail which will be good for the more serious student of the Civil War (or any other war), but can get a little overwhelming for those with a more casual interest. The description of troop movements made my eyes glaze over and some better way to visual what was happening would have been helpful. Even maps had limited value. However I got a clearer idea of the massive effort required to relocate large groups of exhausted, hungry men and their equipment. It took some effort but i am glad I read it to the end.

[Jay Wright · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book has been well researched and uses a wide variety of different sources. The letters from soldiers are especially useful in telling the story. This is a story of the butchery that resulted from a Union debacle in June of 1864. This loss by Grant and Meade meant that the war would continue. 12,000 Union troops died here. Lee is at his best. This is an excellent book for amateur historians.

[Pete Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think Furgurson really nails how to write about major Civil War battles.

He has a great style and voice, and should be recognized amongst some of better-known peers. Taking on Cold Harbor (not an actual harbor) is a difficult task, as it is seen mostly just as a symbol of brutal frontal attack tactics. But there is a lot more there, and this author does a great job setting it all up.

[Brad Martisius · Rating 5 out of 5]

A realistic assessment of Grant’s generalship

Grant was unquestionably a great general, but this book demonstrates how easy, and how costly, mistakes, mis-communications and misunderstandings can be during the course of this horrible battle.

[David Engel · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned not only anecdotes of the battle (which were very engaging), but a perspective of the overland canmpaign and Grant's relationship with Meade and the debaucle of the delayed truce for retriving the wounded. This was, indeed, a great read!

[Brian Miracle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good account of the events surrounding the disastrous Union attack at Cold Harbor. Although Grant himself expressed regret for this attack, it did not deter him from his goal to defeat Lee's army.

[Gregory Strong · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good survey of one of the most controversial and terrible engagements in the Civil War.

[John E · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well worth your time. Clear writing with just enough detail of units and organizations to understand the movements and the responsibilities of the battle. Adequate maps, too.

[William Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

'where ever Lee's army goes- go with it'

an astounding account on the culmination of the Overland campaign and the politics that led to the ill-fated Union assault on June 3 1864.

[Mark Saha · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an excellent book for professional historians, but a real slog for the more casual reader. There is almost too much information dumped on the reader. Letters from participants are compelling, but slow the forward progress of the narrative. The book also assumes more familiarity with the various military units and chains of command that the average reader is likely to have patience with.
Again, an extremely well researched book. Readers who feel are well read on the battle will be most likely to appreciate this.

[Jeffrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the better war history books I've read for getting across personalities of the protagonists (although it really only covers Grant and Meade) that I've read. It was a little bit schizophrenic about who he liked less Grant or Meade, but given how complicated the situation was, it is certainly understandable. I already had some understanding of the situation due to a wonderful magazine article my Mike Rinella, so I can't really judge how well this book taught the basics.

[Cary Kostka · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent description of the events that took place just prior to, during, and shortly after the conclusion of the Cold Harbor campaign. Highly recommended for those with an interest in Civil War events, or for those getting their feet wet in this time period.

The book was a chilling view into the many disconnects that led to so many unneeded deaths. I would have hoped this lesson would have been learned by now, but unfortunately it has not.

[Tom Darrow · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book. Well researched. Focuses on the command struggles between Grant and Meade and how it could cause problems. Walks that fine line between the "Grant was a genius" and "Grant was a butcher" camps. There is a collection of source materials (army command structure, casualties, etc) that would be very useful for someone interested in this specific battle over others.

[Charles · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author's apparent thesis is that command relations between Grant and Meade, aggravated by Grant's placing his headquarter with the Army of the Potomac and the doting press coverage afforded to Grant (and not Meade), cause a break down that resulted in the disaster

[Joe · Rating 3 out of 5]

For a drier history book this was well written and for the most part did not bog down too much in an overwhelming number of trivial facts.