What do you think?
Rate this book
Civil War America
The Battle of Belmont: Grant Strikes South
The battle of Belmont was the first battle in the western theater of the Civil War and, more importantly, the first battle of the war fought by Ulysses S. Grant. It set a pattern for warfare not only in the Mississippi Valley but at Fort Donelson and Shiloh as well. Grant's 7 November 1861 strike against the Southern forces at Belmont, in southeastern Missouri on the Mississippi River, made use of the newly outfitted Yankee timberclads and all the infantry available at the staging area in Cairo, Illinois.
The Confederates, led by Leonidas Polk and Gideon Pillow, had the advantages of position and superior numbers. They hoped to smash Grant's expeditionary force on the Missouri shore and cut off the escape of the Illinois and Iowa troops from their boats. The confrontation was a bloody, all-day fight that a veteran of a dozen major battles would later call "frightful to contemplate." At first successful, the Federals were eventually driven from the field and withdrew up the Mississippi to safety. The battle cost some twenty percent of his troops, but as a result of this engagement Grant became known as an audacious fighting general.
Using diaries and letters of participants, official documents, and contemporary newspaper accounts, Nathaniel Hughes provides the only full-length tactical study of the battle that catapulted Grant into prominence. Throughout the narrative, Hughes draws sketches of the lives and fates of individual soldiers who fought on both sides, especially of the colorful and enormously dissimilar principal actors, Grant and Polk.
<!--copy for pb
The battle of Belmont was the first battle in the western theater of the Civil War and, more importantly, the first battle of the war fought by Ulysses S. Grant. At first successful, the Federals were eventually driven from the field and withdrew up the Mississippi to safety. The battle cost some twenty percent of Grant's troops, but as a result of this engagement he became known as an audacious fighting general. Nathaniel Hughes provides the only full-length tactical study of the battle that catapulted Grant into prominence. Throughout the narrative, Hughes draws sketches of the lives and fates of individual soldiers who fought on both sides, especially of the colorful and enormously dissimilar principal actors, Grant and Polk.
-->
The Confederates, led by Leonidas Polk and Gideon Pillow, had the advantages of position and superior numbers. They hoped to smash Grant's expeditionary force on the Missouri shore and cut off the escape of the Illinois and Iowa troops from their boats. The confrontation was a bloody, all-day fight that a veteran of a dozen major battles would later call "frightful to contemplate." At first successful, the Federals were eventually driven from the field and withdrew up the Mississippi to safety. The battle cost some twenty percent of his troops, but as a result of this engagement Grant became known as an audacious fighting general.
Using diaries and letters of participants, official documents, and contemporary newspaper accounts, Nathaniel Hughes provides the only full-length tactical study of the battle that catapulted Grant into prominence. Throughout the narrative, Hughes draws sketches of the lives and fates of individual soldiers who fought on both sides, especially of the colorful and enormously dissimilar principal actors, Grant and Polk.
<!--copy for pb
The battle of Belmont was the first battle in the western theater of the Civil War and, more importantly, the first battle of the war fought by Ulysses S. Grant. At first successful, the Federals were eventually driven from the field and withdrew up the Mississippi to safety. The battle cost some twenty percent of Grant's troops, but as a result of this engagement he became known as an audacious fighting general. Nathaniel Hughes provides the only full-length tactical study of the battle that catapulted Grant into prominence. Throughout the narrative, Hughes draws sketches of the lives and fates of individual soldiers who fought on both sides, especially of the colorful and enormously dissimilar principal actors, Grant and Polk.
-->
310 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 1991
4 people are currently reading
46 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 - 5 of 5 reviews
September 25, 2011
This book offers the reader a well researched and presented account of the Battle of Belmont, the first battle in the Western Theatre and one of the first battles fought by Ulysses S. Grant. The book covers Grants attack on the Southern forces under the command of Leonidas Polk and Gideon Pillow at Belmont on the Mississippi River in Missouri on the 7th of November 1861.
The maps in the book are easy to understand and guide the reader through the fighting, the narrative runs smoothly and offers a good overview of this battle. There is extensive notes and bibliography to assist the reader with further studies. Overall a decent book covering this battle of the American Civil War. An enjoyable read.
The maps in the book are easy to understand and guide the reader through the fighting, the narrative runs smoothly and offers a good overview of this battle. There is extensive notes and bibliography to assist the reader with further studies. Overall a decent book covering this battle of the American Civil War. An enjoyable read.
December 3, 2013
This book is a detailed account of a small, relatively little known battle, which ended up having outsized consequences. Hughes' prose is easy, his narrative is well paced, and his analysis of the conduct of the leaders of both sides is fair and insightful.
The Confederate leaders didn't tend to shine at Belmont. Although Hughes has written a biography of Gideon Pillow, he doesn't spare him any due criticism (while still giving him scant credit he does deserve). He also rightly criticizes Leonidas Polk's conduct of the campaign, battle and aftermath. The main Confederate leader to shine through is Benjamin 'Frank' Cheatham, who showed exceptional bravery and initiative, and handled his troops well.
By contrast, the Union leaders did much better. Grant's conduct of the campaign wasn't perfect, but it was good. He also learned valuable lessons from Belmont that he would use to build his future success. Grant also may have contributed to his future victories at Forts Henry and Donelson by cowing Pillow and Polk. McClernand, Logan, and Walke also turned in good (but not flawless) performances, which helped Grant achieve the success that he did, and staved off disaster when the tide turned against the Union forces.
Hughes does a good job acknowledging the disputed and unsure nature of the result of the Battle of Belmont. He notes that the Confederates held the field at the end of the day, and drove off the Union forces in a near route, but they failed to finish them. Though both sides claimed victory, it seems according to Hughes analysis that the Union deserves more credit. Grant did destroy Camp Jackson, and largely push Confederate forces out of Southeastern Missouri, but even more for the later effects on Grant's career and the campaign against the Confederate line in Middle Tennessee.
As a last note of compliment, the maps in this book really stand out. There are a copious number of them, and they're well placed to assist in understanding the narrative. The maps are also illustrative of the battlefield situations they represent, easy to read, and visually appealing. Since maps (in number and quality) are one of the most common weak points of military history narratives, the high quality of the maps in this book is really worth calling out for recognition.
The Confederate leaders didn't tend to shine at Belmont. Although Hughes has written a biography of Gideon Pillow, he doesn't spare him any due criticism (while still giving him scant credit he does deserve). He also rightly criticizes Leonidas Polk's conduct of the campaign, battle and aftermath. The main Confederate leader to shine through is Benjamin 'Frank' Cheatham, who showed exceptional bravery and initiative, and handled his troops well.
By contrast, the Union leaders did much better. Grant's conduct of the campaign wasn't perfect, but it was good. He also learned valuable lessons from Belmont that he would use to build his future success. Grant also may have contributed to his future victories at Forts Henry and Donelson by cowing Pillow and Polk. McClernand, Logan, and Walke also turned in good (but not flawless) performances, which helped Grant achieve the success that he did, and staved off disaster when the tide turned against the Union forces.
Hughes does a good job acknowledging the disputed and unsure nature of the result of the Battle of Belmont. He notes that the Confederates held the field at the end of the day, and drove off the Union forces in a near route, but they failed to finish them. Though both sides claimed victory, it seems according to Hughes analysis that the Union deserves more credit. Grant did destroy Camp Jackson, and largely push Confederate forces out of Southeastern Missouri, but even more for the later effects on Grant's career and the campaign against the Confederate line in Middle Tennessee.
As a last note of compliment, the maps in this book really stand out. There are a copious number of them, and they're well placed to assist in understanding the narrative. The maps are also illustrative of the battlefield situations they represent, easy to read, and visually appealing. Since maps (in number and quality) are one of the most common weak points of military history narratives, the high quality of the maps in this book is really worth calling out for recognition.
April 9, 2020
This is a hard book to rate. The organization of events is a bit poor, quotations are often given without attribution, there is little about operations before or after Belmont, and the footnotes are weirdly spaced. Yet, Hughes does know how to paint a scene, and I found myself gripped by the battle. It helps that I knew relatively little going in. What you have in the end is a good and extensive account of a small, but dramatic Civil War battle, but also one that with greater care could have been a classic of the genre.
December 8, 2025
Quite an interesting battle as described here. Fresh Illinois troops barge down the Mississippi, but while the Confederates believe they are attacking in Kentucky, the instead attack the forts across the river in Missouri. The surprise works and the green troops decide to celebrate as if they had won the war. Only, there's this thing called "reinforcements", as well as this thing called "artillery", and both can reach Missouri from Kentucky easily... A dramatic book, the author tells the stories well.
July 19, 2015
I didn't quite have any problems with this book - it was competently written and well-researched. The prose was a bit slow at times; some paragraphs felt choked with quotations or dry information. A little imaginative rewording, with a citation or reference (instead of just block quotes, as was so often employed), would have gone a long way to make this book a more engaging read. Still, though, it wasn't bad. The maps in particular were excellent: simple, easy to follow, and updated several times to reflect troop movement. They made the battle far easier to follow.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews