What do you think?
Rate this book
A Little Short of Boats: The Battles of Ball's Bluff & Edwards Ferry, October 21–22, 1861
“[P]erhaps a small demonstration on your part would have the effect to move them,” wrote Army of the Potomac commander Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan to Brig. Gen. Charles P. Stone on October 20, 1861. The simple telegram triggered the “demonstration” by Col. Edward Baker’s brigade the following day that evolved into the bloody subject of James Morgan’s A Little Short of Boats: The Battles of Ball’s Bluff and Edwards Ferry, October 21 - 22, 1861.
Opposing the Union effort was Brig. Gen. Nathan “Shanks” Evans’ small Confederate command at Leesburg. When he learned of the enemy plans, Evans shuttled troops from Edwards Ferry to Ball’s Bluff, where Baker pushed his brigade across the upper reaches of the Potomac River. His troops were on open ground, ill-organized, and with their backs to the river when the Southern infantry attacked. The twelve fitful hours of fighting that followed ended in one of the worst defeats (proportionally speaking) either side would suffer during the entire Civil War, wrecked a prominent Union general’s career, and killed Baker—a sitting United States senator and one of President Abraham Lincoln’s good friends. The news rocked a Northern populace already reeling from the recent disasters of Bull Run and Wilson’s Creek.
Based upon extensive firsthand research and a full appreciation of the battlefield terrain, A Little Short of Boats sets forth the strategy behind the “demonstration,” the combats that followed, and the colorful personalities involved. The bloody result, coupled with the disaster’s political fallout, held the nation’s attention for weeks. The battle’s most important impact was also the least predictable: the creation of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War. Ostensibly formed to seek out the causes of the string of defeats, the Joint Committee instead pushed the political agenda of the “Radical Republicans” and remained a thorn in Lincoln’s side for four long years.
This fully revised and expanded sesquicentennial edition of Morgan’s A Little Short of Boats will please Civil War enthusiasts who love tactical studies and remind them once again that very often in history, smaller affairs often have important and lasting consequences.
About the Author: Born in New Orleans, Jim Morgan grew up in Pensacola, Florida, and now lives in Lovettsville, Virginia. He is a past president of the Loudoun County Civil War Roundtable, a member of the Loudoun County Civil War Sesquicentennial Committee, and a volunteer guide at Ball’s Bluff for the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority.
Opposing the Union effort was Brig. Gen. Nathan “Shanks” Evans’ small Confederate command at Leesburg. When he learned of the enemy plans, Evans shuttled troops from Edwards Ferry to Ball’s Bluff, where Baker pushed his brigade across the upper reaches of the Potomac River. His troops were on open ground, ill-organized, and with their backs to the river when the Southern infantry attacked. The twelve fitful hours of fighting that followed ended in one of the worst defeats (proportionally speaking) either side would suffer during the entire Civil War, wrecked a prominent Union general’s career, and killed Baker—a sitting United States senator and one of President Abraham Lincoln’s good friends. The news rocked a Northern populace already reeling from the recent disasters of Bull Run and Wilson’s Creek.
Based upon extensive firsthand research and a full appreciation of the battlefield terrain, A Little Short of Boats sets forth the strategy behind the “demonstration,” the combats that followed, and the colorful personalities involved. The bloody result, coupled with the disaster’s political fallout, held the nation’s attention for weeks. The battle’s most important impact was also the least predictable: the creation of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War. Ostensibly formed to seek out the causes of the string of defeats, the Joint Committee instead pushed the political agenda of the “Radical Republicans” and remained a thorn in Lincoln’s side for four long years.
This fully revised and expanded sesquicentennial edition of Morgan’s A Little Short of Boats will please Civil War enthusiasts who love tactical studies and remind them once again that very often in history, smaller affairs often have important and lasting consequences.
About the Author: Born in New Orleans, Jim Morgan grew up in Pensacola, Florida, and now lives in Lovettsville, Virginia. He is a past president of the Loudoun County Civil War Roundtable, a member of the Loudoun County Civil War Sesquicentennial Committee, and a volunteer guide at Ball’s Bluff for the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority.
441 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 1, 2004
13 people are currently reading
57 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 - 7 of 7 reviews
Read
June 2, 2015This book does a very nice job of covering a significant engagement early in the American Civil War at Ball's Bluff, Virginia, on the Potomac River. After the first cataclysm at Manassas (Bull Run), the Civil War had entered into it's version of World War II's drole de guerre with the antagonists facing each other across the Potomac but with relatively little in the way of active hostilities.
On the basis of detailed research into many sources, Morgan describes how a "demonstration" became a "reconnaissance" and then a completely abortive pipe dream of an "occupation" of Leesburg, VA. As the ambitions of the Union officers grew, more and more Union units were slowly moved across the Potomac in a very small number of boats (viz. the title of the book). Morgan details these transfers across a wide river, as well as the numerous command mistakes of the Union officers in charge. But even a civilian like myself could have seen what was coming - Union soldiers with their backs to the river and no means of rapid withdrawal quickly surrounded by Confederate troops. Yes, a crushing defeat complete with rout...
Anyone familiar with the Civil War literature knows of the storyline (at least concerning the engagements of the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia) of the hard-fighting, invincible soldiers in grey besting the panicking lads in blue led into disaster by incompetent officers. During this
12 hour engagement, however, most of a Confederate regiment fled the field in disorder (the 8th Virginia) after being pushed by two Union companies (from California! - it was news to me that the Army of the Potomac had units from California in it), and the Unionists had an opportunity to change the ultimate outcome, even in their extremely disadvantageous situation. Of course, this opportunity was not recognized by the Union officers. Nonetheless, the Union soldiers repulsed multiple major assaults by the Confederate forces and then countercharged, though never as a single unit (that would require competent senior officers). Although the senior Union officers were not gifted, they were certainly not cowards - when the crew of an Union cannon had been shot down and the gun was brought out of the line, three of the four commanding Union colonels returned it to position and manned the gun until they could be relieved at that task!
Of additional interest was the fact that the Union officer in command on the Virginia side of the Potomac, Edward Baker (a name which was previously unknown to me, despite the many books I have read about the Civil War), was a sitting U.S. Senator and a close friend of Abraham Lincoln. His good friend had already composed a special order to the War Department giving Baker an independent command of a division-sized unit but had not yet sent it off. I could not help but think that Baker's death in this engagement was a great boon to the men of that prospective division...
On the basis of detailed research into many sources, Morgan describes how a "demonstration" became a "reconnaissance" and then a completely abortive pipe dream of an "occupation" of Leesburg, VA. As the ambitions of the Union officers grew, more and more Union units were slowly moved across the Potomac in a very small number of boats (viz. the title of the book). Morgan details these transfers across a wide river, as well as the numerous command mistakes of the Union officers in charge. But even a civilian like myself could have seen what was coming - Union soldiers with their backs to the river and no means of rapid withdrawal quickly surrounded by Confederate troops. Yes, a crushing defeat complete with rout...
Anyone familiar with the Civil War literature knows of the storyline (at least concerning the engagements of the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia) of the hard-fighting, invincible soldiers in grey besting the panicking lads in blue led into disaster by incompetent officers. During this
12 hour engagement, however, most of a Confederate regiment fled the field in disorder (the 8th Virginia) after being pushed by two Union companies (from California! - it was news to me that the Army of the Potomac had units from California in it), and the Unionists had an opportunity to change the ultimate outcome, even in their extremely disadvantageous situation. Of course, this opportunity was not recognized by the Union officers. Nonetheless, the Union soldiers repulsed multiple major assaults by the Confederate forces and then countercharged, though never as a single unit (that would require competent senior officers). Although the senior Union officers were not gifted, they were certainly not cowards - when the crew of an Union cannon had been shot down and the gun was brought out of the line, three of the four commanding Union colonels returned it to position and manned the gun until they could be relieved at that task!
Of additional interest was the fact that the Union officer in command on the Virginia side of the Potomac, Edward Baker (a name which was previously unknown to me, despite the many books I have read about the Civil War), was a sitting U.S. Senator and a close friend of Abraham Lincoln. His good friend had already composed a special order to the War Department giving Baker an independent command of a division-sized unit but had not yet sent it off. I could not help but think that Baker's death in this engagement was a great boon to the men of that prospective division...
March 14, 2024
Morgan has written a very well researched and authoritative history of the Battle of Ball's Bluff (and the skirmish at Edward's Ferry). Except for a chapter or two in other books here and there I had not read much about the battle.
The battle occurred three months after First Bull Run (to the day) and was only supposed to be a reconnaissance or diversion by the Union, but evolved into a full (but small) battle. Later overshadowed by many larger battles, at the time it was considered significant. It was a loss by the Union coming after the loss at Bull Run, and caused the death of a senator, Edward Baker, an officer in the army and very close friend of Abraham Lincoln (one of his sons was named after Baker). It also destroyed an officer's career, General Charles Stone, the Union commander during the battle. Stone was made a scapegoat by the heinous and politically motivated Congressional Joint Committee on the Conduct of War (who were political radicals against Lincoln and did all they could to those in the military whose politics they didn't like).
The author covers the various controversies regarding the battle such as the death of Baker, the problems caused by McClennan, etc. with scholarly answers and it will be hard to top this history of the battle.
I have two minor quibbles. There are very nice close-up maps of the battle, but the book needs a large overview map of the area, so you can see what Morgan is referencing at times. Also, the author uses descriptions of the battle with references to modern roads and park areas, which are not too useful if you do not know the area.
The battle occurred three months after First Bull Run (to the day) and was only supposed to be a reconnaissance or diversion by the Union, but evolved into a full (but small) battle. Later overshadowed by many larger battles, at the time it was considered significant. It was a loss by the Union coming after the loss at Bull Run, and caused the death of a senator, Edward Baker, an officer in the army and very close friend of Abraham Lincoln (one of his sons was named after Baker). It also destroyed an officer's career, General Charles Stone, the Union commander during the battle. Stone was made a scapegoat by the heinous and politically motivated Congressional Joint Committee on the Conduct of War (who were political radicals against Lincoln and did all they could to those in the military whose politics they didn't like).
The author covers the various controversies regarding the battle such as the death of Baker, the problems caused by McClennan, etc. with scholarly answers and it will be hard to top this history of the battle.
I have two minor quibbles. There are very nice close-up maps of the battle, but the book needs a large overview map of the area, so you can see what Morgan is referencing at times. Also, the author uses descriptions of the battle with references to modern roads and park areas, which are not too useful if you do not know the area.
April 24, 2019
This book is extremely well researched and analyzes the topic thoroughly. I feel it is the best book on the subject.
November 25, 2019
Best book on Balls Bluff battle.
March 6, 2017
This book is very hard to follow. In fact it is loaded with details and very poorly organized.
July 15, 2015
This book is competently written - it focuses solely on the Battle of Ball's Bluff and its principal players without getting too mired in detail. The prose leaves a little something to be desired, though, especially when describing be battle itself. I'm adding a full star for the maps though - they are simple, easy to read, and updated with troop movements regularly. They greatly increased my understanding of the battle; I wish all books used them.
August 21, 2008
Not bad, but see my review below.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews