PDA

View Full Version : Impressions for the Border States (Maryland-centric)



A Baltimore Confederate
05-24-2008, 07:33 AM
I am a newbie (fresh fish) to ACW Reenacting, but I have been studying the Civil War on and off since Junior High School (30 years now), took a summer course on it for my Bachelor's in History, and have really been getting into the minutiae on various topics: artillery, forts, flags, photography, railroads [especially logistics and tactical employment], and my home state of Maryland.

As I have been letting my family, friends, and co-workers know that I am getting into ACW Reenacting, the inevitable question has been "which side?"

By my signature block below, it's obvious that I joined a Confederate unit, the 1st Maryland Artillery. But why?

Over the past few years, I have been attending ACW reenactments, especially those where Confederate Maryland troops have played a role. Just up the road from where I live is Jerusalem Mill, a place where Harry Gilmor (a Marylander, and Major in the Confederate Cavalry) "requisitioned" supplies and "liberated" horses during his famous raid of July 1864. This event is usually held during the 2nd or 3rd weekend in July (google Jerusalem Mill, great website).

Throughout the event, I kept hearing a number of people telling their children that Maryland was a Northern State. Occasionally, if I found an opening, I would tell these folks that Maryland was not a Union state, but a Union-occupied state, and explain some of the events of April 1861: the Baltimore Riot, the first Confederate soldier killed (Marylander William R. Clark, a 20-year-old sailor, who had enlisted with a South Carolina recuiter), the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, the basing of men and cannon in strategic positions in the state, the imposition of martial law, the arrest and imprisonment of various local legislators and public servants (all later released without charge). The list of items goes on.

I hope that through this post/thread, and future posts, we can explore these issues (political, social, economic), and further develop the impression for those of us from Border States, but especially Maryland, who have chosen to "go South".

A few facts to this post, with more to come later:

There were four so-called Border States, states that had slavery, but had intricate ties to both North and South. Delaware stayed in the Union, Kentucky and Missouri supported North and South and each had representation in both Congresses), and Maryland was overtaken by events. Several historians have recently (last 10 years) published where they believe Maryland was just days away from formally seceeding, after Virginia, and thereby surrounding Washington DC within the Confederacy.

This thread can go in several directions, and I am game to entertain all of them. (1) We can keep it strictly historical, limited to the events "as they happened". (2) We can speculate various issues: what would the Confederacy look like with Maryland (and/or Kentucky/Missouri) as full members? How would the fabric of the Confederacy be altered with Maryland in the mix?

According to the 1860 Census, Baltimore is the 4th largest city, and Maryland had the largest population of free blacks of any state. I need to check this, but I think Maryland had more free blacks then all of the Northern states combined.

I hope you'all think this is a good first post. Your thoughs and opinions are welcomed and encouraged.

JIMbo Ward

cap tassel
05-25-2008, 09:57 AM
Hello Jimbo. Nice first post in my opinion. You bring up some good talking points and especially on the political which is something that's pretty much avoided in Civil War living history... as if politics is an insignificant ingredient in wars. Some groups even advertise their philosophy of depoliticizing. Certainly it's done to keep things civil. :D But it brings a valid question of whether the Civil War can be understood and portrayed at the personal level and upwards without bothering with the politics of the day. I think it can, obviously, in a distant way but it amounts to looking through museum glass with a post-it note description of whatever it is you're looking at, if that. And while it goes through the motions of learning it reminds me of the kids that study for a test and make an A but then can't tell you much at all about what it was for and can't apply it to anything.


There were four so-called Border States, states that had slavery, but had intricate ties to both North and South.
Just nitpicking on this distinction I'd say that intricate ties with Northern states was also true for Southern states considering the dependency on raw cotton, trade and insurance. There was a lot more business ties going on north and south than is popularly appreciated.


That's a good question on a Confederacy with Maryland. How indignant to have your capitol in another country. For that matter what a mess it could have been too if North Carolina had stayed in the Union and could have been surrounded themselves. Certainly it's a no-brainer that Maryland could not be allowed to leave the Union. So that's why the arrests. I think that Maryland would have been the first to be attacked and there would be no end to that until DC was back in the hands of the US. But how much of a fight would it have taken in the first days? Something else, I wonder how after returning DC to the Union might have played in the minds of the Northern public as to their ideas of goals and thoughts on continuing the war. Maryland might have been an ace for the Confederacy in that way. But what iffing wastes valuable time for me at least. It's probably better to stick with history.

Pat.Lewis
05-25-2008, 01:08 PM
Throughout the event, I kept hearing a number of people telling their children that Maryland was a Northern State. Occasionally, if I found an opening, I would tell these folks that Maryland was not a Union state, but a Union-occupied state...

There were four so-called Border States, states that had slavery, but had intricate ties to both North and South. Delaware stayed in the Union, Kentucky and Missouri supported North and South and each had representation in both Congresses), and Maryland was overtaken by events.


I'm afraid of this thread. I'm very afraid of what this thread can become. Too often, there's too much assumption and wishful thinking that goes on in these things and not enough scholarship, particularly if we take the "what if" road (which will bring down the big lock and key very, very quickly, I would imagine). That having been said, I think reenactors need to look at those political, social, and economic issues to further develop their impressions no matter the state or allegiance they portray, so I will -- cautiously -- play along.

In particular, I want to respond to your characterization of the "Border States." All of them stayed in the Union. Let's remember that first. That is not to deny the existence of Rebel participation and sympathy from some of the citizens in those states, but the fact remains that the majority of those states' populations supported the United States. Figures for enlistment, US v. CS will draw this out. Our assumptions about actual amounts of Confederate support in these states have been tinged by the legacies of prominent figures waging political (in the broadest sense here, of affecting power relations on all levels from Washington to the household) campaigns in the postwar years. Further, we cannot necessarily confuse anti-Union, anti-Republican, or even anti-Lincoln sentiment in any of these states for pro-Confederate thought. Disliking a government's policies and rebelling against it are two entirely different things, a distinction which many would have made at the time.

Additionally, I find the polarization of North and South in the context of the Border states difficult and limiting. I think that by forcing states to "have been" one or the other in 186x is missing the point. I think the goal is not to understand what a state was or was not, but how individuals within that state self-identified and how that accepted identity provoked them to action. Did some consider themselves Northern or Southern? Yes. Did some also consider themselves neither, but a peculiar blend of the two, distinct to Maryland, or Kentucky, or Missouri? Also, yes. What happens when we throw in the great riddle of "Western" identity into the mix of MO and KY? Is their decision to side with Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and other "Western" states more understandable in that light? My point is that we often want these states to have been more "Southern" or "Northern" than they were in fact. We want them to fit into one of our limited categories of analysis instead of trying to understand the individual MD, KY, MO resident on his or her own terms.

Would some Marylanders have agreed that their state was Union-occupied? Unquestionably, but others would have disagreed. To say that the state was Northern is incorrect, but for the same reason, so is saying it was Union-occupied. Neither positions demand all-or-nothing allegiance from a people so ideologically divided that its troops killed one another on opposite sides of battle. If one thing is clear, it is that no opinion was held by everyone in any state during the war, particularly those that divided themselves. By denying the potential existence of any other identities that Marylanders could and did claim during the war, you are doing as much a disservice to the public as those you seek to correct.

Perhaps, in the future, we should respond: Some felt this way, while others felt another, and still others in these other ways, as well. What social, political, economic, racial, gender, or other conditions caused these people to think those things? How did they act on these identities they claimed? Why have we later grouped these opinions into the arbitrary categories that we have imposed over time? Then we will be getting to the heart of the matter. Those who advocate the "truth" of one single position over the other miss the point entirely.

Elaine Kessinger
06-08-2008, 12:46 PM
:confused:I thought it didn't post, so I re-posted and now can't figure out how to delete.
Sorry
-Elaine

Elaine Kessinger
06-08-2008, 01:09 PM
Not only were soldiers from the border states facing each other across battlefields, but civilians of the border states lived next door to neighbors who supported the "opposing side." A civilian could have their neighbor arrested by the occupying military for giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy one week and have the tables turned the next by the town being occupied by the "opposing side." ...imagine the situation after South Mountain, when the town was occupied by Federal forces and your relative fighting for the Southern forces is wounded and makes his way "home", your neighbor (sympathetic to the Federals) notices and turns you in to the Feds for giving "aid and comfort".
Too Afraid to Cry makes it clear that civilians of the Border states were in an unique and terrifying situation, where it was very dangerous to make your sympathies known clearly.

Randy
06-09-2008, 10:51 AM
Patrick,
To your statement "To say that the state (Maryland) was Northern is incorrect." I feel I must point out that Maryland was and is, in fact, north of the Mason-Dixon Line, which characterizes it as well as the other three border states as a northern state. Whether Maryland was a Northern-sympathisizing state is another matter. Were you speaking of the latter?

Hank Trent
06-09-2008, 11:18 AM
I feel I must point out that Maryland was and is, in fact, north of the Mason-Dixon Line

Uh, no it's not. The Mason-Dixon line was and is the northern border between Maryland and Pennsylvania. All of Maryland is below it.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

marylandreb
06-09-2008, 02:14 PM
If you have any doubts about Md. being south of the Mason Dixon Line take a ride on Md rt 15 just before you cross into Pa. heading for Gettysburg there is the sign that reads Mason Dixon Line

Pat.Lewis
06-09-2008, 11:11 PM
Well, there are any number of definitions of "Northern" or "Southern." In a geographical sense, Mssrs. Trent and Sparks have pointed out Maryland's Southernness on the Mason-Dixon scale. But Southern compared to what? My point was that "Northern" and "Southern" are relative terms. They have more to do with culture, politics, and society than geography. How do we define North and South? An arbitrary geographic line, the similarity or difference in social customs and institutions, variations in dialect, preference for different foods? All of those criteria have been applied to define North vs. South and all have established different borders. Which one is right? Where is the border drawn? Good question...but when it comes down to it, whoever is doing the looking and what they are looking for will determine a region's, a group's, or an individual's Northernness and/or Southernness.

What we need to understand is not how we separate the two from one another today, but how individuals through time have determined the differences, what caused them to choose those criteria, and how their belief in those differences forced them into action or inaction that brought about historical events.

marylandreb
06-10-2008, 12:38 AM
I would agree that the Mason - Dixon line is not an absolute marking point of north and south further within the states at the time of the war one would find dialects that differ in the states that left the Union. Point in case strong feelings in what is now W.V. might put this part of a state ( prior to 1863 being part of Va.) as a border state with a different culture and dialect north and west of the valley. Was this a forced separation by occupation or was this a parting of the ways between the mountains and the tide water area. Further was it about money and the life that could bring to the two different areas slaves and money on the coast and freedom from controls in the west.To many years have past to be sure. One thing is sure to me southern is not just one thing ,it's not just where the map is drawn its about a state of mind, a culture, a way of living and a sense of who you are. I now live farther north than any one in my families history they came from South Carolina and Virginia I profoundly feel southern even though I see things that are not southern to me in this "border state " I live in. Sometimes though at home or with familyI still feel as though this is the south. For all these reasons I think that in 1861 it must have been the same for those people stuck in the middle it was about how you were raised and what your own way of life was.
Sorry for the rant sometimes I just wish things were more like when I was a kid and I wish I could get back there

lukegilly13
06-10-2008, 09:04 AM
Very good first post! Cheers! Or should I say, "Hoozah". Well, well, interesting debate on whether or not Maryland is a norther or southern state....i'm going to go with northern on a government basis for sure. Does anyone know the percentage of participants from maryland north and south? Was there a larger percentage of citizen/soldiers in one army or the other? Here is an interesting link.....not much to the article, however, it is documentation of a maryland unit being trained in 1861 and being presented with a secession flag at Camp Lee at the Richmond Fair Grounds. The description of the flag gives some detail that you may be interested in for your impression. Good luck on an endless road!
From the Richmond Dispatch, 7/3/1861, p. 2
Handsome Flag. - A beautiful Confederate States flag, fabricated by the fair hands of the ladies of Baltimore, has been sent by them to Richmond to Capt. J. Lyle Clarke’s company of Maryland Volunteers. It will be presented to them this evening, at 6 o’clock, after dress parade, at the Fair Grounds. Gen. John H. Winder, of Maryland, Inspector General, will participate in the ceremonies incident to the occasion. The same company has also received a very handsome flag of the State of Maryland from the ladies of Baltimore.

From the Richmond Enquirer, 7/6/1861, p. 3, c. 4
PRESENTATION OF A FLAG. – The ladies of Maryland have made a beautiful flag of the Confederate States, and have sent it to this city for Capt. Clarke’s Company of Maryland volunteers. The ceremonies of presentation took place at Camp Lee, the new Fair Grounds, on Wednesday evening, when President Davis, on behalf of the ladies of Maryland, presented it in an eloquent, touching and patriotic address, to the Company.

The flag is fabricated of the richest silk, has eleven full stars with one in embryo, the latter intended for the gallant but now suppressed State from which the volunteers come. We hope the flag presented under such circumstances will never trail in defeat, but that the Captain and his men may soon be able in their turn to present it to the ladies of Maryland, when it may wave in triumph over a free people.

Elaine Kessinger
06-10-2008, 08:30 PM
Being a civilian, and studying how the war affected civilians, I often don't know military protocol. Would a new volunteer be asked to list his hometown? If so, the thousands of Maryland gents that went south to volunteer, often incorperated into other state's units?/ companies?, might be traceable. If not required to give their hometown, there is no way to get an acurate count. Some may have given information different than the truth to get in, to protect family "back home', or to "be stationed"? with people they knew.

...And Mr. MarylandReb is very correct that the way a person percieves themselves has a great deal to do with how they present themselves. Every state I have lived in has percieved differences to do with geographic area. Northern Ohio is very different than Southern Ohio. Eastern Texas is very different than West(ern) Texas. 'round the Capitol Maryland is very different than Cheasapeake Maryland is very different than Mountain Maryland. But when you ask folks to tell you how they are "very different", they speak in vague generalizations, mainly to do with how folks in that area percieve themselves and others.

cap tassel
06-11-2008, 06:17 AM
...And Mr. MarylandReb is very correct that the way a person percieves themselves has a great deal to do with how they present themselves. Every state I have lived in has percieved differences to do with geographic area. Northern Ohio is very different than Southern Ohio. Eastern Texas is very different than West(ern) Texas. 'round the Capitol Maryland is very different than Cheasapeake Maryland is very different than Mountain Maryland. But when you ask folks to tell you how they are "very different", they speak in vague generalizations, mainly to do with how folks in that area percieve themselves and others.
I agree with MarylandReb too that being Southern includes lots of things and identities. But I don't think identities are altogether perceived if you're meaning it as a product of the mind. For instance living in different parts of a state can mean different livelihoods and consequently different subcultures. When talking about the South v. the North culturewise I think it's important to understand that this distinction existed long before the Civil War and long before the United States and goes back to the earliest times of colonial history. There's a misconception that the North and South became different decades prior to the war. Where Maryland fits into that I'm not sure. That's why I like this thread.

Salt Pork
06-11-2008, 06:48 PM
The preception though of what the geograhic area is changes through out time, during the 1850's and 60's Northren Kentucky just south of Cincinnati was a pro Union Area. However Today if you talk to locals, they all think they were all southern. The bigest change though I beleive is Floriada, today the avage person does not view Florida as a southren state, Then is supprised when the go out in to the country and hear southren accents.

P.S I have never lived in Florida, this is just comments I have heard from people who live there.

Salt Pork

Matthew Semple
06-11-2008, 07:47 PM
Being a civilian, and studying how the war affected civilians, I often don't know military protocol. Would a new volunteer be asked to list his hometown? If so, the thousands of Maryland gents that went south to volunteer, often incorperated into other state's units?/ companies?, might be traceable.

In regards to being required to list hometown of an enlisting individual, it is entirely up to the locality who was conducting the "mustering in".


I will give those reading this thread just one actual example of how Portsmouth, Virginia required new recruits to list their hometowns.

"Barrett, George W.: Maryland; capenter; age 25; enl. May 8, 1861, at Gosport Navy Yard; Pvt., Co. H. Captured at Five Forks, Ap. 1, 1865; released from Point Lookout, June 23, 1865; after taking oath. Died Mar. 7, 1905, and buried at Loudon Cem., Baltimore." (Taken from my examination of cemetery records and personal accounts; matching the quoted herein from 3rd Virginia Infantry written by Lee A. Wallace, Jr.)

After a ceremony conducted by the IVR at The Angle reading the Roll of Honor after having marched across the field on the Gettysburg National Military Park several years back, I have taken on advancing research on the individual myself.

My subsequent research on George Barrett has shown that he was born and raised in Baltimore, MD. His father had never served in the military from what I can determine. George Barrett was captured on the field after Pickett's Charge on July 4, 1863 suffering from wounds...he was about 25 yards from the wall where he fell and laid for about a day. After being released from Point Lookout after taking the oath he took government provided transport back to Baltimore, MD. The ship stopped briefly for a day at Annapolis, MD to "drop off passengers" and take on stores. He returned to his father's carpentry business in Baltimore and shortly thereafter (1867) took it over. He resided in Baltimore until the end of his life.

I have been to his grave and many other veterans' graves who I have researched from Baltimore who had requested to be laid to rest with their Confederate comrades from the war (who had been laid to rest during the war after having died during the early battles in Maryland and Virgina and after dying in hospitals around Washington and Baltimore) on Confederate Hill in Loudon Cemetery.

So, does location determine the man or does man determine the location when it comes to North and South?

Elaine Kessinger
06-11-2008, 07:59 PM
The story of how Washington, D. of C. became the Capitol City is an interesting look at an early North/South compromise. When the founders were trying to decide, the northern states suggested New York City, the southern states suggested Richmond. Both sides became ...Ahem! vehement.. about their choice, placing the founders in a quandry as to where to put the Capitol without "showing favoritism" to any one state, north or south. Finally, Maryland AND Virginia offered part of their land, near the Potomac River, if the other could be convinced to do likewise. This land would be given to the country to be set up as it's own city, not part of ANY state in any way. It being roughly in the "middle" of the coastal U.S.A., neither north nor south could claim favoritism. Everybody hated it, but had to agree it was a fair compromise.

shubal
06-12-2008, 09:18 AM
Some thoughts from Chestertown which in some ways was in the more southerly-focused part of Maryland, the Eastern Shore. Historic markers in Chestertown (http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=5585)

This is post war I know but...
Interesting GAR link in Chestertown MD (http://starrcenter.washcoll.edu/eventsandprograms_charlessumner.html)

MickCole
06-12-2008, 12:36 PM
Seems to me that the Maryland State Song reflects something of a bias toward the South.
Mick Cole
SUVCW, SCV

marylandreb
06-12-2008, 03:09 PM
Marylands state song did not become official until 1939 although it was written in1861 by James Randall as a sort of protest poem. It was set to music in 1861 and used in the south during the war, most notably when Lee crossed the Potomac in the Md. campaign. To say the least Randall ( b Baltimore 1839) wanted to rebuke Lincoln for the actions taken in Md. including deaths in the streets of Baltimore but my question is how much was politics of the day and an attempt to get Md. to leave the union

A Baltimore Confederate
06-16-2008, 07:26 AM
Wow, what a difference a few weeks can make. Thanks for all the great responses. Of the first replies, several have been supportive, and one started out not so supportive, but in the end made several of my “talking points” for me. (Thanks Mr. Lewis). Then there was the take-off with the addition of Civilian impressions (I wasn’t even thinking about going there), and the State song.

Getting back to my “original” premise of Improving Impressions of Border States, over the past few weeks I have taken the opportunity to continue my research, and to that end, read (actually reread) several books. Maryland in the Civil War, by Harold Manakee, published in 1961 (I have a 1969 reprint), A Southern Star for Maryland, by Lawrence Denton, published 1995, and Maryland, The South’s First Casualty, by Bart Talbert, also published in 1995.

For those Border Staters staying with the Union, it’s not too much of a stretch to say “Once a Union man, always a Union man”. For those who chose to “go South”, I believe that one can break down the points at when a man would have made that decision to a few specific points in time. Remember, I am writing a Maryland-centric thread. Please post additional (editional? :)) if this works or doesn’t work for Kentucky and/or Missouri.

1. The Election of 1860. Obviously, if one were to be anti-North, anti-Republican (or anti-abolitionist, but not necessarily pro-slavery, though that may be a stretch), and/or anti-Lincoln, this young (presumed on my part) Fire-Eater could very likely find himself in, or on his way to, South Carolina either for, or shortly after, the eventual December 20th secession. (Open Question to all: Did militia units of South Carolina swell in numbers after Secession and into 1861? If so, were those numbers predominantly South Carolinians, or men from other states?)

2. Fort Sumter/Pratt Street Aftermath. Consider the events of the previous 4 months (20 December, 1860 through the end of March, 1861): the states of the Deep South secede by 1 February 1861. The Upper South and Border States Unionist factions continue to put forth compromises, and continue to fail, even after Lincoln takes office on 4 March.

The fall of Fort Sumter on 14 April, and Lincoln’s call for 75,000 volunteers on the 15th to put down the Secession put the flame in many. For Marylanders, the events after the Baltimore Riot on Pratt Street of 19 April 1861, and the immediate aftermath, presented the opportunity for many to “go South”.

I believe the largest number of men to “go South” come at this point, the so-called Reluctant Confederates (there is a book by this title by Daniel Crofts, published 1989, currently on my “next book to get” list), men who either voted for John Breckenridge of Kentucky, the uncompromising “States Rights” Southern Democrat (he took Maryland with 45.9% of the electorate), or John Bell of Tennessee, of the Constitutional Union Party “The Union as it was” (who narrowly missed taking Maryland with 45.1%). John Bell did take Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia, and narrowly lost North Carolina (like Maryland, by less than 1%).

At this point, I am not discounting anything. There are many and various reasons these men “went South”. Perhaps it was that Lincoln was elected; maybe it was an increased fear of continued, and strengthened, Northern domination; maybe it was Lincoln’s unconstitutional(?) call for 75k volunteers, or the rapid response by the Northern Governors to that call; (OQ: How many Regiments of Volunteer Infantry were on their way within, say, a week, April 22nd, of the initial call?) perhaps it was the fact that it just did not seem right that the Federal Government should be coercing the Individual States; or maybe it was just the heavy-handedness of it all. (Please add to this list; I do not want to discount anything.)

3. The Maryland Campaign. When General Lee entered Maryland, he did so for many reasons (a really good list and argument for each can be found in Sounding the Shallows, a companion volume to Taken at the Flood, both by Joseph Harsh). Lee was coming off of an impressive string of victories that summer (the Seven Days, 2nd Manassas, etc) and hoped to recruit a number of Marylanders to swell his troops, and though he did increase his host, it was not very impressive. Geographically he was in the worst place in Maryland to get new recruits: west of Frederick. Those counties had a large influx of Germanic immigrants from Pennsylvania (from the 1760s on), which drew large numbers of German immigrants direct from the German states (during the 1850s). They tended to be “Union men”. In most cases, they weren’t even citizens yet (of Maryland or the United States), and therefore, did not have the right to vote (which will become important in later election cycles in Maryland during the war).

If any Marylanders were still sitting on the fence at this time, now (September 1862) was about the last opportunity to “go South”.

What do ya think?

JIMbo Ward

A Baltimore Confederate
08-13-2008, 09:04 AM
Not only were soldiers from the border states facing each other across battlefields, but civilians of the border states lived next door to neighbors who supported the "opposing side." A civilian could have their neighbor arrested by the occupying military for giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy one week and have the tables turned the next by the town being occupied by the "opposing side." ...imagine the situation after South Mountain, when the town was occupied by Federal forces and your relative fighting for the Southern forces is wounded and makes his way "home", your neighbor (sympathetic to the Federals) notices and turns you in to the Feds for giving "aid and comfort".
Too Afraid to Cry makes it clear that civilians of the Border states were in an unique and terrifying situation, where it was very dangerous to make your sympathies known clearly.

Another really good book is the one I am reading now: Beleaguered Winchester A Virginia Community at War, 1861-1865, by Richard Duncan. It came out just last year, 2007.

In it he describes what the situation was like beginning with John Brown's Harper's Ferry Raid, and the immediate aftermath, which included the 1860 Presidential election. Then, as the war began, and continued, the various occupations of the town, and all the intendent attitudes toward the military commander in charge. This history treats Union Gens. Milroy and Sheridan about as kindly as they treated the civilian residents of Winchester (yeah, big Ouchie!!!)

As a community, even if one did not announce whether they were Secesh or Unionist, it could be fairly well determined. But, these folks were neighbors, had been for years, and they realized early on that in order to survive, you put a lot of trust in your neighbor, and they vouched for you, or you vouched for them, when one army or the other came to occupy the town (which for Winchester, legend has it, changed hands 70+, some say 76, times). Also, three major battles, several minor battles, and over 70 smaller skirmishes were fought in the immediate vicinity, each one putting a strain on the resources of everyone, Confederate and Union-sympathizer alike.

For me as an Historian (by education), I like that it is extensively footnoted (actually 60 pages of Endnotes), a long bibliography, and well indexed. I am not too far into the book, but I have "jumped" ahead to read on various topics, so I can only recommend the book based on reading less than a 1/4 of it. I will follow-up with a better, more-informed, review later.