Symbol, Sword, and Shield: Defending Washington during the Civil War (review)

364CIVIL WAR HISTORY series are published, other facets of antebellum Pensacola military history will be discussed. Dale E. Floyd National Archives Symbol, Sword, and Shield: Defending Washington during the Civil War. By Benjamin Franklin Cooling. (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1975. Pp. 300. $12.50.) During the Civil War both Washington and Richmond were frontline capitals. And in both cases their locations and security were to play major roles in strategic considerations. As early as the secession crisis, fears were raised over the safety of Washington. These fears, fed by rumors of a possible coup, the rioting in Baltimore on April 19 which almost isolated the capital, and the Union defeat at Bull Run, sharpened this concern. Quite early the construction of a rudimentary defense system was undertaken on the Virginia side of the Potomac River, but it was with the Union defeat at Bull Run and the arrival of McClellan in the capital that the planning and construction of the defenses were accelerated under the direction of Major John G. Barnard. Vast sums of money were expended on this project and by late 1862 Washington had become a fortress. For the remainder of the war the ring of forts and entrenchments surrounding the city continually underwent improvement and refinement. Yet Washington's greatest defense lay with the federal armies operating in the Maryland-Virginia theater. The capital's defense system was to be the shield, while the Union army became the sword to strike the Confederacy. But in the planning and carrying out of the military campaigns against the South the security of the capital was always a factor that had to be taken into account. In 1862 McClellan's Peninsular campaign tragically involved endless misunderstandings and a numbers-game between the general and the administration. Confederates were also aware of this sensitivity and made use of it in Jackson's Valley campaign and later with Early's raid on Washington. Symbol, Sword, and Shield is an interesting book which adds to our knowledge of a largely neglected aspect of Civil War history, the defense system of Washington. This discussion is balanced and integrated with overall military operations in the MarylandVirginia theater of war. But it is in the treatment of the immediate defenses of the capital that Dr. Cooling is at his best. His handling of its various problems and difficulties from garrison life to the application of pressure by Barnard to ensure that Washington was "fully book reviews365 garrisoned" is well done. The use of maps, illustrations, and contemporary photographs greatly enhance the value of the book. However, the book does have its shortcomings. Preciseness is at times sacrificed for literary flow and style and the result is a number of minor errors. The characterization of Maryland affairs also suffers from this. But despite this criticism the book is a welcome addition and has much of value in it for both the scholar and general reader. Richard R. Duncan Georgetown University John Hunt Morgan and His Raiders. By Edson H. Thomas. (Lexington : The University Press of Kentucky, 1975. Pp. XIII, 120. $3.95.) Mounted Raids of the Civil War. By Edward G. Longacre. (New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1975. Pp. 348. $12.00.) Mr. Thomas' book is published under the sponsorship of the Kentucky Historical Events Commission as one of the volumes in the Kentucky Bicentennial Bookshelf. The author remarks in his Introduction that "in Kentucky . . . one is either for [Morgan] or against him; there is no middle ground." He himself is clearly a member of the pro-Morgan school. This brief story of Morgan's career leaves undisturbed his status as one of the demigods of the Lost Cause. It would be unfair to fault Mr. Thomas for not writing a book different from the one he chose to write, or to criticize his failure to discuss the many questions about Morgan's strange personality and the value of his services to the Confederacy that a more extensive and thorough-going study would have had to consider. Mr. Thomas is content to leave Morgan on his pedestal. He accepts and repeats every major tenet in the Morgan hagiography. Thus: General "Jerry" Boyle is thrown into...