Petersburg/Richmond Why the Apparent Lack of Interest in the Late War?

Hi all,

I’ve been on a bit of a late war (summer of 64 on) kick this past year. Started with Rhea’s Overland series and now I’m working my way through the Richmond-Petersburg
campaign.

As I was lookin for books on the R-P campaign I noticed that pickings were relatively slim. Especially when compared to reading material on early war engagements.

For my money 1864 is the most interesting year of the war (in both East and west). There’s certainly no shortage of pitched battles or tales of battlefield heroism (both north and south). Yet it seemingly attracts the least interest. Wondering if any of y’all had any thoughts as to why that was?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
-Kyle
Kyle,

Like you, I also think 1864 was the most interesting year of the war. So much so that I started a Siege of Petersburg site called Beyond the Crater. As for reading material for the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign, there is probably a little more than you think. Most of the offensives against those cities have book-length accounts, some more than one. I maintain a bibliography page for the campaign broken out by offensive and/or type. I think, obviously, a good portion of the people buying books on the war and interested in the war are Southerners, and they don't tend to focus on the part where the perception is their side has little to no chance left. Hindsight is 20/20. But if you start really looking at things, the perception on both sides in early August 1864 was that the South still had a real chance to win. They just needed to do enough damage to get McClellan elected, not win outright. The "gloss over everything in the East after Gettysburg until Appomattox" seems to have taken hold in the years after the war and succeeding generations just followed suit. I'm one of a group of people who focus on 1864-65. And the number of books seems to be growing as well.
 
Yes, but not where one can find five confederate generals stretched out dead on someone's porch. This alone brought my attention to the battle, especially because one of them was Patrick Cleburne.
Lubliner.
Actually, the number on the porch at Carnton was supposedly three generals - one of whom was of course Cleburne - and a colonel. The total for the battle was six generals dead: five killed outright - Cleburne, Otho F. Strahl, States Rights Gist, Hiram Granbury, and John Adams - and one, John Carter, mortally wounded.
 
Kyle,

Like you, I also think 1864 was the most interesting year of the war. So much so that I started a Siege of Petersburg site called Beyond the Crater. As for reading material for the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign, there is probably a little more than you think. Most of the offensives against those cities have book-length accounts, some more than one. I maintain a bibliography page for the campaign broken out by offensive and/or type. I think, obviously, a good portion of the people buying books on the war and interested in the war are Southerners, and they don't tend to focus on the part where the perception is their side has little to no chance left. Hindsight is 20/20. But if you start really looking at things, the perception on both sides in early August 1864 was that the South still had a real chance to win. They just needed to do enough damage to get McClellan elected, not win outright. The "gloss over everything in the East after Gettysburg until Appomattox" seems to have taken hold in the years after the war and succeeding generations just followed suit. I'm one of a group of people who focus on 1864-65. And the number of books seems to be growing as well.
My knowledge of the entire Petersburg Campaign is notoriously poor, dating from my very first visit there in 1964 when the park was so piecemeal and confusing - I recently found a like-new copy of Trudeau's book on it which I'm looking forward to but haven't yet begun.
 
Kyle,

Like you, I also think 1864 was the most interesting year of the war. So much so that I started a Siege of Petersburg site called Beyond the Crater. As for reading material for the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign, there is probably a little more than you think. Most of the offensives against those cities have book-length accounts, some more than one. I maintain a bibliography page for the campaign broken out by offensive and/or type. I think, obviously, a good portion of the people buying books on the war and interested in the war are Southerners, and they don't tend to focus on the part where the perception is their side has little to no chance left. Hindsight is 20/20. But if you start really looking at things, the perception on both sides in early August 1864 was that the South still had a real chance to win. They just needed to do enough damage to get McClellan elected, not win outright. The "gloss over everything in the East after Gettysburg until Appomattox" seems to have taken hold in the years after the war and succeeding generations just followed suit. I'm one of a group of people who focus on 1864-65. And the number of books seems to be growing as well.
Fantastic website! Brett continues to build on an impressive wealth of information for those seriously interested in this end of war campaign.
 
My knowledge of the entire Petersburg Campaign is notoriously poor, dating from my very first visit there in 1964 when the park was so piecemeal and confusing - I recently found a like-new copy of Trudeau's book on it which I'm looking forward to but haven't yet begun.
Check out Jim Epperson's Petersburg site for a concise look at what happened. My site exists only because I started going to his site in the early 2000's and started to really look more closely at the entire campaign.
 
The longer I have been on this site the more I have come to understand and enjoy learning about the war as a whole and not as a set of isolated events. I wonder if the war in Virginia etc was completely separate from the rest of the theatres as is often appears to be the case. The Overland Campaign fascinates me as it is the extended length of the campaign without an extended break for requipping/rest etc. Yes it is difficult to understand on one level but there is action whilst the siege of Petersburg is mainly static and therefore not much happened day to day and this is not going to attract attention.

I have also found computer wargames have helped me to understand the issues and make books like the Gordon Rhea series come to life of the page.
 
I wonder if the war in Virginia etc was completely separate from the rest of the theatres as is often appears to be the case
The seat of war in Virginia has always received an inordinate amount of attention for several reasons:
1. The geographical proximity of the opposing capitol cities and the consequent necessity by the political leaderships to defend and protect Washington and Richmond.
2. The close proximity to mass media markets in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, and Richmond.
3. Lee's offensive attempts to disrupt northern morale and influence the war's outcome.
4. In contrast to the wide western theater, the smaller Virginia and environs front meant that fighting occurred over the same battle grounds and communities that were often contested multiple times during the war.
5. The valiant struggle of Lee and the ANV, which attained the lions share of Confederate victories, was given excessive attention to supporters of the southern cause.

That being said, the western seat of war was as important, and probably more so in attaining victory for the Union, than was that of Virginia. But in recent years, the war in the west has been given the greater attention that it rightly deserves.
 
the western seat of war was as important, and probably more so in attaining victory for the Union, than was that of Virginia. But in recent years, the war in the west has been given the greater attention that it rightly deserves.

I think I should learn more about the Western Theatre see how it contributes to the Union Victory. But where to start? Suggestions.
 
I think I should learn more about the Western Theatre see how it contributes to the Union Victory. But where to start? Suggestions.
I would say the failed campaign in Kentucky would be a good place to start. Shiloh gets a lot of attention, but in the end was just a large battle that had little significance long term for either side. The Confederate loss of Kentucky in October 62 was one of the first large blows to the Confederacy, IMO.(Which is probably worth little)
 
I think I should learn more about the Western Theatre see how it contributes to the Union Victory. But where to start? Suggestions.
While not in chronological order, a review of Grant's campaign against Fts. Henry and Donelson would be a good place to get a handle on a critical component of the Union advance and breakthrough of the Confederate defensive line in the west.
 
Kyle,

Like you, I also think 1864 was the most interesting year of the war. So much so that I started a Siege of Petersburg site called Beyond the Crater. As for reading material for the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign, there is probably a little more than you think. Most of the offensives against those cities have book-length accounts, some more than one. I maintain a bibliography page for the campaign broken out by offensive and/or type. I think, obviously, a good portion of the people buying books on the war and interested in the war are Southerners, and they don't tend to focus on the part where the perception is their side has little to no chance left. Hindsight is 20/20. But if you start really looking at things, the perception on both sides in early August 1864 was that the South still had a real chance to win. They just needed to do enough damage to get McClellan elected, not win outright. The "gloss over everything in the East after Gettysburg until Appomattox" seems to have taken hold in the years after the war and succeeding generations just followed suit. I'm one of a group of people who focus on 1864-65. And the number of books seems to be growing as well.
Awesome! I didn't realize you were on here. I love your website. In fact it was your website that really got me into the Richmond/Petersburg campaign. Your website is my first destination whenever I pick up relics with a RP connection. Thanks for the bibliography as well, looking forward to digging through it a bit.

On the subject of RP books I actually just purchased Sommers' Richmond Redeemed, focusing mainly on the fifth offensive (this is after reading part 1 of Bearss' Petersburg series). Only a few chapters but very much enjoying it. Interestingly I bought the copy second hand and it turned out to be signed by Sommers.
 
On the subject of RP books I actually just purchased Sommers' Richmond Redeemed, focusing mainly on the fifth offensive (this is after reading part 1 of Bearss' Petersburg series). Only a few chapters but very much enjoying it. Interestingly I bought the copy second hand and it turned out to be signed by Sommers.
@bschulte's site prompted me to find Sommers' dissertation, which is the genesis of Richmond Redeemed. The hand-drawn, colored pencil maps are mind-bogglingly good.
 
Awesome! I didn't realize you were on here. I love your website. In fact it was your website that really got me into the Richmond/Petersburg campaign. Your website is my first destination whenever I pick up relics with a RP connection. Thanks for the bibliography as well, looking forward to digging through it a bit.

On the subject of RP books I actually just purchased Sommers' Richmond Redeemed, focusing mainly on the fifth offensive (this is after reading part 1 of Bearss' Petersburg series). Only a few chapters but very much enjoying it. Interestingly I bought the copy second hand and it turned out to be signed by Sommers.
I'm pretty sure Richmond Redeemed was the first book length study of an offensive I've read. The research he did was impressive as hell for a book written pre-internet. I've studied his massive bibliography in that book for leads in the National Archives, but they make it terribly difficult to get anything useful for people who don't go there in person.
 
I'm pretty sure Richmond Redeemed was the first book length study of an offensive I've read. The research he did was impressive as hell for a book written pre-internet. I've studied his massive bibliography in that book for leads in the National Archives, but they make it terribly difficult to get anything useful for people who don't go there in person.
Yes, I read the book and agree that the research is detailed and impressive for a portion of the Petersburg campaign that usually does not get this amount of attention.
 
I've studied his massive bibliography in that book for leads in the National Archives, but they make it terribly difficult to get anything useful for people who don't go there in person.

The National Archives has a huge collection, much of it not digitized, and they get a huge amount of requests.
 
Actually, the number on the porch at Carnton was supposedly three generals - one of whom was of course Cleburne - and a colonel. The total for the battle was six generals dead: five killed outright - Cleburne, Otho F. Strahl, States Rights Gist, Hiram Granbury, and John Adams - and one, John Carter, mortally wounded.
I thought it was Cleburne, Granbury, Strahl and Adams along with a Colonel who I can’t remember, but I could be wrong.
 
Back
Top