To Make Men Free : A Novel of the Battle of Antietam

Rating:
Summary: Easy reading of bloodiest single day of Civil War
Review: I am a die-hard Civil War buff, so "To Make Men Free" was for me an easy summer's read. I agree with the majority of reviewers that this is no "Killer Angels" but few could be expected to match that high standard. It is probably closer to the junior Shaara's product such as "Gods and Generals."

While billed as a "novel", the book does not stray far from straight history. What Croker probably should have done is do what the elder Shaara did in "Killer Angels", which is to focus on no more than four or five characters. Instead, we have over a dozen major characters (some real and some fictional) to keep track of, and as a result we do not get to know them like we do Lee or Longstreet in the Shaara novels. There is not much new insight here, although Croker deserves praise for taking on the egoistic McClellan (explaining his imcomprehensible popularity with his officers) and the political context of the battle's proximity to the Emancipation Proclamation. Most importantly, Croker lays a case that in almost any hands other than McClelland's (or maybe Burnside's), the Union could and would have destroyed the Army of Northern Virginia in 1862 instead of 1865. Lee's gamble (especially in staying on the battlefield the day after the carnage) with a handful of fought-out soldiers bordered on the irresponsible but for the presence of George ("the slows") McClellan.

The descriptions of the actual battle are stong, particularly the fight over the Sunken Road.

I strongly recommend Stephen Sears' "Landscape Turned Red" as the best single-volume popular non-fiction treatment of the battle of Antietam, especially for the maps, which Croker's book could have used more of (I cheated and used Sears' maps to follow the action).

Rating:
Summary: Easy reading of bloodiest single day of Civil War
Review: I am a die-hard Civil War buff, so "To Make Men Free" was for me an easy summer's read. I agree with the majority of reviewers that this is no "Killer Angels" but few could be expected to match that high standard. It is probably closer to the junior Shaara's product such as "Gods and Generals."

While billed as a "novel", the book does not stray far from straight history. What Croker probably should have done is do what the elder Shaara did in "Killer Angels", which is to focus on no more than four or five characters. Instead, we have over a dozen major characters (some real and some fictional) to keep track of, and as a result we do not get to know them like we do Lee or Longstreet in the Shaara novels. There is not much new insight here, although Croker deserves praise for taking on the egoistic McClellan (explaining his imcomprehensible popularity with his officers) and the political context of the battle's proximity to the Emancipation Proclamation. Most importantly, Croker lays a case that in almost any hands other than McClelland's (or maybe Burnside's), the Union could and would have destroyed the Army of Northern Virginia in 1862 instead of 1865. Lee's gamble (especially in staying on the battlefield the day after the carnage) with a handful of fought-out soldiers bordered on the irresponsible but for the presence of George ("the slows") McClellan.

The descriptions of the actual battle are stong, particularly the fight over the Sunken Road.

I strongly recommend Stephen Sears' "Landscape Turned Red" as the best single-volume popular non-fiction treatment of the battle of Antietam, especially for the maps, which Croker's book could have used more of (I cheated and used Sears' maps to follow the action).

Rating:
Summary: Difficult tale well told.
Review: I am not a history buff, and I've been frustrated before trying to pick through who was on which side during which battle (for instance the Shelby Foote books, which I understand are excellent!).

TO MAKE MEN FREE is about only one battle, and Croker puts it in the context of not only the "big picture" of the war, but the political situation and the personalities involved. I know, it's fiction; that probably helped me get through it too.

Anyhow, my point is, it's a riveting read, even if you don't normally like war stories. Highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Antietam version of Killer Angels
Review: I thoroughly enjoyed the book. Historical fiction is a rough topic since you cannot wander off course too much without disappointing the die-hards. Mr. Croker seemed to present the battle and it's participants in a comfortable reading sort of way. You felt the desperation of the South and the arrogance of the North.

I feel I understand the players on a more personal level after reading the book. As for the accuracy of the battle, I cannot argue with the details. The parts that were incorrect (not sure there were any since I'm not an Antietam fact follower), I attribute to the fiction part of the book. I read the book more for the mood than the facts. I can read the facts from the other hundreds of books.

If you are looking for a book to kick back, get a feel for the history of the subject and enjoy it at a personal level, then this is your kind of book. I put the level of enjoyable reading in the same category as the Killer Angel, Last Full Measure, etc ...

Hope you get a chance to enjoy the book.

Rating:
Summary: Difficult tale well told.
Review: So many books are written about the Civil War and so few combine the political context, the battle strategy, and the grueling day-to-day existence of the common soldier. To Make Men Free moves freely among the Oval Office, the generals' field headquarters, and the campfire, weaving all three aspects into one remarkable narrative. This book does for the Battle of Antietam what Killer Angles did for Gettysburg, even though Antietam is a much more complex and difficult tale to tell. Historical fiction must be enlightening and yet entertaining. Croker manages both.

Rating:
Summary: No Killer Angers - But Solid
Review: This book is an excellent way to read about quite possibly the bloodiest battle during the Civil War. There is no doubt that the author performed an enormous amount of research and that leads to a problem with the book. He seems to try to squeeze in so much, that at times its confusing about which side he is referring to and you never get drawn into the key battles the way you did in Killer Angels.

The author, who lives deep in the south and whose great-grandfather fought for the south, is quite biased. While the northern generals might have ended the war at Antietam if they had not been so timid and cautious, whatever flaws the southern generals had that have been written about in other books are rarely mentioned here.

If you are a Civil War buff and enjoy historical fiction, this is a should read but not a must read.

Rating:
Summary: Antietam version of Killer Angels
Review: This is a novel in the style of The Killer Angels. It is about one of the most fascinating battles in American history, the Battle of Antietam. The title comes from a verse to The Battle Hymn of the Republic: "As [Christ] died to make men holy, let us die to make men free." The emphasis on death and freedom is entirely appropriate in that it was the Union's marginal victory at Antietam that allowed Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation thus taking the first actual step toward freeing the slaves. But this was at a cost. September 17, 1862 remains the bloodiest day in American history. More Americans died at Antietam than on D Day, or at Pearl Harbor, or on September 11. (Some early casualty estimates of September 11 suggested that Antietam's toll had finally been exceeded but more accurate later figures prove that Antietam still holds the record.) And the population at that time was a small fraction of today's population.

Most Civil War battles, at least most single day Civil War battles, have a single location, a peach orchard or a sunken road, where the fighting was most intense and the bodies dropped liked dominos. Antietam has three: Miller's cornfield in the north, the sunken road forever after known as Bloody Lane in the middle, and the Rohrbach Bridge, forever after known as the Burnside Bridge to the south. The battle also features some of the most fascinating characters in American history; Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Ambrose Burnside, Joe Hooker, and George McClellan.

McClellan, the Union commander, is particularly fascinating. This thirty-four year old had the supreme self confidence that only his belief that he was preordained by God to save the Union could convey. He also possessed massive amounts of paranoia that caused him to treat better men than himself with contempt, most notably Abraham Lincoln whom he routinely referred to as a baboon. McClellan had three reasons that he should have overwhelmingly crushed Lee and ended the war: He had massive numerical superiority approaching three to one, a stroke of luck placed a copy of Lee's plans into his hands at just the moment he could best use them, and Lee's troops were spread out such that McClellan could defeat them in detail. But McClellan squandered all of these advantages and barely avoided defeat. Despite the reality, McClellan believed that it was he who was massively out numbered. Despite knowledge of Lee's plans, he failed to move quickly enough to truly capitalize on this unique opportunity. When the actual shooting started, McClellan committed his troops piecemeal rather than launching coordinated attacks and thus was himself nearly defeated in detail. (Simulations of this battle from my cardboard counter days through Sid Meier's Antietam all require that only certain Union troops be available or activated at any given time. Otherwise, the Confederate player would not stand a chance. McClellan himself, of course, was not so restricted and could have launched coordinated attacks using overwhelming force simultaneously.) McClellan subsequently ran as a peace Democrat for president against Lincoln in 1864 in one of the most bitterly contested elections in American history.

If, as should have been the case, McClellan crushed Lee at Antietam, the war would have ended on terms that almost certainly would have included the continuation of slavery. If, by some miracle that almost became an actuality, Lee had crashed McClellan, England, France and other European countries would have recognized the Confederacy, the Republicans would have been voted out of Congress in November of 1862, and the Confederacy would have won its independence including the continuation of slavery. Only the actual result, a glorified draw tilting at least strategically to the Union, allowed Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation and end slavery. One wonders if it was not the hand of God that so subtly and delicately balanced the events that slavery might end. But if so, was it also the hand of God that wreaked the harvest of death in Miller's cornfield, that drenched the Blood Lane, and that forced the crossing of the Burnside Bridge?

This novel, apparently the first book of the author, is not as good as The Killer Angels and reveals some rookie errors. Nevertheless, this is required reading for Civil War aficionados.

Rating:
Summary: The hand of God
Review: This is a novel in the style of The Killer Angels. It is about one of the most fascinating battles in American history, the Battle of Antietam. The title comes from a verse to The Battle Hymn of the Republic: "As [Christ] died to make men holy, let us die to make men free." The emphasis on death and freedom is entirely appropriate in that it was the Union's marginal victory at Antietam that allowed Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation thus taking the first actual step toward freeing the slaves. But this was at a cost. September 17, 1862 remains the bloodiest day in American history. More Americans died at Antietam than on D Day, or at Pearl Harbor, or on September 11. (Some early casualty estimates of September 11 suggested that Antietam's toll had finally been exceeded but more accurate later figures prove that Antietam still holds the record.) And the population at that time was a small fraction of today's population.

Most Civil War battles, at least most single day Civil War battles, have a single location, a peach orchard or a sunken road, where the fighting was most intense and the bodies dropped liked dominos. Antietam has three: Miller's cornfield in the north, the sunken road forever after known as Bloody Lane in the middle, and the Rohrbach Bridge, forever after known as the Burnside Bridge to the south. The battle also features some of the most fascinating characters in American history; Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Ambrose Burnside, Joe Hooker, and George McClellan.

McClellan, the Union commander, is particularly fascinating. This thirty-four year old had the supreme self confidence that only his belief that he was preordained by God to save the Union could convey. He also possessed massive amounts of paranoia that caused him to treat better men than himself with contempt, most notably Abraham Lincoln whom he routinely referred to as a baboon. McClellan had three reasons that he should have overwhelmingly crushed Lee and ended the war: He had massive numerical superiority approaching three to one, a stroke of luck placed a copy of Lee's plans into his hands at just the moment he could best use them, and Lee's troops were spread out such that McClellan could defeat them in detail. But McClellan squandered all of these advantages and barely avoided defeat. Despite the reality, McClellan believed that it was he who was massively out numbered. Despite knowledge of Lee's plans, he failed to move quickly enough to truly capitalize on this unique opportunity. When the actual shooting started, McClellan committed his troops piecemeal rather than launching coordinated attacks and thus was himself nearly defeated in detail. (Simulations of this battle from my cardboard counter days through Sid Meier's Antietam all require that only certain Union troops be available or activated at any given time. Otherwise, the Confederate player would not stand a chance. McClellan himself, of course, was not so restricted and could have launched coordinated attacks using overwhelming force simultaneously.) McClellan subsequently ran as a peace Democrat for president against Lincoln in 1864 in one of the most bitterly contested elections in American history.

If, as should have been the case, McClellan crushed Lee at Antietam, the war would have ended on terms that almost certainly would have included the continuation of slavery. If, by some miracle that almost became an actuality, Lee had crashed McClellan, England, France and other European countries would have recognized the Confederacy, the Republicans would have been voted out of Congress in November of 1862, and the Confederacy would have won its independence including the continuation of slavery. Only the actual result, a glorified draw tilting at least strategically to the Union, allowed Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation and end slavery. One wonders if it was not the hand of God that so subtly and delicately balanced the events that slavery might end. But if so, was it also the hand of God that wreaked the harvest of death in Miller's cornfield, that drenched the Blood Lane, and that forced the crossing of the Burnside Bridge?

This novel, apparently the first book of the author, is not as good as The Killer Angels and reveals some rookie errors. Nevertheless, this is required reading for Civil War aficionados.