Here's a link to Harold Holzer's review of the book Lincoln's Spies by Douglas Waller in the Wall Street Journal:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lincolns-sp...1564758435

It's not behind a paywall now, but likely soon will be based on the WSJ's track record of these things.

I just hit the paywall - was it a good review or a bad review?

We had a group of campers at Surratt House today taking part in an activity on spying during the Civil War. Ironically, while they were there, our mail was delivered and contained a review copy of Douglas Waller's Lincoln's Spies! I just barely cracked it open, but it looks great and has excellent reviews from folks like James McPherson and Sidney Blumenthal as well as other Civil War authors and scholars. Another thing in its favor is the publisher, Simon & Schuster's, usually great quality, and they have a good staff of editors to work with the authors.

Word of warning: I suspect that this is going to be another time for thinking up a reason to give your spouse as to why you have to spend over $30 for another darn Civil War book... 443 pages of text, another 150+ pages listing collections, chapter sources, and of course a very lengthy index. In addition, his pages of acknowledgments show that he was in touch with the "biggies" in the Civil War research field - both institutions and staff connected with them. I'm feeling good about this one before I read it, and I hope I am not disappointed.

As part of the publicity package that came with the book, there is this "teaser:" After listing and briefly identifying the four main subjects of the book -- Pinkerton, Sharpe (military intelligence), Lafayette Baker (warts and all), and Elizabeth Van Lew -- there is this note: "And behind these secret operatives was an American president who, who despite his 'Honest Abe' image, became an avid consumer of intelligence and a ruthless aficionado of clandestine warfare, willing to take risks. Spying during the Civil War set the template for dark arts in the future. 'The phone tapping, human collection and aerial snooping today's U.S. spy community engages in can be traced to the Civil War,' Waller writes." We should note that Waller has authored other histories, including one on the head of the OSS.

I almost bought it today, and then I put it down. When Waller talks about the rewards and how a military commission recommended using the rules in prize cases as a guide, he mistakenly writes that Congress agreed and voted in favor of that plan. That is absolutely wrong and any first-year history student, upon doing the most basic research, would have known that if they had read the Congressional Globe. The reason Everton Conger got the largest amount of the reward money was because Pennsylvania Representative William D. Kelly introduced a resolution to the Committee of Claims asking it to investigate the matter. They totally rejected the Holt-Townsend report and Congress came up with its own plan. If Waller got that wrong, what else is incorrect? Sorry, but I won't be buying it.

Best
Rob

Wow. That was less than a day before going behind the paywall.

I don't have a WSJ account but from what I recall of the review, Holzer liked the book. The review goes into the biographies of at least 3 spies - Pinkerton, Baker, and a Southern Unionist woman (I think Van Lew, but I can't remember for sure.)

Holzer did have a minor criticism in that he thinks Waller is incorrect in stating that Pinkerton and Lincoln had met each other prior to Lincoln being elected.

(08-02-2019 07:59 PM)Steve Wrote:  Wow. That was less than a day before going behind the paywall.

I don't have a WSJ account but from what I recall of the review, Holzer liked the book. The review goes into the biographies of at least 3 spies - Pinkerton, Baker, and a Southern Unionist woman (I think Van Lew, but I can't remember for sure.)

Holzer did have a minor criticism in that he thinks Waller is incorrect in stating that Pinkerton and Lincoln had met each other prior to Lincoln being elected.

As I posted elsewhere, the book has bios on four spies - Pinkerton (who affected McClellan's military strategy with inflated info), George Sharpe (who was pretty much the father of what we now term military intelligence), Lafayette Baker (an early version of the Gestapo, imo), and Elizabeth Van Lew of Richmond.

(08-02-2019 08:10 PM)L Verge Wrote:  As I posted elsewhere, the book has bios on four spies - Pinkerton (who affected McClellan's military strategy with inflated info), George Sharpe (who was pretty much the father of what we now term military intelligence), Lafayette Baker (an early version of the Gestapo, imo), and Elizabeth Van Lew of Richmond.

Laurie, your opinion about Baker makes me think you might want to read this article about Hiram Whitley:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-secret...guantanamo

(08-03-2019 03:41 AM)Steve Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 08:10 PM)L Verge Wrote:  As I posted elsewhere, the book has bios on four spies - Pinkerton (who affected McClellan's military strategy with inflated info), George Sharpe (who was pretty much the father of what we now term military intelligence), Lafayette Baker (an early version of the Gestapo, imo), and Elizabeth Van Lew of Richmond.

Laurie, your opinion about Baker makes me think you might want to read this article about Hiram Whitley:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-secret...guantanamo

Would love to read it, but this morning, I am being hit with AdBlocker walls on the dailybeast. Happened when I tried to get back on the WaPo Lincoln article.

---

I believe Steve said that Holzer did not believe Lincoln and Pinkerton met prior to the 1860 election, and right now, I agree. Pinkerton was working for a railroad line and infiltrated Baltimore's "underground" during the period before the election. That's where he picked up the rumors of what would happen to Lincoln if he were elected. I don't think Lincoln did much campaigning on his own - wasn't it the custom for the candidates to let others do the stumping for them?

Anyhow, I think Pinkerton reported to his railroad boss because the line that would get the president-elect to D.C. had to run through Maryland. That report subsequently led to Pinkerton and Lamon being able to fool the secessionists in Baltimore. I believe Pinkerton first met Lincoln in either Harrisburg or Philadelphia in the final leg of the trip in February.

When I get a chance to crack open Waller's book, I'll see what he says.

I'd be interested in reading about Baker and Van Lew, but I'm not sure I want to bad enough to buy the book.

(08-03-2019 04:46 PM)Gene C Wrote:  I'd be interested in reading about Baker and Van Lew, but I'm not sure I want to bad enough to buy the book.

I am hoping that we can get a good enough wholesale price from the publisher to be able to lower the cost a tad. However, $35 is not that high a price for a hardback with jacket, nearly 500 pages, and authored by a reputable, award-winning journalist/author. Anybody remember what O'Reilly's attempt at Killing Lincoln retailed for?

Speaking of high prices -- I have home delivery from the grocery store because I can no longer walk through one. Today, I had a delivery and thought I had ordered one pound of apricots. Nope, it turned out that I only ordered one, and it cost $1.07. It was very tasty and sweet, but not for over a dollar. I have given up on cucumbers this summer because the last time I checked, one was selling for $1.69. Boy, do I miss my backyard garden where, during July and August I was harvesting lots of cucumbers and making pickles, lots of tomatoes for sauce, and lots of beans for freezing...

---

(08-03-2019 11:21 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(08-03-2019 03:41 AM)Steve Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 08:10 PM)L Verge Wrote:  As I posted elsewhere, the book has bios on four spies - Pinkerton (who affected McClellan's military strategy with inflated info), George Sharpe (who was pretty much the father of what we now term military intelligence), Lafayette Baker (an early version of the Gestapo, imo), and Elizabeth Van Lew of Richmond.

Laurie, your opinion about Baker makes me think you might want to read this article about Hiram Whitley:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-secret...guantanamo

Would love to read it, but this morning, I am being hit with AdBlocker walls on the dailybeast. Happened when I tried to get back on the WaPo Lincoln article.

---

I believe Steve said that Holzer did not believe Lincoln and Pinkerton met prior to the 1860 election, and right now, I agree. Pinkerton was working for a railroad line and infiltrated Baltimore's "underground" during the period before the election. That's where he picked up the rumors of what would happen to Lincoln if he were elected. I don't think Lincoln did much campaigning on his own - wasn't it the custom for the candidates to let others do the stumping for them?

Anyhow, I think Pinkerton reported to his railroad boss because the line that would get the president-elect to D.C. had to run through Maryland. That report subsequently led to Pinkerton and Lamon being able to fool the secessionists in Baltimore. I believe Pinkerton first met Lincoln in either Harrisburg or Philadelphia in the final leg of the trip in February.

When I get a chance to crack open Waller's book, I'll see what he says.

I got about 20 pages read this morning before I got an emergency call from work and had to go in for the rest of the day. The first chapter is a bio of Pinkerton, and there is mention of his working for the Illinois Central Railroad and Lincoln being the lawyer for the company and drawing up his security agreement and being impressed with Pinkerton.

The author says there is no mention of what Pinkerton thought of Lincoln. This seems to imply that the two met previous to 1860, but I don't see concrete proof. I can be impressed with someone while reading their credentials and not even meeting them.

(08-03-2019 11:21 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I don't think Lincoln did much campaigning on his own - wasn't it the custom for the candidates to let others do the stumping for them?

Yes. Lincoln did not even attend the convention that nominated him.

I have made it to about page 250 of Lincoln's Spies, and with apologies to some, I'm loving it! Battle strategy takes a back seat to the mistakes, fraud, and assorted dumb things done by Pinkerton, McClellan, and Lafayette Baker in what I have read so far. It is amazing that the Union didn't go down in flames during the first two years with that trio at work and competing against each other, Lincoln, Seward, and Stanton instead of the Confederates.

So far, Elizabeth Van Lew is coming out a heroine in her attempts at spying on her fellow citizens in Richmond while trying to cover up her whole-hearted support of the Union. I am just getting to the part where George Sharpe is emerging in the field of military intelligence.

A side bonus for me came with a phone call today from a Surratt Society member who had gone to hear the author, Douglas Waller, speak and sign in D.C. this weekend. The member mentioned Surratt House Museum, and Mr. Waller told him to extend his thanks to us for the help we gave him while he was doing his research. Neither our research librarian nor I knew whom we had been helping at that point.

Finally finished the 450-page book and really liked it -- and developed an even deeper disdain for McClellan, Lafe Baker, and Pinkerton. I was not reading trying to find errors, but cringed a bit when the author discussed the planned escape from Point Lookout Prison Camp for Confederates and claimed that it was at the tip of the Virginia Peninsula. Marylanders compete with Virginians all the time, and I'm almost tempted to write and tell the editor that the prison site still remains and is at the tip of the Southern Maryland Peninsula!

One thing I do want to share is something that you seldom see in any CW book, especially ones on military campaigns. Most of us are familiar with the early-1865 raids on Virginia's Shenandoah Valley by Gen. Philip Sheridan under the orders of Grant and Lincoln. The intent was to destroy the Confederacy's "bread basket." And Sheridan did a fine job of it (say I with teeth gritted).

You seldom see a detailed listing of what was the reported damage, but the author gives it on page 368: "...seventy mills burned and 2,000 barns...seized or destroyed 435,800 bushels of wheat, 3,800 horses, 10,900 cows, 12,000 sheep, 77,000 bushels of corn, 12,000 pounds of bacon, and 20,400 tons of hay." The Union invaders also destroyed the forces of Gen. Jubal Early, CSA.

Black Flag Warfare is not nice...