Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

William Tecumseh Sherman is credited with saying "War is Hell", and in To Make Men Free, Richard Croker has illustrated that truism. Croker's novel covers "America's bloodiest day" from its inception in the strategy of Robert E. Lee, through each and every hour of the battle, to its aftermath. He ably demonstrates the clash of politics and generalship, popularity and competence, arrogance and sincerity. His portrayals of the great men caught up in this battle ring true, despite the necessity of fictionalizing conversations, and he also conveys a sense of the plight of the common soldier around which all the chaos swirled. Croker does a creditable job of enlivening the story of one the most difficult of all Civil War battles to narrate and describe. Recommended to all with an interest in this heartbreaking national conflict.

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.

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.

This sweeping novel, like an epic feature from the 1950s, features a cast of thousands which is both its strength and weakness.

A lot of reviewers complain about the lack of depth in the characters, which is fair to say about the book. Unlike Shaara's The Killer Angels, the gold standard of Civil War fiction, there is not much character development. But, to be fair, Shaara focuses on precious few personalities of the War while Croker includes Lincoln, many cabinet members, Lee, McClellan and at least a dozen of the generals, not to mention colonels, sergeants and even a couple of privates.

The inclusion of so many characters does contribute to a lack of character exploration but it also contributes to a wide view of the mayhem of the battlefield. Croker also delves into political intrigues that went hand in hand with this bloodiest day in American history.

Croker's writing style is quite enjoyable - he flows effortlessly from one character to another while moving the story along at a quick pace. There's enough detail to give the Civil War novice a good grounding in the basics and enough focus on small parts of the battle to keep a serious student of the war like me interested. Humor and tragedy often go hand in hand in this book - none illustrates this more than page 301 of my paperback version. I chuckled out loud at a neat turn of phrase and then felt as though I'd been kicked in the gut four paragraphs later. I was so moved that I had to close the book and do something else.

Croker noted that he researched this book for three years. He includes many antecdotes that are left out of most histories. As a born and bred Hoosier I was proud of determination demonstrated by the story of the Hoosier soldier who was shot in the belly early in the battle - a fatal injury in those days. He was ordered back to the medics but he refused, saying, "Well, I guess I'm hurt about as bad as I can be. I believe I'll go back and give 'em some more." (p. 267)

Croker has another novel about the Civil War entitled No Greater Courage: A Novel of the Battle of Fredericksburg. They are stand alone novels (I read them out of order) but they would probably be more enjoyable in the order that they actually happened. I hope that Croker is working on a Chancellorsville novel. Croker's command of the Union political situation is very strong and these three battles are, in reality, intricately related to each other. Chancellorsville's bold maneuvers are a response to the mindless forward attacks of Fredericksburg which were a response to the hesitancy of Antietam. I would love to see Croker get into the head of Hooker at Chancellorsville.

Highly recommended.

Pet Peeve note: On page 136 of my paperback edition Croker refers to "Indianians." There have never been and never will be Indianians. We are Hoosiers. Always have been, always will be.

I have just finished "No Greater Courage" and would just like to say that it and "To Make Men Free" are some of my most favorite examples of historical fiction. I have always been fascinated by the Battle of Antietam, and appreciated a book finally being written solely about it that was a fast-paced, enjoyable read. "No Greater Courage" was equally as well done. I'd recommend them to anyone.

"To Make Men Free" is the title of a new book by a new (to me) author named Richard Croker. I attended his speech at a local Rotary luncheon last week, and was impressed right there. Bought the book (Perennial, a Harper-Collins sub, ISBN 0-06-055909-8) and am halfway through it. It's an Antietam book, but it carefully sets up the plot by starting at Second Manassas and pays due attention to Harper's Ferry.

I'm not yet finished with it, so I don't know yet if it's going to end with the passage "And then A. P. Hill came up." Hope not. But then, I'm the person who invented the website http://www.redshirt.aphill.forgood.gov. (Don't click on it, it doesn't really exist. I just invented it to tick off a Hill fan who is truly a clump in the litterbox of life.)

This book is a narrative, not an historical account. As it was portrayed by the author, one might expect a Jeff Shaara-esque stream of consciousness, but that's not really what it is. It's an excellent narrative, a good, well-structured time-line within which all sorts of vignettes are used to move the story forward.

William F. Buckley once wrote (possibly quoting someone else, I don't recall) that the author who seeks to slay his audience with each passage he writes runs the risk of succeeding. I have thought of that maxim many times while reading this book, for Croker's one-liners--really, one-para-liners--come close to being like that...there are so many keepers. Keepers in terms of imagery, mostly. My prediction is that you will do to your beloved what I have already done twice to mine: Make her stop what she's doing and listen patiently while I read an irresistible passage.

When you get to the passage(s) about what it means to be buried face down with bullet holes in your back, and when you get to the one about Clara Barton comforting a wounded soldier just north of the cornfield, you'll remember what I just said.

Don't buy this book for historical enlightenment, although that's there for me, a rank amateur. And don't buy it for "X's and O's", for they're not really there. Keep your copy of Sears alongside your bed if that's needed. And maybe, just maybe, don't even buy it for the educational value of reading the work of another wordsmith who uses the Queen's language with efficiency and precision. Instead, do what I've done and am going to do again twice more: Buy it for the fun of it, and buy it for a friend.

Croker has not written a Civil War book. He's written a work of literature which simply exploits one of the most fertile historical subjects for a work of literature which has ever been. Too tactical ever to be another War and Peace, it nonetheless has its share of Prince Andreis and Count Buzuhoffs.

I kinda like this book. <g>

Herb Edwards

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.

This book inspired me to become a student of the civil war. I had only the skimpiest knowledge of the history of that war that tore America apart when I discovered TO MAKE MEN FREE. Mr. Croker brought that terrible battle at Antietam to life for me and created a desire in me to learn more. I spent a year reading Shelby Foote's encyclopedic history of the war and then went to Sharpsburg to see the actual site of the battle. The words of Richard Croker came back to me as I walked the battlefield. He is a great and under-appreciated author.

This book isn't really much of a novel. The author doesn't stray far at all from the historical record in any meaningful manner, and unlike (for instance) the Killer Angels, he doesn't concentrate on one portion of the battle and ignore the others. Instead, Croker recounts pretty much every aspect of the Battle of Antietam, constructing what's not a formal historical account, but a pretty accurate narrative of what happened in novel form. While I don't dislike this, it's hard to call it either a novel or a history.

Antietam was an especially bloody, frustrating battle. The book spends considerable time building up to the battle (fighting doesn't start until just about halfway through the book). All of the various incidents that occurred during the course of the fighting, from the captured Union officer who was duty-bound not to warn his colleagues about a Rebel ambush, and couldn't quite bring himself to refrain from doing so anyway, to the famed Lost Order, Longstreet in his carpet slippers, and so forth, everything is carefully recounted, and the result is very satisfying, though of course by the end of it you'll want to strangle McClellan. One annoyance is the lack of good maps.

I enjoyed this book, and would say that it could almost serve as a substitute for a historical account, if you're not going to school or something.