Alexandria Goes to War: Beyond Robert E. Lee Book

I cringe when I read naval history books by journalists because they never let it be said that they will let facts mess up a good story. Clancy doesn't disappoint in playing loosey goosey with some measly insignificant facts to get in the way of his story.

Perhaps I'm a little over sensitive as a reader but I read histories to get facts straight and for the most part Clancy did however the first chapter was a minefield of facts out of place or worse manipulated. Clancy give a thumbnail sketch of a thumbnail of John Ericsson and at that mangled the briefest of treatments in books about the Monitor I have ever seen. John Ericsson was irascible and stubborn, however Clancy painted him as naive. He infers that Ericsson went to see the naval board about the Monitor based on Cornelius Bushnell's saying that they had questions. Ericsson was tricked by Bushnell by Bushnell using reverse psychology but this ignored why Bushnell was involved with Ericsson. Clancy places Lincoln's sock quote before Ericsson's visit when it was after. I know nit picking but after all Clancy was writing a history book.

I found myself wanting James Tetrus DeKay's excellent Monitor for a better history. DeKay's book tells the Monitor's history much better and in more detail. I tried to figure a reason why Clancy is writing other than to elevate my blood pressure and it came to me. The best parts of the book are the parts where he focused on the recovery of the Monitor's turret. I started skipping over the Clancy's "History" sections because of their thumbnail qualities. Clancy gave the battle between the Virginia/Merrimack and Monitor nine pages. Yes a battle that transformed naval warfare forever was give nine pages in a history book about one of the two ships involved. I was dumbstruck by that. A subject that full histories are written about received nine pages and the front cover but nothing else. If you want to read about the battle go to Davis' excellent Duel Between the First Ironclads or Hoehling's Thunder at Hampton Roads. If you want to read about the recovery of the Monitor then read Clancy's book because this is where Clancy does well.

Clancy committed another writing sin when he decided to write in absurd phrases such as "The accents on board were thick enough to pierce with a marlinspike." I hate when authors feel they must become "salty". Wasn't it enough Mr. Clancy to tamper with the timeline and portray it as fact but did you have to go with the fake salty? It was strained and unneeded.

What Clancy's main interest in the book is the recovery of the Monitor's turret and in this he seems to do well. If he had put the Monitor's History in say the first three chapters and told about the recovery this book would be much different and receive possibly a one star higher grade. It is clear Mr. Clancy was in awe or the recovery and those who made it possible. Based on his writing I am as well. This was the strength of the book and should have been its focus.