Civil War Novels

by Michael J. Deeb

Autographed Copies
Buy Online

Michael J. Deeb

is the author of seven novels which take place during the American Civil War known as The Drieborg Chronicles.
Duty and Honor is the first novel of The Drieborg Chronicles.
Duty Accomplished is the second novel.
In Honor Restored the character Michael returns to the life of a farmer.
In the fourth novel, The Lincoln Assassination Michael Drieborg works with a team of marshals.
The title 1860 America Moves Toward War explores the issues at stake in the 1860 elections.
In The Way West, Michael Drieborg's youngest son runs away to join the US Cavalry in the West. Civil War Prisons follows the fate of both Union and Confederate captives and the quality of life they each endured during their confinement.

Mike Deeb, with co-writer Robert Lockwood Mills, has also penned two novels which explore the Kennedy Assassination and attempts to answer the question, "Did Oswald Really Act Alone?" Learn more at

Michael also blogs on the Website, telling the stories of the freest people on earth.

  • A Great Read!
    I couldn’t put this book down once I got started. The detail was great and I really like the main character, Michael. Knowing that so much research went into this book made it exciting to read!


Civil War in the East: Lee vs Union Generals


Once General Robert E. Lee took over command of the Army of Northern Virginia in 1862, he faced, in succession, several celebrated northern Generals. These Union leaders had much larger forces and had more and better equipment at their disposal. Despite that, Lee’s army won his battles against them or at least escaped destruction at their hands during the Civil War in the East.


These Union men included Generals Pope, McClellan, Burnside, Hooker and Meade. Only General Meade clearly defeated Lee. but even he, was a disappointment to President Lincoln because he did not follow-up his success at Gettysburg. Instead he  allowed Lee to get his defeated army back to Virginia to defend Richmond, the Confederate capital.


It also has been argued that in September 1862.  General McClellan defeated Lee at Antietam. But there too, Lee was allowed to escape with his battered army. Lincoln thought Lee’s army could have been destroyed following that battle.


Confederate successes at the Seven Days’ Battles, 2nd Manassas, Fredericksburg,  and Chancellorsville together with the high casualty rate at Antietam, took a heavy toll on Lee’s forces.


For example, Lee’s success at the battle of Chancellorsville, cost him  almost a quarter of his army. This was followed within two months with his losing an additional third of this same army at Gettysburg; that is, at least 50% of the Army of Northern Virginia’s strength was lost within a three month period.


And later, under the relentless pressure of General Grant’s attacks, Les’s army continued to decline in strength. Finally, in the spring of 1865, Lee surrendered a force of not many more than 10,000 starving men; the remains of the once powerful Army of Northern Virginia.


To view more Civil War blogs go to



Harvey’s Oyster Saloon 1863


Located in the worst slums of Washington City and surrounded by brothels and bars, Harvey’s Oyster Saloon catered to solders of all ranks as well as the rich, famous and powerful Washingtonians; President and Mrs. Lincoln included.


According to an 1861 article in the Evening Star newspaper, Tom and George Harvey founded this restaurant before the Civil War broke out. In the pre-war building there were no chairs only elevated tables. A customer could order a gallon of boiled (later steamed) oysters for .25 cents and all the hot butter and freshly baked bread he or she wanted.

Once the city was flooded with troops and those seeking government war contracts, the restaurant seemed to be always jammed. Long lines of customers were commonplace. That’s when the brothers stopped boiling their oysters and went with the faster process of steaming them.


Following the war, the Harvey brothers moved their restaurant to a better part of Washington. They remained a landmark in the city for another century.





Central to General Winfield Scott’s plan to force the southern states back into the Union was to regain control of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. Toward that end, it was necessary to create, from scratch, a river navy. It would be known as Lincoln’s Brown Navy.


In July of 1861, US Quartermaster General Montgomery C. Megis advertised for proposals to construct ironclad gunboats for use on the Mississippi River.  James Eads, a Civil Engineer from Missouri.won the contract with the help of his friend Attorney General Edwin Bates.


In August, the engineer convinced the War Department to give him a contract to build armed river craft. Known as POOK boats after their designer, Eads (the engineer) agreed to deliver seven of them for $89,000 each by October 5, 1861. For each day the delivery was delayed he would forfeit $200.


Back in St. Louis, Eads constructed the Carondelet Shipyards and trained a labor force of 500 men working in shifts 24 hours a day. Eventually he would have 4,000 men working there and at a second shipyard in Mound City, Illinois on the Ohio River. They would construct low profile armored and armed boats that would only draw seven feet of water; ideal for the western rivers.


On October 12, 1861 the first such  iron clad, the Carondelet, was put in the water at Ead’s Missouri shipyard. It was followed by the St. Louis, the Louisville and the Pittsburgh.


These were followed by the Cincinnati, Mound City and the Cairo from the Mound city shipyard. All of the original boats were delivered on time.


The first time one of these boats was used in a combat operation was in support of Grant’s attack at Belmont,  Missouri on November 7, 1861. In their next engagement on February 2, 1862, this fleet of iron-clads made possible the successful attack on Fort Henry located on the Tennessee River. A few days later, under naval Captain Foote,  the boats were moved to the Cumberland River in support of Grant’s attack and subsequent capture of Fort Donelson.


These POOK boats were next used in the attack on Island No 10 at New Madrid, Missouri. That fortified island was bombarded by mortars mounted on barges on March 13 and was subsequently abandoned by the Confederates. On April 6, two of Ead’s boats assisted Grant hold off General Johnston’s Confederates at Shiloh at the Pittsburgh Landing river site. And they guarded the river at that site for General Buell’s arriving troops.


Ead’s POOK boats swept the river of enemy craft whenever they met. One of them sunk by a Confederate torpedo has been raised and is on display at the Vicksburg battlefield’s Visitor Center. The rest were sold for scrap after the war ended. See more at



The Civil War Begins


Lincoln’s inauguration signaled the crises of the two forts, Sumter in Charleston harbor, South Carolina and fort Pickins located in Pensacola, Florida.  His predecessor, President Buchanan, had not turned these two forts over to the Confederate government. It was left to his successor to deal with that issue.


Lincoln’s military adviser was General Winfield Scott. When the general was asked his opinion, he recommended abandoning the forts. The majority of Lincoln’s cabinet had endorsed his recommendation as well. Lincoln refused to accept that option but he also refused to speak against it either.


Prior to Nov 11th and the passage of the CSA’s low tariff, northern public opinion, at least in the Northeast, wanted peace. Peace was good for business. But as a tariff war loomed, opinions changed. From the beginning, leaders in the mid-west wanted Lincoln to regain control of the Mississippi river and it tributaries.  Industrialists, bankers and merchants in the northeast changed their minds, too. “Collect the Northern tariff at all ports or we will not pay it.” New York merchants threatened.  Thus, the issue of keeping the two forts took on new importance.


While northern public opinion was evolving, commissioners sent by the Confederate States of America government traveled to Washington City in an attempt to settle the issue. They were even authorized to pay the Union government for the two forts. Lincoln refused to meet with them because he did not want it said that he recognized their government as legitimate. Secretary of State Seward, however did not hesitate. He met with the CSA commissioners to discuss the issue.


While he was not authorized by Lincoln to do so, Seward assured the Confederate Commissioners that Fort Sumter would be turned over to the government of South Carolina. It appeared that early in the Lincoln administration, Seward believed he was responsible for crafting policies for Lincoln.


President Jefferson Davis was becoming impatient with those talks. He pressured his Commissioners to push for a resolution of the issue to little avail. Finally, he announced to his cabinet that either Union troops were withdrawn from Sumter or the fort would be taken by force.


His Secretary of State, Robert Toombs objected. He argued, that taking Fort Sumter by force would begin a war they could not win. “We have many friends in the North. Attacking Fort Sumter will unite all in the North against us.”


Never-the-less, the President of the Confederate States of America ordered General Bureaugard in Charleston to take the fort by force it it was not abandoned by its commander, Major Anderson. The demand was refused, so the cannons roared in Charleston’s harbor.

Thus, the leaders of the Confederate States of America began a war  with the Union. The conflict would last four years and cost over 700,000 deaths to military personnel alone. And, as General Winfield Scott warned President Lincoln generations would pass before the bad feelings would subside between people of the North and South. Some people would say bad feeling still exist.

The Union



As far back as colonial times, there had been disagreements between the people and leaders of the various sections of the British colonies of North America. United action between the people living as far north as Massachusetts and as far south as Georgia came with the conflicts with France and its Indian allies.  By 1763,  that unifying force had been eliminated. Thereafter,  British Parliament had become the common enemy of the people living in the various colonies when it attempted to impose a Mercantile system in their colonies.


Such a system ran counter to over one hundred-fifty years of freedoms enjoyed by the colonists.  Such freedoms had become rights. The colonists all, resented Parliament’s attack on their freedoms so strongly that they went to war with the mother country, the most powerful nation on earth at the time, to keep them; and won.


Their independence was recognized in the Treaty of Paris of 1786.  The first attempt at united government resulted in the weak, ineffectual Articles of Confederation. It was soon recognized by many as the new common enemy. This time, it seemed to be the enemy of the proper growth and even the survival of the new nation. Thus, the new challenge was to devise a form of joint governance that allowed for the survival and prosperity of the new nation while at the same time preserving the core freedoms that had been won from Great Britain.


This challenge was taken on by representatives of twelve of the 13  independent states (former British colonies) at a meeting in Philadelphia in May of 1787. As Thomas Jefferson later said of the effort,


“”They (the delegates) laid their shoulders to the great points, knowing that the little ones would follow of themselves.”


Throughout the summer of 1787, the delegates worked to come up with a federal government ” adequate to the exigencies of the Union,” but not so strong as to impinge on individual freedom or the core sovereignty of the various states.


By August of 1788, eleven of the thirteen sovereign states had ratified the new Constitution of the United States.  But, it was not without debate and drama. In two of the most important and necessary states, the fate of the proposed Constitution was narrowly decided.


In June of 1788, the Virginia convention delegates voted to adopt the proposed Constitution by a vote of 89 to 79 despite fierce opposition from such patriots as Thomas Paine. In August of 1788, the New York delegates voted to adopt the proposed Constitution by a vote of 30 to 27, despite opposition from the state’s governor and other staunch revolutionary heroes. In both states, the delegates also voted to approve a caveat: If the new federal union did not work to the benefit of their citizens and instead did harm to their prosperity, they reserved the right to leave said Union.


Rhode Island and North Carolina delegates would also adopt the Constitution before year’s end.


Within eighteen months, a federal government under this new constitution would be formed. Thus began the grand experiment.  Over the next seventy years, the fabric of this union would be tested repeatedly. Time and again, political leaders would come together, solve the dilemma and avoid a serious tear in that fabric.


But, after 1852, such leaders no longer led the Union. So, when the fabric of the Union would be seriously tested, irretrievable tears would not be avoided.

Was the Assassination a Conspiracy or the Act of a Lone Gunman?


President Lyndon B. Johnson 1971


In 1971, the retired president gave an interview to Leo Sands of the Atlantic Monthly. At that time he said,

“The assassination in Dallas had been part of a conspiracy. I have never believed that Oswald acted alone.”


Life Magazine:  On November 25, 1966, Life magazine editors issued the following statement:


“One conclusion is inescapable, the national interest deserves clear resolution of the doubts. A new investigating body should be set up. perhaps at the initiative of Congress. In a scrupulously objective and unhurried atmosphere, without the pressure to give assurance to a shocked country, it should reexamine the evidence and consider other evidence the Warren Commission failed to evaluate.”




In response to public pressure a congressional committee was appointed to investigate the assassination. The members of that committee spent a year investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. It issued a report on September of 1978  in which the it concluded:


“We believe, and the facts strongly suggest, that President Kennedy was assassinated as the direct result of a conspiracy…”




But, despite this conclusion no action has been taken by any government body to pursue the matter. As a result, both the flawed FBI Report and the equally flawed Warren Commission Report are still accepted as the final word on the assassination of John F. Kennedy


Read volume one of my two volume study on the assassination. The Kennedy Assassination: Did Oswald Act Alone?  Review all the data I presented. Then, make up your own mind  Go to the web site, www. The to order signed copies postage included.

The Argument Used to Justify Secession as a Remedy

The Civil War pitted the armed forces of twenty-three Northern states against the military forces of eleven Southern states.  The underlying issue was whether or not a state or a group of states could leave the Union.  After four years of war and the death of over seven-hundred thousand soldiers, the Northern states won the war and the argument.


In 1860-61, Southern leaders argued that the United States Constitution was a compact between sovereign states, where-in those states gave some of their authority to a central authority for the mutual benefit of the said states. And, that a breach of the contract could trigger secession.


Was this a new argument to justify secession? Let’s see.


In February of 1787, the Congress called for delegates from the thirteen states of the Confederacy to meet and consider revising the Articles of Confederation.  Their charge was to consider ways to render,


“…the Constitution of the federal adequate to the exigencies of the Union…”


Subsequently, the state legislatures of twelve states sent delegates to meet in Philadelphia for that purpose. Forty-five delegates met for the first time on May 25, 1786.  After much debate, thirty-eight of these delegates signed a document and sent it to the congress of the Confederation on September 17, 1786.  This body sent it to the states for ratification.


Therafter, in each state, delegates to state conventions were elected. their charge was to review and possibly  ratify the the proposal.  As a result five state conventions quickly ratified the document.  The process did not go quite as rapidly through the nation’s two largest state conventions, New York and Virginia.


The document (Constitution) was finally ratified by the Virginia delegates in June of 1788. but not without a proviso which stated:


“We, the delegates of the people of Virginia … Do in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States, may be re assumed by them, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury of oppression.”


Still, the vote in the Virginia Constitutional convention was close, 89 to 79 in favor of ratification.


In the New York convention, a similar and fierce debate developed. By a vote of 30 to 27 the Constitution was ratified, But only with a proviso of their own.


“We, the delegates of the people of New York … Do declare and make known … That the power of government may be re assumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness. “


The ratification convention of Rhode Island adopted similar language when it ratified the Constitution.


Thus, it was, that the framers and the state convention ratifiers, understood the newly adopted Constitution to be a compact. and, like all compacts was subject to the remedy of recession or annulment upon a breach.  Just what constituted a breach to justify secession was not determine at that time.


We will discuss this issue further along with Lincoln’s response to secession, in the next blog.


At any time, if you wish to stop receiving my Civil War blogs, simply notify me at  Please include your first name in that notification.


To see my historical novels and other neat things, go to


Only One Assassin?


The FBI Report of December 9, 1963 concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, fired his rifle three times from his perch on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building, all from behind the President.


1. The first shot hit the President in the back

2. The second shot hit Governor Connelly in his back 1.08 seconds later.

3. The third shot hit President Kennedy in the head.


However, during repeated reenactments, expert riflemen could not fire Oswald’s Italian made bolt-action carbine a second time within the 1.08 time frame for the second shot. (As shown in the Zapruder film.)


Therefore, since Oswald could not have fired the shot that hit Governor Connelly, there had to be more than one assassin in Daeley Plaza on November 22, 1963.


But that conclusion did not fit the one reached by the FBI Report that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. So, the Warren Commission proposed a different scenario in support the lone gunman declaration in the FBI Report.


The Warren Commission staff suggested that the bullet that hit President Kennedy in the back, exited his body through his throat. Then, that same bullet entered the back of Governor Connelly, exited, and  hit his wrist, exited and lodged in his thigh. (see illustration below) At the time, critics called this the ‘magic bullet’ theory.


However, during the autopsy conducted at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Washington D.C., the physicians described a different scenario. They reported that a bullet had entered the Presidents back five and one/half inches below his collar and two inches to the right of his spine.Further, they reported that the projectile penetrated his body at a 60 degree angle to the depth of two inches. And, they said in their autopsy report, that bullet  did not exit his body.


Therefore, we must conclude that the bullet that hit President Kennedy in the back could not have caused the wounds to Governor Connelly.


So,we must also conclude that there had to be more than one assassin in Daeley Plaze on November 22, 1963.


Exit Wound at Back Right of Head



In their emergency room reports, several Parkland Hospital physicians described a serious and fatal wound to the president on the right rear of his head. In the attached photo, they each physican graphically describe the location of the head wound (see the attached montage photograph).  The insert below is of Doctor Carrico, Dr. McCelland, Dr. Jenkins and Dr. Crenshaw. All of these men were present in the emergency room at Parkland Hospital and reported their observations of what they described as an exit wound, in their hospital reports.


The reader should remember that their observations were made immediately after the assassination and their reports were written within hours of the assassination of President Kennedy. None of these men even knew of the Zapruder film, or of the FBI Report or the Warren Commission Report in which it was insisted that all shots came from the rear of the president. These medical professionals shown here were untainted by such conclusions, made later to support a different conclusion i.e. a single shooting firing from behind JFK.


These same men testified in 1964 for the Warren Commission and for the Congressional Special Committee meeting in 1977. Their testimony on those occasions was consistent (it did not change) with their Emergency room hospital reports written on November 22, 1963.


There will be two more posts on this subject. Then I will wait for the release of the remaining documents before resuming comments. You can order one or both volumes of my historical novels dealing with the Kennedy assassination at the web site, The Kennedy You can use Pay Pal, or order through Amazon. The e books are available through Amazon.


Volume I is subtitled, Was Oswald the Only Assassin? The second volume is subtitled, Why Was Kennedy Killed? See more at the web site, The Kennedy


President Kennedy’s Head Wound

President Kennedy’s Head Wound


The medical professionals at Parkland Hospital’s emergency room discovered two wounds during their initial examination of President Kennedy. The first and most obvious to them, was an entry wound to the president’s throat.


The second and most damaging wound was an exit wound on the back right of JFK’s head.  It was this second wound which they judged caused the president to lose almost a  third of his brain.


Dr. Robert McClelland attached this crude freehand drawing to his Parkland Hospital emergency report.  He testified that JFK was hit on the right with an exit wound in the back of his head. His testimony to the Warren Commission was supported by Dr. Kemp Clark, Dr. Paul Peters, Dr. Ronald Jones, Dr. Gene Akin in their sworn testimony. All of these medical professionals testified that this head wound was an exit wound.


At the scene of the murder, Patrolman Bobby Hargis testified that his uniform and motorcycle windshield was covered with blood and flesh. In the attached photo, Patrolman is seen the rear and left of President Kennedy.


Bill and Gayle Newman were standing along the parade route. They  reported to the Dallas police on November 24, 1963 that they saw a bullet hit President Kennedy on the front right of his head


The Zapruder film clearly shows a bullet hitting the president’s head in the right front. Thirty eight onlookers testified to Warren Commission personnel that they heard gunfire coming from the Grassy Knoll along Elm Street, behind them.


Never-the-less, the FBI Report and later, the Warren Commission Report insisted that all shots came from behind the President and were all fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the Book Depository building.  In his Warren Commission testimony, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover testified, “there is not one scintilla of proof that there was a conspiracy (more than one assassin), foreign or domestic.”


Despite the testimony of the above professionals and others (see previous blog) to the frontal wounds to the throat and the head, Congressman Gerald Ford. a member of the Warren Commission, wrote for Life Magazine in October 1864, dismissing the existence of either wound.


“There is no evidence of a second gunman, or of other shots or other guns.”