Blockaders; Refugees; and Contrabands chronicles the role of the East Gulf Blockading Squadron in creating civil strife and warfare along the west coast of Florida during the Civil War. This history illuminates the Squadron's impact on Florida - the Confederate state most susceptible to actions by the U.S. Navy - and the far-reaching effects of its activities on the outcome of the War. Initially the East Gulf Blockading Squadron gave no indication that; with its allies - Florida's refugees and contrabands (escaped slaves) - it would create a civil war within Florida. When the Squadron raided the mainland it found sympathizers ashore who helped the sailors cut out blockade-runners; harass the enemy; and destroy coastal salt works. As the number of refugees and contrabands increased they became a source of manpower for the Squadron. After Confederate conscripts and army deserters fled to the impenetrable swamps of Florida's Gulf Coast; they turned to the Squadron for succor and aid. In time the blockaders; refugees; and contrabands joined forces to participate in fluid partisan combat actions. When Federal control of the Mississippi River cut the South's supply of western beef; the Confederacy turned to south Florida. The Union army enlisted the Squadron's refugees into the U.S. Second Florida Cavalry to keep the beef from rebel armies. This action elevated the conflict from guerrilla to conventional war. Additionally; the Second Infantry Regiment; U.S. Colored Troops; fought beside the blockaders and refugees; freeing and recruiting contrabands. All blockading squadrons had contacts with refugees and contrabands; but only the East Gulf Blockading Squadron utilized these allies to fostera civil war. The subsequent salt and cattle raids struck blows that were felt beyond the state and had a devastating impact on the balance of the Confederacy and on the ultimate course of the Civil War.
#2111148 in Books Brookings Institution Press 2004-05-28Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 8.50 x .41 x 5.51l; .54 #File Name: 081573283X144 pages
Review
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful. Useful and reliable; but very introductoryBy R. M. PetersonI bought and read this book as part of my self-education program on Islam. It turned out to be not nearly as detailed as I had expected; especially in its discussion of the tenets of Islam and their application(s) in the modern world. The principal point of the book is to refute the popular perception of Islam as a monolith bent on clashing with and destroying Christianity and/or the West. Still; as far as it goes it is a very useful introduction; both reliable and objective; and; as others have noted; superior to Karen Armstrong and far superior to Robert Spencer.(When I was in junior high school in the early '60s; the perceived threat to the U.S. was communism; and wanting to learm more about that pressing issue I bought a book by J. Edgar Hoover on communism. Needless to say; it wasn't very helpful; although it took me several years to come to that realization. Reading a book by Robert Spencer to learn about Islam would not be much different.)1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Excellent Read.By EyitayoLevel headed analysis; excellent read for people who know a little about Islam; and those who know a lot about it. its an easy read; so it will sustain your interest.5 of 7 people found the following review helpful. Welcome voice of reasonBy H. SchneiderThe book was addressed to an American audience; its mission was to provide a brief survey of the Muslim world; its religion and ideologies; with the objective to destroy the understanding that Islam is a monolith and that America was at war with 'Islam'; rather than with some specific Muslims. Given the small space that it had; the book does a remarkable job. I am sure an updated reprint will take care of the newish fad of 'Islamofascism'.I must admit that I need the reminder of reason myself once in a while. Off and on I get carried away myself by popular rages. I fully endorsed Fallaci's rage after 9/11. I still will not throw her book away into the trashcan.Things like the Rushdie Fatwah; the Bahmyan destruction; the various bombs; in first place the Bali ones; make me build up very strong negative emotions. One needs to direct these into the proper channels. One needs to read Gregorian and others once in a while.My own education about Islam rested on the two pillars of a German writer of trivial adventure stories; which I read as a 12 y old; and then the remarkable Maulana Maudoodi's writings translated into English; when I was a twen. Then I put the subject away; done and settled. I looked at Islam like at Christianity; both somewhat irrational and surprisingly large sects following obscure faiths. Only the masses following them made them less than obscure.Rage and neglect don't work; only knowledge does. So ok; let's get back to acquiring some.About Gregorian: the book is not perfect.I wish he had given a bit more space to the religion and its history. The first chapter is good for 35 pages; but couldn't he have done 50?After explaining to us that Islam is not just about Arabs; Gregorian spends chapter 2; called Modernists and Traditionalists; almost entirely on Arabs.There is also some PC attitude: on page 49 he says that 'the record shows that Islam is not adverse to science or technology'. However he proceeds by telling us that no science and technology happens; or very little. Other than arms. Similarly; he mentions that the basic education sector is a possible trouble zone; with teaching being left to unqualified ideologues on a large scale; but he does not elaborate on this 'hot potato'. Out of a sense of tact?In chapter 3; Challenges of the 20th; he calls the Iran-Iraq war a war of Arab states. That must have been slipped in by an editor; I can't believe Gregorian could have made that mistake himself.Further down in that chapter; he states that Z.A.Bhutto was Pakistan's President from 71 to 73. That is not wrong; but so misleading that it looks like a mistake. ZAB was Prime Minister until 77; when he was deposed; jailed; and later executed for (alleged) murder.My point is: if the book makes these trivial mistakes where I catch them; how sure am I of the stuff which I have to take as stated for lack of own prior knowledge?I will not hold it against the book that it mentions a major European problem only in passing: the integration issue. That is outside its scope.
