Book Review: Dread Danger: Cowardice and Combat in the American Civil War

Dread Danger: Cowardice and Combat in the American Civil War. By Lesley J. Gordon. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2025. Softcover, 328 pp., $29.99.

 Reviewed by Tim Talbott

There is probably not a serious student of the American Civil War’s military history who has not thought about how they would respond to a combat experience in that conflict. Would it be fight or flight? Would one muster up the nerve and brave iron and lead, or would one wilt or run? In Dread Danger: Cowardice and Combat in the American Civil War, historian Lesley J. Gordon provides readers with two examples of regiments that struggled with the expectations for their battlefield performance and the raw realities of fighting a brutal war.

Cowardice, a topic that creates a great deal of intellectual curiosity, has unfortunately generated relatively little in-depth scholarship. Likely due partly to the subject’s connotations and the risks that one runs in potentially inferring that soldiers were more apprehensive in combat situations than they actually were, has left a noticeable void in the historiography. However, Gordon explains, “This study certainly does not contend that the majority of Civil War soldiers were cowards. Nonetheless, trepidation about the dreaded danger of mortal combat was an understandable and psychological response to their predicament.” (6-7)

Rather than examining cowardice through a broad topical/theme-type study, Gordon uses the experiences of the 11th New York (sometimes known as the Fire Zouaves) and the 2nd Texas Infantry to create case studies. As Gordon notes, “both [regiments were] sent to war with sky-high expectations that they would fight bravely but found themselves instead tainted with the humiliating accusations of cowardice in combat.” (7)

For the 11th New York, their initial moment of truth came at First Manassas. The 2nd Texas first saw the elephant at Shiloh. Both regiments came out of these baptisms of fire stained with allegations of cowardice. As Gordon states in the introduction: “Rather than underplaying or ignoring these allegations, I take them seriously, as the men did themselves, exploring their origins and lasting impact. And unlike historians who want to disregard such episodes or claim that they do not really matter, I contend that they mattered (and still do), since these indictments directly affected their regimental effectiveness, reputation, and ultimate fate as a unit.” (8)

Gordon organizes Dread Danger into two parts, each dealing with the study’s two regiments. As briefly mentioned above, the 11th New York went off to war with lofty expectations. Due to its composition of men that came primarily from the firefighting departments of Gotham, it was assumed they were naturally brave men. Commanded initially by Col. Elmer Ellsworth, a leader in the pre-war militia movement in the North, the 11th surprisingly received relatively little initial training. When Ellsworth was killed in Alexandria, Virginia, by one of the city’s citizens, the regiment began to gradually lose its cohesion, discipline eroded, and they earned an unfavorable reputation within the army. When placed in combat at First Manassas they found themselves in a confusing and difficult position that produced high casualties, but ultimately devolved into their disordered retreat. Initial reports of the 11th’s efforts offered favorable remarks, but soon, the tide turned in the press, making stinging allegations of cowardice. The ill-disciplined unit also lost men to desertion right after the battle, which only reinforced the negative reports by the press and from other regiments. The unit ultimately proved unable to regain its footing after a bevy of officers resigned, and it was mustered out in the summer of 1862, unable to clear its tainted reputation.

Raised in the late summer of 1861, the 2nd Texas, like the 11th New York, entered the war on a wave of rage militaire and significant community expectations of success. Included among the unit’s soldiers was the son of former governor Sam Houston. With such stock in the ranks, how could it fail to win on the battlefield? Unlike the 11th New York, the 2nd Texas had plenty of time to train and drill for what they would soon enough endure.

During the fighting at Shiloh on April 6, the regiment performed well. However, on April 7, when caught in a deadly crossfire situation, “The 2^nd Texas broke, its members fleeing in full-blown panic.” (196) Pleas from Gen. William Hardee and his staff at first proved unfruitful, but finally, Lt. Col. Willam Rogers was able to gather a small core and continue the fight. Yet rumors of the unit showing the white feather began to swirl.

The stinging claims of cowardice were relieved somewhat in an action near Corinth a month later, where the unit performed well. Another opportunity for redemption came at Corinth on October 4, 1862. Charging the Federal works at Battery Robinette, Col. Rogers fell killed despite accounts of his attempts to surrender, and the unit broke. Hardee again berated the regiment’s poor performance. It did not help that Rogers, who was shot on the works, was found wearing protective armor. The 2nd Texas went on to fight well at Vicksburg before its surrender, but after receiving paroles, they served the rest of the war in the Trans-Mississippi, seeing almost no more action.

Gordon clearly shows that allegations of cowardice (the most unmanly of mid-19th-century insults) were difficult to erase, whether fairly or unfairly bestowed. She focuses not so much on telling readers what actually happened on the battlefields where these incidents occurred, but more in relating the perceptions that evolved from them and their effects on the men and their regiments.

Dread Danger: Cowardice and Combat in the Civil War is a most welcome addition to the field’s historiography. Hopefully, it spurs additional examinations into this important subject matter with future books in both topical and case study formats. Impressively documented with paged footnotes and a thorough bibliography, it is sure to claim a well-earned spot among the best of Civil War soldier and unit studies.