On 15 April 1861, after receiving the news that Fort Sumter had surrendered to the Confederacy, President Abraham Lincoln issued an emergency proclamation for 75,000 troops to suppress the rebellion. These events are of course widely known and uncontested as the starting point of the Civil War. Perhaps less well known is the startling comment that Lincoln made to his Cabinet that same day: “If I were Beauregard, I would take Washington” (xiii). Some members of the Confederacy were of similar mind: some wanted to take over the capital in order to give legitimacy to their new government; others wanted to destroy the city to symbolize the destruction of the Union. It seems that Jefferson Davis's wife was of the former opinion: Varina apparently sent cards to her friends in New York inviting them to a reception at the White House on 1 May. Regardless of what they planned to do when they captured the city, after the fall of Fort Sumter the resounding call across the new Confederate states was the same: “On to Washington!” (3). As John and Charles Lockwood point out in The Siege of Washington, “All that the seizure of Washington and checkmate of Lincoln required was the coordination – and the will – to move on to the city swiftly” (154).

Rumours of an imminent Confederate attack caused alarm, fear, and confusion amongst Washington's residents. The city had few defences, and meanwhile the residents of Virginia were voting for secession, the citizens of Baltimore were repeatedly attacking troops on their way to Washington, and Marylanders were destroying railway and telegraph lines to prevent information reaching the city. For over a week (until troops from New York arrived in the city on 25 April) Washingtonians felt under siege. The potential significance of these few days has long been recognized by Civil War historians. James McPherson in Battle Cry of Freedom, for example, notes that maintaining control of Maryland in April 1861 was “crucial” because “its allegiance could determine the capital's fate,” and that meanwhile the rumours in Washington “grew to alarming proportions … Washington was gripped by a siege mentality.”Footnote ¹ Studies of Washington in the Civil War have also given attention to the “siege” – most notably in Margaret Leech's Pulitzer Prize-winning Reveille in Washington 1860–1865 (1941), in B. Franklin Cooling's military history of Washington, Symbol, Sword, and Shield: Defending Washington during the Civil War (1975), and more recently in Ernest R. Furgurson's Freedom Rising: Washington in the Civil War (2004). However, Siege of Washington is the first book-length account of these anxious days, and certainly no study has gone into the depth of detail that John and Charles Lockwood have achieved in this fast-paced and entertaining book.

From an academic perspective, the main criticism of this book is its emphasis on storytelling rather than on engaging with any historiographical debates (there are few references to secondary sources in the notes, and none in the main text). Arguably this is because there is little debate. The Confederacy never attacked Washington in April 1861 because they were not militarily prepared to do so; whilst Lincoln and his advisers may have expected an attack, Davis and Lee seemingly had no intention of attempting to take the city without the level of manpower, arms, provisions, or transport that they would need to ensure the success of such a manoeuvre. Indeed, the microhistorical approach taken by the Lockwoods demonstrates just how unprepared both sides were for war in April 1861. Dedicating a chapter to each day between 15 and 25 April, they illuminate how Washington needed troops, clear communication, supplies, and strong leadership, but all that existed was fear, rumour, and suspicion. This account of “the twelve days that shook the Union” perhaps overemphasizes the true threat to the city, but nonetheless John and Charles Lockwood provide a thrilling read. Written for a general reader, rather than an academic audience, this book conveys a real sense of the panic and confusion felt by the residents of Washington in the days after Fort Sumter, and brings alive the violent chaos faced by troops trying to travel through Baltimore unscathed. What many historians could most learn from this book, though, is that it is still possible to create suspense, tension, and excitement in a story to which we all already know the ending.