4 comments about A Woman's Civil War: A Diary, with Reminiscences of the War, from March 1862.

1. I read this journal/reminiscence during a short period in whichI read several other Confederate women's diaries and reminiscences,and something that made this one particularly significant in my opinion was that unlike some of the other southern women whose writings I read, Cornelia McDonald lived along a major battlefront of the Civil War from the early months on. Thus, although she definitely preferred to have the Confederate forces around her and appears to have retained some bitterness toward the Union government after the war, she had a more complex view of Union soldiers than did some other Confederate women who lived further from the warfront through much of the war. She mentions the kindness of a shoemaker in her town who sympathized with the Union cause but made shoes for her large family of children even though she could not pay him, and at one point she even has a good word for the Union general who heads the forces occupying the town where she lives. The story of her struggle to feed and protect her children, help nurse soldiers, maintain tense but somewhat peaceable relations with soldiers who occupy her home, and support her family when she is eventually left alone is a story of courage, resourcefulness, pain, and gratitude. Cornelia had not lived only the life of a sheltered belle before the war, and despite the chaos around her, she manages to combine practicality and a love of beauty to keep enough sanity to survive the war and go on with family life afterward.



2. I stumbled on Cornelia Peake McDonald when I discovered she was a relation. Of course I had to obtain this book when I was surprised to find her diary(or in this case an edited form of it) still in print.
   
   This book is not for the light hearted history buff that wants the stories of battle. It is the diary of a woman living through extra-ordinary times. A diary that her husband asked her to keep when he announced that their town was going to be taken by the union while he had to go to Richmond. Col. Angus W. McDonald organized the 7th Virginia Cavalry and served on the staff of his friend Jefferson Davis.
   
   The town of Winchester changed hands a few times. As such Cornelia was on the front lines. She had to deal with the union occupiers who were not too gentlemenly with seccesionists. Cornelia refused to turn over her house several times. Food was hard to obtain as access was denied to people that did not take an oath to the union. Yet she talks of union soldiers that violate orders and trade for flour and bread. As a good conferate she does not like the union forces as she describes life on the occupation. Yet she finds decent people that help her to what extent they can. In fact she even spoke up for a doctor that stayed in her house and did not bother her too much and kept soldiers from pillaging too much.
   
   She speaks of fears of the occupation as everyday more and more mistreatment happens as people are forced from their homes. Some dropped in the middle of nowhere without food or money. The fact that women are accosted if they walk around in pairs. You feel hear heart ache at the loss of her youngest child.
   
   Eventually she and her family become refugees to Lexington. You learn of her hardships as she deals with starvation and tried to get firewood for the family. Creating Confederate Candles, spinning wool for clothing. She even had to beg a man to make shoes for her boys.
   
   She was faced with breaking up her family. Especially after the Col. died. She decided to keep them together no matter what. After the war, they learn their homestead was unusable and decide to stay where they are.
   
   You also get to hear about the personalites of the war. She sits in a pew near Stonewall Jackson in church. Dinners with the Ashby brothers, meeting Robert E. Lee after the war. There are others that I will leave for you to find. :)
   
   Cornelia is an interesting woman and a product of her era. She speaks out against slavery and yet is offended by actions of freed slaves. She speaks of the short lived effort of reconcelliation of the North that was destroyed by John Wilkes Booth. At first she is happy with Lincolns death as she thinks he got what he deserved. And yet on reflection she realizes it was a big mistake that will hurt the South. She talks about the abuse of Jefferson Davis and the fact an innocent woman and her innocent son go to the gallows for the assassanation.
   
   It should be mentioned this is not the full diary and the fact she lost some of it as she moved around. Yet her memory is rather good as she rewrote events that were lost. She eventually penned a copy for each of her children.
   
   All in all a facinating read about a tough resourcefull woman struggling to keep and feed her family.



3. This book provides a glimpse into the struggles and mindset of a southern wife & mom and her family during the civil war. Cornelia McDonald's fortitude and faith under extraordinary trials and tragedies is inspirational. We are a homeschooling family and I think this would be an excellent supplement to a high school student's studies of this time period.



4. Cornelia Peake McDonald's diary shows us what life was like for the South during the Civil War. This inspiring story shows the noble character of Mrs. McDonald and the people of the South in general as they fought for their homeland and their beliefs. Most of us can only dimly imagine the hardships they endured with courage, authentic trust in God, and sacrifical help from neighbors and friends--hardships which included battles being waged in their yards, the death of loved ones, cruel treatment, and women with children being driven from their homes as refugees.

5 comments about Medal of Honor: Profiles of America's Military Heroes From the Civil War to the Present.

1. I orginally purchased this book thinking it covered all medal of honors winners. To my disappointment, it details only a very few. This book covers only a select few of the medal of honor winners who's life story could be told. Of the men mentioned in the book, it is interesting. It talks about their childhood, what they did in the service, and what they did once out of the service. If you are looking for a little different angle on a few medal of honor winners, then this is your book. If you desire information on all of the medal of honor winners then look elsewhere.



2. I read this book when it was first released two years ago. Of the 3,000 + Medal of Honor recipients, the authors did have to cut it down to about two for each war. It is a very informative book. I have read it several times over. I am surprised that only one woman was a recipient though. I figured there would be more. And, just one Coast Guard officer recieved this Medal. It is very informative, but to those who want more out of it, such as the entire biographies of all recipients, that book would be about 8,000 pages. There are some recipients who recieved the Medal of Honor two times. Do they get a second biography?



3. The book is not bad if you can get over the liberal agenda. What would be expected from Mike Wallace? I hate to admit this, I would like to have seen historical pictures of the CMH and its recipients.



4. Short biographies of 10 men and 1 woman who won this famous award and the lives they lived. Mikaelian selected only people who lived through their ordeal, and then reviewed their life stories after their heroic actions. For the most part, these men went back to living undistinguished lives. The author also details other MOH winners, along with these 11 individuals.
   The best story is about a Medal of Honor winner in the Eighth Air Force during WWII. Snuffy was an interesting character to say the list. His advocacy of a medicinal cream called Firmo was a real laugh.
   This was an OK read, and I got some insight into the military award process. I am not sure why Mike Wallace needed to contribute anything to this book. I guess the Publishers wanted a high name person attached to this book to boost sales. Wallace's contribution was little, and his writing should not have appeared in the book.



5. I've spent the last 20+ years in the military and I really enjoy reading about our military heroes. But, it bothers me when someone uses the military to espouse their political ideology. I don't know anything about Allen Mikaelian, but I'd guess he was very unhappy with the presidential election in 2000 and felt he needed to do something. The author selectively picks recipients that provide a positive image of the left wing and a negative image of the right wing. There is nothing wrong with highlighting minority or women recipients. I think that is great and much needed, but the author should have been up front with the title and foreword and should have left out the political propaganda. Instead he covertly gives the impression that these 11 individuals represent your typical CMH recipient, both historically and politically. This book definitely has some value, but unless your polical views are a little far to the left, you may get a bit irritated at the political rhetoric.

2 comments about Mosby's Memoirs (Southern Classics).

1. Since I live in what might be called "Mosby's Back Yard" --- the Washington, DC suburbs of Northern Virginia --- I thought I should learn something about this man for whom several local streets, highways, and bridges are named. A friend recommended "Mosby's Rangers" by Jeffrey Wert; my wife suggested a new book, James Ramage's "Gray Ghost." But I opted to begin my study with Mosby's own account of his adventures: his own memoirs.

   I know that old soldiers tend to exaggerate their war stories; and they occasionally ramble. But Mosby's Memoirs are still fascinating, and I think the exaggeration is kept to a minimum. The story does get a bit bogged down in Chapter 12 --- talking about events leading up to Gettysburg. The good colonel, like all soldiers, is also somewhat wordy discussing the merits and failures of various generals and officers in the war.

   Still, all things considered, I found this to be quite interesting. I don't usually read military memoirs, but I enjoyed this. Now on to "Gray Ghost!"

   Oh, another thing that made this book (and, presumably any book on John Mosby's exploits) fun to read: he mentions so many towns, roads, and places already familiar to me. Last weekend I took a drive to Beaverdam, VA just to see what was left of the train station near where the Yankees captured Mosby early in his career (he was shortly released). Couldn't find the station, but the tracks are still there! If you're familiar with Northern VA & the Shenandoah Valley, check out this book!




2. I read this book in less than 3 weeks! It was great, and for those who don't know the Civil War it's even better because you don't know what's about to happen. I really liked it, and you should check it out.

3 comments about Finding Jefferson: A Lost Letter, a Remarkable Discovery, and the First Amendment in an Age of Terrorism.

1. Saturday Night:
   I received Finding Jefferson as a gift today from my sister-in-law Linda. Thank you Linda, I loved it. I read the book today, I thought about it today, and I wrote these comments today.
   I have always thought of myself as a Free-Speech Absolutist. I still want to call myself that but here are my thoughts - inspired by Jefferson and Dershowitz.
   1) An anonymous man on a soapbox in the middle of a public park is the perfect symbol of what "free speech" seems to suggest. Why? Because, no matter what he says, people who choose to listen to him are under no obligation to believe him or to be swayed by him. They are as free to listen as he is to speak. In any event, he will most likely be thought a crackpot for speaking in public to a crowd that may or may not form.
   On the other hand, the speech of your military superior, your gang leader, or your boss at work is not JUST speech. The relationship between unequals in a formal hierarchy is not just speech. Coercion is a necessary part of this kind of speech, the result of discourse among unequals. If your CO or your boss tells you what to do, your refusal to obey may have serious consequences. For example, a neo-Nazi speaking in front of a crowd of onlookers who are totally free to listen or not is exercising his right to free-speech, even if he advocates mayhem. On the other hand, the same speaker speaking to his lieutenants and his subordinates and advocating mayhem is conspiring to commit crimes and ought (perhaps) to be accountable even before the commission of any crimes. In sum, speech between unrelated equals is always free and ought always to be protected; speech between members of a group with a pecking order may be coercive and ought not to be entitled to protection as free speech. (vs. Jefferson & Dershowitz)
   2) Not all speech consists of IDEAS. a) Some speech is opinion or taste, which of right ought always to be free. b) Some speech is factual, or not. PERHAPS the propagation of some kinds of untruths among a closed group ought to be actionable: should society allow the teaching of blatant falsehoods? Should the teaching of 2+2=5 be allowed to be taught in a religious school? Should the denial of the Holocaust be permitted under the law? I don't have an answer to this, but it is worth examination. Teaching falsehoods as the truth is not the same as propagating an idea or an opinion or a political preference. c) Some speech is directive: do this! Is the command of your leader merely a case of "self-expression"? I think not. d) And some speech, masquerading as IDEA, is just emotional vomit. Again, the fellow on the soapbox in a park ought to be free to tell lies and to urge insurrection; the leader of a gang or a religious group perhaps ought to be constrained not to tell utter falsehoods or urge insurrection to his ignorant followers. In other words, directive speech from a superior to a subordinate ought not to be protected, because it is not really speech at all.
   3) Religious speech ought always to be free (PERHAPS excepting outright falsehoods); but speech turned into action is no longer speech. The fact that much religious speech is ridiculous is no reason to deny it protection.
   4) Imams directing their obedient flock to kill the infidels are conspiring to incite to murder or treason. When your spiritual leader tells you what to do, you exercise your freedom to refuse to do it on pain of eternal damnation. This is the same as being told what to do by your CO or your boss, but more so. It is not free speech because the speaker's listeners are not free to ignore it; it ought not to be protected, as it is NOT JUST speech. When a speaker thinks his words are law, his speech is not just speech. Many Catholics are pro-choice, despite the Pope and their own priest. When listeners are truly free to disobey, speakers ought to be free to say what they will. (vs. Dershowitz & Jefferson)
   5) The free marketplace of ideas is just as free as the economic marketplace is free. Neither is free! There are areas in this country where all the news is filtered by one corporate owner with a significant political agenda to push. Or many big owners with similar agendas. Not to mention the fact that many Americans are so closed-minded that alternative ideas will not be listened to and cannot be heard. The speech of such monopolistic speakers must be seen not as free as in a market of multiple viewpoints. In other words, some kind of regulation is called for in this case. (vs. Jefferson)
   6) It seems to me that Islam has real cause to be angry with the West. Just as black and red men have real cause to be upset with white European Americans. We should sit down and air our grievances openly. Well, no, we should sit down and listen to them air their grievances with us; WE should just shut up and listen for a change. However, insulting Muhammad is within our most narrow definition of protected speech; the freedom to insult the Prophet is protected, and that freedom is not negotiable. Neither is a new Muslim Empire spread by force negotiable. But we would do well to listen. For a change.



2. Alan Dershowitz and Thomas Jefferson were collectors. Dershowitz, inter alia, collects antiquities. He loves objects with aesthetic and historical significance. Dershowitz travels to flea markets and book stores seeking treasure. Much of the focus of his legal activities has centered on the line between speech and act.
   
   The greatest acquisition of the author's career as a collector came from the Argosy Bookstore. It is a Jefferson letter about freedom of religion, (and of speech and ideas). The letter had been passed down through generations of the Boardman family who reside in New Milford, Connecticut. The historian Charles Beard learned of the letter's existence in 1926 and quoted from it. In turn, the sentence appeared in several important legal decisions.
   
   The letter was sold to the Argosy in 2006. Alan Dershowitz's daughter believes he has become obsessed with Jefferson. (He has now bought a number of books and souvenirs pertaining to Jefferson.) Through his letters a person is able to get into Jefferson's head the author asserts. John Adams hoped that Jefferson's letters would be published. Jefferson pardoned persons convicted of violations of the Alien and Sedition Acts when he became President.
   
   This book is of great interest to lawyers and to historians of ideas.



3. ....and that's a hell of a thing for a conservative Republican to say. I've always liked his style, even when I disagree. This short, but profoundly great, book gives his views of the First Amendment, filtered thru the metaphorical lens of a short letter written by Mr. Jefferson in 1801. Despite profound differences, Mr. Dershowitz and I share some things in common: [1] We are both pack-rats [2] We both revere Thomas Jefferson [3] We both love America. But then, he's a Red Sox fan, and I'm a Yankee fan......and, while we agree about the First Amendment, I suspect that we might part company over the Second...
   
   Alan Dershowitz found the letter in question in a rare book store a couple of years ago...it deals with Mr. Jefferson's disagreement with the views of Reverend Stanley Griswold, who advocated limitation on the freedom of speech. Jefferson decried limits, prefering to await "the first overt act". Well and good, but Jefferson did not face weapons of mass destruction [though he did have to deal with Islamic criminals]. The book deals point by point with Mr. Jefferson's arguments, with Dershowitz playing "Devil's Advocate". Dershowitz then branches into specific examples of how Jefferson dealt with problems in his own day. [I may add one slight point of disagreement; Dershowitz states that the Aaron Burr treason case of 1807 brings no credit to Jefferson...well, neither was it John Marshall's shining moment...Burr should probably have been acquitted on the merits, but Marshall still ran it as a rigged trial for political purposes]. He ends with his own views of the First Amendment...no limitation of free speech by the government. Period. I am fairly sure he would support me in the arguments I had with school authorities over my son's right to wear a Confederate flag T-shirt {I won}. But, nobody questions my Confederate flag tie at work...strange.
   
   This is one of the greatest books I have ever read. EVER. It reveals a human side of both Jefferson and Dershowitz that is engaging. Brilliant people are still people. And, this is a good place to give my own theory of what made Jefferson tick, though it's probably way off base...he was a man not bothered by contradictions. Mr. Dershowitz defended the idiots in Skokie; it bothered him [still does], but he made himself do the right thing; [I think] Jefferson would have done the same, and never worried about it a bit. If you want to spend an afternoon really understanding the First Amendment, this book is for you. I can't recommend it highly enough!!!!

5 comments about From Manassas to Appomattox: General James Longstreet.

1. General James Longstreet, who has been unjustly accused and slandered for over a century, gives a factual account of the war and its effect on the South. He also gives invaluable biographical information on his early life and career, particularly the Mexican War, which has been overlooked by historians. A must-read for serious students of the War and for anyone else looking for accounts of a soldiering life in the nineteenth century.



2. General James Longstreet, who has been unjustly accused and slandered for over a century, gives a factual account of the war and its effect on the South. He also gives invaluable biographical information on his early life and career, particularly the Mexican War, which has been overlooked by historians. A must-read for serious students of the War and for anyone else looking for accounts of a soldiering life in the nineteenth century. Also recommend Jeffrey Werts' James Longstreet: Lee's Most Controversial Soldier



3. Longstreet was subjected to criticism for his performance at Gettysburg as well as Lee, Longstreet survived and wrote his memoirs to be read and he made it a focus of the book to justify his actions and put the blame on others. Lee never wrote his memoirs, probably to his credit. At the end of the war Lee was of the opinion that it is over and needs to be put in the past. That is not to say that he did not blame Longstreet and others for the mishap at Gettysburg, he just never voiced his opinion. It was not in the man's nature. The character of his main critic also has to be questioned, Jubal Early was renowned for being hotheaded and alienating other people. he was referred to by Lee as "My bad old man."
   
   It cannot be criticized of his work that the piece centers on himself, they are his memoirs about the war. It also cannot be critisized that he did not cover extensively his post-war years because the book is not called Manassas to Reconstruction. It has to be taken as what it is, a valuable insight into a man who was there when it all happened and a study into the man who understood trench warfare before its true advent.



4. From Manassas to Appomattox by James Longstreet is an excellent example of a Post-bellum memoir, and it is written in clear and dignified voice. The memoir is of course the account of the actions of General James Longstreet, CSA during the American Civil War, his thoughts on various events, and recollections of his command and various individuals whose names are household words to the Civil War historian. As a person with only a passing interest in the American Civil War, I read this book for its purely biographical information, in other words, to get a feel for James Longstreet, who appears to be the underdog of Confederate commanders. I found the book easy to read, though at times I felt mired down in the military minutiae that fills most of the pages, but quickly recovered by small personal tidbits interspersed therein. I also enjoyed reading about his relationship with Robert E. Lee, and the way Longstreet handled himself in a very blunt, upfront manner. I would recommend this book to anyone who wanted to read a fine example of memoir writing from the period, Civil War buffs (who of course have undoubtedly already enjoyed this book), and to researchers wanting insight to the major battles of the American Civil War.



5. and much else. However I found Longstreet's style dry bordering on the mind-numbing. That said, I have always been in the camp that didn't hold Longstreet to blame for the problems of the second and even the third day at Gettysburg. Lee delegated too much authority and seemed lazy during those few crucial days to survey the ground (if he had I believe he would have concured with JL). Also Gettysburg was one of those times when a great army had a few bad days starting with the location of the battle, the quality of the ANV commanders first on the scene (poor), lack of intelligence, overconfidence etc... If JL had been in Ewell's position on the first day there wouldn't have been a second or a third day. Finally, if JL had been allowed to take over for the disaster that was Braxton Bragg, the battle for Tennesse may have ended very differently.

2 comments about Brokenburn: The Journal of Kate Stone, 1861-1868 (Library of Southern Civilization).

1. Kate Stone is one of my favorite Civil War diarists. She is an admixture of a great privilege, passionate beliefs, lover of literature, keen social observations and amazing fortitude. Her Civil War was dangerous, turbulent and life changing.

   Brokenburn was a large plantation containing over 150 slaves in Madison Parish, LA. From 1862 on, it was in the center of the Union Army's fierce assault to gain control of the Mississippi River and divide the Confederacy in half. Plantations were commandeered and slaves were encouraged to revolt. The civilian population was helpless before the demands of military control. Madison Parish had a population of approximately 9,000 of whom 7,000 were slaves. After 1861, the Parish was emptied of able-bodied white men, most of whom had been sent to far-off Virginia and Tennessee, leaving none to protect the civilians.

   In 1861, Kate was 20 years old, her immediate future being beaus, courtship, and a gay social life before she settled down to become a proper southern matron. She was unsure whether this route was ideal, as she remarked, "women grew significantly uglier in wedlock and ignored and abandoned their former female friends." This comfortable world was turned upside down, never to reappear again. With great enthusiasm and some trepidation, she watched her three older brothers go off to war. Her widowed mother made it clear that 14-year-old James was now in charge of the running of the plantation and the protection of the rest of the family. I was amazed at the serene assumption that a young teenager was thrust in this role, but it seems that was the custom of the times. If you had to grow up fast, you did. Yellow fever was a constant in the area, and longevity was not a norm. Both Generals Grant and Lee wanted their troops out of these areas during "the seasons of pestilence." This was not to be, and both armies suffered devastating losses to disease. Kate treated the "fever season" as a fact of life, and planned around it with remarkable briskness.

   By 1862, the Stone family was desperate. The Federal leadership demanded that they stay on their property; yet there were serious slave insurrections that threatened the lives of the plantation holders. Those slaves who were not hostile were running off, and there was no labor to farm the crops. Many southerners could not believe that their "loyal" slaves would run away. Kate was not among them, saying, "If I were in their place, I'd do the same." She was by no means sympathetic, just practical.

   The family finally escaped through the bayous in a rickety canoe with nothing, not even underwear, and finally made it across the border into Texas. They were refugees along with many other prominent Louisiana families. Kate was convinced they had arrived at "a dark corner of the Confederacy." Upon noting the barefoot but hoop skirted frontier ladies, she sniffed "there must be something in the air of Texas fatal to beauty."

   Kate agonized over the increasingly bad war news and was devastated by Lee's surrender. Kate is one of the most vivid, perceptive diarists of the Civil War. Her diary is one of social history, a time of calamitous change and invaluable for understanding this crucial time in American history. Kate is a natural writer and observer. A highly enjoyable read.




2. Like Mary Boykin Chesnut, Kate Stone wrote her diary during the Civil War. They were both members of the slaveholding planter class and at the start of the war both were surrounded by servants who met their every need. But twenty year old Kate Stone's life would be more directly affected by the war. Her young uncles and brothers went to join up at the onset and before the war ended several were dead of injuries or disease. Kate Stone's Louisiana home was occupied by the Yankees forcing the family to flee to Texas. Both describe the deprivations of the war years, lack of shoe leather, lack of cloth and the unavailability of new books, and both were at times cheered by false reports of great southern victories. The two diaries complement each other.

5 comments about Douglass and Lincoln: How a Revolutionary Black Leader and a Reluctant Liberator Struggled to End Slavery and Save the Union.

1. This is a truly fascinating book and an exciting story.
   The Kendricks' use letters, articles and mountains of other research to bring these men and their struggles to life. I found myself seeing them not as icons, but as people. It is an exciting story to follow Douglass' mission to make the Civil War about freedom, his son's perilous experiences as soldiers and the Kendricks' interesting take on Lincoln's evolution.
   Watching Lincoln through Douglass' gave me a Lincoln I had never seen before. While they do not hold back with aspects of Lincoln on race that may surprise you, he emerges as great because he is not paralyzed by his prejudices as he rises to monumental deeds.
   I cannot recommend this book highly enough. These two have a true gift for making history interesting and inspiring.



2. As a student of history, I found this a compelling look at two towering figures and a cogent study of their rarely-explored relationship through the Civil War. Approaching the subject with subtlety and sensitivity, Kendrick and Kendrick make a case for the mutual influence of their dialogue. It was this force that ultimately cemented Lincoln's conviction to continue the war, not just his aversion to breaking the Union. Through new primary sources--unpublished letters, black abolitionist papers--the book provides critical background which gives abolition new resonance.



3. Having read both Oakes' Radical and the Republican and the Kendrick's new book on Lincoln and Douglass (the Abolishionist, not the rival Senator), it seems to me that this recent book gives a much fuller human dimension to the relationship. Though this is an amazing political story (one Americans should know more about), Douglass and Lincoln offers a more vivid, personal insight into these very complicated, indeed enigmatic, men. All told, I enjoyed the book, and have no hesitancy in giving it the full five star treatment. In the current deluge of Lincoln books leading up to the 200th anniversery, this is one book that truly has a fresh angle on a well-worn topic. To see the struggle of the Civil War through Frederick Douglass' eyes makes it all seem new, even surprising. A wonderful read even for people tired of the Civil War.



4. As the Kendrick's stated at a recent book talk on their new work: 'we often approach this war [Civil War] through the lens of its ending...but it wasn't like this at all at the time.' This book chronicles, in a very enjoyable novel-like way, the constantly shifting dynamics of the War as reflected in the personal relationship of two great men. Not afraid to tackle the folklore that surrounds each man, Paul and Stephen Kendrick provide helpful insight into a profound relationship.



5. Douglass and Lincoln is an exceptionally researched and well-written book on the relationship between these two important men. Most of the book focuses on Douglass rather than Lincoln, perhaps necessarily so. The Kendricks do a superb job of tracing Lincoln's slow transformation from a leader reluctant to press the emancipation issue to one who eventually embraced it, all within the context of Douglass's lifelong struggle not only for emancipation, but for equality. Douglass and Lincoln met only a few times, but it's evident in this book that they held a mutual respect for each other due to each man's struggle against adversity in their early lives. I recommend this book not only because it is well-researched, but because it's well-written. It's quite a page turner. I couldn't put it down.

1 comments about Gettysburg Heroes: Perfect Soldiers, Hallowed Ground.

1. Gettysburg Heroes: Perfect Soldiers, Hallowed Ground, Glenn W. LaFantasie, Indiana University Press, 2008, 279 pp., index, endnotes, $24.95.
   
   "Perfect heroes were conspicuously absent from the field of Gettysburg, as they are from every battlefield, every war. Every soldier, nevertheless, likes to think his is perfect," LaFantasie states that the subtitle of his work is meant to be ironic. The author reviews the passing of certain soldiers through the battle of Gettysburg and the history of their interpretations. Longstreet, Chamberlain, Haskell, Oates, Lincoln, Eisenhower, Montgomery, as well as LaFanatasie and his daughter Sarah, have each passed through a Gettysburg experience and some have encountered it several times.
   
   "By and by, out of the chaos of trash and falsehood that newspapers hold, out of the disjointed mass of reports, out of the traditions and tales that come down from the field, some eye that never saw the battle will select[,] and some will write[,] what will be named the history. With that the world will be --and if we are alive we must be--content." Haskell, recognized as one of the finest soldier-writers of Gettysburg primary sources, is quoted by LaFantasie to explain the business of sorting the various interpretations of the battle. The 145 year construction effort by participants and historians to describe and explain the battle has produced a plethora of writing. Personally, CWL shied away from this book for that reason, but after reading the first chapter LaFantasie won this reader over. CWL also had a similar experience with Twilight at Little Round Top: avoidance until reading the book and then a regret when it was over.
   
   On Longstreet, LaFantasie reconciles Lee's 'Old Warhorse' with McLaw's 'A Humbug' sieves the man and his reputations. Evaluating Longstreet during his Mexican War, his Civil War and and his post-war careers, the author understands Longstreet to be a natural warrior whose finest moments occurred in combat as a steady and dependable soldier who had unpolished manners and a high degree of ambition. At times, he would be viewed as disrespectful to authority and abusive to his subordinates, especially in the eyes and by the pen of Jubal Early, a Lee defender and a writer of the 'Lost Cause' interpretation of the war.
   
   Among the highlights in Gettysburg Heroes: Perfect Soldiers, Hallowed Groundis the chapter on Frank Haskell and the creation of his Gettysburg memoir which was actually a consciously drafted long letter home. Several chapters describe the several war time and post-war collisions between Joshua Chamberlain, 20th Maine, and William Oates, 15th Alabama; and in several more chapters, William Oates, as a fugitive from the law, as a Confederate captain and colonel, as a lawyer and politician, and as an historian is revealed to be quite similar to Longstreet. Both Confederates were warriors, who at times were ill-mannered, abrasive sentimentalists and as soldier-writers hda selective and creative memories. In particular LaFantasie explains Oates creation, distribution and further enhancement of the false story of Union Brigadier General Farnsworth's suicide on July 3rd during a cavalry charge between Bushman's Hill and the Slyder Farm. In this eighth chapter, LaFantasie reveals subtle themes that appear tangential throughout this book: how successful were soldier-writers when they wrote history? How is evidence created and how is it handled and mishandled? The misreporting by an eye-witness of a battlefield death, the addition of details to this report, the telling, re-telling and finally being offered as history is thread throughout the book. These themes appear tangential but at the close of the book they are fully set before the reader.
   
   The battlefield and the park have their histories created by warriors, veterans, and the national park service. LaFantasie lays before the reader "the number of egregious errors" the NPS has made, including the building of the visitors center ('a drum on its side') on the Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble Charge site, granting permission the National Tower to be built in the midst of the battlefield, and giving to Gettysburg College a portion of the battlefield and then watching the portion bulldozed.
   
   In the last chapter, LaFantasie places in context Chamberlain's, now famous "'In great deeds something abides. On great fields something stays.' paragraph. For author Bruce Catton 'echoes are felt' and not heard LaFantasie remarks. LaFantasie and his daughter walk the ground of the battlefield and written wartime reports are examined against the terrain. On the rocks contested by the Maine soldiers and the Alabamians, the author, as a young man, became reconciled to the early death of his father. Near the same location, LaFantasie's daughter Sarah asks him, "Did you feel it?" and he has no idea what she is talking about. She says "I feel something." Something nameless, something intangible, some emotional fog or shadow that made her feel sad. Later the author recalls that it was there, on the southeast slope of Little Round Top and near the 20th Maine monument, that he had released his own sadness over his father's death.
   
   "Our pasts are locked inside us" and the past is not always tangible and knowable. "But sometimes it can be seen and sometimes it can be felt. . . . . On a misty spring day, across the lush fields and hills of Gettysburg, my daughter and I felt the far-reaching echoes of our past." LaFantasie's conclusion underscores Chamberlain's remarks concerning how spirits linger at Gettysburg and consecrate the ground as an oracle, a vision-place, for souls of flawed heroes.
   
   Glenn LaFantasie continues to draw readers into the story of Gettysburg. By turns very direct and very subtle, Gettysburg Heroes offers concise and clear stories of soldiers, civilians, generals and presidents. Those who lived through the battle and returned, or came to Gettysburg after the battle, found that their personal pasts were locked both within the battlefield and within themselves. The Gettysburg battlefield both wounds and heals us, and at times allows us to hide within its story and then reveals us to ourselves. As William Faulkner said, "The past is not dead. It has not even passed." The truth make us transparent to others and ourselves. Well written history does the same. LaFantasie's writing brings us a little closer to the truth about the battle of Gettysburg and how it has become an oracle for this nation.

5 comments about A Narrative of the Life of David Crockett of the State of Tennessee.

1. Penned during the ORIGINAL Crockett "craze" of the 1830's, this is the Tennessean's own story in his "own" words. (Much of this book was heavy edited and, some would say, ghost written by one of Crockett's supporters.) Still, it's worth adding to a "Crockett" Library. Parts of the book have an almost "Dickens" like feel, especially the stories about the poverty and hardship suffered by the young David. Sprinkled through-out this book are hunting stories, scrapes with bears and panthers, a little romance, skirmishes with hostiles, frontier wit and humor. An annoying part of the narrative are the corny pseudo backwoods expressions, like "burst my boilers" and "knocked his trotters out from under him". Evidently the author(s) tired of this excessive hoakum too because it abruptly stops. (Thank You!) Much has been written about the legendary "Davy" but this brings the real man into more perspective. Even if you have little interest in Crockett lore, the NARRATIVE is still worth reading for it's glimpse into early 19th Century America.



2. David Crockett found himself to have become mythologized in his own lifetime. Every indication is that he arrived at this place accidentally, but that once he recognized his own pop-culture status he took advantage of it and nurtured it at every turn. His Narrative, therefore, must be read with a certain amount of skepticism nevertheless it is still valuable as an historical record.
   
   The narrative is a journey from start to finish; true Homeric stuff. He describes his journey into adulthood in pre-Mark Twain style, then his journey as an adventurer in the military, his journey across the state of Tennessee with his family, and finally his journey into politics. There may be many embellishments within his narrative, but considering the period in which it was written (while he contemplated a much larger political career) the topics he chose to describe actually seem prosaic and understated, as if he were deliberately trying to avoid bragging about himself. In this light, perhaps the Narrative is more accurate than is generally assumed. The Narrative may have been ghost-written by someone else, but there is enough Crockett in it to give it legitimacy. His jabs at Andrew Jackson are quaintly hilarious, but they are also true. In this pre-Alamo period of his life, his willingness to take a stand against Jackson might be the bravest thing he ever did.
   
   Lastly, the language itself is fascinating. The Narrative may be laced with over-the-top phrases such as, "knocked his trotters out from under him", but at the same time he writes, "if a fellow is born to be hung, he will never be drowned..." This is classic southern wisdom, words I have heard with my own ears in the mountains of eastern Tennessee, so Crockett's Narrative is either very authentic or was itself the basis for an evolving southern culture. In this way, the Narrative should be considered classic American literature.



3. 
   Davy Crockett's Narrative first appeared early in 1834 at the height of his political career. During the 1820s he had won a couple of terms in the Tennessee state legislature, and in 1827 he won a seat in Congress representing the western half of the state. He was a foe of Andrew Jackson and a political maverick; when he advocated for Indian rights he won the enmity of many in Congress and his constituents, and was voted from office in 1831. He licked his wounds and patched up differences, and was re-elected in 1833. To bolster his image, which was already taking on legendary aspects, this Narrative was written with his friend Thomas Chilton. Told in bold, humorous, boastful strokes, it is nonetheless a campaign biography and ends with sharp attacks on Jackson.
   
   The way the Narrative is set up here is very useful for the reader. It appears in facsimile form, with wide margins set around it, in which Shackford explains, corrects, and separates fact from fiction in Crockett's assertions. It's almost like watching a movie on DVD along with critical commentary. Interestingly, many errors that appear in the Narrative were intentional and are often self-deprecating, making Crockett more unsophisticated and lowbrow than he really was in order to win votes with the farmers and backwoodsmen of western Tennessee. Most of the historical references he makes are quite accurate. As a campaign biography to help him win re-election in 1835, however, it was a failure, as he lost to a Jacksonian. After that, he set his eyes on Texas.
   
   The format chosen here is what makes this book a success. The many annotations make this edition of the Narrative the most informative and "honest" in print. Highly recommended.



4. Confusion about authorhip has followed "A Narrative" more than 170 years. It helps to understand that Thos. Chilton, Representative from Kentucky, shared living quarters with Crockett at Mary Ball's Rooming House. They were actual bedfellows, which was the custom of the times; Thos. Chilton was father, eventually, to 15 children. Thomas Chilton had a university education and wrote with recognized eloquence. He crafted "A Narrative" from Crockett's notes and dictation, using carefully the homespun dialogue of his friend.
   
   Thos. Chilton, a skilled lawyer, was not fool enough to do all this this work for free. Davy Crockett arranged for his publisher to pay fifty percent of the book's royalties to Thomas Chilton, who agreed to have no mention of his name in the book. What remains rather obscure is the disposition of royalites after Crockett's death. Thomas Chilton died in 1854.
   
   The role played by Thomas Chilton in "A Narrative" was lost to history for nearly a hundred years, except inside the Chilton Family.
   -- Edward M. Chilton



5. David Crockett was best known for his adventures in the wilderness and fighting at the Alamo. He also served as a Congressman where he was known as an honest and conscientious man.
   
   I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. I found it honest, refreshing, stimulating and interesting. It is David Crockett's own words echoing through time. The sentences are long and constructed different than today and take a little time to absorb. This adds to the richness of the writing.
   
   A Narrative of the Life of David Crockett provides a peek into the world of this fine human being who was incredibly brave, a fine story teller, a gentleman and true adventurer. David Crockett was a strong critical thinker who followed his own beliefs and values. He couldn't be bribed to support any measure he thought was wrong. His celebrated motto was:
   "Be sure that you are right, and then go ahead."
   
   The Re-Discovery of Common Sense: A Guide to: The Lost Art of Critical Thinking

5 comments about John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights.

1. I expected Reynolds to write fluidly and clearly but he does not. The book turned out to be about two hundred pages too long. There aren't normal notes and many times I checked for them when I wanted to check a claim and found no note. His insensitivity to the role of Calvinism in Brown makes him overgeneralize claims and misidentify Brown as simply a Puritan. The book is marred by stylistic flaws that frustrate the reader and make the read an arduous one. In the end, it makes for an interesting even if one that makes the reader frustrated at the storyteller.



2. Overall this book does not contribute significantly to an understanding of John Brown and his times. The strength of the book is within Reynolds grasp of Browns personal character. Reynolds convincingly demonstrates that John Brown was not crazy, at least from a clinical perspective. Also important is the way the book shapes how Brown's Calvinist views affected his own worldview. However, Reynolds often times errors in his analysis through his overt affinity for Brown. For instance, Reynolds too often takes Brown at his word, such as on the limited nature of his Harper's Ferry raid despite the solid evidence suggesting otherwise. If one wanted to understand the life of John Brown a much better choice of book would be Stephen Oates' biography on Brown.
   
   As far as understanding Brown within the context of his time, this book hugely disappoints. Reynolds is not a historian and it shows (he is a professor of English). Even if we ignore the absurd contention that Brown had anything to do with the Civil Rights movement, there is plenty of reason to believe Brown had nothing more than a negligible effect on the coming of the Civil War.
   
   From an epistemological standpoint, Reynolds is contending a revisionist interpretation as the cause for the Civil War (a war that could have been avoided had it not been for extremists on both sides). The key difference is that while typically revisionists see the war as a tragic consequence of blundering politicians among the free soil and fire-eater persuasion, Reynolds puts all the blame (or praise in this case) on John Brown. This of course ignores the traditional interpretation that sees the conflict as irrepressible. However, both schools of thought agree that events leading to Civil War were well put in place prior to Brown's raid in 1859. The Missouri Compromise, acquisition of Western lands from the Mexican war, the Compromise (or `armistice') of 1850, Kansas Nebraska Act, bleeding Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, and the Lecompton dispute, all significantly call into question Reynold's assertion that sectional hostilities were relatively tranquil prior to John Brown's raid. Perhaps one of Reynold's biggest blunders was emphasizing the significance of the abolitionist movement in the coming of the Civil War while completely ignoring the emergence of the much more significant free-soil Republican Party.
   
   While the book does a relatively decent job of presenting Brown as a person, Stephen Oates remains the Brown standard bearer. As for the larger picture, Reynolds demonstrates a dismal understanding of antebellum politics.



3. David S. Reynolds background as a Professor of English Literature shows in this book: although focused on John Brown's life, you can see Professor Reynolds' interest in Mid 19th century literature on almost every page, with frequent and extensive discourses on John Browns' interactions-with and impact on many of the well known authors and orators of the day, such as Walt Whitman, Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Melville, and Emily Dickinson.
   
   In general, Reynolds makes the argument that John Brown sparked the Civil War, and that he was a high minded, intensely religious man who was not as crazy, and not as violent, as history has led us to believe. He further argues that Brown was a man a century or more ahead of his time in terms of his attitudes towards racism, and foresaw where the war of words between the North and South over the future of slavery would inevitably lead.
   
   Reynolds does a great job of helping us better understand Brown as a person; and brings to light many facets of his personality and life of which I'd been unaware, such as Brown's total acceptance of African Americans as equals in every respect - a stance that few, if any, whites had at the time (and is a viewpoint that is not as widely accepted as it should be, even today). The author demonstrates, quite rightly, that most other abolitionists of the time were not so much pro-African-American as they were against slavery and its impact upon America. Many were at best dismissive, and at worst rabidly against, accepting blacks as equals.
   
   Reynolds comes across as an apologist for Brown, and seems to be attempting to justify some of Brown's bloodiest and most violent actions as merely being the unavoidable side effects of a man consumed with a passion against slavery. Those side effects included the deaths of several of his sons.
   
   The book's pace is not the best, and hits some really slow spots here and there: especially when it reaches the aftermath of the Harper Ferry raid, where the author launches into a very extensive discourse on the impact of John Brown (and his execution) on American literature, thought, society and politics - again with a focus on the writers and orators of the day. These last chapters could have been reduced in length by half or more, with little loss in terms of content.
   
   I question the author's repeated and strong emphasis on John Brown's strong Puritan faith as being a basis for his actions: this refrain starts to sound hollow after so many repetitions - as if he's hoping we'll get the message if he hits us with it enough times. As an inheritor of several centuries of that same Puritan tradition myself, many of his arguments concerning Brown's faith seem (at best) forced and overstated.
   
   Reynolds' argument that John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry was the spark that started the Civil War is also overstated: While I think the raid certainly contributed to the paranoia of the time, particularly in the South, Reynolds' arguments that John Brown's attack and behavior following the raid destroyed the South's reputation for chilvalric military prowess and invincibility is not believable. The war was inevitable: Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry may have raised emotions, but the South was already diligently preparing for war by the time the raid occurred. The attack, at best, hurried things along a bit, but in my view, the country was almost certain to fall apart soon after the election of 1860, regardless of who won the Presidency.
   
   In the end, though with some significant flaws in terms of pacing, facts, and the arguments presented; this book is informative: it does bring out the nature of the man, and it helped me better appreciate his impact on the country and History. Dr. Reynolds' work especially helps us to understand Brown's impact upon many of the thought-leaders of the day, and how regional attitudes and cultural traditions played into the unfolding of events at the time and their impact on John Brown's own career and reputation during the trial, and in the years following his execution.
   
   To better understand how racism changed and evolved after the Civil War, I'd strongly recommend the book "Race and Reunion" by David W. Blight. For a better understanding of the four regional cultures in America at the time (Appalachian, Southern, New England and Mid Atlantic), which play a major role in Reynold's text, I'd recommend "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America" by David Hackett Fischer.
   
   "John Brown, Abolitionist" is a book that is worth the read, though its flaws limit the impact that it could have made, given the strong personality that is its subject. I give it a positive, but limited, recommendation.



4. Highly enjoyable read. Not written at arm's length; It's clear that Reynolds "gets" John Brown and the age he lived in, so his heart and imagination are fully engaged as he writes. He doesn't hide Brown's humanity however. What bothered me the most was that Brown seemed to harden his heart toward his wounded son at Harpers Ferry. (How it appeared to observers apparently.)
   
   All in all though Thoreau and Emerson got it right when they quickly came to his defense after Harpers Ferry. Thoreau compared Brown on the scaffold to Christ on the cross.
   
   If Brown had died at Harpers Ferry before the country could hear his defense and see the greatness of his character--his every word and behavior a challenge to the country to throw off the evils of slavery--history would no doubt have been different. Reynolds is redeeming Brown from neglect and misunderstanding to his rightful place as a heroic patriarch and patriot of America.
   
   In our age when "true believers" are highly suspect, Brown's character and long-contemplated actions shine as an example of exactly how and when a "fanatic" is not a fanatic. Brown founded a community where blacks and whites lived together as equals. He lived out his religious and political beliefs fully, whole-heartedly, yet included others of different beliefs in his inner circle (his first lieutenant was an atheist).
   
   I read mostly library books; this one I bought and buy for others.



5. I was disappointed with portions of this book. But again, it was not written by a historian.
   In the first few chapters, Reynolds calls Harriet Beecher Stowe an adamant colonizationalist, without noting where the information came from. She did mention it in "Uncle Tom's Cabin," but stated afterward she was not supportive of it, although her father was.
   It is obvious he is very sympathetic to John Brown. But he did do a very good job of portraying John Brown as the family man he was. John Brown's letters supports this. John Brown was also for equal rights for African Americans and women. This is supported by his statements, letters, and other documents.
   But I would read other books, such as Stephen Oates, before I would use this one as reference.