5 comments about Jefferson and Monticello: The Biography of a Builder.

1. This is a very informative and well written account about the 3rd President of the United States, the immortal Thomas Jefferson. This biography about the man and his passion for architecture are written down in easy to follow text that is difficult to accomplish about the complex man. The planning of Monticello and the labor of building and re-building are fascinating to think of, especially in the timeframe of which it was built. Jefferson was a true genious in his inventions and insight of how he wanted Monticello to work and function. People seem to forget that Jefferson was a gifted man of many talents, and in my opinion, one of his greatest gifts was architecture. In architecture of Monticello and the University of Virginia, Jefferson gives an insight to the man himself. Simple yet very complex. Jefferson enjoyed simplicity on the surface, but peel away the layers of the man, you found a very complex and intellectual person. The way Monticello was built and rebuilt due to Jefferson changing tastes and ideas says alot about the mans personal life himself. The only disturbing thing about Monticello was the human cost of labor that was used in it being built. The African-American slaves was the backbone of building to Jefferson's whim. This must of took a heavy toll of labor and lives, due to the magnificence of Monticello. This by the man who wrote that "all men are created equal". An interesting point to ponder. Overall, this is an excellent read and highly recommended to any history enthusiasts and enthusiasts of early American architecture.



2. Reading this book before a recent visit to Monticello tremendously enhanced the experience. The book provides so much detail on the design and construction of this beautiful home that you almost feel as if you have been there. A wonderful combination of biography and architectural writing. Highly recommended.



3. Undoubtedly, Mr. McLaughlin did his homework when he prepared to write this book. I enjoy biographies, am very fascinated by Thomas Jefferson, and was intrigued by the creative approach Mr. McLaughlin took to tell us about Jefferson by using Monticello as a "prism through which [we] view [Jefferson's] life ...".

   Unfortunately, the execution didn't meet expectations and this is most noticable in the areas related to the editing. I had difficulty getting past the meandering style. The anecdotes hop around chronologically, and are not tied together well. There is unnecessary repetition within the annecdotes. Even the grammar is off. (I'm not an editor, so as soon as I extend criticism I'm opening myself up as a target, but I recognize a few errors that would've made my high school English teacher cringe. Where one does this professionally, a higher standard is expected.)

   Mr. McLaughlin's book could have been tightend up considerably, and structured in a less meandering way for me to have found greater benefit from reading this book.




4. I bought this book after visiting Monticello and after reading it I would like to visit Monticello again. This book is very informative on Jefferson's life and the building of Monticello. I would recommend it to anyone interested in Jefferson's life.



5. This is book is very "readable" and a delight to read. I thank the author for it.
   It answers several questions I've had regarding the design of Monticello, i.e., why there is no staircase--- just some small, awkward, dimly-lit stairways. McLaughlin describes very well the difficulties and encumbrances Jefferson faced when he chose to build away from the waterway of the Rivanna River and, instead, placed Monticello atop a mountain. I grew up on the James River and have always been aware of the wisdom of the early colonists in building as close to the local rivers as possible for convenience in travel and transportation.
   These are just two examples from this book but it is full of fascinating descriptions and tidbits. Truly one of the best books on Virginia history and Jefferson I've read in a while.

5 comments about Iron Men, Iron Will: The Nineteenth Indiana Regiment of the Iron Brigade.

1. As an ardent student of history I found this book to be wonderfully documented and accurate. I have read all of the books about the 19th Indiana and the Iron Brigade and found this one to be the best by far. I was so intrigued with the book that I visited the critical archives and libraries cited in Mr. Dunn's book to verify their accuracy. Each entry which I checked was quoted exactly as I found them. I have heard through some Civil War circles that there has been an attempt to impugn this book in an attempt to increase sales of the other 19th Indiana books. If so, this is sad. I have recommended this book to all of my friends.



2. This book was simply a pleasure to read. While it was well documented, the documentation did not grind the book to a halt. I would consider this more as an anecdotal history rather than a military history. The author puts a human face on a serious topic. I have now read all of the books in print on the Iron Brigade and the Nineteenth Indiana Volunteers and this one is the best.



3. I've had this book for about 5 yrs. and just got around to reading it. Dunn's book is very readable and informative, he blends fact with a strong human element. I look forward to more of his work



4. What a great book on the Nineteenth Indiana Volunteers of the Iron Brigade. The book was maticulously researched and documented. The best part about the book was that the documentation did not detract from the enjoyable reading. The pictures and roster were very helpful. I have personally read over 200 Civil War regimental histories and this one was my favorite. I have read two other books on the Nineteenth Indiana and found them to be lacking in documentation and in ease of reading. This book is the best.



5. It is difficult finding books that cover single regiments with solid information that only pertains to the unit itself sometimes. Author Craig Dunn has put together a very comprehensive book that covers the birth of the 19th Indiana to final muster in 1865. I liked the fact that Dunn didn't dwell on only officers but brought the private soldier to life as short biographies and the details of their involvement were written about. Dunn covers early exhaustive marches, campaigns, camp life, politics and explains the many personalities within the 19th. Dunn backs his material up well with references and also many statistics are added that enhance this book tremendously. This book serves as a great resource tool in learning about the hard fighting 19th and I recommend it to many interested in learning about the tough regiment of the famous Iron Brigade.

2 comments about A Maryland Boy in Lee's Army: Personal Reminiscences of a Maryland Soldier in the War between the States, 1861-1865.

1. Can there be a book that is dull yet have some intrigue? Booth's book on his Civil War life was rather disappointing to read. It contained very little personal thought in regards to camp life and fighting in battles he was engaged in. He sometimes skipped his narrative to stop the story and give a quick history lesson on what occurred. Such was true with the Sharpsburg Campaign which I would have rather read his thoughts, reactions or what he was doing at the time. Booth's 1st Maryland is later disbanded and refitted for Cavalry in which Booth is involved yet his personal story is second to a history tale of the Union and Confederate movements surrounding the Virginia and Maryland areas. At times Booth intrigued me with his story of how they attempted to free Confederate hostages in a church held by tough Union forces in which Booth is shot in the leg and the quick skirmish ends in many bloody fatalities. Stories such as these was what I was looking for. What I tired of reading was how Lee left Pennsylvania or how Pope was turned around at 2nd Manassas.

   Booth is less than descriptive on his movements at times which seemed blury and though he can talk about a battle historically, he certainly doesn't set the reader up for his involvement or easily explain his movements. I have found this true in other memoirs written by soldiers though this one can't be ranked like Sam Watkin's book or other well known Civil War biographies. This book is a quick read of 170+pages though if the battle histories were erased it and the book just focussed on Booth, the book probably would have been half of that. This book was rather dull and boring at times.




2. There are very few Civil War memoirs from Marylanders who fought with the Confederacy and "A Maryland Boy in Lee's Army" begins to correct that deficiency. As the introduction, written by a national park service historian, explains, George Wilson Booth was an extremely intelligent, sixteen year old Baltimorean who joined the Army of Northern Virginia in 1861. Booth begins by explaining that it was "at the request of somewhat partial friends" that he decided to record this period of his life in book form and he writes to show how bravely and valiantly men of the Old Line State fought in the Civil War.

   Booth records his thoughts on succession on the first page, writing, "the dissolution of the Union was looked upon as a threatened evil, to be averted by mutual concession and forbearance." A few lines later he mentions slavery for one of the only times writing "that never for one moment did the question of slavery or the perpetuation of that institution enter into the decision of my course." Getting into the action, he records how he saw the first violence of the war in Baltimore when the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment came through and a riot ensued. Booth somewhat humorously relays that he "quickly realized [his] danger and was convinced that [he] was entirely out of place [as he] had no weapon save a penknife." From there his account proceeds chronologically.

   Unfortunately, Booth's descriptions of major battles lack detail. He only records his own observations and assumes that the reader is familiar with all the major encounters. However, he did not intend to write a military history of the conflict, as is seen in his statement "I do not propose to say much as to Gettysburg." Instead, Booth provides an inside look and analysis of the Maryland units which fought in the Confederate Army and has frequent praise for them. He writes that "the 1st Maryland regiment was of so high an order and their record as soldiers [was] brilliant" and "there was more life and sprit in the average Maryland soldier than in a score of those from the interior of some of the Southern States." George Booth also gives detailed accounts of several small skirmishes and actions that he was involved with as when he describes the storming of a church in which Federal troops were barricaded and the time that a flaming, explosive-filled train was sent hurtling along the tracks in his direction.

   Booth's descriptions of Confederate generals are even more useful. The Maryland soldier explains that Gen. Stonewall Jackson was "naturally so combative and earnest in his work that whenever brought into contact with the enemy his first and only promptings were to strike the blow." He later describes news of Jackson's death as "the saddest intelligence that could come to moral ears." Booth records that Robert E. Lee was "a bold soldier, a master of strategy and a vigorous fighter" in whom the army "had implicit confidence." Booth's keen observations are turned on nearly all major Southern military leaders, including J. E. B. Stuart, who is called "the Rupert of the Confederacy." In that same passage, Booth goes on to call Stuart, "like our great captains-the noble Lee and the lamented Jackson- . . . a devoted Christian, who illustrated in his daily work the teachings of Christ."

   Booth lightens the tale of war with his wit and humor very effectively. At one point, he explains a situation in which his unit was nearly captured by the enemy by declaring "the jig came very near being up with us" and at another point some mosquitoes are called "the vilest, most ravenous and bloodthirsty of their kind." Booth also points out the irony of a Calvinist protecting his life by hiding behind a tree during one violent battle and records a Presbyterian officer as provoking the Calvinist by saying "if it is ordained you are to be killed, the tree will not save you." At many points his humor is much understated as when, after the war when asked if he were related to John Wilkes Booth, he "disclaimed any connection with the assassin of Mr. Lincoln, and remarked that it occurred to me to be a very unnecessary question, as it was scarcely probably I would acknowledge a relationship under existing circumstances even if it were true in fact."

   Throughout, Booth is never far from his central argument over the valor of the Marylanders in and the Army of Northern Virginia and Confederates in general. He writes that the 1st Maryland Cavalry "[did] honor to the state which it represented" and "the work of the Maryland Cavalry . . . won . . . most distinguished notice." Of that unit's commander, Col. Ridgely Brown, Booth writes, "he was as true as steel and as gallant a soldier as ever mounted horse or drew a blade." While the author respected Grant for his gentlemanly treatment of the defeated Lee, he credits the Northerner's victory mainly to "his immense superiority in numbers" and not to any greater bravery in Union troops (106). But Booth shows himself to be fair and praises both the Federal infantry and cavalry late in the war, calling the later "superb."

   Throughout the account, Booth is seen to be very intelligent and highly educated. As the introduction reveals, after the war he eventually became the comptroller of the B&O Railroad. In his memoirs, he shows knowledge of such diverse subjects as geography, theology, and history and, as Eric Mink points out in the book's introduction, as Booth's intended audience were the men who had shared his experiences, the account can be taken as being without embellishment. His diverse experiences, which include administering a prison camp and meeting the Confederate Vice President, make this account more valuable than most. The Civil War divided the nation and Maryland was split deeper than most states. The account of George Wilson Booth, a Marylander who sided with the Confederacy, can help historians understand the deep divisions in the nation.

No comments about Personal Recollections of the Civil War (Facsimile, 42).

2 comments about Riding with Custer: Recollections of a Cavalryman in the Civil War.

1. This reprint of the classic "Recollections of a Cavalryman" is a valuable addition to the military history of the nation. It also offers a view of Custer by someone who actually served with him in combat -- extensive combat. The view of Custer that emerges is not that penned by a fawning subordinate; Colonel Kidd simply recounts the battles and activities of the Michigan Cavalry Brigade in a straightforward manner. His later controversy notwithstanding, Custer was an exemplary cavalry commander and arguably the most successful and brilliant cavalry officer on either side in the conflict. This book opens a window on the past and is an excellently written account of the brutal battles fought by our ancestors. The book also offers an unintentional balance to Custer's historical legacy. It's unintentional because at the time it was written, Custer was still considered a national hero. This book explains why he was. Read it.



2. This is a memoir with chapters written in and after the 1880's.

   An interesting positivist take on the war--also interesting how politically conscious Kidd appears to have been. My general observation is that the Northern accounts seem to be more politicized, more likely to talk about politicians and political beliefs, than Southern.

   Kidd started the war as captain of Troop E, 6th Michigan Cavalry, and ended up in command of the regiment. He spends a lot of time discussing recruiting and training, details fighting at Gettysburg and Williamsport, Trevilian Station, Third Winchester, et cetera. Kidd's admiration for Custer, his brigadier, is clear.

   A useful account, but not an especially anecdotal or vivid one.

5 comments about Grant Wins the War: Decision at Vicksburg.

1. Other than the fact you can never have too many maps this book was extremely well written. Great detail on brigade actions - specific but flowing pretty smoothly with the overall battle action. Really liked the summary analysis' throughout the book. Focused and, to me, impartial.



2. Arnold's book is a good solid history of the Vicksburg Campaign. His descriptions of the battles and the strategic and tactical issues facing Grant and the Confederacy gives one an understanding of what problems faced the parties and how they were resolved. His description of the battle of Champion Hill is the best part of the book, as one can feel the bravery of the soldiers involved.

   The books limitation is Arnold's almost infatuation with Grant and the need to make Vicksburg the pivotal battle of the war. While the strategy that Grant utilized was daring and unorthodox that does not substantiate the comparison with Napoleon. There is nothing in the campaign that demonstrates that Grant's tactics were Napoleonic in nature.

   Whether Vicksburg was the pivotal battle of the civil was may be true. However, Arnold did not make the case that it was. A Union loss at Gettysburg surley would have had a dramatic impact on the Unions will to continue the war. While the issue of which battle was more important was not important to the Vicksburg story, once the issue was raised Arnold should have at least spent more than a moment discussing Gettysburg.

   As a story about the Vicksburg Campaign, the book excells.




3. An excellent analysis covering the entire scope of Grant's Vickburg's operations.

   But like the title, a little too grandoise in its assertions. Grant's amazing victory was as much politically as tactically driven. Here we see Grant's first indclination to detach himself from direct supply and communication lines. But what caused it? Was it Pemberton's chauvenistic defense of Vicksburg (and Grant's straight forward desire to defeat his foe) or was it the internal pressure within the Union army (forcing Grant to do very, very differently from then current military principals)that caused him to develop this amazingly different set of operational plans he would resort to again and again during the remainder of the War?

   Prior to this victory, Grant, as a general, was probably as much at risk to continuing his command as any time subsequent in his military career. He had horrifically bogged down at Vicksburg. General Banks, Lincoln political appointee and close friend of Lincoln's, is driving North from Baton Rouge. He is stalled outside Port Gibson and Grant is ordered by Hallack (via Lincoln??)to assist him. Grant disobeys this command from the then General in Chief of all Federal armies and goes his own way. WOW! Big decision.

   Also, within his command structure is another Lincoln political appointee, General McClernand, who Grant relieves prior to Vickburg's capitulation.

   Last, there is Jeff Davis' incredible stupidity (did he hang Joe Johnston out to dry)and Pemberton's direct disobedience to his theater commander's, Joe Johnston's order; save the army, abandon Vicksburg. Why did Jeff Davis never censure Pemberton not only for the loss of Vicksburg, strategically and psycologically important to the South as it was, but also an entire army, complete with thousands of men, stores, arms and ammunition? And why does Davis again relieve Johnston from command, not reinstating him until the final hours of the war?

   Seen simply from the viewpoint of the Union high command,i.e., a traitor in his midst, McClernand, an unwillingness to unite forces with a fellow field commander, Banks, and the disobedience of his direct superior's orders, Halleck's,he should be thankful for Linclon's non military, non political eveluation of him: "I cannot spare this man; he fights".

   Grant's military victory at Vicksburg is amazing. But his political victory (Lincoln's willing recognition of his ability despite his incredible disobedience)is even more incredulous.




4. An excellent analysis covering the entire scope of Grant's tactical operations. However, this book reaches too far. Like the title, the author's military assertions and their subsequent impact on the Union's conduct of the war are a little too grandiose. Grant did not win the war on July 4, 1863. It would drag on for two more years. But just maybe Lincoln did.

   Grant's amazing victory was as much politically as tactically driven. From the point of view of Grant's career, he had to win, had to take unorthodox chances, because he was as close to being dead meat as any Union general ever came. For months and months he was bogged down before Vicksburg. We know Lincoln was so dissatisfied with Grant that he sent Charles Dana to Vicksburg as the President's special envoy to see what was really going on.

   General Banks, a Lincoln political appointee and very close friend, was driving north from Baton Rouge toward Port Gibson and Vicksburg. Banks stalled and Grant was ordered by Halleck (via Lincoln??) to assist Banks. Grant disobeyed this command from the then General in Chief of all Federal armies and went his own way. WOW! Big decision. What a way to make friends when you are under the looking glass.

   Last, placed within Grant's command structure is another Lincoln political appointee and friend, General McClernand, who Grant subsequently relieves prior to Vicksburg's capitulation. Is he thumbing he nose?

   At Vicksburg we see Grant's first inclination to tactically detach himself from direct supply and communication lines. But what caused it? Was it Pemberton's chauvinistic defense of Vicksburg and Grant's straight forward desire to defeat his foe? Or was it the internal pressure within the Union army and Grant's desire to save his career that forced Grant to do very, very differently from then current military principals, causing him to develop this amazingly different set of operational plans he would resort to again and again during the remainder of the war?

   Last, from the Confederate side there is Jeff Davis' incredible stupidity. Did Jeff Davis hang Joe Johnston out to dry? And lets not forget Pemberton's direct disobedience to his theater commander's, Joe Johnston's order: Save the army, abandon Vicksburg. Why did Jeff Davis never censure Pemberton not only for the loss of Vicksburg, strategically and psychologically important to the South as it was, but also the loss of an entire army, complete with thousands of men and irreplaceable stores, arms and ammunition? And why does Davis again relieve Johnston from command, not reinstating him until the final hours of the war?

   Seen simply from the viewpoint of the Union high command, i.e., a traitor in his midst (McClernand), a presidential spy at headquarters (Dana), an unwillingness to unite forces with a fellow field commander (Banks) and the disobedience of his direct superior's orders (Halleck's), Grant should be thankful for Lincoln's reaffirmed evaluation of him: "I cannot spare this man; he fights". Good for you, Charles Dana.

   Grant's military victory at Vicksburg IS amazing and this book is as good an account of it as there is. But the author fails to live up to his title's claim. Grant's political coup (Lincoln's willing recognition of his ability despite his incredible disobedience and non cooperation with Lincoln favorites) is even more incredulous than his military one. Had not Meade just beaten Lee at Gettysbury on the very same day that Vicksburg fell? Which would have been of more immediate importance: a captured Confederate army on the Mississippi River or a victorious Confederate army next door to Washington? If Lee had won at Gettysburg, Vicksburg would have been what it will always be, a spectacular feat of arms. But Union army and Northern political concerns aside, maybe, just maybe, Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee lost the war that fateful day when they made the conscious decision to risk swapping Vicksburg for Washington and lost their gamble on both counts.

   The most important item to come from the Vicksburg conflict was not Grant's victory as much as it was Lincoln's recognition of Grant as his next General in Chief. And in that vein it was not Grant's victory at Vicksburg but Lincoln's subsequent promotion of Grant over Meade that won the war.




5. Arnold's book about a pivtoal campaign covers many details on many overlooked battles and raids in the Civil War: Champion's Hill (Baker's Creek), Big Black River, Jackson, Port Gibson, and Grierson's raid through Mississippi.

   Arnold's descriptions of the battles were interesting with notes on individual bravery without becoming too bogged down in details. Particularly interesting were the descriptions of the Union army's march on the Louisiana side of the Mississippi River and the Union navy's several attempts to pass by Vicksburg's siege guns.

   I also appreciated the author's balanced criticisms of leaders on both sides:
   1) Pemberton, the Confederate commander, was too vacillating and involved in the petty politics that doomed the Confederacy in the West. Conflict between Confederate leaders Johnston, Davis, and Beauregard further doomed Pemberton.
   2)Grant made the inexcusable mistake of leaving his own wounded on the battlefield after a charge on the Vicksburg works because of his faulty perception that to care for his wounded would be an admission of weakness.

   My main complaints were the lack of sufficient maps - while the maps in the book were well-drawn and sufficiently detailed, more were needed, particularly for a campaign such as Vicksburg.

   In conclusion, I recommend the book as an entertaining and informative read on an important campaign.

3 comments about General Jo Shelby: Undefeated Rebel.

1. Gen. Shelby did remarkable things with his small command. His genius was unappreciated due to Jefferson Davis' myopic pre-occupation with west point pedigrees instead of ability and results. A Southerner can only sigh at the lost opportunity, if Shelby had been given command of command of the Army of the Trans-Mississippi instead of Theophilus Holmes.
   This is a very readable volume about the greatest Confederate cavalryman in the war who led several different lives. About a half of it covers the war, another 1/4th the Mexico adventure, and the remaining 1/4 are split between his growing up and the post-Mexico (1868-97)years.
   It features vivid descriptions of many battles in MO and AR, as well as the tale of his expedition to Mexico after the war. The details of his tactics at the Battle of Cane Hill, which he used repeatedly after that is fascinating. The author's style is a bit colorful and folksy, sorta like you're there talking to him. If you demand that your history read like a textbook that may spook you off, but if it doesn't it's a wonderful bio about a neglected figure



2. I was particularly interested in reading about Confederate General Jo Shelby as my great-grandfather fought under him during the Civil War, serving in Co. A, Elliott's Battalion,
   Shelby's Brigade. The book was fairly informative, but relied too heavily on the writings of Major Edwards, Shelby's Aide, who was not always objective, and given to hyperbole.
   All-in-all though, it was enjoyable reading and gave me a lot of information about the man my ancestor served under.
   I am in the process of visiting the battlegrounds where Shelby campaigned and this book will help in visualizing the various battles.



3. 
   Many commanders, both North and South, thought Jo Shelby to be the best cavalry general of the South. From the black plume he wore in his cap to the large sorrel horses he rode (after getting three shot from under him at Cane Hill, Arkansas, he superstitiously would only ride sorrels) to his daring tactics, Shelby struck an heroic figure. A successful businessman in Missouri before the war and a prominent slaveholder, he raised a three-regiment cavalry brigade in 1862, taught it western fighting tactics, and conducted a number of raids in Missouri and Arkansas for the rest of the war. A real thorn in the side of Union leaders, Shelby's "Iron Brigade" inflicted much damage in raids all along the western border region. Most distinguished were his operations in Sterling Price's raid into Missouri in the fall of 1864, especially at Glasgow and Sedalia (both of which he captured), Waverly, and Westport. When the war ended, he refused to surrender, and simply took his men to Mexico to fight for Maximillian. But after Maximillian was killed in 1866, Shelby returned to Missouri. His popularity only increased in the hero-hungry post-war South, which was bolstered further after he appeared as a defense witness in the trial of the James brothers, who had ridden with him during the war. He died in 1897, and his funeral was the second largest in the post-war South for a Confederate leader, after only Jeff Davis's.
   
   O'Flaherty's approach is that of a popular, rather than an academic, historian. So much conversational dialogue is included that sometimes the book reads more like a novel than a biography. At times he over-quotes sources: for example, he includes the complete transcript of an interview that appeared in the Kansas City "Journal" with Shelby just before the James Boys trial. It's interesting, but could have been abridged. His purpose, though, seems to be to present Shelby as a hero in the Sir Walter Scott mold: brave, loyal to a cause, fair and democratic, tough on the battlefield, concerned with the welfare of his charges. In this he succeeds admirably. [This is a reprint of the original 1954 edition.]

1 comments about The Hanging of Old Brown: A Story of Slaves, Statesmen, and Redemption.

1. Extremely well written book about John Brown and the history surrounding his life. The author brings the Civil War era (and Mr. Brown) to life, even to those readers who may not be particularly interested in this time period. Thumbs up. I am eagerly awaiting more works by this author.

3 comments about Women at Gettysburg.

1. Conklin presents a well-researched view of the roles of women in the Civil War by concentrating on those who were involved in the Battle of Gettysburg. By focusing on one battle, one place, she is able to give us a broad range of what women could do to aid the war effort. Many are common women forced to open their homes to the thousands of wounded from both sides out of compassion and necessity. Some are volunteer nurses who travel with the hospitals. There are soldiers - the anonymous woman whose body was found in uniform on the ground after Pickett's Charge. There are nuns, wives, scavengers and helpmates. Women who worked along side the men to fight the respective causes. We can apply what we learn here to other places in America during this turbulent time and realize that women were more than just the girl who waited at home or the tireless nurse. They were an essential element of the war effort that has been greatly underestimated and ignored. Presented in a format that is both personal and easily accessible to all, it's a must-read!



2. An eighth grade project where students rewrote biographies of Civil War people in first person was nearly impossible for a hundred eighth graders until I discovered this book. The accounts of forty women at Gettysburg from townspeople to wives of both sides give girls an equal opportunity to relate and connect to the people and events of the Civil War. Even with the "big names" such as Harriet Beecher Stowe, Harriet Tubman, Sarah Emma Edmonds, Clara Barton, Rose Greenhow, and Mary Todd Lincoln, women doctors, a few more spies, women soldiers, abolitionist/suffragettes, there were not enough women's biographies for the females in my middle school's eighth grade.

   There is no dearth of men's biographies. I was so desperate the last time my class did a Civil War reenactment that one girl ended up as the wife of Arthur MacArthur since the encyclopedia described him as a hero of the Civil War and the father of Douglas MacArthur. We assumed Arthur was married! The girl had to extrapolate the barebones information into a story from Mrs. MacArthur's point of view as did generic nurses in the Sanitation Commission or bits gleaned from the indexes of the Civil War epics by Shelby Foote; creative but difficult for many.

   This is the second year using Women at Gettysburg, and I hope to bring the time, the people, and the events alive even better this time.




3. Unlike a previous review, there are stories in here that don't deal with Gettysburg at all. This is a "Top 40" women of the CW, not Gettysburg. And some of these women contributed nothing worth reading, let alone writing about. Poorly written.

1 comments about Mary Todd Lincoln: Her Life and Letters.

1. The correspondence of Mary Todd Lincoln reveals much about her personalty, and also demonstrates her memory's occasional fallibility. Includes letters dating from the 1840s and into her widowhood. Rewarding for the specialist. A general reader will probably want to dip into the book occasionally rather than read long sections at a time.