5 comments about Rutherford B. Hayes: Warrior and President.

1. Hayes had an interesting life and an active time in the Civil War. This book is aimed at presenting a favorable picture of him, and is written kind of like old-fashioned biographies. It pays excessive attention ro Hayes' diary, and contains considerable trivia. Some chapters are boring. The most interesting chapters are are, obviously, on 1876 and 1877 and the dramatic events around Hayes' election to the Presidency. And yes, the Republicans stole that election too!



2. I have to give Professor Hoogenboom credit for giving it the old college try. He does his very best to portray Hayes as an effective politician and as a real reformer. Unfortunately, the case he makes is simply not convincing.

   To be fair to Hayes, this is not to say that his life was uninteresting. This biography shows that Hayes was not just some non-entity that was tapped for the GOP nomination by the power-brokers of the party, but that he had a pretty interesting life (a Civil War record of real consequence, plus an impressive career in Ohio politics) prior to ascending to the presidency.

   Unfortunately, the only reason we are reading a Hayes biography is because he became President, not because he was a Civil War general or a governor of Ohio. It is when dealing with Hayes' record as President that Hoogenboom fails to persuade the reader of Hayes' impact & commitment to reform.

   For one thing, Hoogenboom pulls way too many punches when it comes to the 1876 elections. He equivocates; he is not willing to say that the elections were on the up-and-up, but neither is he willing to concede that Hayes was involved in what was a truly stolen election. Anyone who thinks the 2000 election was stolen ought to take a good look at 1876. Like it or not, Hayes was complicit in this, and his credibility was compromised from the very beginning of his term.

   It really doesn't get any better from there. Was Hayes a dynamic, reform-minded president? Good luck trying to prove that --- the record simply does not support that contention, no matter how hard Hoogenboom tries accentuate the positive. Granted, Hayes' administration was not the embarrassment of scandals that typified Ulysses Grant's administration, and certainly corrupt Republicans like Roscoe Conkling & James Blaine make Hayes look quite pure, but this does not mean that Hayes had any genuine tendency towards reform. One only has to examine the not particularly comfortable relationship between Hayes and Secretary of the Interior Carl Schurz to see how Hayes felt about the movement supporting civil service reform, for example.

   So we are left with a mixed bag. The only other Hayes biography I have read was written in the early 1930's and was so appallingly racist that I couldn't put it down fast enough. There has been precious little written on Hayes since then, so Hoogenboom has provided a great service. It is a well-written & well-researched biography, so there are no complaints in that regard. I simply do not feel that the author has convincingly made his case.




3. Over the last few years I've read more than 30 presidential biographies, usually using Amazon to guide me to the best book on each president. Hoogenboom's biography of Hayes seemed the best, and I was not disappointed. Hayes comes off as a courageous man of good intentions, but also as a man who was unable to overcome the nation`s problems while he was president. His childhood story is told in detail, and it reminds us just how difficult it was to survive from day to day 200 years ago. He was a genuine Civil War hero. 1876 was certainly the US's most contentious national election. There were so many deals and chicaneries in determining the outcome in 1876 that no one will ever know who should have won.
   
   As president Hayes lacked anything resembling a mandate, and the Republican Party was divided between spoils men and those who wanted reform. Reconstruction had failed, and it is beyond me to imagine what anyone could have done to develop a better outcome for African Americans or national unity. Suffice it to say Hayes didn't solve either problem, and although he could be criticized for not trying harder to bring out civil service reforms and to insure ensure voting rights, there simply was not enough support for these efforts. He did work to make the US economy sound after a stiff recession and he was probably the only president that cared a wit for treating Native Americans in a respectful manner.
   
   To my surprise Hayes was genuinely a good man rather than just another Ohio politician who became a 19th century president. Hayes actually considered his world and shaped his beliefs and actions according to his synthesis of the truth, rather than going along with the crowd. His reactions to the temperance movement and organized religion are worthy of our respect. Hayes made a genuine commitment to education and was a catalyst for funding black universities and Ohio State. He was appalled at excessive wealth and championed redistribution of wealth. At his core he was a man of the people and a good husband. He simply cannot be compared to most politicos of his time.
   
   Hoogenboom's narrative lays out Hayes and his times in readable detail. He is not a great biographer in terms of bringing his characters to life, but this biography is well organized. This is a better than average biography about a fascinating time in US history.



4. One of my favorite biographies, Ari Hoogenboom's "Hayes" is a positive and incisive look at the 19th president. Hayes is the prototypical Midwesterner, successful, yet humble, proper and reform minded, but not priggish or censorious. Hayes had a genuine concern for humanity and America. Though limited in the lengths he would travel to enact social changes we would today deem necessary (or that he himself would wish for), Hayes should be better-remembered. Hoogenboom's work is quite thorough, covering both Hayes's political and personal life.
   Hayes has been criticized for giving up on Reconstruction and thus dooming blacks to a century of repression, but Hayes had genuine concern for blacks. However, by 1877 Hayes was quite limited in what he could do politically to maintain Reconstruction. Hayes was traditionally criticized for doing little to address the growing inequalities of the American economy. But, although he did help put down nation-wide strikes, Hayes was more sympathetic to labor than any other late 19th century president. I was also surprised to read about the extensive post-presidency work of Hayes, comparable to Jimmy Carter.



5. 
   Quoting Mark Twain, who felt that Hayes's presidency "would steadily rise into higher and higher prominence, as time & distance give it a right perspective, until at last it would stand out against the horizon of history in its true proportions," Ari Hoogenboom states that his purpose in writing this biography is "in the hope of fulfilling Twain's prediction ...." Thus from the beginning we are warned that Hoogenboom is out to cast his subject in as favorable a light as possible. He doesn't distort the facts to attain this goal, but his judgments at times seem overstraining and one-sided. For example, a pragmatist to a fault, Hayes compromised on a number of issues (black voting rights in the South, the Chinese Immigration Bill), seeing no use in a fight to perhaps capture the high ground, yet the author is able to dismiss these moves as politically prudent. Hoogenboom includes a 5-page Afterward that is one defense after another of Hayes and his actions as president; it's such a glowing explication of the man that the only thing missing is a standing ovation.
   
   That doesn't mean Hayes was unworthy of any praise. His Civil War career was noteworthy, serving with and leading the 23rd Ohio in many engagements, including South Mountain in Maryland where he was severely wounded. As president, his stand on civil service reform was generally commendable, fighting unsuccessfully against Congress for a civil service commission, introducing the idea of competitive exams for appointments in some departments, and ordering that federal officers not be permitted to take part in political activities. Although hardly mentioned by Hoogenboom, the Hayes administration also did much to stop the wanton destruction of much of the national forest lands. Hayes also was the one who appointed the great Supreme Court justice John Marshall Harlan to the bench.
   
   Of course, Hoogenboom describes in detail the "stolen" election that got Hayes into office. He also relates admirably the post-presidency years of Hayes, his great interest in education and prison reform. Hoogenboom is also a competent writer, and he sweeps the reader along laudably with his narrative. The biography is an informative and interesting account of the nineteenth president; it's just that the author's singular purpose in writing the book must be kept in mind while reading it.

2 comments about The Recollections and Letters of General Robert E. Lee (Civil War Library).

1. Robert E. Lee never had the chance to pen his own autobiography as U.S. Grant did. He meant to, but kept holding it off until heart disease claimed his life five years after the surrender of Appomattox.
   
   Many of those who served under him during the Civil War wrote biographies of the great Confederate General, claiming to know how he felt, and what he thought. But only two of them really came close. The ponderous but solidly written "Memoirs of Robert E. Lee" by his Aide, Colonel Long, and this volume, comprised of letters actually written by Lee, and the remembrances of those who knew him well, and none more so than the author of the book, his own son, Captain Robert E.Lee, Jr.
   
   Captain Lee describes his childhood in the Lee household, of General Lee's love of animals, especially horses. He describes a man who smiled, was warm, as compared to the austere, solemn descriptions and illustrations of him once the Civil War commenced. He writes how Lee agonized within his own family of the decision to leave the U.S. Army, and then join the Confederacy, even though wishing for a quiet, neutral life, and of Lee's personal losses during the war - a daughter who passed on, a son wounded and captured, the son's frail wife also passing on, and the known loss of their dearly beloved home in Arlington, which was turned into the national cemetery of the same name.
   
   Captain Lee studiously avoids the controversial sides of Lee, his stand on slavery or the rights of the South, concentrating mainly on the personality of man and how he dealt with others.
   This is a volume that belongs on the shelf of any Civil War buff, especially those interested in the life of Robert E. Lee.
   I recommend this book, and Burke Davis' "Gray Fox" be purchased together.



2. This is one of the best books about Lee! It is written from his youngest's son's point of view. It's a great book for every library.

5 comments about Maryland Voices of the Civil War.

1. As a native Marylander and a reader of civil war history I was pleasantly surprised to learn so much from this book of Maryland voices. Reading about these times through the minds and hearts of individuals who were on the scene was enlightening. The author brings out the political differences between the eastern shore counties through Baltimore to the western counties through letters. The chapter on the confederate army marching through Frederick was particularly good and did I hear someone writing about the cattle lowing as they followed the troops through the city? I never realized that cattle were part of an army's supply but I do now. The contrast between the handsome soldiers on horseback through the minds of young girls and their grief as to the later casualties. The chapters on the slave issues were very livid and the inequities forced upon a race of people who had very little recourse to a better life. The court system in the "southern counties" and its brutal adherence to the southern way was very informative. Many Maryland families are mentioned in this book and if I were from one of them I would not miss reading this excellent treatise. I highly recommend this book to all and congratulate the author for his diligent detail.



2. I originally found this book in Maryland magazine. Bought it for my brother-in-law who is a civil War buff.



3. My summer reading this past year was never so vivid! I found Charles W. Mitchell's Maryland Voices of the Civil War to be a perfect complement to simultaneous readings of, David McCullough's John Adams and James Michener's Chesapeake. Like these books, Maryland Voices of the Civil War presents known and little known historical facts and details which impart keen insights into the historical development of our young nation. Mr. Mitchell's collection of original source writings describes everyday life of blacks and whites, from the poorly educated to the highly educated, with a wide range of viewpoints regarding the national conflict in their region. Through reading their diaries, articles, and letters, I felt as if I walked among these individuals, just as I walk among neighbors! I reveled in the 1860s vernacular of these written communications which coupled with photos, drawings, and posters create historical authenticity in the mind of the reader. I could readily imagine the clandestine activities on Baltimore's cobbled streets, the raucous troops and their sweltering, smoky campsites stationed in the neighboring localities, all a stones throw from my reading chair on the back porch! Maryland Voices of the Civil War recreates through public and private writings the personal nuances, as well as authoritative perceptions of the age, the environment, the varied attitudes and trepidations of Marylanders while under the allegiance to the Union. How appreciated it is to know the genuine origins of each and every writing. I'm left wondering if our contemporary writings could ever reveal modern times as clearly to future generations, as these writings of the 1860s that Charles Mitchell presents throughout his Maryland Voices of the Civil War!
   
   Submitted by DJ Snyder December, 2007



4. This is a beautiful book and I'm happy to find myself mentioned in it as part of an end-note on page 530; however I'm not happy that Mr. Mitchell did not look closely enough at my publication "The Complete Chronicles with Abstracts and Works Cited" (Fukuoka Jo Gakuin, 2001), because it clearly states on page 122 the needed citation to clear up his confusion about the details of Joseph Shaw's murder in Westminster, Maryland, on Monday, April 24, 1865. Shaw was not "lynched" as Klein's "Just South of Gettysburg" states (echoing Scharf's misreporting of the matter in his "History of Western Maryland"), but was stabbed in the left armpit and left to bleed to death on the tavern floor of Zachariah's (Anchor) Hotel on Anchor Street, Westminster. The Baltimore Sun under the title "Trial of the Parties Charged with the Manslaughter of Joseph Shaw," reported the details of Shaw's murder by Henry Bell and three others, in its Friday, June 2nd, Saturday, June 3rd, Monday, June 5th; Tuesday, June 6th; Wednesday, June 7th; and Thursday, June 8th, 1865 editions. These newspapers were all available on microfilm to Mr. Mitchell had he taken the time to look. Instead, he offers this bizarre comment on page 460, as if the details of a man's death were a mere matter of "either/or": "Accounts vary about what next transpired: Shaw was either hanged by the mob or, on April 24, shot and stabbed by four men at Zachariah's Hotel in Westminster." Does Mr. Mitchell discount The Baltimore Sun paper's on-the-spot reporting as a source? (To this and any researcher the Baltimore Sun would be the best source of all!) Moreover, The Baltimore Clipper, as well as other newspapers unavailable to Scharf and Klein reported Shaw as still being alive after the Westminster mob destroyed his presses. And finally, nowhere in my publication did I say that Shaw was shot. In fact, I indicate that it was rather miraculous that he hadn't been.
   
   Please Mr. Mitchell, go back and check these sources. They're not hidden away, but freely available to anyone who takes the time to thread microfilm through a viewer. While I hail your book as a great addition to the studies of Maryland's involvement in the Civil War, I am greatly puzzled as to why you didn't do the work of an historian in this case and report what the primary records show.



5. As a Baltimorean born and bred, I grew up with vivid stories of Baltimore's and Maryland's roles during the Civil War, including some of my own family's exploits. I confess that much of it confused me. Marylanders owned slaves, and all of the state lies below the Mason-Dixon Line, yet Maryland remained in the Union and is called "The Free State." The riots that broke out on Pratt Street as Union soldiers marched from one station to the other (experiencing one of the joys of traveling through Baltimore in those days) clearly belied any notion of Maryland's solid loyalty to the Union. My great grandfather followed Stonewall Jackson around the South even as his brother was busy smuggling an abolitionist rabbi from Baltimore over the Pennsylvania line before his congregation tarred and feathered him.
   
   So where did Baltimore's and Maryland's loyalties really lie? What was it like to be in Maryland from 1860 to 1865, and what forces were at play?
   
   Charles Mitchell has done a masterful job of weaving the overarching plot from the strands of personal memorabilia and biography to paint a living picture of a state that was in some ways a microcosm of the larger war. And for anyone like me who was raised with conflicting notions, his painstaking historical detail helps flesh out not simply the internal conflict but also the essential stability that kept Maryland in the Union. Contemporary letters and articles demonstrate not only immediate reactions but also the evolving mindset of the people in power, the citizenry, and the fringe element, all of which helps one get a sense of the dynamic of the times.
   
   The last section, "Freedom," is made all the more moving by its acknowledgement that racial strife would continue in Maryland for another century. The Baltimore of my childhood in the '40's and '50's still had separate water fountains and bathrooms, and the local amusement park was closed to blacks. Much of Maryland--especially southern Maryland and the Eastern Shore, but also parts of Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties and even a few neighborhoods in Baltimore City--retains some of the feel of the Old South to this day, though its political majority makes it dependably "Blue." MARYLAND VOICES both captures and explicates that paradox in a way that leaves us newly enlightened not only about the state as it was 150 years ago but about contemporary Maryland, as well.

No comments about The Baltimore Plot: The First Conspiracy to Assassinate Abraham Lincoln.

1 comments about The Expatriation of Franklin Pierce: The Story of a President and the Civil War.

1. As a student of the presidency and of 19th century America I was glad to find this book about Franklin Pierce, one of the most obscure of American chief executives. While there's not much coverage of Pierce's four years in office there is a good deal of attention paid to the tumultous times in which he lived, especially the years after his presidency ended in 1857 and during which the Civil War, and then Reconstruction occurred.
   
   What I found most informative about the book were Pierce's relationship to Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President and former U.S. Secretary of War and Senator and Pierce's role as a Peace Democrat during the Civil War and the official and unofficial, but all very public, animosity that role generated. One of the surprises was realizing the extent of Davis' experience and influence; in much of the Civil War history I've read Davis is presented as a kind of compromise flunky, playing second fiddle to the great Southern Civil War Generals. But it appears he was a much more consequential figure than that.
   
   So as a descriptive portrayal of an under-recognized American President and of the civil liberty abuses and social turmoil surrounding an important period in the nation's history, I think the book works well.
   
   In my mind the book's shortcoming is its failure to provide a greater understanding of why Pierce sympathized with the South, particularly in regards to the South's decision to secede, and its decision to fire on Fort Sumpter. The book treats both of these critical developments rather superficially. The election of Lincoln, for example, did not directly threaten slavery in the South, a point Lincoln and the Republican Party took great pains to emphasize in the years leading up to the 1860 election and immediately afterward. So the question of why did the South secede, and why in particular did Pierce believe they were justified in doing so goes unexplained. Further, even if a right to secede is recognized, how did Pierce think the federal government should deal with its installations throughout the South, particularly its military ones? And finally, if Pierce believed the South had the right to secede, and the right to attack federal government military installations in the South, under what terms did Pierce think the North should have negotiated with the South or worked to bring the South back into the Union?
   
   This is to say that the book's shortcoming is a lack of analysis, which is essential to better appreciating and understanding--even if not agreeing with or condoning--the thoughts and actions of those who have contributed to the development of our nation.
   
   But I appreciate the attention of this author to a heretofore neglected person in American history and of the conflict that existed for many people as the nation warred against itself.

5 comments about Bloody Bill Anderson: The Short, Savage Life of a Civil War Guerrilla.

1. Bloody Bill Anderson was a product of savagery in the early days of the Civil War's influence on Kansas and Missouri. The border war there was bloody and brutal. An eye for an eye conflict that escalated beyond anyone's imagination. The region was devastated. The atrocities that men were willing to commit against each other on both sides of the fratricide in that area are horrendous. Rocketing out of that soup came Bloody Bill. He is the prototype of a deadly psychopath. He was sadistic, ruthless and devoid of conscience.
   
   Castel and Goodrich have outdone themselves in taking what little historical data is available to present as thorough an accounting of Bill Anderson's life as you're likely to find. They hone in on two of his most infamous rampages around Centralia, Missouri. You'll believe you were an eyewitness. However, they don't fabricate the stories or engage in fiction. The book is thoroughly researched and very credible in every detail. They could only have exceeded in this endeavor if there were more firsthand historical data to draw from.
   
   Fact is Bloody Bill was a real individual and these events really did transpire. You will be transfixed even as you are horrified.



2. This book reads like a romantic western novel. A description of Anderson: "Dressed entirely in black- hat, velvet shirt, pants, boots- he was lean and sinewy and looked taller sitting in the saddle of his large black horse than his actual height of five ten." (p. 11, hardback edition) It continues like that for another 150 pages or so. The only thing missing is voluptuous maidens.
   Castel's biography of Quantrill doesn't read like this, and Goodrich's "Black Flag" doesn't really have much style at all, as it is mostly quotes from primary sources. I don't know why they felt the need to write this the way they did, but it ruins the story. Both authors have done their work in researching, but the writing leaves much to be desired. A definitive account of Anderson still needs to be written.



3. Thomas Goodrich did an outstanding job of researching his subject. I've read many other accounts of Anderson, but this is the most complete and revealing. It's unfortunate that Stackpole insisted on bringing Castel into the mix, as the two men's writing styles are so different. The end product, though the best work so far on a fascinating man, doesn't equal Goodrich's original work.



4. Great biography of a Western Civil War barbarian. When it came to being ruthless during The American Civil War, Bloody Bill broke all bounderies. Not for the weak of heart!!



5. The authors appear to have done their research, and present the story in mixed third person objectivity and first person period prose. For the casual reader who has an interest in Civil Warfare, or more specifically, the Kansas-Missouri Border War, this is an entertaining book. For the scholar, it must be taken with a grain of salt. The authors have taken literary license to the extreme in their description of scenery, battlefield and camp site conditions, personal conversations, et cetera. Although the essence of news-worthy situations are, more often than not, accurately portrayed in historic newspapers, the use of quotes and eye-witness accounts are often biased and stretch the truth. The authors appear to continue in this vein of sensationalistic reporting. There is no way the authors could know of the detailed conversations that took place between officers, combatants, and/or farmers, and thus, their factual portrayal of these more intimate situations must be questioned. If they had told the story entirely in the third person, this book would be good and much needed reference. As presented, with interjections in the first person literary style, the book lacks a degree of credibility. This is unfortunate, as it is a great story of guerrilla warfare and otherwise well-written. 170 pp., Stackpole Books (1998).

No comments about A Just and Righteous Cause: Benjamin H. Grierson's Civil War Memoir.

5 comments about Mrs. Lincoln and Mrs. Keckly: The Remarkable Story of the Friendship Between a First Lady and a Former Slave.

1. The characters in this book and their stories are interesting at times, but the author takes far too much time imparting their stories. I am reading this book for a church cirle book review, and I am having trouble reading it. If I want a nap that day, all I need to do is pick up this book and read it a while!



2. I was disappointed in the viewpoint of the author who seemed less interested in the relationship of the two women than in the social problems of a free Black woman who was the confidant of Mary Lincoln. I began reading the book in an attempt to understand both women and the circumstances in which their friendship occurred. The book, however, leans heavily toward Mrs. Keckley & portrays Mrs. Lincoln at her best as a spoiled White woman & at her worst as a lunatic. The final paragraph sums up the author's reasons for writing the book in a complaint that Mary is buried in the Lincoln vault with President Lincoln (where else would she have been put?)& Mrs. Keckley's unclaimed body lies in an unmarked grave..."like those of her mother, slave father and son". The book is not about Mary Lincoln or Mrs. Keckley; it is a social commentary.



3. Going back and forth between biographical chapters of the two ladies for a good portion of the book left me tireless and bored. Almost rejoicing when the book finally picked up after what seemed to be an ad infinitum of the two woman's seemingly ordinary lives, nothing really there to surprise from previous knowledge of both a white and black's reality of that particular time period, I in all honestly could have done without the meticulously detailed first half of the book. On the contrary I did find that the many similarities between the two such as same birth year and rather close birthplace, both in the south to be rather ironic in conjunction with their very different social standing and contrasting, perhaps even a bit complimenting personality traits. This is possibly the only helpful information I was able to take from the first half of the book.
   
   Fleischner does appear to know plenty on each individual, but enough's enough, I picked up the book for an interesting read about such an odd friendship between the pair.
   Forcing myself to get through these lackluster chapters, the meeting and companionship of the two very different women at long last appeared! Before getting to this point of the book I would have been generous in giving the book two stars, however after their first encounter, the day before Abe Lincoln's Presidential inauguration in 1861 I actually found myself enjoying my time reading it.
   
   Keckly, a mulatto, grew up in a harsh life of slavery, eventually independently able to buy her way out and prosper in the seamstress business. Thus being the reason, lavish and somewhat peculiar Lincoln called upon the former slave for her distinguished dress-making skills. The last chapters did seem rushed, and I was left wanting more details on the actual societal aspects of the South in the nineteenth century. I enjoyed the mentioning of how times were back then, always being captivating to me. The prices, fashions, and entertainment of Civil War times really absorbed my interest, however short-lived those parts were. The association and reference of historical people and events i.e. W.E.B Du Bois, Cassius Clay, Bleeding Kansas allowed me to relate the reading to History class, always bringing unexpected excitement to a learning student.
   
   The brilliantly unlikely friendship between Mrs. Keckly and Mrs. Lincoln did get its justice in Jennifer Fleischner's double biography. If you have patience for dullness, and are willing to stick it out for what turns out to be a great story of two apparently opposite woman who grow together in a historic tale of true friendship, then don't hesitate to pick this book up. Three stars for getting two bios for the price of one, the book might have dragged on, but turning out rather compelling, and nicely done.



4. After reading this book I feel as if I know the two ladies, their lives and their times.



5. Excellent historical review. Now have a much better understanding of Mary Todd Lincoln's personality as well as a greater appreciation for the difficulties of slavery that were experienced by Elizabeth Keckly. Both were intelligent women who struggled against the limitations of their culture and upbringing.

5 comments about Ghosts of Gettysburg IV, Vol. 4.

1. I ordered books 1 through 4 last year, and it took me a little
   more than a week to read all of them. Even if you're not
   interested in ghosts, the historical accounts of the areas in
   which the stories took place is quite interesting. I like the
   4 books so much that I'm afraid to lend them out for fear of not
   seeing them again. I'm looking forward to book 5. If you like
   both civil war history and ghost stories, you won't regret reading these little gems.



2. I ordered books 1 through 4 last year, and it took me a little
   more than a week to read all of them. Even if you're not
   interested in ghosts, the historical accounts of the areas in
   which the stories took place is quite interesting. I like the
   4 books so much that I'm afraid to lend them out for fear of not
   seeing them again. I'm looking forward to book 5. If you like
   both civil war history and ghost stories, you won't regret reading these little gems.



3. Former Park Ranger Mark Nesbitt has over the years gathered many ghost stories from other park rangers, visitors and people who live in the area. Nesbitt tries to gather factual data on the stories he receives so he can offer a background as to why these ghost stories may have evolved. His stories are usually quite interesting and do not just talk about battlefield soldiers, civilians alike are also involved in famous ghost stories in Gettysburg! Buy all 5 books, there worth it! Each has many short stories that are easy and fun to read.



4. I have read all of Mark's books, and highly recommend them! We visited Gettysburg last year, and while we didn't see any apparitions (or I don't think we did), his books were very informative! His Ghosts of Gettysburg tour is also high on our 'redo' list!

   If it's Gettysburg history you want, this series is for you!!!




5. The Ghosts of Gettysburg series is very interesting. Mark Nesbitt is a great author.

No comments about Faces of the Confederacy: An Album of Southern Soldiers and Their Stories.