5 comments about Lincoln's Virtues: An Ethical Biography.

1. Instead of a passive retelling of Lincoln's life, Miller examines Lincoln's choices, and how they made him the great man he became. Highly recommended.



2. This book describes the age and circumstances Lincoln grew up and ruled in. It does this with great detail and numerous of small accounts and that's what makes it interesting to read.
   
   Throughout the book suggestions are made of Lincoln's thoughts and at some point this gets annoying, as there are no survivors to tell the tale of the man they knew. And how good do you have to know someone who's living to judge him on his virtues, let alone someone long gone.
   
   The ethical propaganda makes me deduct one star from this wonderful written book that can teach us a lot about the times and the decission making in our lifes. Whether Lincoln's virtues were based on the ones William Lee Miller writes about is something we'll never know...



3. William Lee Miller is an academic who writes in an understandable style. In "Lincoln's Virtues" the historian examines in clinical detail the ethical cosmos of the railspiltter from the West who rose to the White House in the nation's darkest hour.
   Miller shows that Lincoln held two principles as sacred to those virtues enunciated in the Declaration of Independence: the Union which was indissoluble and predated the formation of states; the right of every American to be free. Lincoln fought hard for the black race in a racist society beyond a 21st century person's ken. He thought slavery wrong from an early age and will live forever for his authorship of the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 and support of the 13th amendment to the Constitution freeing slaves.
   Lincoln as a congressman in the 1840s opposed the Mexican War as unjust. He was an enemy of the Polk administration's Manifest Destiny hubris. As a Whig politician for most of his career his great hero was Henry Clay of Ky. who managed to get the Compromise of 1850 passed. Lincoln deplored the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854 which nullified the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was the brainchild of Lincoln's racist 1858 opponent for the Senate in Illinois: Stephen A. Douglas. With Kansas-Nebraska it became possible for slavery to be extended into the territories entering the Union. Lincoln also opposed the Dred Scott decision and the fugitive slave act.
   Miller shows how skillful a politican Mr. Lincoln was as he sought political power while at the same time moving the country forward to a more just and democratic society. His strong defense of the Constitution and the Union led to the waging and winning of the Civil War. Miller's portrait of Lincoln makes clear to this reader why he is our greatest president!
   Lincoln is sometimes been attacked for racism but those critics who cast aspersions on him fail to realize the type of white supremacist society in which he was immured.Without Lincoln the United States as we know it would probably not have survived the major challenges of secession by eleven states and a horrific civil war.
   Lincoln, teaches Miller, was a kind man who abhorred cruelty to animals and human beings. The sixteenth president was merciful to soldiers who fell asleep on guard duty. Had he lived, reconstruction in the southern states would no doubt have been less severe than it was. Lincoln rarely held grudges grasping the moral if not the doctrinal teaching of Christianity. He had the skills of a great author/poet. Lincoln's speeches soar higher and probe deeper into the American psyche than do those of any other American Chief Executive.
   This outstanding book should be read in tandem with the author's second volume on Lincoln entitled "President Lincoln." Read these books slowly and absorb their content. One wishes their was an Abraham Lincoln to cast his stovepipe hat in the presidential ring in the current frenzied contest for the Oval Office!



4. Having been educated in the mythology of Abraham Lincoln, I anxiously ordered this supposed "biography". What a disappointment. It is little more than a hypocritical opinionated essay attempting to rationalize the inconsistent and criminal conduct of one of our worst Presidents. It must be remembered that the myth of Lincoln is that he somehow "saved" a union (which was voluntary and from which a democratic majority in the Confederate states had withdrawn)by instigating a "Civil War" resulting in the death of more than 600,000 human beings and the destruction of much of the South. Supposedly, the War was fought over slavery. But, both before and during the War, Lincoln stated that the war was not over this issue. Furthermore, as is typical of those trained in the law, the statements he made prior to the War about black people were so ambiguous that no one can fairly comment on his ethics or principles. What we do know is that this megalomaniac insisted upon the use of force and warfare to enforce his political theories. He believed black people were inferior. He openly espoused sending the Negroes back to Africa. Only in 1862, when it appeared the North was in jeopardy of losing his personal war did he sign the Emancipation Proclamation, an "executive order" which could not have the force of law. It freed the blacks only in the rebellion states. Ethical, obviously not. Cynical and politically self serving, obvious so. Bombing civilians in the South. Destroying civilian food supplies and means of production. No problem. Suspending habeas corpus. Locking up dissident editors of newspapers. No problem. Screw ethics. Murder for political purposes, then claim it was for the cause of abolition. Where did he stand before the War while Seward and others put themselves on the line for the abolition of slavery? He contended it was protected by the Constitution. As a lawyer he was correct. Why then did he not use his supposed personality and powers of persuasion to seek an Amendment or propose that, as recognized property under the law, slaves be purchased and freed? This book is only the most recent apology for this madman. Page after page the author extolls Lincoln with his own personal hyperbole, excusing Lincoln's misconduct. As a result of Lincoln, the blacks were supposedly "freed". Freed into what? Freed how? A century later the black population of this country was still fighting for its freedom, voting rights, against segregation, and the racial divide remains. How did this happen? When violence is involved, the memory of human beings is long. In many parts of the "old south", as a result of the assault upon them by Lincoln, they are still fighting this war. Lincoln, the hypocrite. Lincoln, the murderer. Lincoln, the war criminal. Lincoln, the depressed megalomaniac. It is just a matter of time before historians will be attempting to rewrite the history of George W. Bush, a man much like Lincoln, whose egomaniacal sociopathic personality and actions resulted in the death of countless human beings. In the case of Lincoln, history was rewritten to claim the death and destruction was necessary to free the slaves. With Bush, the weapons of mass destruction will also disappear and history will likely claim the war was fought to "free" the Iraqis by killing, maiming and dislocating more than four million human beings. Ethics, what a joke.



5. William Lee Miller has accomplished a remarkable feat - he has written a truly fresh biography of Abraham Lincoln. In some ways it easier to describe what Miller's book is not rather than what it is. Lincoln's Virtues is not a standard biography, nor is it an uncritical hagiography, nor certainly is it a so-called `debunking' work that would show us an unworthy despicable Lincoln (if anything Miller debunks the debunkings). Miller does take the reader through many of the events of Lincoln's life, but always with an eye to Lincoln's "moral escalation" as a politician (retain the emphasis on both parts: moral and politician).
   
   Lincoln was a politician. The revered, marble-man Lincoln is typically not viewed as a `mere' politician, but in fact politics and his role as a practitioner of politics - a politician - were the centerpiece of his life. As Miller observes in the Preface "if Abraham Lincoln was not a `politician', then words have no meaning." (The Preface, which can be read on Amazon gives the reader an excellent sense of the book and whether it might be of interest).
   
   In this reader's view, Miller spends too much time on Lincoln's early days - the evidence from the early days is quite clouded looking back through the lens of Lincoln's later. While these early events were no doubt important to young Lincoln's development, whether we can parse their importance today is highly problematic - doubly so given the underlying doubts about the `facts'. An interesting and perhaps revealing set of facts does emerge, however. Lincoln was a social nonconformist - he did not drink, hunt, fish, regularly attend church, or swear - all of which marked him as highly idiosyncratic in the frontier communities of his youth. And yet, Lincoln was no social outcast; to the contrary he was often at the center of social life telling stories.
   
   Miller rewards the patient reader, especially with the chapters on the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the Cooper Union Address. The Lincoln-Douglas debates have provided fodder for the Lincoln debunkers who want to portray Lincoln the `Great Emancipator' as a common white racist (to use a 20th century term). Lincoln did say some highly offensive things (to our ears) about the social inequality of black and white. Without excusing Lincoln, Miller reminds us of the context. Lincoln was running for political office in a state that had recently adopted a constitutional amendment by popular vote to exclude all blacks, free or slave, from its borders. Moreover, he was running against a political Giant, Stephen A. Douglas, a proud across-the-board white supremacist. One really must read Douglas's statements to appreciate Lincoln's. Here is the key point of dispute between Lincoln and Douglas: Was the black man a human being with the right not to be enslaved? Lincoln said yes on both counts and Douglas said no and no.
   
   Miller demonstrates that Lincoln rose from his unlikely background to potential Republican nominee for the presidency because of his stance against slavery and because of his ability to communicate his thoughts with absolute clarity. The Cooper Union Address, discussed at some length, established his credentials to interested, but skeptical Easterners and was key to his political rise. Lincoln conveyed his reasoning without evoking great waves of emotion and, in this instance also without his trademark storytelling.
   
   Miller's Lincoln is a politician: an unstinting party man, willing to compromise to attain policy goals, and standing on core principles. (Lincoln the man also shines through as a fundamentally decent, honest, generous person, but that is not the book's focus). Lincoln's core principles were chronologically, first, that slavery was wrong (or nothing is wrong) and, second, preservation of the Union. The Union that Lincoln sought to preserve was no mere gathering of states, but rather a republic, the first modern republic. Lincoln came to regard its preservation as paramount, but also believed that slavery would not survive within that Union.
   
   Miller quotes Lincoln's letter to his long-ago Congressional colleague Alexander Stephens: "You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us." That statement captures the essence of the argument with Lincoln's trademark ability to get at the nub of a thing in a way that anyone could understand and no one could dispute.
   
   Oddly, Miller concludes his book at Lincoln's inauguration (after a brief, but interesting discussion of the forgotten and failed Crittenden Compromise). It is a measure of Miller's success that the reader feels regret rather than relief that Miller did not explore Lincoln's Virtues in his years as President.
   
   Addendum: Miller subsequently wrote President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman that covers Lincoln in the White House.

1 comments about Army Life in a Black Regiment: and Other Writings (Penguin Classics).

1. Several years ago I urged John Seelye to edit this work for Penguin. A couple of years after that, he asked me to do it instead, and I did. This is a remarkable book about a literate Yankee (Higginson "discovered" the poet Emily Dickinson) who "discovers" the South. It's also "about" Black soldiers in a white war, white officers in a Black regiment, self-discovery, rivers, and hope. Much of the imagery and characterization in the movie GLORY seems to have been lifted from this book: it is, after all, a first-hand narrative of war by an idealist sorely tested by politics and physical hardship. Higginson's writing of the book is in part his attempt to deal with what today we would call Post-Traumatic-Stress Disorder, and it is no wonder that the tone sometimes reminds the reader of Hemingway's "Big Two-Hearted River." Because the teller of this story emerges as an interesting person per se, this edition includes some of his other essays, ranging from his fascination with slave rebellion to his appreciation for poetry.

1 comments about Blood and Whiskey: The Life and Times of Jack Daniel.

1. A double shot of a biography on whiskey magnate Jack Daniel with hard-work and determination as the foundation to his life and principles.
   Born in the mid-1800's and orphaned at the age of fifteen, JD immediately found himself working in a local Tennessee distillery manufacturing some of the highest quality spirits in the region from men who were the best in the business. He was known as the boy distiller.
   In his early twenties, he had the opportunity to partnership with his mentor and the rest as they say is history.
   It was not easy though. For decades he battled revenuers, the government, corrupt officials, temperance groups and later the prohibition movement. Even with these many adversities throughout his life, philanthropy was his middle name.
   Peter Krass has uncorked an imbibing read of a unique man and the times in which he lived.

3 comments about Days and Nights of Love and War.

1. This book is for anyone immersed in the human condition, waging a war internally and silently stuggling externally. Galeano's collection of thoughts and essays and stories stirs the emotions of the reader and forces them to consider the entirety of the Latin American canon of literature as a formidable one. It encompasses genres such as autobiography, biography, testimony, prose, and short story. This is poetry of the soul for the soul, and shouldn't be limited to those obscure literature classes dealing with oppression



2. The personal testimony of one of Latin America's foremost contemporary political writers, Eduardo Galeano's Days And Nights Of Love And War blends memoir journaling with an eloquent history to record the lives and struggles of the Latin American people under two decades of unimaginable violence and extreme repression. Galeano combines straight-forward reportage with personal vignettes, interviews, travelogues, and folklore with an impressive and engaging emotional enrichment that includes anger, irony, sadness, and humor. Days And Nights Of Love And War is very highly recommended for students of late 20th century Latin American political history and culture.



3. is as Galeano define "Days and Nights of Love and War". The author open the memory box and let escape the pain and the love, the sadness and the joy. That is not only his box, it's my box too, all latinoamericans' box. So, when we open it we live.

5 comments about Behind the Scenes: Or, Thirty Years a Slave, and Four Years in the White House (Schomburg Library of Nineteenth-Century Black Women Writers).

1. In 1868, three years after the War Between the States ended and Abraham Lincoln was murdered, Elizabeth Keckley sat down to write a partial history of her life as a slave and modiste (dressmaker) for Mary Todd Lincoln at the White House. If readers judge "Behind the Scenes" by the standards of modern biographies, they won't do the book justice.
   
   "Lizzie" Keckley was a slave who insisted on buying her freedom, even after being offered it for nothing. In modern terms, she was an "Aunt Tom" for validating the notion that any human being can be bought and sold for a price. By her own standards, she was affirming her value to society. It's impossible to judge such a person in contemporary terms.
   
   Lizzie's dressmaking skill attracted the attention of Mary Todd Lincoln in 1861. Mrs. Lincoln was quite addicted to clothes, and hired "Dear Lizzie" as her private modiste. Their association solidified into a deep friendship after the death in 1862 of Willie Lincoln (in the White House); Lizzie offered warmth and solicitude, badly needed by an erratic First Lady whose intemperate ways and harsh tongue had made her perhaps the most disliked person in Washington. The friendship persisted after Lincoln's assassination, when Lizzie aided Mrs. Lincoln in purging her monstrous debts (she owed $70,000 to department stores) by trying to sell off old dresses and jewelry.
   
   "Behind the Scenes" ended the friendship. After its publication Mary Lincoln, her pride wounded, dropped "Dear Lizzie" and referred to Mrs. Keckley as "that colored historian."
   
   For students of the assassination Mrs. Keckley's reminiscences are especially helpful. Several weeks after April 14, 1865, while Mrs. Lincoln was still in mourning inside the White House, Lizzie told her "the new messenger" (not identified by name in the book, unfortunately) was on watch, he being the same man who had abandoned his post outside Lincoln's box at Ford's Theater. Mrs. Lincoln excoriated the "new messenger" and accused him of complicity in the assassination. The messenger admitted his carelessness but denied complicity, insisting he had simply taken a seat where he could better watch the play.
   
   Except for the ambiguous word "messenger," this account conforms precisely to the convential wisdom that prevailed until about 25 years ago, i.e. that John F. Parker, a Metropolitan Police officer assigned to White House duty, was responsible for guarding Lincoln's box on the night of the assassination, but left his post and allowed John Wilkes Booth clear entry (and how would Booth have known the coast would be clear?). Post-modern historians, possibly seizing on Keckley's use of "messenger" to describe Parker, contrived a theory that Parker's duties never included protecting Lincoln...which idea begs the obvious question, "Why would Mrs. Lincoln have been so angry at someone who wasn't responsible in the first place?" And, since Parker supposedly went on trial for negligence (the records were mysteriously destroyed), "Why would anyone have been put on trial for neglecting Lincoln at Ford's Theater if he had been only a White House functionary all along?"



2. I got this little book so that I could learn more about the Lincolns and their home life at the White House. It does an excellent job of telling the story of Elizabeth and Mary's friendship, which I wish could have continued, but alas, it didn't. I would recommend this book to all readers interested in US history, not matter what their age or gender, so that they can get an intimate view of the Lincoln's family life. Elizabeth was a strong and proud woman with a high moral and ethical character...if she were alive today, she would be swamped with interview requests and book deals!



3. Although this volume comes from the memories of someone familiar with the Lincoln White House and who became a close friend of Mary Todd Lincoln, it must be read cautiously. For example, despite the book's basic authenticity I find its account of Stephen Douglas's love for young Mary Todd and her jilting of Lincoln implausible despite Keckley's claim that she got the story directly from Mary Todd Lincoln and Anson Henry (a close friend of Abraham and Mary, who was a matchmaker encouraging their romance). Possibly some errors might be attributed to one or more literary assistants who helped compile the book. If a reader needs to be certain a about a particular statement, comparison with other sources is wise. Still, the volume will be valuable to anyone interested in firsthand impressions of the Lincoln White House.



4. This book was wonderful! I read it straight through on a recent trip. Hated to put it down. Very, very interesting to see another side of some great historic happenings. I felt as if I were a there, watching and developed a better understanding of several historic events. I think everyone should read it. As a background for American histroy. I am buying another copy for my daughter, as I do not want to part with mine.



5. This book gives you a lot of insight into the relationship of Mary and Abe. The writing is very poetic. Enjoyed a lot.

5 comments about Winfield Scott Hancock: A Soldier's Life.

1. "On each of the three days of the (Gettysburg) battle (Hancock) played a significant role - rallying the beaten forces on July 1 and selecting the battlefield, redressing the Sickles blunder the next day and saving the left wing of the army, and finally beating back the last and greatest assault of the Army of Northern Virginia. ... Gettysburg was Hancock's field." - author David Jordan
   
   It was these three days in July, 1863 that established Winfield Scott Hancock as perhaps the best corps commander to serve in the Army of the Potomac. Yet, his career of loyal service to his superior officers, his Commanders-in Chief, and his country extended for a multitude of years on either side of his command of the Second Corps, which encompassed the relatively brief period from June of 1863 to November 1864, and which included the battles at Gettysburg, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, and skirmishes around the Petersburg entrenchments.
   
   Hancock's Civil War generalship earned him the affection of his troops and the country's citizenry and the respect of his fellow officers, all of which were sustained and flourished during his post-war career as a Reconstruction military administrator, a Great Plains Indian overseer, commander of the Military Division of the Atlantic (states), during which time he earned the gratitude of the nation in quelling labor violence, and, finally, as a three-time seeker of the Democratic nomination for President (1868, 1872, 1880) and his party's nominee for that office in the 1880 election.
   
   David Jordan's WINFIELD SCOTT HANCOCK is an extensively referenced, solid, immensely readable biography and work of popular history. Jordan obviously thinks highly of the man. Even Hancock's less than illustrious stint as commander of the Military Department of the Missouri from August 1866 to August 1867, during which he stumbled around the Great Plains without a clue as to the nature and culture of the Indian tribes he was tasked with controlling, goes pretty much uncriticized. After all, Hancock was only following the orders of his superior, General Sherman. And that's what Winfield did best all his life - follow orders.
   
   If there's a failing to this volume, it's that it suffers from a limited photo section, and helpful maps are either absent or rudimentary. Beyond that, the book is a fine tribute to an American for whom much honor is due in the nation's history.



2. A well written biography of a mostly forgotten soldier. Hancock was in many battles and his influence was felt long after the Civil War.



3. At the Battle of Williamsburg, as the Army of Potomac crept up the Peninsula toward Richmond, Virginia, General Winfield Scott Hancock attempted an aggressive flank attack on Confederate positions. At a moment when serious damage could have been wrought against the Confederate forces, a timid Union commander recalled him. Even at that, he was able to deliver one last serious sting to the southern forces. General George McClellan noted that "Hancock was superb yesterday." Hence, the nickname "Hancock the Superb."
   
   This is a serviceable book on this talented Union general. There is not enough detail on the battles in which Hancock was engaged; much of the book is "underdetailed." Nonetheless, one gets a sense of why Hancock was held in such great respect.
   
   The book covers his early years, his time in West Point, his service in the "Old Army" (with the capstone being the lugubrious final meeting after the firing on Fort Sumter among him and future Confederate generals Lewis Armistead and Albert Sidney Johnston in California).
   
   Briefly, he was consigned to a desk job. Soon, however, McClellan got him a brigade command. Then, his service where he earned the sobriquet "The Superb." He did good service at one point at Second Manassas/Bull Run; he served well at Antietam, where he advanced to division command. Then, the dreary battles at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville where, once more, he served the Union well. After Chancellorsville, he earned command of the Second Corps.
   
   It is at Gettysburg, though, where he may have had the best three days of generalship of almost any commander in the Civil War. He brought order out of chaos at the end of the First Day; he shuffled troops all over the place on the Second Day, providing "Hairsbreadth Harry" narrow escapes (think his ordering of the First Minnesota into a suicidal attack against vastly superior forces to buy a few moments time for reinforcements to get to the scene); his command of the center of the Union line on the Third Day, where he commanded the troops who destroyed the charge by Pickett's, Pettigrew's, and Trimble's attacking forces. He was also seriously injured, and the damage done to him hindered his physical ability throughout the rest of the war.
   
   After a convalescence, he did well at the Wilderness (his flank was rolled up by Longstreet, but he rallied his troops and led them well); he led a massive in depth attack at the Muleshoe at Spotsylvania. Eventually, his Second Corps bled down and he gave up his command in front of Petersburg.
   
   After the war, he served in the South, against the Indians, and had a long career as a general officer. He even ran for President of the United States. This book introduces us to Hancock; I wish that there had been more exploration of his character and more detail in a number of the chapters. But for those who want to learn more about "Hancock the Superb," this is a good starting point.



4. This book does a good job in painting Winfield Scott Hancock as this perfect general, great human being, and fair politican while tearing down those (U.S. Grant for example) who opposed Hancock. In this biography, Hancock always comes out as a honorable family man who put duty to his country first and at the same time this book shows how kind and considerate Hancock was to friends and strangers alike. However, a closer examination of the man reveals that Hancock was flawed. What upsets me the most about this book is David M. Jordan ALWAYS find a way to excuse/pardon Hancock's behavior. Jordan does a great disservice to readers when he refuses to deal with legitimate criticisms of Hancock.
   
   Let's deal with one of those criticims: Reconstruction. Hancock believed in state's rights but his noninterference in a time of great racial strife shows a man who allowed his personal feelings and not duty to his nation, get in the way of him doing his job. Let's be honest...Hancock was a racist, as most white men of the 19th century were. However, most white generals (Grant, Howard, Thomas and even Sherman) regardless of how they felt about blacks, understood that Reconstruction must work for the good of the country. It has been said and proven that Hancock's behavior not only help prolonged Civil Rights in the South for another 100 years, but that his policies helped foster the rise of the KKK. Jordan refuses to admit or examine that this is one of the reasons why U.S Grant removed him from the South because simply put...Hancock was NOT doing his job.
   
   I understand Hancock was a man of his time, but David Jordan should be honest in admitting how Hancock's policies (good or bad) affected the people of Louisiana and Texas and why others took offense to them. Jordan is so determine to paint Hancock as this great man who did no wrong, it begs the question about Jordan's motives.
   
   Mr. Jordan, it is true that Hancock was obviously a great man, but he was flawed. Tell the whole truth is all I am saying....



5. This highly readable account of Winfield Hancock's life does not disappoint. Never commanding a Union Army on his own, Hancock emerges from the Civil War one of the most accomplished, most successful of all Union battlefield commanders. His performance at Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor and Petersburg earned him the sobriquet McClelland bestowed upon him early in the war during the Peninsula Campaign, "Hancock the Superb". Simply stated, he was one of the most important commanders in the American Civil War.
   
   Jordan does a very credible job of tracing Hancock's origins from the Mexican and Civil Wars to his service in the Plains Indian Wars, his controversial reconstruction command at New Orleans and ultimately, his unsuccessful bid for the Presidency in the 1880 campaign. Combining broad strokes with an eye for interesting detail David Jordan delivers a biography of a most interesting personality whose life embodied a unique reflection of America's history for much of the nineteenth century.

5 comments about Grant Takes Command: 1863 - 1865.

1. A change in Focus--Grant takes the Reins

   Until 1864, the Army of the Potomac had never won a campaign. Each Union attempt to capture Richmond drove south, was repulsed, withdrew to Washington, found a new general, and tried again. After his successes at Vicksburg and Chattanooga, Grant came east to a promotion, to general in charge of all Union Armies.

   Grant brought a different focus, and Catton defines this superbly in this book, drawing on many of Grant's memoranda to other officers, as well as President Lincoln. Catton captures the essence of a Grant campaign: hold on to the enemy, grasp and retain the initiative, and always move your logistics aggresively forward.

   Catton also tries, albeit weakley, to show that Grant was not a "pure" attritionist. He offers examples of Grant's desires to push west and sever Richmond from the Shenandoah. Catton explores the political reality of uncovering Washington to a Confederate thrust, while attacking the logistics that sustained Confederate armies, while Sherman simultaneously attacked Atlanta and its strategic railhead. Catton states that after the battle of Cold Harbor Ggrant's numerical superiority was at its lowest level, but he does not provide the hard math to support this stance. On the other hand, Catton shows well the manuever warfare used by Grant to slip away after Cold Harbor, steal a march, and get across the James River before Lee, stripped of his cavalry, could discover the move and react.

   This book does a very solid job of capturing Grant's determination, his unyielding efforts to impose his will on the leaders and staff of the Army of the Potomac, and to integrate the political realities of volunteers, political appointee generals and a presidential election with the cold hard reality of constant campaigning.

   A good read not just for students of the martial art, but for any leader who must address the Sisyphean task of invigorating old "we've always done it that way" people with a new ethos and drive.




2. This is a well-researched account of the last two years of the Civil War (1863-1865). The harsh realities of the battles and living conditions are especially given great detail here. The final days of the war and the surrender of General Lee are extremely poignant as the author examines the tattered remains of the once invincible Army of Northern Virginia. The exchange between the victors and the vanquished at Appomattox is the highlight of the book. The author also takes pains not to overlook any of Grant's military blunders such as Cold Harbor and gives an even-handed viewpoint throughout. I recommend this book for anyone who is interested in the darkest days of our nation's history.



3. In this superb second volume on Grant's war-time service, Bruce Catton shows how Grant devised and executed the grand strategy that ensured we'd be one country.

   Beginning at Chattanooga, Catton chronicles Grant's successful battle to save a beleaguered federal army there and his selection as head of all of the armies of the Union.

   The strategic plan, the overland campaign, the investiture of Petersburg and the finale with Lee at Appomattox are chronicled well.

   What Catton does very well here is focus on Grant the General-in-Chief. We see how Lincoln and Grant are drawn toward each other through a shared and fundamental understanding of what it would take to win the war and the will to do it -- incredibly a trait Lincoln could find in no other General selected to head the Army of the Potomac.

   The actual management of the Union's armies and efforts is given great attention. Even the Civil War devotee who knows a lot about the battles of the war will appreciate this focus on grand strategy, army management and the particular and singular attributes possessed by Grant to manage the affair to a successful conclusion.

   A wonderful book, as is it's predecessor, "Grant Moves South."




4. "Grant Takes Command" is the second of two volumes by Bruce Catton on Grant's Civil War service and the third volume of a trilogy on Grant's military career (beginning with Lloyd Lewis's "Captain Sam Grant"). However, this volume can easily be ready by itself. Catton picks up the story in the fall of 1863 with Grant's successful raising of the siege of Chanttanooga, following which President Lincoln picks him for a third star and command of all the Union armies.
   
   Grant is the latest in a long series of Union commanders, most of whom have been badly beaten by General Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia, and none of whom have been able to bring superior Northern resources effectively to bear on a slowly weakening Confederacy. In fact, as Grant takes command, the war has not yet been won and could still be lost.
   
   Grant will be the commander that Lincoln has long sought. Lincoln's telling exchange with an aide, repeated by Catton, lays out why. Grant is the first general to take the supreme command who will work in harness with Lincoln and in full acceptance of Lincoln's constraints as President of a democracy in the midst of a civil war. Grant is prepared to take full responsibility for the conduct of the missions of the armies, and without setting up an alibi in advance for possible failure. And as it becomes apparent in the course of Catton's absolutely superb narrative, Grant understands the terrible math. Lee and his army are too proficient to be easily beaten; great persistance will be called for. Grant grasps the essential truth that Lee's army is the Confederate center of gravity, and the corallary that Lee's requirement to protect Richmond ultimately limits his ability to maneuver. Further, Grant is able to cause the Union armies to work at a common design, denying Lee the ability to reinforce Virginia by drawing on other theaters of war. The result will be a long, grinding, and exceedingly bloody campaign stretching from 1864 into 1865, as Lee's army is slowly bludgeoned to death.
   
   Catton's narrative does not spare Grant his errors; in the 1864 campaign, Grant underestimates both Lee's abilities as a general and the difficulties of conducting campaigns on such a huge scale. Grant has to learn the job of Army commander in chief on the move; the unnecessary casualties of Cold Harbor and the repeated failures to flank Lee out of position in Virginia are proof of the learning curve. But Grant's great gift is his refusal to be deterred from his objective; he pins Lee at Petersburg and uses the Union armies of Sherman and Sheridan, among others, to destroy the Confederacy's means to make war.
   
   "Grant Takes Command" was first published in 1960, and the details of the history of the Civil War have evolved since then. However, Catton's prose has stood the test of time. This is a truly magnificently told story on an epic scale and a highly recommended treat for the Civil War enthusiast and the casual reader alike.



5. It is almost amazing that even after nearly 40 years, this book still stand the test of time as one of the best studies of General U.S. Grant's tenure as the military commander of all Federal forces. The book starts off from the Chattanooga campaign in late 1863 and moving on to his promotion as overall commander and his attachment to the Army of the Potomac for the rest of the war. By this move he clearly determined that General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia will be his primary target and a key to overall victory for the Union. Bruce Catton does a wonderful job in narrating each event in a clear and colorful way that make this book a joy to read.
   
   Best part of Catton's writing is the way he make individual characters stand out in a way that most pertaining to the event at hand. We understand how Lincoln and Grant bonded so well, how even Meade and Grant worked well on surface and why Grant kept his eye on the ball when grinding Lee down to earth.
   
   This book is a follow-up to Catton's earlier work, Grant Moves South which was published 7 years prior to this book and captured Grant's military activities from the beginning of the war to end of the Vicksburg campaign in 1863. As part of the two book set, Bruce Catton continued to captured the essence of Grant's military chronicles with clarity and understanding that any reader can appreciate.
   
   For anyone interested in the American Civil War, this book is sure to be part of your mandatory reading material and the best part is that its really is a great reading book.

No comments about In Excess: Studies in Saturated Phenomena.

5 comments about 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and the War They Failed to See.

1. Why 1858? I found myself asking that question repeatedly the entire time I was reading this book. What made 1858 THE year to look at in regards to the coming of the Civil War. Author Bruce Chadwick tries (largely unsuccessfully, in my opinion) to argue that 1858 was the year slavery became THE main issue facing the United States and events which occurred in 1858 played a large role in bringing about the war. In his Foreword, Chadwick tells the reader he will attempt to accomplish this by weaving together seven stories of people and events, linking these disparate stories together with looks into James Buchanan's "spectacular failure" as President.
   
   1858 weaves together seven stories all (loosely) tied together by Buchanan's Presidency. These stories are, in no particular order:
   
   1. Jefferson Davis
   2. Robert E. Lee
   3. William T. Sherman
   4. The Oberlin-Wellington Slave Rescue
   5. William H. Seward
   6. John Brown
   7. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates
   
   At first, I was intrigued by the author's decision to abandon a traditional narrative and use what I thought would be an interesting change of pace. The idea works better in theory than in the pages of 1858, however. Stories are broken up into different chapters with little regard for continuity or chronological order. For readers new to the subject, this may very well be misleading as far as a time line of these events goes.
   
   As I stated in my introduction, my main and overriding question while reading the entire book was "Why 1858? What makes this year so special?" Unfortunately, although the author does claim he chose 1858 because it was THE year slavery became the overriding issue facing the United States, he doesn't give nearly enough reason WHY, and thus doesn't really answer my question. In essence, he argues FOR 1858, but he really gives no arguments AGAINST other years. To me, slavery had been THE issue for quite some time. A post concerning the Compromise of 1850 at Elektratig shows that slavery was very much at the forefront of the country's concerns as the 1850s opened, and that the Civil War may well have started a decade earlier had the Compromise of 1850 not happened. I can agree with the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the Oberlin-Wellington Slave rescue as two MAJOR events involving slavery and an acceleration towards war. However, other events outside of this year, especially John Brown's Harpers Ferry Raid in 1859 and obviously the Presidential Election of 1860 were major events which did much to hasten the Civil War. Chadwick does argue that the seeds were sewn for these events in 1858. He stresses that John Brown's raid into Missouri and successful escape with slaves into Canada in 1858 and the Lincoln-Douglas debates led to these other events. That may be true, but the MAIN events happened in years other than 1858. Without belaboring the point too much, I believe you simply cannot make a strong case that 1858 was any more important than many other years in causing the Civil War or having slavery become THE issue facing the country. Chadwick's failure too largely explain WHY or argue against other years only drives home the point for me.
   
   To me, deciding to include William T. Sherman was an odd choice other than to allow the author/publisher to get Ulysses S. Grant's name into the subtitle of the book. Grant is barely mentioned, and Sherman had hardly anything to do with the author's assertion that 1858 was the year slavery became the most important issue in the country. The only reason I can see to include Sherman is to show an example of a Northerner who had no strong feelings towards slavery, much like Robert E. Lee was personally opposed to slavery as a Southerner. In reading the chapters covering Sherman, I was puzzled as to what purpose his antebellum life story served to the narrative as a whole.
   
   The subtitle of the book is especially puzzling to me. U.S. Grant is listed and he is barely mentioned in the book, pretty much only in relation to the Sherman portion of the story. Putting a famous figure into your title or subtitle only to barely mention them isn't going to win points with this reviewer. Another issue I have with the subtitle is "The War They Failed to See." Huh? Lincoln's "House Divided" speech is mentioned. So is Jefferson Davis' ascension in late 1858 as the leader of the Secession Movement. John Brown not only saw war coming, he was determined to start it himself! And lastly, Seward's "Irrepressible Conflict" speech is also stressed. It seems to me these men at least had an inkling that war was at the very least very possible if not imminent if some drastic steps were not taken with regards to slavery. I don't want to pin this on the author at all. Marketing sells books, and the subtitle screams MARKETING from a tall building. Blame the publisher here folks.
   
   If you have lasted this long, you might believe I hated 1858. This is definitely not so. My policy is to get the bad out of the way first and move on to the good. Let's start with the author's style. Bruce Chadwick is definitely a good storyteller. Despite some continuity issues in his narrative choice as mentioned earlier, I read this 300 page book in only two sittings. I could not put it down.
   
   Chadwick's chapters on the gross ineptitude of James Buchanan's Presidency were my favorite portions of the book. Rather than focus on the slavery issue and try to resolve it in some way, Buchanan instead completely ignored slavery when possible and blinded himself to the enormity of the problem the rest of the time. His "Don Quixote-ish schemes", as Chadwick calls them, to annex portions of Central and South America by any means possible while ignoring slavery was just one issue. In addition, Buchanan chose to fight petty feuds with two powerful men, Senator Stephen Douglas and newspaper editor John Forney, and these feuds were disastrous for the Democratic party in the elections of 1858 and the Presidential election of 1860. More than any other man, Buchanan had the power to slow or even prevent radical developments with regards to the slavery situation. Instead, says Chadwick, he did nothing while radicals on both sides led the nation to the brink of war.
   
   I was also pleasantly surprised with the bibliography and notes. Chadwick uses a nice number of endnotes, including 747 in exactly 300 pages of text. He did use quite a few secondary sources, but for what was obviously to me a "pop history" book aimed more at the masses than to deep readers, Chadwick also looked at the papers of many of those involved in the events of the year 1858 and around 90 newspapers published at the time. A serviceable index rounds out the book.
   
   Bruce Chadwick's 1858 sets out to prove that year was the year slavery became THE issue in the United States, but was rather unsuccessful in this regard. His arguments for 1858 as the year were sparse and his arguments against other years were non-existent. The story's continuity suffered somewhat as a result of some conscious choices on the author's part. Despite these flaws, 1858 is an enjoyable read aimed at the masses which I would be happy to recommend to readers new to the subject. Deep readers will find this material covered elsewhere in much greater detail.



2. Reads like a novel, but its pure history and gives a perspective on the Civil War which has been lacking. The war wasn't about slavery in the south, but more so about slavery in the new states of the west....



3. I have to admit that I can't quite place this book. I would say on the one hand I was disappointed because while it did a good job of portraying the year 1858 it could have just as easily been 1856 or 1860, both of which would have been more interesting. The book spent a lot of time focusing on personal rivalries to the detriment of painting the national picture. Also certain figures who would rise to prominence in the Civil War were given great exposure yet others were barely mentioned. (Like Grant)
   
   So all in all if you like the period, there are worse reads out there but I still think that James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom does a much better job at portraying the period.



4. 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and The War They Failed to See, Bruce Chadwick , Sourcebooks Inc., 355 pp., notes, bibliography, index, 2008, $24.95
   
   1858 offers clear and concise descriptions of key political and social events that shoved the states into rebellion and resistance. Adventurous and even compelling at times, 1858 moves the reader through twelve months of political and social turmoil. Chadwick explores not the mundane but the exceptional.
   
   Not familiar to most Civil War readers is Jefferson Davis' 1858 visit to Maine in order to recuperate from herpes and build a coalition of Northern Democrats in a bid to establish a presidential candidacy in 1860. The Southern press pilloried him to the point that when he returned he retracted his statements. Ironically, these retractions put him into a position where he would be offered a presidency in 1861, that of the Confederate States of America.
   
   In one six page chapter, Chadwick offers a cogent and balanced description of the Dred Scott Decision, one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court event in U.S. history. His ability to put into place the origins, personalities, issues, and outcomes of this event is exceptional. As a Advance Placement U.S. History test reader, CWL reflected that this chapter would be a fine contribution to student resources.
   
   Though CWL is quite familiar with the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Oberlin Ohio Rescue and John Brown's escape with slaves from Missouri to Canada, Chadwick offers the essentials in a manner that captures the excitement and underscores their place in bringing the states to the brink of rebellion in 1860. After reading 1858, Civil War buffs may have a new appreciation for the events leading to the Secession Winter of 1860-1861. Some readers may need to keep in mind that all soldiers in the ranks had lived through and had argued over the events of 1858.
   
   Though a Pennsylvanian, CWL has not be able to work up any enthusiasm for James Buchanan, 15th president of the United States. Chadwick's 1858 covers the Buchanan presidency in nine chapters that fall between chapters on Davis, Lee, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Oberlin Rescue, Seward's Irrepressible Conflict speech, and John Brown's rescue of slaves from Missouri. Read consecutively the Buchanan White House chapters make the case for this Northern Democrat holding Southern Democrats' interest higher than his own section and possibly allowing the conflict to become truly irrepressible.
   
   Some quibbles: The subtitle is unclear; nine of 17 chapters deal with the Buchanan White House, two deal with Lincoln and Douglas, and single chapters deal with Lee, Davis, Seward, Sherman, The Dred Scott Decision, John Brown's Raid on Missouri and the Slaveholder's raid on Nicaragua. Mysteriously, U.S. Grant is mentioned only on four pages in the book but is in the subtitle. Buchanan has nine chapters but has no mention in the title at all.
   
   CWL suggests that the subtitle be changed for the paperback edition: 1858--The Year the Civil War Became Inevitable for Davis, Lee, Douglas, Lincoln, Seward, Sherman and John Brown. Or 1858--Blood Before The Civil War's Dawn: The Men Who Pulled the Trigger on the War.
   
   Chadwick assumes the reader has no detailed understanding of the period; 1858 is written for the general audience. For the paperback edition, a chronology for the year should be added as well as a brief chronology of the 1846-1860 era. A list of characters would also be helpful for the general audience. Also, the index needs some attention. The entry--Forney, John--lists 6 pages with three subtopics. John Forney has a whole chapter, Number Nine, pages 135-140 but these pages are not listed under the entry--Forney, John--in the index. Some proofreading needs to be done. Notes 159, 160 and 161 are the same font size as the text font; these note number should be the superscript font size, just like the other 744 notes.



5. I will confess straight away that I have not read the book, but I find the title so misleading that I feel compelled to comment. None of these figures 'failed to see' that the Civil War was a great threat and possibly inevitable. See The Impending Crisis by David Potter, The Road to Disunion by Freehing, or Michael Holt's books.

4 comments about George Thomas: Virginian for the Union (Campaigns and Commanders).

1. General George H. Thomas was a Southern born Union officer who commanded the outstanding Army of the Cumberland and he was one of the great generals of the American Civil War. In military circles he will forever be known as "The Rock of Chickamauga". However today, for a number of reasons, he is relatively unknown to the American public.
   
   Any author writing a biography of George Thomas is faced with a major hurdle in that most of Thomas' private papers were burned at his request when he died, and the fact that he died suddenly of a stoke soon after the Civil War which left no chance for a memoir. The author addressed these problems by relentlessly researching every collection of Thomas Papers available and reviewing as many private letters that he could. Other authors may have done this also, and used them to influence their writing, but Mr. Christopher Einolf has done more. He quotes from the Thomas letters giving the reader a glimpse of the real Thomas.
   
   The author uses an understated writing style that I think would have been appreciated by Thomas himself. He lets the facts speak for themselves in many cases and lets his readers draw their own conclusions. However he is not shy about sharing any new understanding of Thomas that he has reached. His description of how Thomas' attitude about blacks changed, from one of a conventional Virginia land owner to a real Civil Rights advocate and that this change came not so much as an evolutionary process but more of a `frame-break' moment after the Battle of Nashville when he saw for himself how well his black troops fought, gives us a new major insight into the man. This view came as a revelation for me as I never agreed with some early Thomas biographers who assumed Thomas had some innate goodness in him that would not allow him to treat blacks unequally. With his aristocratic Virginia upbringing, it did not make any sense. To me Mr. Einolf's analysis rings true.
   
   The author's battle descriptions and analyses are very good with the notable exception of the Battle of Chattanooga. He basically subscribes to the standard `miracle theory' or to luck, as he has the soldiers saying, for the great success at Missionary Ridge. He states that `military historians' say the artillery was badly placed, and that the Union soldiers could scurry up the ravines unseen by enemy soldiers. This may be true, but the author misses the point that the prime factor in winning the battle was the effort of General Joseph Hooker and the fact that Thomas delayed his attack as long as he could to allow Hooker time to flank the ridge from Lookout Mountain. Confederate veterans on high ground and in good defensive positions would ordinarily not have been worried about any Federal charge, but with the added knowledge that a Union Corps was marching across their line of retreat, they decided it was time to skedaddle. That aside, the author's description of Stones River, Chickamauga, Nashville and the other battles is very good and his conclusions are astute.
   
   Mr. Einolf's chapters on Thomas' post war actions and decisions during the occupation and the early reconstruction periods are given the detail they deserve. The author shows how Thomas had a unique perspective on the situation due to his being a Southern gentleman, a Unionist and knowing first hand the qualities of the black men who fought for their freedom. These two chapters really differentiate this book from other Thomas biographies.
   
   In his concluding chapter entitled "Thomas in Historical Memory" Mr. Einolf goes into the reasons for loss of Thomas' place in history. This makes for very interesting reading especially in what he has to say about the Southern Historical Society. While I personally think he is too mild with regard to Generals U. S. Grant and William T. Sherman in their treatment of General Thomas during the war and later in their memoirs which contributed to the loss of George Thomas in history, Mr. Einolf's opinion on this matter has merit.
   
   Overall this biography is excellent and a very creditable addition to the literature on the American Civil War.



2. Volume 13 of the "Campaigns and Commanders" series, George Thomas: Virginian for the Union is the in-depth biography of one of the Union's most prominent and successful generals, who was at one time considered for overall command of the Union Army. Remembered today as the "Rock of Chickamauga", George H. Thomas was a slaveholding Southerner who chose to fight for the North, and his experience with the heroism of black soldiers on the battlefield forever changed his view of African-Americans, transforming him into a defender of civil rights. While George Thomas: Virginian for the Union makes a solid case for Thomas' integrity and competence, neither are Thomas' flaws and ill decisions neglected. Notes, a bibliography, and an index enhance this evenhanded appraisal of a truly remarkable commander.



3. Anyone who is mildly interested in history should read this biography. Mr. Einolf has thoroughly researched George Thomas and while providing an extensive account of his life, he has managed to create a work that is entertaining. Civil War buffs should enjoy this work as it shares an interesting and valid view of loyalties to fellow man and country.



4. In reading about the Civil War, I was intrigued by the story of Union General George Henry Thomas. How fortunate that Christopher J. Einolf recently published George Thomas: Virginian for the Union. This book does much to introduce 21st Century readers to this once famous general who has pretty much dropped off the radar screen.
   
   The background of George Thomas is very similar to Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Coming from a prominent Virginia family, Thomas went to West Point, served in the Mexican and Indian Wars, and then taught at West Point. But unlike Lee, when the Civil War began, Thomas placed his oath to the Constitution above his loyalty to his family and his state and sided with the Union. He never saw his homestead or his sisters again.
   
   While both armies had more than a few eccentric characters in key leadership positions (think Grant, Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, McClellan, J.E.B. Stuart, etc.), Thomas proved to be one of the most steady, consistent but understated generals during the Civil War. His friend and West Point roommate, William Tecumseh Sherman said of Thomas that "He was never brilliant, but always cool, reliable, and steady--maybe a little slow." After the war, Sherman praised Thomas as "the second-best general of the war, after Grant, and argued that Thomas was a better general even than Robert E. Lee."
   His greatest successes were at the Battle of Chickamauga and the Battle of Nashville. His actions at Chickamauga helped to save the Union army from total annihilation and earned him the nickname, The Rock of Chickamauga. He finished the Civil War as the sixth highest ranking general in the Union army behind Grant, Sherman, Halleck, Mead and Sheridan.
   
   While I found George Thomas: Virginian for the Union to be engrossing, it's very long on military information and short on personal facts. The reasons for this are the same reasons that Thomas is not very well known today. First, he had all his personal papers burned upon his death and he rarely spoke to his colleagues about his personal life. He never published his memoirs, unlike many of the key players from the war. He also was the first general to die after the war at the young age of 53 (in 1870). Three friends wrote biographies of Thomas after his death and respected his wish for privacy. This book doesn't even contain a photograph of his wife, Frances. Frances was also a very private person, and they had no children. While I would have preferred more personal information, I can't hold it against Einolf is very little is available to researchers.
   But despite this shortcoming, George Thomas is still an excellent book and one that I would strongly recommend to others.