1 comments about The Dulanys of Welbourne : A Family in Mosby's Confederacy.

1. Although many volumes have been written on the notorious Dulanys of Welbourne, none that I have encountered match this work for clarity, completeness, and compunction.

   Ms. Vogtsberger's use of the Queen's English is nothing short of scintillating. This reader cannot gush enough - - history would not be complete without Ms. Vogtsberger's tantalizing exploration of the little known Dulaneys of Welbourne. A must!

No comments about William Howard Russell's Civil War: Private Diary and Letters, 1861-1862.

No comments about A Scalawag in Georgia: Richard Whiteley and the Politics of Reconstruction.

No comments about Man of Douglas, Man of Lincoln.

4 comments about Boots and Saddles: Or Life in Dakota With General Custer.

1. This is really a question insteadof a review. I have a copy of Boots and Saddles written by Elizabeth B. Custer. The copyright is 1885, by Harper & Brothers. The first page has a note wrote on it "To my friend Richard Dec 25th 1890 then a signature of the giver M L Malis ? Would you know anything about this particular book?



2. Althought the opinions of Custer and life with the calvary are viewed through (very) rosy glasses, Mrs. G.A. Custer is a witty and prolific writer. She also gives little-known insight into everyday happenings in life on the prairie and how women survived the journey. Particularly interesting are the dynamics of relationships between women when living literally in the middle of nowhere, surviving the harshest of climates, with few friends, the same friends, for extended times. Also interesting is the relationship between people of color and the white soldiers. Custer is an enigma, and readers should read this book but also others ("Son of the Morning Star" is the best thus far) to get a glimpse at the man. Libby Custer falls into poetic verse at times, but this can be refreshing - there are not many writings of women in these times available.



3. There are so few well written and personally lived books about the people of the northern great plains, but this is one of them. Mrs. Custer gives intimate details of life in the cavalry and the Dakotas of a time now gone.
   She tells of blizzards, heat, insects, dangers and people in a most readable way that draws the reader in. This is a special book that speaks to the plainsman's heart.



4. This is the first of three books George Armstrong Custer's widow Elizabeth Bacon Custer (EBC hereafter) wrote about her life with the General. It begins with Custer and the 7th being assigned to North Dakota, and ends with the expedition which led to the Battle of the Little Bighorn. EBC is a good writer within the limitations of the "style" of 1880s-1890s nonfiction. One has to allow for the fact that for her, G. A. Custer was the tallest, strongest, smartest, wittiest, bravest and most omnicompetent man alive. [It's worth pointing out that she often also describes all the troopers riding with Custer as "physically perfect, absolutely splendid specimens of manhood in its prime."] Also following the style of the period, EBC almost entirely omits the names of those she writes about. But otherwise her word-portrait of the life of an officer's wife in the utter desolation of the frontier forts during the Plains Indian Wars is effective, vivid and often moving.
   
   There are so many good stories here I don't want to spoil any by hinting at them. The most famous is EBC's account of "Old Nash," a Mexican laundress who earned several small fortunes with her expert sewing and tailoring, was much sought-after as a marriage partner despite her dark complexion and broad shoulders, and who turned out to be the best midwife around... despite....
   
   A few of the many things that impressed me with EBC's powers of observations--- When the great chiefs and warriors of the plains came to visit Custer, she noted that they (contrary to modern stereotype) were physically almost completely undeveloped, with geek-like pipestem arms... and she understood the reason: that males among the Plains indians did essentially no physical labor whatsoever. Another fine passage involves the relationship between Custer and his favorite indian scout, the famous Bloody Knife. According to EBC Bloody Knife was relentlessly sarcastic concerning the skills and abilities of white men, and Custer in particular. When on a hunting expedition with Custer, Bloody Knife would keep up a running narrative of belitting remarks concerning Custer's unfamiliarity with and incompetence with firearms. As soon as Custer got off a good shot, Bloody Knife would fall silent and express his admiration with a brief smile, which Custer obviously treasured far more than many sentences of insincere and overdone flattery. It reminds me a bit of a comment supposedly made by Wyatt Earp about his great friend Doc Holliday: "He can always make me laugh!"
   
   There is no gossip about Custer's notoriously poor relations with many of the other officers and men of the 7th Cavalry. EBC defends this by saying that Custer deliberately did not tell her of feuds and enemies, because he wanted her as hostess to treat all members of the 7th with equal courtesy. However, this excuse is contradicted within the book by extracts from letters written to her by Custer, which refer to feuds and enemies in ways that would have made no sense if EBC were not fully informed,
   
   Recommended for anyone curious about the life of Cavalry officers, troopers and their families on the "rim of empire" in the 1870s.

No comments about David Farragut and the Great Naval Blockade (History of the Civil War Series).

No comments about Brave Men in Desperate Times: The Lives of Civil War Soldiers.

1 comments about Shadows on My Heart: The Civil War Diary of Lucy Rebecca Buck of Virginia (Southern Voices from the Past).

1. This book is a good source for those interested in the life of the average antebellum/civil war girl. Although she lives on a plantation (her father owns about 8 slaves) she does not hold the same social status of other well read diarists (i.e. Mary Chestnut and Sarah Morgan). A careful read of this diary will cause many to change their outlook on 19th century women.

4 comments about Little Mac : Demise of an American Hero.

1. This is a radical break from current ACW historiography, going beyond the standard lip service that McClellan was a great organizer, popular with the troops, etc. Ridgway presents the case (once better known in America) that McClellan mattered profoundly and that his dismissal by the Lincoln Administration was a national tragedy. This is the McClellan as millions knew him during the war, the Little Mac that the historical record continues to validate. The style of the book is easy, even popular; the writing is very good; and both general and specialist readers will have trouble laying the book down. For those new to the ACW, this is a great place to meet one of America's outstanding personalities. Older ACW buffs will recognize strains of the great Warren Hassler in Ridgway's project. Very exciting, highly recommended.



2. He was charismatic, a natural born leader graduating second in his class at West Point, and at the height of his fame during this countries darkest moment. So why is George B. McClellan so poorly regarded today? After all, as author James M. Ridgway, Jr. conveys in his newest book, Little Mac: Demise of an American Hero, McClellan was extremely well educated, superbly trained, experienced, and absolutely revered officer. It was common knowledge that McClellan was adored by his troops, a known steadfast patriot, and after the war remained so popular as to be decisively elected governor of New Jersey. Nonetheless, most historians have chosen to regard such a man with sarcastic disdain; so much so, that, as Ridgway points out in his Introduction, that at the end of the twentieth century, McClellan is often defined by a few choice Lincoln phrases - "he has the slows," and "he will not fight." What Ridgway offers in this revisionist study is a fresh landscape of facts from which the reader can make his own interpretation of George McCellan's worth as a military leader. Author Jim Ridgway, a Civil War Round Table veteran whose passionate interest in the Civil War narrates a powerful a story that shreds the radical Republican view of the general as propagated by such renowned writers as Stephen W. Sears. Ridgway's work illustrates how McClellan's stalwart reputation was crushed by a unique combination of circumstances. He bases his conflicting premise on the actions of a conniving political enemy in Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton and McClellan's refusal to play the political game of the time. The actions of radical Republicans like Stanton coupled with the ascension of Lincoln as America's principal political icon, is what Ridgway proclaims conspired to insure the historical demise of one of America's greatest generals. George McClellan was an undeniably clever young general who believed that the easiest way to the Confederate capital of Richmond was from the east. However, his approach would take his army out of a position to protect Washington and many senior Union officials, to include Stanton, began to wonder if McClellan meant to give the Rebels the capital. In fact, Ridgway correctly points out that McClellan was in no position to act bold or rash for many reasons. For instance, his confederate nemesis, Robert E. Lee, had the advantage of studying northern newspapers where McClellan movements and intentions were brandished by the general's opponents and any act out of the norm would have easily given the South the edge. Another argument Ridgway convincingly makes is that if McClellan had received the necessary backing from the Republican radicals hat Lee had with his government, then he would have had the required resources to decisively defeat the confederates in Richmond, leaving no doubt to his allegiance. More importantly, his so-called demise would not have occurred. Less than a year after offensive campaign to the confederate capital McClellan was labeled as timid and slow and was subsequently pulled from the Peninsula battles. Subsequently, the Union inability to prevent a confederate escape after the bloody Battle of Antietam causing Lincoln to lose faith in the general. In the end, Ridgway's conclusion is that the Republican propaganda machine of the 1860s spun discredit on McClellan. Only a handful of books have dared to buck the massive anti-McClellan tide and to tell the general's side of the story. McClellan himself tried to clear his name, but the account he wrote was fatefully destroyed in an 1881 fire and then any further attempt was thwarted by his unexpected death in 1885. While General George McClellan's reputation stands the scrutiny of time, Ridgway's Little Mac: Demise of an American Hero provides a contradictory glimpse of the general and his worth as a military leader.



3. Ridgway's essay on McClellan suffers from two serious deficiencies that are unrelated to its theme. First, it is poorly written and edited. Second, it is in form neither fish nor fowl, trying on the the one hand to avoid academic formalism by not utilizing footnotes and giving incomplete references, while on the other hand "lowballing" its intended audience -- presumably avid amateurs and professional military historians -- by oversimplifying the conventional view of McClellan it seeks to debunk. The combined effects of slangy prose and loosely constructed narrative combine to give the book a panegyric tone that weakens the merits of the case -- there are merits -- that Ridgway is trying to make. He would have been better served carefully studying (and emulating) Thomas Connelly's de-bunking of the Lee myth in the latter's estimable "The Marble Man", a passionately argued piece that nonetheless observes form and respects the sophistication of its audience.



4. I checked in to see how other's felt about this book, and figured that I might as well add my 2 cents. Had I known at the time that I read this book that I was going to write a review, I would have taken better notes.
   
   First, let me say that I agree with the reveiwer who stated that the editing was not the greatest. In addition, the lack of foot notes in inexcusable, and actually detract from the strength of points that he is trying to argue. In many ways, this book is actually a book report on Sears' 'To The Gates of Richmond'.
   
   Having already read that one, as well as Sears' 'Landscape Turned Red' I found myself referring to them again and again as I read this book. It really is interesting to note how the same information can be used to underscore two totally differnet opinions.
   
   Several desrepencies arise bewteen Sears and Ridgeway, most notably the size of the two forces involved in several of the battles, well as the timimg of significant events: When did McClellan first learn that the Battle of Williamsburg had started, and how long did it take him to get to the front... Did he get there 'at about the time' Hancock was repulsing Early and after the 'day no longer needed saving' as Sears writes, or did he get there in time to throw additional forces into the counter-attack thereby bring 'unity and purpose to the situation' as Ridgeway would have you believe.
   
   In addition, Ridgeway would want the reader to believe that with all of his training and education, McClellan was THE model general. He states that Sears is out of line by questioning the fact that McClellan was never anywhere close to the actual fighting, stating that as commanding general, McClellan's role was to formulate a broad plan of battle and then let his lieutenants do the fighting. While in theory Ridgeway is correct, one has to question some of McClellan's reasoning.
   
   For instance McClellan rushes to the front at Williamsburg to see what is happening and to help out, yet at Antietam, while Burnside is floundering at the bridge, he stays put and only sends orders. This makes no sense. Speaking of Antietam, this is probably the biggest dissappointment of the whole book. It takes Ridgeway a mere 4 pages to recap the action from Hooker's early morning assault to AP Hill's repulse of Burnside's troops... FOUR pages.... After micro analyzing every battle, including South Mountain, Ridgeway's brushing off of Antietam makes you wonder whether he couldn't come up with anything good to say about McClellan's involvement on Sept 17th, 1862..
   
   The book is not all bad however. Ridgeway's analogies to subsequent battles, wars, and commanders are interesting, and the book does indeed cause the reader to rethink alot of what has been writen about McClellan.

2 comments about The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, Volume 9: July 7 - December 31, 1863 (U S Grant Papers).

1. "The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant" is a project begun in 1962 for the purpose of publishing all the known letters written by Ulysses S. Grant. Volume one was published in 1967 and there are now twenty-four volumes in the series. People who follow Grant's career are aware of the inestimable value of this project. The Papers contain all known correspondence written by Grant and letters received by him. The editing of the series is unparalleled and the volumes represent primary source material at its apex.

   Those who believe Grant was a "drunkard" or a "butcher" should read his own words, which show Grant's humor, pathos and unique personality. Masterfully edited by John Y. Simon, these volumes are a "must have" for anyone with an interest in U.S. Grant as a general, a politician and as a man




2. The twenty-six (and counting!) volumes comprising all the known extant writings of Ulysses Grant are indeed a remarkable example of published primary source material. While every volume contains much material that is admittedly of trivial importance to even the most rabid Grant scholar, each book in this series also contains fascinating nuggets of information not found anywhere else. Anyone with even a casual interest in USG is sure to discover something worth reading in every volume. In gathering together not only all of Grant's known correspondence, but relevant peripheral documents, the editors of this series are doing a truly Herculean job and deserve great commendation.
   
   I have only a few quibbles with the series. The first involves something over which the editors had no control. I refer to the fact that, in the first few volumes (particularly Volume One,) Grant's descendants insisted that certain passages in Grant's letters to his fiancee-turned-wife Julia Dent that had been crossed out (either by Julia or other family members) not be published. This idiotic decision is not only extremely frustrating for the reader, but, ironically, damaging to Grant himself. By all accounts, the deleted passages contain nothing that could be considered detrimental to Grant's good name, but by leaving them out, these descendants unwittingly gave the impression that there was something to hide. Hopefully, in an "Appendix" volume at the end of the series, the editors will be sporting enough to include whatever deleted passages can be transcribed, and the series will at last be considered complete.
   
   My other complaints about this series are more minor. While each volume contains copious, and frequently illuminating, footnotes, the editors occasionally fail to provide enough context. That is to say, a brief, undetailed letter of Grant's will frequently be followed by several pages of footnotes providing other letters and documents on the same subject, without giving much information explaining what, exactly, it all meant. The reader who is not already fully informed on the subject being addressed is sometimes left feeling confused about what exactly is being discussed, and what its relevance may have been.
   
   Another drawback is, simply, the price. While these books are certainly handsomely--and obviously expensively--printed and bound, those of us who study history as a hobby rather than as a profession could wish for editions that were more cheaply done, and thus more affordable. Unless you are fortunate enough to have access to a good academic library, these extremely expensive (even when you buy second-hand) volumes are simply out-of-reach for many people. That's a great pity, because in these books is an "insider's view" of Grant that does not fully come across in any regular biography.