5 comments about She Went to the Field: Women Soldiers of the Civil War.

1. For general readers and Civil War buffs alike, this book brings a new understanding of the valiant women who served in both Union and Confederate armies during the war. These ladies were the heroic forerunners of the women soldiers who serve so well today. Well written, researched in depth,thoroughly documented and easy reading. A worthy addition to Civil War literature.



2. I already wrote a review on 12 September. Saw it once and then it was gone. What happened?



3. I found this book when I was doing research for my Civil War History class. It was pretty much the only book that I could find about women during the Civil War pertaining to soldiers, nurses, etc. Its an excellent book. Provides alot about many of the women in the book. Tsui is very honest about how she writes and gives a great deal of detail about the women she writes about.



4. I have been researching women soldiers in the Civil War for five years now, and feel that I am quite qualified to write that this book is below par. Bonnie Tsui repeats what has been written in several other books, not revealing any new information about these remarkable women. She over-uses DeAnne Blanton and Lauren Cooke Burgess's excellent They Fought Like Demons, and I felt that Tsui only became interested in this topic because of that book. I also felt that Tsui wouldn't have gotten this book published had she not graduated from Harvard and had the resulting "connections."



5. I surmise that the only real reviews are the two most recent since the first two are from readers who only reviewed this book and have no other reviews, and left them within 24 hours. The third is simply a repeat.
   
   I'm inclined to believe the 1-star review, based on what I've read in the book myself. Had to put it down after only 20 pages. Covers nothing new, though I'm sure it's useful for book reports.

2 comments about At Peace With Honor: The Civil War Burials of Laurel Hill Cemetery Philadephia, Pennsylvania.

1. Laurel Hill Cemetery has always fascinated me, and I was VERY pleased to find that there was a book printed about the importance of some of the notables buried there. I hope that in the future there will be more books written about this wonderful Philadelphian monument that should NEVER be forgotten.



2. I enjoyed the book. The bios are not long but provide a reasonable amount of information about each veteran. The photographs are clear.
   
   But I have some negatives, I think the title should have been "At Peace With Honor: Notable Civil War Burials of Laurel Hill Cemetery Philadelphia, Pennsylvania". I was expecting to see a list of all the Civil War Veterans buried at that cemetery. I was also disappointed to see some veterans listed without noting their regiment, how did the author know they were veterans?
   
   BTW: Amazon should hire someone that knows how to spell "Philadelphia"

No comments about Black Congressmen During Reconstruction: A Documentary Sourcebook.

No comments about John Letcher of Virginia: The Story of Virginia's Civil War Governor.

3 comments about The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic.

1. Banning's book is a repetative, prolonged and far too lengthy an essay. He imaginatively and masterfully reinteprets Madison's ideas and actions as a member of several deliberative bodies that preceeded and followed the writing and ratification of the Constitution, finding him to be consistent throughout in his views on a central government and the powers of the states. The reading can be somewhat tedious for its redundancies, but worth the effort. Bannings scholarship is impecable, yet the book ought to be only an article in a scholarly journal.



2. Lance Bannings book is excellent, and long ovedue. History has left us a view of Madison that suggested he was Jefferson's lieutenant, an apostate to his nationilistic views in the 1790's, one view even diminished him to a 'trimmer' of ideas. The average person knows little of the Father of the Constituion, and as Jack Rakove stated at Princeton this February passed, we are learning what Madison always knew. Most views of Madison are not the result of individual study and research, many opinions of Madison arise from previous treatments. Banning began with the exchanges of Madison and found the consistency Madison always claimed. The actual history of Madison reveals an enormously capacious, hard working force behind the Constituion, Bill of Rights,The Federalist Papers, 41 years of public service, and the workings and definition of goverment. Viewed by friend and political foes as, brilliant and ' one adept at committee work and reasoned argument, one who could be depended on to speak and write with precision and force what others could express but vauely and in part.' Banning has surpassed those before him in Madisonian scholarship, by ardously discovering The Real Madison. The attention to detail is excellent, and the scholarship is not self defending just revealing. As Madison's true nature unfolds the consistency is revealed, from lieutenant to an independent thinker, and finally to the proper position of one the key thinkers behind American government. Being one dependent on scholars for my view of history, and granting then occaisonally the keepers of arcanum a merit they do not deserve, it is refreshing to have Lance Bannings contribution not only to Madisonian scholarship, but also to American History. The ongoing efforts by Dave Mattern and the Papers of James Madison have brought enormous information to light in the last few years, and it appears the work of Banning may be the beginning of Madison taking his deserved place in our history and common parlance, a parlance altered by the independent and ardous study this book represents.



3. Lance Banning passed away on Jan. 31 of this year. When I learned this I decided to change the focus of my review a little.
   First, what do I mean by the hermeneutics of generosity? By hermeneutics I mean a scheme or method of interpretation. An intellectual biographer who uses a hermeneutics of generosity starts off with certain assumptions. Everything people do they do for reasons. From the point of view of the biographical subject they are always good reasons.
   If you believe your subject to be a person of exacting moral standards and exceptional intelligence, then you assume that everything they have done can be back up by compelling arguments that have been long considered.
   This style of hermeneutics is obvious in two ways in Banning's work. Obviously, in the way he approaches Madison. But the first thing I want to talk about is the way Banning reacts to other scholars. His notes are extraordinary. Banning read everyone who had written on Madison and located his interpretations in relation to that of others. He not only carefully explains the differences between his interpretations and those of others (e.g., Martin Diamond, Gordon Woods, Paul Rahe and Jennifer Nedelsky among others) but he also points out the strengths of their alternatives. This was a man who knew how to listen to his sources and not just to one up them.
   But it is really in regard to James Madison that Banning's approach shines through in all its humanity. Banning believes that there is a standard version of Madion's intellectual biography that is largely wrong. That standard version is based on the biographies of Irving Brant and Ralph Ketcham and the intellectual histories of Gordon Woods and Martin Diamond. In the standard version, James Madison (JM) started off as a strong nationalist in the early 1780s. He was part of the movement at that time to modify the Articles or to change them completely. JM's method of constitutional interpretation at that time is usually considered to have been expansive or willing to loosely construe the document so as to justify non-explicit central government powers (e.g., Morris' national bank).
   JM's nationalistic period continued all the way through his work at the Constitutional Convention, the writing of The Federalist and his first year in the new Congress. However, when Hamilton's economic programs began to unfold during the second and third terms of Congress, JM began to backpedal on his nationalism and his expansive constructionism. By the mid-1790s, JM is usually seen as a strict constructionist and a states rights theorist who would remain so all his life. Thus the standard version gives us two Madisons, who can only be connected by various versions of the Madison as practical or conniving politician who changed his stripes due to the political winds of the moment.
   Banning will have none of this. He believes the standard version misrepresents all aspects of JM's career. Banning believes that if we take JM's writings throughout his life seriously, then he clearly see a very consistent thinker whose whole career is centered around the dynamic problem of how to ground government on the people without being exposed to the inconveniences or "excesses" of democratic rule. I will limit my discussion of Banning's revisionism (his term) to his interpretation of two aspects of JM's career that are essential to his argument.
   The first is JM's career in the Continental Congress of the early 1780s. The democratic excesses were showing up in the Confederation period in the behavior of the states.
   Banning shows that in the early 1780s that JM was indeed a nationalist but a qualified one. JM read the national scene from the point of view of Virginia and from his understanding of revolutionary politics. Any national measure that wasn't good for Virginia was unlikely to be favored by JM. As for the Conferderation, the problem was the weakness of the federal Union. If the structural flaws of the Articles could be amended, the misbehavior of the states could be controlled. Thus, at this point in his career, Madison was not part of the movement that wanted to jettison the Articles. He merely wanted to amend them to make implicit powers explicit. That point is very important. Banning argues forcefully from JM's writings that even at this point, JM was a strict constructionist. So the standard version is wrong in two ways about the early Madison.
   The other central moment in Banning's revision is the aftermath of the Constitutional Convention, especially, the writing of The Federalist. This is usually seen as one of the strongest arguments for the standard view. It is well known that Madison expressed dismay after the Convention about the prospects for the longevity of the new government should it be ratified. He was upset that his suggestion for a national veto of the laws of the individual states had not been written into the finished document. He also was dismayed that the representation in the Senate was equal for each state. He thought this repeated a fundamental flaw in the Articles.
   And yet, within two months, JM was well into writing The Federalist where he explicitly agreed with both of these decisions by the Convention. Most readers, including myself, find this to be a little disingenuous on Madison's part. But for Banning, this was indicative of JM having changed his mind. According to Banning, during the course of reflecting on the work of the Convention and of writing The Federalist, JM must have realized that his opponents in the Convention had compelling reasons for doing what they did and he therefore changed his mind. Banning states that anyone who has written out a long argument is familiar with changing their mind during the course of the writing. Fair enough.
   But this brings me to the two main issues that I had with Banning's whole thesis.
   As proof that JM accepted the counterarguments against his idea of a national government veto, Banning claims that JM never tried to push that idea again after his writing of The Federalist. In this, I think he can be shown to be, at least, partially wrong. When JM first introduced his Bill of Rights proposal to the first Congress, his fifth Amendment stated "No state shall violate the equal rights of conscious, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." It seems to me to be arguable that JM was trying to get through as much of a national veto as he thought possible. The theoretician was trimming his sails to the political winds. This is not a bad thing. Most any reasonable reformer will take what they can get.
   But it speaks to one of the central tensions in JM's thought and Banning's revisionism. JM obviously believed that any government, to be legitimate, had to be founded on the people. But he did not trust the people to behave, to not become a "factious" majority willing to strip the rights
   of some minority. As far as I can read, JM or Banning's version thereof never gives us a definition of what sets off a "factious" majority from a majority pursuing the true interests of the country. This is where Madison the politician enters. I often feel that JM, like Jefferson, was willing to take advantage of political changes and that they were more than willing to alter or bend their philosophies to do so. When they were out of power, it was easy to be consistent theorists. Once in power, it turned out that there were more things to deal with than dreamed of in their philosophies. Unlike Prof. Banning, I am okay with that. I do not feel that Banning succeeds in explaining away this tendency of JM's. I suggest that when you read this book that you keep a copy of the Library of America's edition of Madison's Writings near to hand. It contains most of the papers that JM wrote which Banning uses. Read each one before you read the corresponding section of Banning and see if you always agree with what Banning makes of that particular writing. I did not.
   Have I learned from the reading of this book? Yes, yes, O my yes. This is an extraordinarily learned book written with a generous and respectful scholastic spirit. Banning has changed much of how I read Madison if not as much as he might have wished. But the real pleasures of this book have to do as much with spending time with Lance Banning's intellect and spirit as those of JM.
   In fact, perhaps the highest compliment I can pay the author is that I think that James Madison would have found him a kindred spirit.
   One final note: the Liberty Fund is publishing a volume this summer edited by David Womersley entitled Liberty and American Experience in the Eighteenth Century. It will contain what is probably Banning's last publication- an article entitle, "Federalism, Constitutionalism, and Republican Liberty: The First Constructions of the Constitution". I plan to be among the first to read it. Do I have my geek on or what?

1 comments about Johnny Green of the Orphan Brigade: The Journal of a Confederate Soldier.

1. Johnny Green was one of the very few to survive nearly 3 years of hard fighting, living and dealing with the hardships of war. His regiment lost nearly all of its strength in two years while the remaining joined up with the Cavalry in late 1864 for the remainder of the war. Johnny Green brings firsthand accounts to the battles of Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, Atlanta and various skirmishes inside the Tennessee,Georgia and South Carolina regions. His writing is not the best nor is spelling and pronounciation superb though he manages to tell his story well. Many he times writes about the confusion, lack of food, foraging, sharpshooting and massive artillery bombardments that would make it unstandable as to why nearly nobody lived. He brings you to camp and makes you feel as if you are there with the soldiers on a daily basis. He expresses his thoughts about his fallen comrades and his dovotion to the Southern cause when he is captured by Union troops near Atlanta. This interesting, tragic, humorous and deadly tale is brought together in 207 pages and covers a lot the Orphan Brigade's life. Great photographs, renderings and maps are included to match those mentioned in the book like Colonels, Generals,etc. This book is a great source of information for those interested in reading about Kentuckians involved in western campaigns and also about a decimated brigade in the Civil War.

5 comments about Polk's Folly: An American Family History.

1. I was given this book as a birthday present six months ago. I did not read it at that time because I did not think I would be that interested in it. Boy was I wrong. Once I started reading I could not put the book down. The book truely brings to life the history of America in a very engaging and entertaining way. I recommend this book to anybody who is interested in history or those who just enjoy a good book.



2. I enjoyed most of this book, but found it inconsistent. Some parts extremely interesting - especially the portion on President Polk. For instance the White House was considered completely public, so he had difficulty working. Also, there was much insight into a little know president. Other parts were tedious, such as the older ancestors. All in all I thought it was an interesting way to portry history. The author used an extremely interesting and accomplished family to walk us through the decades and centuries.



3. I purchased Polk's Folly shortly after it first was published, but I didn't begin reading until recently. I have been surprised at how thoughts in diaries, letters, and other documents left by Polk ancestors are applicable today. For example, Leonidas Lafayette Polk (1837-1890) made sure that while conscription was initiated there would be a clause to protect conscientious objectors: "Liberty could not be preserved at the cost of personal freedom." and "The growing disparity of the rich and the poor was thus not only unjust but also profoundly antidemocratic."
   
   As a genealogist I am inspired to learn more about all of my ancestors, one of whom was a Polk. My common ancestors with those in this book are William Polk (1700-1753) and Margaret Taylor. The author presents details in history that I did not know. It's a very interesting saga.



4. I started reading this book because I had no alternative while on vacation. It is written by a relative of my son-in-law, and therefore the story is the history of my granddaughter's ancestors! Very cool to think about that! The book is basically a lesson in American history through the "eyes" of one family. Oh, and there's some Irish/Scottish/English history thrown in too. My connection to the family aside, I think it's a fascinating story.
   
   Linda



5. I was conducting research into the life of Leonidas Polk and bought Polk's Folly as the best reference to place Leonidas in the Polk family. I bought it for research and read it for enjoyment. If anyone plans to write a family history, acquire Polk's Folly as your guide. Granted, the Polk family is much more interesting than most, but William R. Polk has created a masterpiece. Reading it is like sitting on your grandfather's knee and hearing stories about the family. The only difference is that Dr. Polk is a scholar, who has conducted extensive research to support his stories. I highly recommend Polk's Folly. It is a great read and I would give it six stars, if available.

2 comments about Black Jack: John A. Logan and Southern Illinois in the Civil War Era (Shawnee Classics (Reprinted)).

1. "Black Jack" Logan was perhaps the best of the "political" generals of the Union army.
   His military service, from Forts Henry and Donelson, through Vicksburg and Atlanta and on to the Carolinas, demonstrated not only his own abilities and personal courage, but also was emblematic of the skilll and sacrifice of his "Egyptians" of southern Illinois generally. His political thought, too, illustrative of the times, reflected the shift in Illinois opinion from initial confusion and wavering, to near-solid support for Lincoln and his war policies.
   In conjunction with this very readable biography, the reader might be also be interested in "Reminiscences of a Soldier's Wife", Mrs. Logan's memoirs, which cannot be regarded as entirely reliable but which are a valuable adjunct to Jones' biography and give a colorful insight into the times.

   (The "score" rating is an ineradicable feature of the page. This reviewer does not 'score" books.)




2. 
   John Logan was considered one of the best "political generals" in the Union Army, rising in rank from a private at First Bull Run to general only a few months later while under U.S. Grant's command. Before the war he was a US Congressman representing southern Illinois (called "Egypt"); he was a Democrat and a major critic of Lincoln. By the end of the war Logan had switched parties and had won a surprising victory to Congress as a Republican. Although not a full biography (it ends with his return to Congress in 1867), Jones has written a workmanlike account of Logan's early life and political career, and especially his role in the army during the war.
   
   Logan was born in Illinois in 1826, fought in the Mexican War, and began practicing law by 1851. A staunch Democrat (southern Illinois, his district, was rural, Democratic, and Southern in sympathy), he was elected to the Illinois legislature in 1852. He served a number of terms before being elected to Congress in 1858. An anti-abolitionist, he felt much of the troubles facing the nation in 1860 was caused by "the impertinent spirit of the anti-slavery party of the North." But he believed in the preservation of the Union above all things, and when war broke out he was among the first to heed the call to arms.
   
   He was with Grant at Belmont, MO, and Fort Donelson, distinguishing himself at both places. He took part in the Vicksburg campaign and served under McPherson during the Atlanta campaign, taking over command of the XVII Corps upon McPherson's death in July 1864. Sherman relieved him, however, only days later, a move that drew Logan's wrath. Logan continued to serve, though, participating in the famous march to the sea and once again commanding the Army of the Tennessee from May to August 1865. After the war Logan returned to Illinois and ran for Congress again, this time as a Republican - a Radical one to boot. Jones's biography ends with Logan's election, though Logan served many years in Congress and the Senate, helped form the Grand Army of the Republic and establish Decoration Day, and was on the Presidential ticket as VP with James G. Blaine in 1884. He died in 1886.
   
   Jones's biography is quite good: it is serviceable and measures the man well. There is not a lot of analysis or behind-the-scenes conjecturing, just good, solid factual information presented in an efficient manner. One wonders if Jones ever contemplated a complete biography of Logan, seeing how prominent his post-Civil War life was.

No comments about The Papers of John Marshall: Vol X: Correspondence, Papers, and Selected Judicial Opinions, January 1824-April 1827 (Papers of John Marshall).

No comments about Memoirs of Thaddeus S. C. Lowe, Chief of the Aeronautic Corps of the Army of the United States During the Civil War: My Balloons in Peace and War (Studies in American History (Lewiston, N.Y.), V. 53.).