1 comments about A Commitment To Valor A Unique Portrait Of Robert E. Lee In His Own Words.

1. this book has many quotes to live by Robert E Lee was a geniouse and should be potrayed as a role model to the masses. This book shows the true side of Lee that the history books don't teach you. The kind loving man who had time for everyone yet lived his life with dignity and honor

5 comments about Men of Fire: Grant, Forrest, and the Campaign That Decided the Civil War.

1. I want to like this book much more than I do! Jack Hurst is an excellent writer. The portraits of the participants are skillful and incisive. The descriptions of battles capture the ebb and flow of the action and the reader is able to follow with few problems. He presents a number of ideas that are very interesting, logical and thought provoking. All of this makes for an enjoyable informative read covering the Civil War in the West from Belmont to the fall of Nashville. In addition, most of his views on the major players are the same as mine, allowing me to applaud as he skillfully skewers Halleck and Buell.
   
   Why isn't this a five-star book review and why can't I be more complementary? I feel this book has a number of problems, none of which invalidate it but taken together diminish the value.
   
   The idea of putting Grant and Forrest together in 1862 makes little sense. Forrest, in 1862, is not that important a person to link with Grant. Yes, they are both determined and both fighter but that does not qualify them for equal billing. The book seems to agree being almost all Grant with a few Forrest chapters. Only about two of the Forrest chapters are required for the story, I felt the rest were more marketing than history.
   
   The idea of a desperate Grant, who may or may not be fighting demon rum, is the story line. Hurst has bought into the Longacre idea that Grant was fighting a serious drinking problem, in spite of the fact that history cannot fully support this idea. The author adds desperation, making Grant's actions as much fear of going back to being a clerk as a drive to win the war.
   
   Maps are another problem. Most of them are two-page maps with the page split in the action being illustrated. No map has contour lines a major consideration at a number of points. The maps are not badly placed but the page split and selection is not helpful either.
   
   I found footnotes to be a major problem. The author uses direct quotes without a footnote to support it. In once case, I think the quote was made in 1863 at Vicksburg not at the time implied. Additionally, one footnote may be for a paragraph that needs multiple footnotes. A couple of his better ideas are not footnoted at all.
   
   Contradictions; the author reverses himself at least once on a major point. This was one of the ideas he presented, w/o footnotes, about 150 pages later, he states the opposite position.
   
   Halleck was not the most honest of men. The author clearly dislikes him and goes out of his way to point out his failings. During this time, Halleck was trying to remove Grant while saying that he was protecting him. This is well documented but some of the book's statements need footnotes and better documentation. I have the same complaint for statements made about Buell.
   
   I did not find any major errors in the book. I do feel that the author's emphasis some items is questionable and needs better documentation. Overall, this is a very readable history of the War in the West from Belmont to the fall of Nashville. I rate this 3 ½ stars that round up to four stars.



2. "Men of Fire" was everything that it was obviously supposed to be : a detailed account of the actions of two great leaders of the Civil War , one for the North & one for the South , during their first major Battle ,early in the Civil War and each being "basically untried & unknown" ! Of course I'm talking about the two principles of the book , U. S. Grant and Nathan Bedford Forrest !
   
   This book accomplishes this main task , very , very well ! It gives "background material" on both great men , that I had never read before ! It really brought these two "legends & heros" into very clear view ! It shows , in this very early battle , thier motivations , their courage , their basic tactics , their vision , their learership , their greatness , their energy , their strengths , their disgusts with the folly & fools around them !
   
   What it did in addition , that I thought most outstanding , was the clear way that it showed the "disorganization , the in-fighting , the jelousey , the politics , the poor planning , the lack of vision" of both sides in this vast conflict , shown so clearly , esp. at the very top of the leadership ladders !
   
   Because of this clear evidence of the "truly medocore and untalented and stupid" majority of politically modivated leaders on both sides and especially at this very significant , early battle ; U.S. Grant and Nathan Bedford Forrest emerge as giants ,as noble warriors ,as dedicated leaders ,who are focused on only one thing : Victory for their cause ! They know what is at stake for their sides and they go at the truly terrible endeavor of a war ,that has been committed to take place , with one unyielding purpose : To achieve absolute victory , at all costs !
   
   This was a great book , about two great men , deeply involved in a most horrible conflict !



3. MEN OF FIRE: GRANT, FORREST, AND THE CAMPAIGN THAT DECIDED THE CIVIL WAR details the two-week campaign Grant led against four flawed Confederate generals, documenting how this battle changed the course of the Civil War and the career of two major military leaders. From defensive mindsets and strategies to moment-by-moment encounters, MEN OF FIRE is a top pick for any military collection, especially those strong in Civil War history and biography.
   
   Diane C. Donovan
   California Bookwatch



4. Great book..... a little more of a military analysis than I was ready for....but still a great read. Good insight into Grant, Foote, Forrest and the other players in the Western theatre........



5. I found this book to be well written and interesting. The author obviously is a good writer with lots of experience. His writing style is refreshing, and easily read and understood. I did not learn much about the main characters, Grant and Forrest that I did not already know therefore this book might be more useful for the novice student of the civil war than to the hard core enthusiast who has read extensively on the subject. I would buy Jack Hurt's other book on N. B. Forrest to read just because this one was so well written.

No comments about Jesse James: The Best Writings on the Notorious Outlaw and His Gang.

2 comments about John Brown: The Legend Revisited.

1. Some theologians make the distinction between the "Christ of Faith" and the "Jesus of History." The idea is that the Christ of Faith is the Christ mediated through the depictions of him in the New Testament, depictions that represent the writers' faith reaction to the phenomenon of Christ. The Jesus of History was the actual historical person, who we can know little if anything about, buried beneath the overlay of mythologizing that resulted in the Christ of Faith
   
   Discovering the historical John Brown is certainly a more fruitful enterprise than discovering the Jesus of History, but John Brown as symbol and myth is quite fulsome. Merrill D. Peterson's John Brown: The Legend Revisited provides us with a good taste of the historical John Brown and a banquet of John Brown the symbol and myth.
   
   The sketch of the historical Brown that Peterson provides us makes it clear how Brown could occasion some significant mythologizing about him. Brown is an enigmatic person, seemingly driven by forces he himself doesn't fully comprehend. Also, his background and experiences do not seem to fully account for the extremities to which he would take his abolitionist beliefs. His inexplicability creates vacuums teasingly available for the purposes of mythologizers.
   
   It's here that Peterson work shines. He provides us with plethora of ways Brown has been depicted through time. The ways range from historical narratives to artistic and other creative representations. Not all the representations have been flattering.
   
   I wish Peterson would have provided a deeper explication of the social and political forces and agendas that formed the kinds of representations and reputations that Brown the myth has received through time. Nevertheless, Peterson's work is a must read for Brown scholarship and his approach deserves high marks for its uniqueness.



2. John Brown had been born on May 9, 1800. By the time he and his sons pulled their stunt taking over the National Armory on October 16, 1859, he was fifty (that's old for that era). He was an abolitionist and religious zealot. His misbegotten mission was to make people release their slaves and create a stronghold in the Virgina/Maryland mountains for them to live in peace. His plan to liberate them using violence cost him the lives of two of his sons, Oliver (20 yrs. old) died on Oct. 17 and Watson (24) on the 18th from their fatal injuries. Joseph Barry wrote an indepth account of the captives and how they were caught in his book printed in 1903, 'The Strange Story of Harper's Ferry.' Here they were trying to liberate the blacks and the first victim was a black train porter there on the tracks leading to the bridge, which I found ironic. I took my sons and two nephews to Harper's Ferry and it is a quaint little place, there at three states. That part of Virginia near Sandy Hook where the Appalachian Trail meanders was later made into a new state called West Virginia. The whole population of the town was involved in this botched takeover.
   
   Robert E. Lee and J. E. B. Stuart captured Brown's raiders; he was found guilty of treason against his country, conspiring with slaves to create an insurrection, and hanged on December 2, 1859. Stephen Vincent Benet wrote a long poem of the Civil War which became an American classic, first printed in 1927 and won the Pultizer Prize in 1929. In it, he wrote: "John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave." That is the legend school children learn.
   
   In September, 1862, the largest military operation against Harper's Ferry occurred prior to the Battle of Antietam when Stonewall Jackson's Confederate forces seized the town and captured the 12,500-man Union garrison, the largest surrender of troops during the Civil War. The first shot occurred at Fort Sumpter, S. C. on April 12, 1861, prior to the bloodiest battle of all at Antietam and the deadliest at Gettysburg, PA. John Penn Warren wrote about John Brown: 'The Making of a Martyr.' I'm glad this legend has now been reviewed to put the atrocity to bed for good. It as the damnest thing a demented person could do; how he ever thought he would get away with it beats me. He met his end at John Brown's Fort. It is an interesting place to visit, and gives that little state some semblance of importance.

5 comments about Three Roads to the Alamo: The Lives and Fortunes of David Crockett, James Bowie, and William Barret Travis.

1. OK, that is a bit of a negative title, so I want to start off saying that I really enjoyed this book. One of the problems with the story of the Alamo is that it all too often is isolated in the time during the battle and not much of the events and lives of the participants are ever explored. This leaves a story disconnected from all that ran up to it, all that caused it.
   
   William C. Davis does an admirable job assembling the lives of three people who are somewhat elusive in the historical record until their "big day" at the Alamo (even Crocket has his blank spots in his history). It is important info that informs us all why these men were "that" Travis, Crocket and Bowie.
   
   He gives them life in a narrative that quickly moves in a conversational style. Further, he does an admirable job not judging these men on today's more "civilized" standards, allowing us to come to know the men as they were, in their day, without being weighed down by modern approbations and regrettable "social" historical analysis so popular with too many historians.
   
   Now the criticism: As my little review title suggests I feel that there was one road, one equally important, not explored that led to the Alamo. It is a road that is just as important as the other roads Davis explores; that of Travis, Crocket, and Bowie.
   
   It is a road without which the Alamo would not have occurred, propelling the three heroes into American mythology. It is the road traveled by Santa Anna.
   
   Of course, at 587 pages, this tome is already a bit larger than the average popular treatment of any particular historical event and it is probable that Davis struggled to keep the story under one thousand! Still, Santa Anna's journey was just as tumultuous, interesting and central to the story as Travis, Crocket, and Bowie's, and just as important.
   
   Davis admits that he started with the idea of a Bowie bio, so it isn't surprising that he dwelled on Bowie more so than the other two. But, given the re-direction he took with his story a little less on Bowie could have sufficed as the story of Santa Anna was included.
   
   After reading the book, I felt a hole in the story. Why, exactly, did the Mexicans do all they did? Not just during the months preceding the Alamo, but for the decade before. How did Santa Anna get to his position? What drove him to lay siege to the Alamo and that small band of Norteamericanos? I know Santa Anna is not the American hero that the other three are, but where is the hero without the villain?
   
   In any case. This book is highly recommended for anyone wanting a well researched story of the actions and personalities that led up to the Alamo. Even with that one small detraction, I say read it!
   
   By Warner Todd Huston



2. Davis is meticulous in his research, teasing from the legends what we know, what can be deduced, what is probable, improbable, and impossible. So, if you want scholarship, an in-depth understanding of the truth, as near as it can be determined, this book is great.
   
   Davis' sketches of the personalities and characters of Crockett, Bowie and Travis were also impressive.
   
   But, IMO, if you want a wallopping page-turner, look elsewhere.



3. William Davis, best known for his excellent works on the American War Between the States (oh, alright, "Civil War" if you insist) delves into the Texas Revolution with this work, and presents historians with an excellent glimpse at the three principal figures of the Alamo Siege. This triple biography gives an excellent in-depth look at the careers, motivations, and personal lives of three men on their march to an appointment with destiny.
   
   I highly recommend all of Mr. Davis' works, especially "Deep Waters of the Proud" and "Look Away!"



4. This book is a very well conceived idea that tries to understand what happened at the Alamo through the eyes of three people. Each provides a different perspective to life in Texas and life in the United States in the time period leading up to the Alamo. A crook like Bowie has fled from land speculations schemes and is trying to make a name for himself in Texas. Travis has abandoned his family and gone to make an honest life and escape the debt he built up. Finally we have David Corckett the hero of Tennessee who has lost elections and patience with Andrew Jackson heading to Texas. All of these three have led colorful lives with Crockett being the most interesting. This book serves as a biography to all three while describing the importance of the Alamo to Texas. It is very well done and you find yourself going through the book very quickly. I highly recommend this to anyone who is interested in understanding what life looked like in the United States in the years leading up to the Alamo.



5. Quick! Name the three most famous battles fought on what is now US soil! Well, there may be some room for discussion but I would go with (in no particular order) The Battle of the Little Big Horn, Gettysburg, and The Battle of the Alamo. Two of these have their stature largely established on legend more than fact since there were few, if any, surviving witnesses from the side that most of us focus on. Indeed, little use has been made of the observations of the winning sides. Most references I've read discount most of the eyewitness accounts. This leaves two of the three battles with a limited availability of historical sources (while books on Gettysburg continue to emerge with new sources, interpretations and perspectives). In view of the apparent limitations he had to work with, what William C. Davis has done for the Battle of the Alamo is a truly impressive work of research, organization and perspective.
   
   Be forewarned; this book of 587 pages of text and roughly 160 pages of footnotes uses merely 4 or 5 pages to tell of the Battle itself. Davis relies almost exclusively on Sutherland's "Fall of the Alamo" which is rather less extravagant than popular legend. While this book limited its' account of the actual battle, it gives, perhaps, the best written account of the events leading up to the Battle. It does so, as its' title implies, by focussing on the lives of Davy Crockett, James Bowies and William Barret Travis.
   
   The threee men's lives display three seperate directions and give us three seperate understandings of the motivations of men in that time and place. Crockett was the explorer who became restless each time civilization moved into the neighborhood. He was the most famous of the three both in his time and in History and his was the life we enjoyed reading the most. His political career was "interesting" but not worthy of any more impressive adjective. His demise was the event that elevated his life but he would have been remembered even without the Alamo (albeit by far fewer people).
   
   James Bowie was the wheeler dealer whose land-grabbing schemes were so boldly and so crudely illegal that most readers will find themselves having to make excuses to keep plodding through the morass of thievery. In time his exploits become more engrossing to the reader but there was always a new angle to twist in order to create a new fortune on paper. Bowie's bravery in Texas might have elevated his name higher than it was had he not already been half-dead with Typhoid Fever before the Battle even began. As it was, his name would have been obscure in modern times had it not been for the Alamo. His knife and his legal trail of fraudulent claims would have been all that was left to his fame (and it was his brother who invented that famous knife).
   
   William Barret Travis was the least know of the three and the least acclaimed. As a kid I often wondered who this Travis character was and why was his name mentioned with Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie. Travis was a lawyer of limited ability until he fled to Texas to escape his debts back home. There he eventiually found his abilities in the legal profession and he represents that stabelizing effect that professionals bring when they arrive at the frontier settlements. Travis might possibly have exceeded the fame of his two counterparts had it not been for his death at the Alamo. That is because Davis portrays his legal mind as one of a man with great political promise. (Or he could have drifted deeply into obscurity).
   
   The details that the author gives us is an excellent study of the emerging American Nation. The explorer, the fortune hunter, and the civilizer were a sort of system that led to the development of the great American continent. Reading the stories of these men gets confusing at times. (I often had trouble figuring out if I was reading about Bowie or Travis since their financial lives were so similar). However, the details leading up to the Alamo gave me a much better appreciation of the actual events. I may not have been as excited about reading of the Battle (as I was in reading Jeff Long's "Duel of Eagles") but I realized at the end of the book that I had gotten more out of it than any other account of the Alamo. These men (and others such as Sam Houston) were fatally flawed but they were also very interesting. Kudos to Willam C. Davis for putting together such a well-conceived and well-written account.

5 comments about Grant (Great Generals).

1. Mosier has done something few historians are willing to do- he compares the achievements of U.S. Grant with other great generals, namely Wellington and Napoleon. He also compares Grant's eye for strategy with later developments in American strategic doctrine. I.E., the notion of overwhelming an enemy's forces with eye to destruction as opposed to capturing territory are direct descendants of Grant's strategy to defeat the confederacy.
   
   Mosier spends to much time on Grant's early career and not enough for a curious reader on his leadership of all Union forces post 1864. All in all- this is a great introduction to a great general. Mosier often draws the ire of military historians for his methods and his desire to write about the things that people really want to learn about (namely, how does Grant compare across time as a general?)- to often historians are unwilling to make any such comparisons. This is a great intro to Grant.



2. Have to concur that the book abounds in factual errors and this is a shame because the overall approach and observations about Grant's genius are sound. Mosier dispels the myth that Grant was a dullard at West Point (not challenged enough) or a chronic alcoholic-- more likely an "episodic alcohol abuser" who had it under control by war. Other points: Casualties were as great, and often greater, in the Napoleonic Wars but armies were made up of the dregs of society and most of the dead weren't missed--harsh but probably some truth in that. So Grant wasn't a "butcher" but all strata of society was now represented even in the lower ranks and, coupled with a literate society and a lively press, deaths shook the nation, especially starting with Shiloh. Halleck comes off even worse than in most works: he set Grant up for Shiloh. Anyway, the novice really needs to get his facts elsewhere--and some decent maps--elsewhere but should eventually read this book.



3. I wish that I read these reviews before purchasing this book and hope that a few will save their dough by reading this. Not only is the book filled with basic factual errors it paints such a saintly figure of General Grant that one would suspect Mosier is related. From the author's perspective, Grant is not only a genius but his alchoholism and depression were actually assets! U.S. Grant was an excellent commander, far better on the offense than on the defense but Mosier's treatment would lead one to believe that he won the war single handedly. Again, I urge you to save your time and money, and find a good copy of Grant's Memoirs.



4. In my humble opinion, while Mosier has written a book with interesting insights and conclusions about Grant's ability as a general, I feel that he got too much into analysis of his personality and why he did what he did. I say this because at the beginning of the book, Mosier admits that he does not have much information on Grant the man. So why draw all of these conclusions if you do not know much of the man's personality? Why not just instead analyze his successes and failures?
   
   Another point of contention I have are the lack of good maps. While Mosier does have some good descriptions of Grant's campaigns, there are not nearly enough maps to detail his Civil War movements.
   
   Granted, while I am a lifelong Civil War buff, I am by no means and expert on the period. However, I do believe readers will get more out of reading other titles on Grant, specficially: "Grant" by Jean Smith, "Grant and Lee" by JFC Fuller, or the titles by Bruce Catton (Grant Moves South, Grant Takes Command).
   
   Complaints aside, I do believe that Mosier has written a book that will challenge the reader to further assess Grant's ability as a general and president.



5. I admire Washington, Lincoln and Grant. While the former two have garnered numerous accolades, Grant has been unjustifiably denigrated personally (alcoholic, fool, depressed) and professionally (butcher). His presidency has been unappreciated. Mosier makes a persuasive case that General Grant was probably a genius. In the final chapter, he briefly discusses Grant's undervalued presidency. I would highly recommend two other brief succinct biographies one by Korda and another by Bunting both of which explore Grant's presidency.
   
   Mosier dispels many Grant myths. He was not an alcoholic in a medical sense. He was self-taught in algebra. He entered West Point which was one of the best educational institutions in the world. West Point entrance examination had a 50% failure rate. He graduated 21st in a class of 39 but 40 of them failed to graduate so he was in the top 25%. He was a good artist with a great 3-D vision which was essential for a commander during battle. He was a great horseman.
   In the Mexican war, Grant was a quartermaster who demonstrated tremendous skill in logistics. This experience was vital when he commanded the Union armies and he made sure his men got enough ammunition, food etc. He displayed tremendous personal courage during the Mexican war (riding away to get ammunition) and ingenuity (dragging cannon to a church steeple).
   
   Mosier compares U.S. Grant favorably with other great generals, namely Wellington, Napoleon and Foch. He finds Grant to be superior all of them. Without him, the North would have lost the war. Grant never lost a battle. Mosier defends Grant against charges of butchery by comparing Civil War casualties with those suffered by the British and French in World War I. Robert E. Lee said, "I have carefully searched the military records of ancient and modern history, and have never found Grant's superior as a general". Grant's magnanimity in victory is still an American tradition.
   
   The book contains some historical errors which other reviewers have pointed out and I will not belabor here. This prevents me from awarding 5 stars. I am happy to find a book that appreciates this good, decent, honest everyman, great general and undervalued president.

2 comments about Abraham Lincoln: The Observations of John G. Nicolay and John Hay.

1. A book for the person with an existing fair understanding of the White House years of Abraham Lincoln.
   
   Professor Burlingame provides a great service to those of us who are keenly interested in this great president, but who do not have the time to read the imposing and very dated ten-volume history produced by his two close aides, Nicolay and Hay. This book fills a specific void; it certainly should not be confused with a full biography.
   
   While it is surprising that so little was directly said by Nicolay and Hay about their chief in their history, I am happy that Professor Burlingame did the hard work of mining its ten volumes for the benefit of lazy readers like me.



2. The book was very short and only covered areas of limited interest on Lincoln's Presidency. Beside other titles on Lincoln that I have bought this was a major disappointement. There was no flow of quality prose to create interest in specific story lines which were too sketchy. The book's objectives were too limited from the outset and it's main merits are that it may serve as a useful reference book for later purchases. It will do little to add or detract to the legacy of Lincoln.
   Lorenzo
   Ireland

No comments about Plantation Mistress on the Eve on the Civil War: The Diary of Keziah Goodwyn Hopkins Brevard, 1860-1861 (Women's Diaries and Letters of the South).

5 comments about The Rebel and the Rose: James A. Semple, Julia Gardiner Tyler, and the Lost Confederate Gold.

1. In April 1865 the Civil War was over for most - but even after the Confederate government dissolved, one Jefferson Davis felt compelled to carry on the struggle, journeying best entrusted with all the remaining gold in the Confederate treasury: some, $86,000 in coins and bullion. It and its carriers disappeared - and their fate is revealed in THE REBEL AND THE ROSE: JAMES A. SEMPLE, JULIA GARDINER TYLER, AND THE LOST CONFEDERATE GOLD, which follows Davis' journeys and considers what happened to the gold. Both military and general-interest libraries will find it engrossing.



2. I really enjoyed reading this book. The depth of the "detective work" done by the authors is outstanding. The mystery and the relationships amongst all the individuals was developed and explained very well. Thank you for bringing this portion of the Civil War into such outstanding light.



3. For any Civil War or history enthusiast, The Rebel and The Rose is by far one of the best novels written to date. The author's writing keeps the reader locked in to each page desperate for more. While historically the whereabouts of the lost Confederate gold remains a mystery, you have to enjoy the detail for which is was written.
   The book is very enjoyable, a fun read with facts and intrigue and lost rebel gold! This book is one of my absolute favorites in my Civil War collection!!



4. Explores events which are mentioned in passing elsewhere, uncovering fascinating story. Hated to finish it, because much mystery remains. Presents facts more sympathetic to Jefferson Davis than generally understood, and adds to understanding of turbulent end of war.



5. The Rebel and the Rose is an extraordinary - and true - tale of the final days of the Confederate government, its exit from Richmond, the Confederate treasury money and the relationship between Julia Gardiner Tyler and James A. Semple. For all the books over all the years written of this era, The Rebel and the Rose manages to uncover a little known story full of interesting details and mysteries. The research put into this book is impressive. Highly recommended for those interested in the Civil War and history in general. You wont be disappointed.

2 comments about Lincoln Legends: Myths, Hoaxes, and Confabulations Associated with Our Greatest President.

1. Most of Lincoln Legends is directed at buffs attracted by such arcane topics as the provenance of the Lincoln "birthplace" cabin, the final resting place (or more likely, places) of Ann Rutledge, whether Lincoln could have been baptized by immersion in the Sangamon River, and assorted odd notions about the assassination. A few chapters are of greater significance, among them the one spiking the myth of a "gay Lincoln" and the thorough examination of the "deceptive doctor," Samuel Alexander Mudd.
   
   Steers writes well enough, but the book might have been improved by a more vigorous application of the editorial pen. Steers' method is usually to begin by laying out the mythological tale at perhaps too great a length and then to demolish the myth at the end of the chapter. This course often leads to wordy repetition. Books about myths and hoaxes are often fun to read; and this one is no exception, although it would have been better if it had been say, fifty pages shorter.



2. This was such an engrossing and captivating book that I read it in only a couple of days. Of all of the many, many, many books already published about President Lincoln, this one is a most worthy addition to the canon. For many people who have grown up treasuring or swearing by urban legends or outright historical falsehoods (such as Betsy Ross making the first American flag or President Washington chopping down a cherry tree), it can be hard to be confronted with the facts demolishing the legends, but intellectual honesty and historical truth should matter more than preserving a myth just because it makes one feel good or because it's been repeated so often that it's taken on the stature of truth.
   
   I've read a lot about President Lincoln since I was a child, but some of the legends in this book were new to even me, such as the stories about his supposed out of wedlock birth, his alleged late-night baptism in a freezing river, and "Peanut John," the boy who held Booth's horse while he was inside of Ford's Theatre on that fateful night. Other topics covered include Dr. Samuel Mudd (was he or wasn't he an innocent doctor caught in the wrong place at the wrong time?), the true nature of the relationship between the young Abe and Ann Rutledge (I was kind of disappointed to learn that they may not have had a romance, though there is still no conclusive evidence in either direction), the modern-day myth about President Lincoln being gay, the "lost" draft of the Gettysburg Address, and Andrew Potter, the man who never was. Some of these legends may be more interesting to Lincoln scholars than to the general public, but they're all interesting. Some of them even made me laugh, like the one about his supposed true paternity and the totally implausible scenario for his alleged secret late-night baptism in the freezing December weather. There's something in here for everyone who has more than a passing interest in our greatest president.