5 comments about Jefferson Davis and His Generals: The Failure of Confederate Command in the West (Modern War Studies).

1. This book is a must read to understand the generals, campaigns, strategy, and the thinking of Jefferson Davis in the Western Theater. The book is well-written, informative, and features good analysis of the differing generals, Davis' actions, and some very good mini-biographies of the major players. Although the book does not go into major detail about specific battles, Woodworth does give a good overview of the major campaigns and battles of the West. The book also has some interesting theories on why Davis failed in the West. Although I disagreed with some of Woodworth's conclusions, especially regarding Braxton Bragg's capabilities as a commander, I found his arguments well-reasoned, although I thought he went out of his way to bash James Longstreeet. The major sticking point I had with the book was Woodworth's analysis on Bragg and his theory that J.E. Johnston thought the CSA's cause was doomed so he didn't really try to win. I thought that was utter nonsense, but that was really my only quarrel with the book. Well-written, informative, just an excellent book.



2. I re-read Woodworth's excellent treatise on Jefferson Davis and his involvement in the Western Theater. The chapters are succinct and focus more on strategy than in specific battle details. My favorite parts are the reviews at the end of each chapter. I have always believed that Lee's strategy to invade the North rather than deploying his forces in the West was a major blunder. If there is one salient point that screams from this book it is that Jeff Davis' personal relationships with his generals (Polk??) definitely was a detriment to his decision making. This book should be required reading for high school and undergraduate students. Indeed any leader could profit from the analysis and history rendered here.



3. Insightful and thought provoking analysis of what Davis did and did not do to save the West. I feel this is a very important book and one that a serious student of the war should read. Additionally, I feel that this book should be read after Connelly and Horn to preserve a balanced picture. Woodworth presents a more favorable view of Bragg than I have seen from other authors. Some of this is fair and some maybe the author's perceptions of Bragg. It takes getting used to and the more you know about Bragg and his failings the better off you are. He scores many good points and made me modify my view of Bragg and the problems he had with Polk and Hardee.
   
   His treatment of Jefferson Davis is very fair. His points are valid and well supported, showing where Davis did well and where he did poorly. The reasons for the decisions are supported and logical, given Davis' personality. This is the best part of the book and balances the blame the "Eastern Block" that is found in other books.
   
   I am less happy with his treatment of Longstreet, feeling that he has accepted the "Lost Cause Myth" and not explored the situation. Rather than dismiss Longstreet, I would have liked to see an explanation of his relationship with Davis and Lee's influence in this area.
   
   This is a well written, easy to read informative book. Not without faults but a valuable addition to my ACW library.



4. Seemingly endless Civil War books are written rehashing every minute move of Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia. There are far fewer that cover the situation of the Confederacy's western armies and generals, despite, or perhaps because of the fact that it was in the west that the Confederacy lost the war. With Jefferson Davis and His Generals: The Failure of Confederate Command in the West, Steven E. Woodworth steps up to fill this gap with a first rate book that every serious student of the Civil War should read. He presents a clear and reasoned argument that the failure of the Confederacy in the west was not due to the quality or quantity of its armies or even of its supplies, but a direct result of a monumental failure in its high command.
   Woodworth writes of Jefferson Davis as a man who seemed to be eminently and uniquely qualified to become commander in chief of the Confederacy. He was a West Point graduate, a Mexican War hero, had served as a particularly effective secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce, and had been a United States senator. He understood politics, and he clearly understood war. His resolve for his cause, like his loyalty to his friends, was unshakable. Contained within these impressive qualifications and traits, however, were flaws and blind spots that would severely hinder Davis' management of the war in the west, where he had no Lee to take charge. Foremost of these faults was a lack of judgement when appointing friends as generals, and unreasonable loyalty to them thereafter. Compounding these problems was a fierce pride in his own military judgement that left him unable to acknowledge and correct mistakes. Finally, his pride led him into bitter personal feuds with key generals that hindered his ability to utilize them to the fullest.
   Woodworth follows Davis' moves in the west, from his initial organization of the Western theater, through the high stakes game played and eventually lost to gain Kentucky for the Confederacy, to the crisis at Shiloh, where with the death of General Albert Sidney Johnston, the Western Confederacy lost its best hope for competent command. The catastrophe of the loss of Vicksburg, the disastrous infighting among the generals under Bragg in the Army of Tennessee, the loss of Tennessee, the Atlanta Campaign, and Hood's final failed campaign are all covered. In each instance, Woodworth notes the command decisions that Davis made, or failed to make, in the crisis. At the end of each chapter, he summarizes and critiques Davis' performance, highlighting areas where Davis was at least partly responsible for the problems, as well as pointing out where he performed as well as could have been expected.
   Woodworth clearly has a strongly opinionated point of view. He is nearly unique among the Civil War historians that I have read in his spirited defense of General Braxton Bragg as a competent commander, and lays all of the blame for the failure of Bragg's campaigns on incompetent and insubordinate generals under his command, chiefly Davis' personal friend General Leonidas Polk. He also repeatedly accused General Joseph Johnston of lacking a will to win, and of never believing that the Confederacy could win the war. While many will disagree with these positions, his boldness in stating them is characteristic of the bold approach that is evident throughout his book.
   Jefferson Davis and His Generals is a bold, original work, that addresses a theme that is too often neglected in Civil War studies. It is consistently engaging, insightful, and controversial. It is clearly written, well researched, and a pleasure to read. I consider it to be among the very best books that I have read on the Civil War, and would recommend it highly, especially to those with a specific interest in the war in the west.
   
   Theo Logos



5. For a Confederate examination, Steven Woodworth's book is essential reading in understanding the complex relationships between President Davis and his western theater leaders. Peppered throughout the book are insightful examinations of such generals as Beauregard, Polk, Van Dorn, Albert Sydney Johnston, Joe Johnston, Bragg, and Hood. Woodworth delves into Davis' leadership weaknesses by showing that his health problems and his lack of humility and people-skills (he would have six different War Secretaries) increased his inability to cooperate with others. His unyielding loyalty to promote incompetent friends to high positions routinely injected failure and casualties in campaigns, but Davis refused to bow to the facts and remove them. Woodworth wraps up his analysis with a fair theory that interconnecting these problems was Davis' hesitancy and indecision. The president often submitted suggestions and not orders in correspondence and he falsely believed backbiting and arrogant generals would just cooperate towards the common cause. His inability to provide unifying command authority, especially over the Mississippi River region further fractured what little strategy existed. Woodworth's analysis is a rare addition in the often-neglected study of western command. It is insightful, extremely well-wrttien, and engrossing.

2 comments about Stonewall Jackson (Great Generals).

1. I thought this book provided a succinct and accurate assessment of General Jackson's life and career. I do, however, offer three criticisms.
   
   First, a few maps would have been most helpful. The author presumes that the reader has a working knowledge of Jackson's major battles--the places they were fought, the strategy and tactics employed, and the surrounding topography. I realize that the Great General Series must make certain accommodations in order to accomplish its goal of providing a BRIEF overview of the life and service of its subjects, but a few maps would have greatly enhanced my understanding of what Jackson accomplished.
   
   Second, I thought the comparisons between Jackson's strategy and tactics and those employed in the Iraq War were both gratuitous and a bit of stretch, a not-so-veiled attempt to make the Civil War seem somehow relevant to the conflict in the Middle East.
   
   Third, the editors should have read the text one more time before it went to print. There were several typographical and formatting errors that were a bit of a distraction.
   
   These, however, are minor complaints. If you don't know much about Stonewall and want to get a feel for the contribution he made to the Confederacy and towards the evolution of military tactics, you would do well to read this book.



2. Stonewall Jackson by Donald A. Davis
   (Palgrave Macmillan (2007), Hardcover, 224 pages)
   
   A review
   by
   Colin J. Edwards
   
   Stonewall or Oddball?
   
   I have to come clean immediately and confess that I have difficulty with the description, `tough fighting generals'. What they are describing are heartless individuals who send men to death or mutilation with reckless abandon. Let us remind ourselves that wars are started by politicians, fought by generals and won by soldiers. The American Civil War was the exception: the generals prolonged that one.
   Before you cast me aside as a peace-nik lefty, let me assure you that I saw action as an infantry officer, and know a little of what I speak.
   
   Books about wars: and this is a book about a war more than a biography of an individual, are either from an officer's perspective, or the enlisted man. Donald Davis is the exception being quite at home writing about either. His best seller `Lightening Strike', records the active service of a gunnery sergeant. However, I could find little sympathy for the fighting man in this volume. Mr Davis wrote with touching tenderness of the separation of General Jackson from his wife and new baby girl. A separation that didn't last long as the general called them to his side. Tens of thousands of ordinary soldiers from North and South would have thought precious, just a moment with their loved ones. Rank has its privilege it seems.
   
   Davis' detailed descriptions of the various battles are excellent, if a little tedious. This is due perhaps to a lack of information about Jackson who was such a secretive individual, that it's a wonder Davis was able to write the book at all.
   
   Born at Clarksburg West Virginia on January 21 1824 into an attorney's family, he preceded by four months another general and West Point chum who saw the light of day at Liberty Indiana in May: a future adversary, Ambrose Burnside.
   
   After a very unsettled childhood, he entered West Point more by luck than judgement. He struggled to keep up but had an almost eccentric ability to focus unswervingly on the subject at hand. This paid off and he was able to move up the rankings graduating 17th out of a class of 59. This was not good enough to get him into the esteemed engineers, but it did get him into the artillery as a second lieutenant. This single minded eccentricity bordering on autism became more apparent when he was under fire during the Mexican Way. Observation of his reckless valour caused him to be bumped up the ranks to acting major. Another manifestation of his disturbed mental state was his inability to work in harmony with others. His unresolved dispute with a brother officer while stationed at Fort Mead in Florida, resulted in him leaving the army and taking up a teaching post at Lexington Virginia.
   
   The general consensus was that Thomas Jackson was a poor teacher, but the eight years there gave him the opportunity to meet and marry two wives.
   
   The Civil War found him back in the army and up to his neck in muck and bullets in the battles so precisely delineated by Mr Davis. His eccentricity (or mental disturbance), new no bounds and he and his soldiers went from victory to victory even if it killed them. He even had one of his generals (A.P.Hill), dragged along behind a cart on an interminable march for some undisclosed actus reus. This so damaged the general's tender feet that he was out of action for some time. Not the action of a sound mind you might think; particularly when it concerns one of your better generals.
   
   Jackson continued to carry the whole war on his shoulders, confiding in no one until he experienced a nervous collapse. From then until the end of his life he was conspicuous for his ability to fall asleep anywhere. On one occasion he was summoned to see his boss Robert E Lee, and promptly fell asleep before he saw him.
   
   Thomas Jackson was a religious zealot who spoke more to God than anyone else. However, he did not practice what he preached, nor anything anyone else preached as he didn't stay awake long enough. He had no compunction in raking artillery fire into Mexican civilians when Mexico City failed to surrender in 1848, or later when he gunned down a retreating Mexican army. During the Civil War he showed no reluctance to destroy fellow Americans be them from the North or the South, and insisted that his officers do likewise.
   
   To experience fear while in the presence of danger is normal. To some extent it is possible to hide that fear. Jackson did not hide it; he did not have any fear. He constantly took needless risks and in front of his troops defied the conflagration to kill him.
   That was until Chancellorsville on May 2 1863. Throwing caution to the wind as usual, he took his staff beyond his own front lines to reconnoitre the enemy positions. True to form he omitted to inform anyone of his intentions. Upon his return he was fired upon by his own soldiers and hit three times. Six of his staff were killed outright. He however was not killed but was stretchered to an aid station falling off the stretcher on the way. The chief surgeon of Jackson's army, Dr Hunter McGuire, amputated his left arm, but did not notice General Jackson complaining about chest pain. The pain developed into pneumonia from which he died on May 10th 1863.
   
   Google Books list over 4000 entries for General Jackson, and most of them suggest that had he lived the result at Gettysburg would have been different. The generals lost the battle for the Confederates by their bickering and lack of direction. Jackson would have only added to the confusion. The soldiers of the South fought their hearts out at Gettysburg only to be betrayed by their officers.
   
   Donald Davis's book is a myth breaker, and a `must read' for anyone who has an interest in the first modern war.
   
   
   

5 comments about The Hunley: Submarines, Sacrifice, and Success in the Civil War.

1. Having researced the C.S.S.Hunley for over 20 years, I can truly say this is the most complete work published to date. The illustrations alone are worth the price of the book. Mark's narrative is very readable and his facts are well documented. If you are interested in knowing the true stroy, this is the book to buy.



2. I am not a writer. Mark Reagan is a writer. Let me brief. This is a great book. I'm sorry it's out of print. After I first read it, I sent copies to my brother Ken who is a civil war enthusiast, and several more copies to friends who just like to read good books. Don't let the movie dissuade from readng it. As is so often said: the book was better than the movie. Hope you can find a copy.



3. Have read everything I could lay my hands on about the Hunley and nothing could satisfy my craving for detail and plauseable speculation until this came along. Admitedly many of our unanswered questions will remain so. Others will yield to the scrutiny of scientists and historians in a Charleston Lab. Until then, we have this gem! Ragan is a relentless detective and goes peering into nook and cranny. Which of the two versions of the first sinking at the Johnson Island dock is the more credible? Its in here. What was a German artilleryman doing inside a sub and how did he get there? Its in here. Any leads on other previously unidentified sailors? Thats in here too! Dixon becomes more alive than ever and more than fulfills the almost mythic image of the Confederate hero. Chocked full of interesting and previously unpublished documents and photographs, this is THE authoritative account.



4. This book is a must have for the Hunley addict. It is obvious Mark Ragan did his homework on this book. It contains a great deal of information on the contruction of the first successful submarine and the mishaps that plagued it. The photos and illustrations are great and many I have not seen before. You really get the feeling of the importance of this vessel and the dedication of the crew and the designers of the submarine. It is a shame this book has had very limited availability.It should be of great interest to anyone who has been following the recovery and preservation of this unique ship.



5. It's hard to say. Especially since the term referred to the Hunley murdering its Confederate crews.

   An excellent book, in its coverage of the remnants of myth and truth about the the Confederacy's "underwater torpedo boats". I recently became aware of a Confederate submarine (not covered in the book), that is currently being conserved by the Louisiana State Museum in New Orleans, and is due to be on permanent display in the museum in Baton Rouge, sometime in late 2002. It's origin is not known to this day, however, it predated the Pioneer I, the American Diver (Pioneer II), and the Hunley. It appears all four subs were designed in Louisiana, but the American Diver and Hunley were built in Mobile.

   The book tells the true story of the development and lineage of the Hunley. However, now that the Hunley is being conserved ( with a guesstimation of about 10 more years), many of the technical aspects are being found to be inaccurate, in the light of the daily discoveries during conservation.

   I recently viewed the Hunley movie prop ship, touring in South Carolina (see the Hunley website for details), that was built for the Turner movie "The Hunley". The rudder mechanism, and prop drive train has been found to be different, and all of the exterior rivets were ground smooth (as spec'd for the Pioneer I, which is covered in the book).

   The crews have been referred to as the Astronauts of the 1860's. The Hunley, and it's predecessors, are an incredible story in technology, and humanity. This book does tribute to its time in the history of this country.

5 comments about Chechnya Diary: A War Correspondent's Story of Surviving the War in Chechnya.

1. Until I read 'Chechnya Diary' I was willing to accept what seemed to be conventional wisdom about the conflict in Chechnya--i.e., just another incidence of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Mr. Goltz provides another view: i.e., an effort (at least initally) to restore to a displaced people the homeland of which they were deprived by the Stalinst regime. I also found it refreshing to read something by a journalist who is willing to acknowledge that his presence may have an impact on the turn of events. All in all, I think this is a most enlightening book and, like Mr. Goltz's 'Azerbaijan Diary', a terrific adventure story.



2. Chechnya Diary isn't your typical book about war. For one thing, it reads more like an adventure or a novel than straight history. It's also much more philosophical than I would have expected. The book begins with the quote, "The observer affects the observed," and boy is that statement ever borne out as the story unfolds.

   Author Thomas Goltz sneaks into the country to cover the war, and ends up in a small town called Samashki, where he depends on the hospitality of a man named Hussein. Ostensibly there to record the fighting, Goltz soon becomes intimately involved, raising many tough questions about journalistic ethics and the effects of media war coverage.

   The book really picks up steam in the second half, as Goltz returns to Chechnya to discover the damage his participation has caused, and tries to rectify it.

   It's a thought-provoking book that provides background on the Chechnyan war but also goes far beyond that to dwell on how our shallow media culture affects our understanding of world events (and beyond that, how media coverage actually determines the course of those events as they play out). Goltz is a likable narrator who doesn't shy away from implicating himself when it comes to the sticky moral questions. He brings to life real Chechnyans in such vivid fashion that you'll remember them every time you hear about Chechnya in the news.

   I had tears in my eyes as I finished the book. Highly recommended.




3. This book is a sign Goltz has matured since writing "Requiem" and "AZ Diary", and has found his niche. This is to say, maybe he's realized he isn't much for political synthesis or history. He has obviously done a lot of good and original thinking about journalistic ethics in wartime and the "Hawthorne effect"--these are the reasons you want to read this book.
   
   There are a lot of books, historical and journalistic, in several languages, on Chechnya and this is the least exciting and informative of the ten or so of those I've read.
   
   "Allah's Mountains", "Chechnya--Tombstone of Russian Power" and "Chechnya--A Short, Victorious War" are more interesting and written by less self-obsessed authors.



4. I'll state straight away that I count myself a an old and loyal friend of Thomas Goltz, and I'm a journalist too, so my five stars should perhaps seen in that context. But I believe they are well deserved, not least for the personal bravery the author displayed in getting the story. For me, this book's particular value is that for once it strips away the shield that we reporters feel necessary to arm ourselves with to protect ourselves from emotional involvement with the subjects of our reportage. This is the first time I read the account of someone who has faced up to naked realities of this situation. The result is a rare and compelling tale of the relationship between the interviewer and the interviewed, and set against a backdrop that shows how both sides behave and above all feel when trapped in forces outside their control.



5. This is the true story about the struggle the people of Chechnya are going through - a region I know little about. It is written through the eyes of a war correspondent - an occupation I know little about. Goltz brings some understanding to the layman with a direct, no-nonsense writing style that will capture your attention and send your senses reeling through sorrow, joy, dispair, hope and more. A must read for anyone who wants to gain some knowledge of the on-going struggle of Chechnya without wading through a dull textbook.

5 comments about The Warrior Generals: Combat Leadership in the Civil War.

1. First, a caveat: If you say, "War of Northern Aggression", hold dear the Lost Cause, and celebrate Massa Robert Lee's birthday as a high holy day, you should avoid this book altogether rather than read it and go on to write an emotional review raving against it and giving only one star. This book dares depart from the usual hagiographic treatment of Lee, suggesting that some of his actions were less than genius, and that some were brutal mistakes. Trust me, if you consider this sacrilege, please avoid this book.
   As for everyone else, this is an outstanding book - the freshest take on the Civil War that I have read in years. Buell ignores the received wisdom on such giants as Grant, Lee, Sherman, Hood, and Jackson, and goes back to original sources to reconstruct the actual men behind the legends. His take on these generals is sometimes controversial, usually enlightening, and always interesting.
   Buell focuses on three pairs of generals - Grant and Lee, Thomas and Hood, and Barlow and Gordon. This devise works well to allow him to examine each major phase of the war in both the eastern and western theaters. By including the lesser known Barlow and Gordon, Buell is also able to contrast the West Point trained professionals to volunteer generals who made up such a large segment of those who served in the Civil War.
   Grant and Lee, in particular, come in for reassessment in Buell's work, and both suffer somewhat from it. This, however, is not character assassination, but a valid reexamination of undeniably great men, assessing them by their actions rather than the legends that have grown around them. You might not totally agree with all of Buell's conclusions, but they may make you reassess what you think you already know.
   One of the high points of the book is the treatment of General George Thomas. One of the greatest generals of the war, Thomas has been often overlooked for many reasons (including the fact that he was a Southerner mistrusted by the North, he did not get along well with Grant, and he died shortly after the war leaving no memoirs.)What you read here will leave you hungry for more information on the great forgotten man of the Civil War.
   Buell writes well, his prose moves swiftly, and though he covers the general's actions in many battles, he never gets bogged down in the details that are more appropriately left to books that cover a particular campaign.
   Read this book and you will discover something almost as rare as a Burnside victory - fresh ideas about the Civil War.
   
   
   Theo Logos



2. Buell analyzes three COnfederate and three Union soldiers with six very different leadership styles.
   
   Buell gives a title to each of the six different men and they are:
   
   The Yoeman: Ulysses S. Grant
   The Aristocrat: Rboert E. Lee
   The Knight-Errant: John Bell Hood
   The Roman: George H. Thomas
   The Cavalier: John B . Gordon
   The Puritan: Francis C. Barlow
   
   Buell researched this book heavily, including delving into the National Archives to the point that he actually found boxes of papers from the Civil War that had not even been opened since they were packaged and delivered after the war, a fact that I find amazing given the vast number of books written on the war every year.
   
   Buell is quite clear in his book that Robert E. Lee was vastly overrated and quite possibly incompetent (he never says it outright but he infers it). I agree that Lee has been overrated by some, but his incompetence is refuted, in my mind, by his track record against a much larger, better equipped army over the course of the war. To his credit, Buell does not lay the blame for the vast number of casualties in the Seven Days Battles in the Peninsular Campaign on Lee - which I consider fair consider that he was forced to take charge during the battles due to the wounding of Confederate General Joseph Johnston. Lee can't really take the blame for a situation he did not create.
   
   Buell also is extremely critical of Grant, sometimes in a contradictory manner. At the beginning of the book he is critical of Grant's strategy as unimaginative at the end of the war (press Lee constantly, despite the constant casualties since Lee could not replace his casualites and Grant could easily replace his own - it quickly became a numbers game and denied Lee his famed mobility) and then, towards the end of the book he praises it.
   
   Buell's favorite is obviously Thomas, a brilliant organizer who built the army that literally simultaneously destroyed the Confederate Army of Tennessee (under Thomas) and was the core of Sherman's famous March to the Sea through Georgia. However, he was ultimately relieved of command by Grant for being to deliberate - a conclusion that I share with Grant. Buell, however, believes that it was an unjust firing. (Grant believed that action was often more important than preparation - sometimes true, sometimes not, but Thomas never seemed to be prepared enough...)
   
   Although I disagreed with many of his conclusions, I did enjoy Buell's book. It was informative and well written.



3. Great book which analyzes six of the top generals in the civil war. Warrior Generals gives you a glimpse into their heads before, during and after battles. Excellent companion to Foote and McPherson, must read for American Civil War buffs.



4. I enjoyed Mr. Buell's book. As a number of people have noted, the author provides perspectives on Generals Lee and Grant that may be unfair in some respects but are often thought-provoking. The portions on General Thomas explain his greatness in a way I had not read before.
   
   On the other hand, the book's description of a single incident causes me great concern about how much the reader can rely upon the author's descriptions of other events throughout the book.
   
   That one event concerns the so-called Lost Order. On September 9, 1862, General Lee, then at Frederick, MD, issued seven copies of the order (Special Orders No. 191) to his commanders, including D.H. Hill and Stonewall Jackson, directing them to split up and attack Harper's Ferry, VA from three directions, thus dividing his army into four parts. Jackson, not realizing that Lee issued a copy of the order directly to Hill, also issued a copy of the order to Hill, Jackson's subordinate. Hill received the copy of the order from Jackson, but the copy from Lee was somehow lost. Beginning September 12, the Union army moved into Frederick. Incredibly, on September 13, a Union soldier camped on the outskirts of Frederick by chance found the order lying in a field, wrapped around some cigars. The order was ultimately forwarded to General McClellan, leading ultimately to the Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg) on September 17.
   
   I do not profess to be a Civil War expert, but both books I had read about this incident clearly stated that it was never determined whether Hill received the copy of the order from Lee and therefore should be blamed for its loss. On the one hand, according to those books, Hill always adamantly maintained that he never received the order, and his adjutant supplied an affidavit to that effect. On the other, Lee's adjutant, R.H. Chilton, maintained that, although he did not have a specific recollection or documentary evidence, he was confident that he must have received confirmation that the order was delivered to Hill. Beyond that, no other evidence turned up. No courier confessed carelessness, and the identity of the owner of the cigars was never determined. See, Sears, Landscape Turned Red: The Battle of Antietam, pp. 111-115 and Appendix I; McPherson, Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam, The Battle that Changed the Course of the Civil War, pp. 107-108.
   
   It is certainly fair for an author to suggest that one scenario or the other is the more likely one (in view of the explicit, albeit selfserving, testimony of Hill and his adjutant, I would be inclined to conclude that Hill did not receive the copy of the order, and that in the rush of events [Lee's army was splitting up and moving out] Lee's adjutant did not notice that he did not receive confirmation of receipt). Mr. Buell does not do this, however. Instead, giving no hint of any uncertainty or controversy, he relates one hypothetical scenario as firmly established fact: "Hill . . . received two copies of the special order. . . . Hill snorted at the inept staff work of the high command and tossed away the redundant order. A staff officer retrieved the document and used it to wrap his cigars. When Hill and Lee's army got underway the next morning, September 10, the package was left behind." Buell, pp. 111-112.
   
   Again, I am no expert, but if Messrs. Sears and McPherson are correct in describing the available evidence, Mr. Buell's description is, with all due respect, misleading. He presents the story as gospel, adding vivid details (Hill "snorted" and "tossed away" the order; a "staff officer" retrieved and reused it) that lead the reader to believe that he is relying upon an account by a witness (presumably the messenger or Hill or a member of Hill's staff), when there apparently was none.
   
   This disparity, in turn, causes me to wonder how many other times in the book Mr. Buell may have used similar, apparently misleading techniques to present hypothetical scenarios as fact without alerting the reader that uncertainty exists.
   
   As I have emphasized, I am only a layperson interested in the Civil War. James McPherson apparently did not complain about Mr. Buell's treatment of the Lost Order incident (the book cover includes a blurb by Mr. McPherson praising the book; I have not been able to find his original review), so perhaps I am being unfair. If anyone has other thoughts, I would be delighted to hear them.



5. This is an intriguing book, although not without some controversy. The method is to examine three pairs of generals, one each from the Union and Confederate armies--East and West--at different levels of command. The two top generals at the end of the Civil War, Ulysses Grant and Robert E. Lee are one pair. Two generals of armies in the West--George Thomas with the Union and John Bell Hood with the Confederates--are profiled and compared. Finally, two generals in the East--Francis Barlow and John B. Gordon--are compared, each at Division or Corps command level.
   
   The end result is illuminating. Certainly, Robert E. Lee is not treated kindly. Grant comes in for some hits, as well. Nonetheless the criticisms are handled pretty well and the author does credit each for their strengths.
   
   At the lowest level of command, Barlow and Gordon, we get an interesting tratment of two commanders who may not be as well chronicled as others. Nonetheless, each served with distinction and both were certainly interesting character studies.
   
   Finally, and maybe most controversial, is the juxtaposition of Thomas (Southern born, despised by his family and mistrusted by some in the North) and Hood. The latter is a perfect example of the "Peter Principle," where one gets promoted above one's level of competence. A terrific division commander, Hood was overmatched as an army (and probably even as a corps) commander. Buell's treatment of Thomas is almost over laudatory. To be sure, the record is clear that Thomas was a stalwart, at whatever level of command he held; he excelled from the start of the Civil War, with his crushing of Zellicoffer's army at Mill Springs to his smashing victory over Hood at Nashville. Nonetheless, the treatment of Thomas is perhaps a bit "over the top," despite his genuine accomplishments and the shabby treatment that he received from Grant and Sherman toward the end of the war.
   
   In the end, a very interesting book, marred mainly by the overenthusiastic treatment of Thomas (even though, I would argue, Thomas deserves much more credit as a general than he is often given).

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 Pathfinder: John Charles Fremont and the Course of American Empire.

1. A good book, rich in historical detail, but...wow, the copyediting is bad. It's enough that it's really hard to read the book. I hope they can fix the copyediting problems if they reprint the book or bring it out in paperback.



2. I loved this book--an inspiring story that conveys the excitment of the exploration of the west. Author includes historical background so Fremonts actions are placed in the context of the time. Very readable--almost like a novel. The one drawback are the maps of Fremonts explorations. They are merely sketch maps without any location detail--I would have liked to have seen more detailed cartography with, perhaps, landforms included. Many (most) place names in the book are not shown on the maps. I kept my atlas at hand while reading, but many place names have changed. I strongly recommend.



3. John Fremont was (in some aspects) the Alexander Hamilton of the mid-19th century. That may seem like a strange comparison, but they had one very strong similarity.... you either loved them or you hated them. Both were seen as larger than life and aroused strong emotions throughout the country.
   
   There are some pretty significant differences between the two - Fremont was world-renowed explorer of the American Wild West - while Hamilton was a bona fide finacial genius (which Fremont definitely was not!). Hamilton died too young and became somewhat of a martyr and his reputation has grown. Fremont may have lived a little too long and scandal soiled and diminished his reputation.
   
   Now to Chaffin's wonderful biography on Fremont: What a great/interesting read! The characters are much larger than life John Fremont, Thomas Hart Benton (His father-in-law), General Stockton (Who helped win California fo America) and of course Fremont's exploring buddy Kit Carson.
   
   Chaffin tells a tale that is so odd that it must be true. The tales of Fremont's four main explorations is straight out of a Hollywood movie. We follow Fremont up mountains, across rivers, through deserts - we see how they faced extreme starvation and how some members were forced to turn to canabalism (ouch!).
   
   Chaffin presents Fremont with warts and all - there is mention of his affairs, his conceit, his insubortination, his shameless self-promotion and his many financial blunders. While Chaffin does not apologize for Fremonts faults he also chooses not to dwell on these aspects.
   
   So why only four stars? There are some minor flow problems (for me) I found that the section on the war for California to be far too long, and the sections on Fremont's role in the Civil War and his ill fated Presidential campaign to be far too short. However, a significant amount of the book concentrates on Fremont's explorations.... which is exactly why I give a full recommendation.



4. This is a massively important book, one that invokes not only America, but also the frontier and the life of a man who, hitherto a minor player in history, has been brought to the forefront to show how he embodied an age. The author puts himself astride the arguments of American history, showing how John Charles Fremont was once the epitome of the American who helped brave the wilderness, and how recent revisionist historians cast him as an imperialist and a leader in the persecution of the Native Americans. For the author Fremont is neither and both, a man who forced America to "reimagine America itself". Born in 1813 in Savannah, Fremont was to embody America itself, the Colossus in the Cradle, that was just beginning to feel its way into the new frontier of the West.
   
   He was to be surveyor in the 1830s when the Cherokee nation was relocated. Fremont's most important expeditions would be between 1838 and 1854, charting various routes and mapping the American west. His campfires and wagon trails are today nothing but dust, few are preserved. The author sought in van to find them but found instead the legacy of Fremont, America astride the West gave birth to the American West and after that to commerce and the great movement of population, for which Fremont's old camping sites are now national parks or owned by the government or inside the property of corporations.
   
   This book evokes so many things it is hard not to give it praise for all of them. It tells the story of the American West and attempts by well meaning explorers to sympathize and help Native-Americans, Fremont himself judged the U.S government deficient in its promises to the American Indian.
   
   An amazing read that will be enjoyed by any student of American history or anyone interested in the frontier or the American West.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman



5. This is an excellent biography of an American that few people know about. Fremont was truly a vivid member of history from the days of the early republic through the age of manifest destiny. This book covers not only Fremont's triumphs but his downfalls. While a young and impetuous (sometimes dishonest) man, Fremont was successful in helping to expand this countries knowledge of its own topography and boundaries. Through a vivid use of journals and maps Fremont led expeditions that cataloged the trails for westward expansion.
   His service in the army corp. of engineers helped with the capture of California through bravado more so than force. After his brief governorship of California, Fremont was found guilty at a court marital for his actions against General Kearny and the Polk administration. Fremont's retirement would lead him to business ventures and a run for the presidency as the Republican Party's first candidate. These distinctions would continue as he was a commander of the western union forces during the Civil War. His greatest act here would be to promote a little known Grant to general and command the armies of Tennessee. Overall this is an excellent biography and does a great job of providing a balanced look at a little known person in American history. Highly recommended for those who want to understand how the groundwork for manifest destiny was laid.

3 comments about The Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant, Vol. 2.

1. General Grant wrote this book while dying of throat cancer. He had been swindled by a dishonest Wall Street Broker and his trophies and possessions were stripped from him to satisfy the demands of his debtors. Bankrupt, suffering from a terminal illness and never passing a moment without acute pain, he produced this magnificent monument to his greatness. Those who denigrate Grant as a drunkard, butcher, bumbling President need to read this book in order to correct these errant assumptions. It is impossible to read this book and not realize that Grant was an inordinately intelligent man and one hell of a writer.

   Grant's Memoirs are a deserved classic in American literature and considered the greatest military Memoirs ever penned, exceeding Caesar's Commentaries. Grant wrote as he lived: with clear, concise statements, unembellished with trivialities or frivolities. The only "criticism" the reader might have is that Grant bent over backwards not to wound the feelings of people in the book. He takes swipes at Joe Hooker and Jeff Davis, but what he left unsaid would have been far more interesting. A compelling and logical reason why Grant was so spare in his comments was because he was involved in a race with death. He didn't know how long he could live and therefore, "cut to the chase."

   Grant's assessments of Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan and other military leaders are brilliant and engrossing. His style, like the man himself, was inimitable and couldn't be copied. In everyday life, Grant was a very funny man, who liked to listen to jokes and tell them himself. His sense of the absurd was acute. It's no accident that he loved Mark Twain and the two hitched together very well. Twain and Grant shared a similar sense of humor, and Grant's witicisms in the Memoirs are frequent, unexpected and welcome. There are portions where you will literally laugh out loud.

   Though Grant's Memoirs were written 113 years ago, they remain fresh, vibrant and an intensely good read. I have read them in! their entirity 30 times in my life and I never weary of the style and language that Grant employed. He was a military genius to be sure, but he was also a writer of supreme gifts, and these gifts shine through on every page of this testament to his greatness. All Americans should read this book and realize what we owe to Grant: he preserved the union with his decisive brilliance. In his honor, we should be eternally grateful.




2. General Grant wrote this book while dying of throat cancer. He had been swindled by a dishonest Wall Street Broker and his trophies and possessions were stripped from him to satisfy the demands of his debtors. Bankrupt, suffering from a terminal illness and never passing a moment without acute pain, he produced this magnificent monument to his greatness. Those who denigrate Grant as a drunkard, butcher or bumbling President need to read this book in order to correct these errant assumptions. It is impossible to read this book and not realize that Grant was an inordinately intelligent man and one hell of a writer.

   Grant's Memoirs are a deserved classic in American literature and considered the greatest military Memoirs ever penned, exceeding Caesar's Commentaries. Grant wrote as he lived: with clear, concise statements, unembellished with trivialities or frivolities. The only "criticism" the reader might have is that Grant bent over backwards not to wound the feelings of people in the book. He takes swipes at Joe Hooker and Jeff Davis, but what he left unsaid would have been far more interesting. A compelling and logical reason why Grant was so spare in his comments was because he was involved in a race with death. He didn't know how long he could live and therefore, "cut to the chase."

   Grant's assessments of Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan and other military leaders are brilliant and engrossing. His style, like the man himself, was inimitable and couldn't be copied. In everyday life, Grant was a very funny man, who liked to listen to jokes and tell them himself. His sense of the absurd was acute. It's no accident that he loved Mark Twain and the two hitched together very well. Twain and Grant shared a similar sense of humor, and Grant's witicisms in the Memoirs are frequent, unexpected and welcome. There are portions where you will literally laugh out loud.

   Though Grant's Memoirs were written 119 years ago, they remain fresh, vibrant and an intensely good read. I have read them many times in my life and I never weary of the style and language that Grant employed. He was a military genius to be sure, but he was also a writer of supreme gifts, and these gifts shine through on every page of this testament to his greatness. All Americans should read this book and realize what we owe to Grant: he preserved the union with his decisive brilliance. In his honor, we should be eternally grateful.




3. This book is a good subject for the Civil War buff that delves into the personal accounts of a general from birth to retirement. This a must companion for "Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant, Volume One."

5 comments about Patriotic Treason: John Brown and the Soul of America.

1. This is the first book that I've read about John Brown and I'm glad that I waited. Brown's story is a simply amazing one and Carton is the master of every detail. He writes very well, is excellent at telling a story, and, most significantly for me, he is well-versed in the historical period. He has deep knowledge about pre-Civil-War politics, intellectual life and social relations. And he integrates what he knows brilliantly into John Brown's story. Brown emerges as more than the leader of the raid at Harper's Ferry; in this book we come to understand his Christianity, his early life, his family, his values and most particularly his relations with black people, which were perhaps without precedent in America. The book is very moving, though quietly so: Carton doesn't shy away from being critical of John Brown, but eventually his esteem for Brown comes through and it's tough not to be sympathetic. The book was a great pleasure and I felt that I learned a lot from it about race relations past--and present, too.



2. This is an excellent, thoroughly researched and referenced book by Evan Carton which is also a very gripping read. Even though the outcome is known, the book is hard to put down. But while the style is nearly novelistic, it is solidly factual. I read this book because I wanted to understand if the usual myths about Brown were correct - if he was indeed a madman. Carton shows him to be a deeply religious and principled man, and one whose reasoning was consistent with his values and with his understanding of the enormous injustice of slavery in nineteenth century America. Brown was an extremely effective fighter against the murderous "border ruffians" from Missouri who attempted to terrrorize free state settlers in Kansas. These Missourian slaveholders and their agents drove free-soil settlers away, burning and looting their settlements such as Lawrence, Kansas, fixing elections, and occasionally killing free-soil setlers, and bragging to "shoot, burn, and hang" abolitionsts, not believing the abolitionists or the free soil settlers(who often weren't abolitionists) would dare to fight back. Initially, they didn't. Brown did, with a very small force, and the reader may find his actions quite shocking. On some occasions his small force routed or captured gangs of the border ruffians who outnumbered them substantially. Brown's desire to accelerate the end of slavery, which he clearly saw as a odious blotch on the ideals which founded his country, led him eventually to more decisive action. Carton provides a clarification for his thought processes through his letters, meetings with sponsors and other associates, and the recollections of survivors after the raid on Harpers Ferry, and convinces that Brown's reasoning was sound, although it certainly was radical. Both before and after the raid, Carton shows us the Brown was confident of the positive effects of the raid even if it were a military failure. Ultimately, it was the notion of the slaveholders that they could indefinitely extend their profitable institution that proved to be madness.



3. John Brown's attempt to free slaves by sparking a national uprising through the assault on the Harpers Ferry in October 1859 was a complete and utter failure when measured by how quickly they were thwarted, how many of Brown's men died in the attempt or by execution. Yet, his communications during his trial and from prison galvanized the hardest of abolitionists in the north (including the Transcendentalists such as Emerson and Thoreau) and the secessionists in the south. More than a few people believe it was the reaction to this raid that set events in process that led to the ferocious bloodshed of the Civil War less than eighteen months later.
   
   Was Brown a madman acting in a crazed spasm or emotion? That judgment has changed radically in the near century and a half since his execution. Immediately afterward, the largest popular reaction was negative because it was lawless and was an assault on the Federal Government. Some of the most extreme abolitionists did hold him up as a kind of messianic figure. When I was in high school, he was regarded as someone hardly worth mentioning. He was clearly crazed and criminal to boot. In the past decade several books and documentaries have taken another look and come to a much more favorable view of Brown. Some even see him much as the Transcendentalists talked about him right after he was hanged.
   
   Evan Carton focuses more on the life of Brown and only gets into the societal issues in a couple of places. He does a fine job in keeping the life Brown lived front and center rather than letting it stand for whatever his supporters or detractors would have it be. Carton trusts the reader enough to let him decide for himself. This is quite important for the modern reader who likely knows little about Brown because of the issues his life raises for our own time. Is a private choice to violence ever justified? Certainly slavery was a great evil. Was Brown justified? Would or could slavery have been eradicated in the United States as it was elsewhere in the European Empires without war?
   
   If you answer that slavery was so evil that Brown was justified how do you say that someone who is trying to prevent millions of abortions is wrong? Or someone who wants to retain affirmative action? Or whatever else drives their personal conscience to extreme action? If you say that Brown was not justified, how do you avoid the guilt of slavery? Weren't the millions of souls in bondage worth fighting for? Should they have been left as chattel property for another decade or two or another century until things could work themselves out?
   
   I guess my own view is a cheat on the question. I do not condone private violence and believe that those who blow up abortion clinics or violently attack Federal installations actually help their opponents more than their cause. Brown was so fervent and articulate that his passion moved a great many people. If he had stepped forward more as a Frederick Douglass and engaged in demonstrations he would have probably accomplished more. But you can justly come to different conclusions than mine.
   
   Brown was a man of great integrity to the point of rigidity. As a businessman his personal sense of what was right led him to drive customers away. He wouldn't sell leather until it was cured to his level of satisfaction even if the customer wanted it as it was. When he was selling wool, his own classifications mattered more to him than what his customers wanted to buy and what those he was an agent for wanted to sell. When he and his family were caught up in the Kansas War, he was clearly justified in protecting those who opposed letting the Missourian slave advocates run roughshod over the territorial government. The Missourians committed many atrocities and Brown was the man who taught the victims that they could stand up to their oppressors. Still, attacking and murdering people in the homes and hacking them to death with a sword still shocks us.
   
   Brown was not an unfeeling man dispensing justice as if he were God. He was a man of deep passion who also knew pain and personal loss. Many of his children died in infancy or youth. He knew poverty and want. There is a tremendously moving scene when Brown is found flat on his Dianthe's, his first wife, grave crying in agony. And his last visit with his second wife especially when she has to leave him is also quite moving. Brown did what he did because he knew (that personal conviction problem again) that he was on God's work and was doing what God wanted him to do. And this despite the deep personal loss the mission brought him.
   
   I recommend this book because I like the way Carton focuses on the life and leaves most of the commentary to you and because Brown's life raises issues that resonate in our time. The author does get in to the larger national issues in chapter 10 and in the aftermath of the execution in chapter thirteen. In the epilogue he shares a few of his own views that you might or might not accept. I also recommend it because one can never know too much about the Civil War and its origins. It was a cataclysm whose shockwaves still resonate underneath almost everything in our present national life.
   
   There are some very good pictures in the book, but the one flaw I hope they correct in a subsequent edition is to provide a listing of the illustrations and their page numbers. Now you see them mixed in the text as you read, but if you want to find them later it becomes somewhat of a hunting game.



4. And...written by a Texan, too! Every detail of Brown's life is told here, from his humble beginnings to his single-handed start of the Civil War. Worth the 15 hours unabridged.



5. A balanced biography of a complex man, "Patriotic Treason", is both scholarly and involving. A rich, anecdote-laden text, it easily moves between chronicling the life of abolitionist John Brown and describing the larger tapestry of American life in the 1850s.
   
   The book is chockful of dramatic scenes and thematic discussions, including- as pointed out in the other Amazon reviews of this book- the question of whether it's acceptable and perhaps even a moral obligation to sometimes break the law in favor of a greater good. Mr. Carton covers the question well, quoting leading figures of the time who address that very question in response to Mr. Brown's well-publicized actions.
   
   The book is sobering at times, and not just for the expected reasons (like being reminded again of how terribly slaves were treated or how much widespread support there was for slavery in this supposed land of liberty). No, what I found surprising is that among whites who didn't like slavery and even among outright abolitionists, there was very little use or affection for blacks. Most just wanted them deported or resettled somewhere else, where they wouldn't compete for American jobs or mingle with the more "refined" white race.
   
   John Brown, on the other hand, actively befriended blacks all his life, had them over to his house for dinner with his family (unprecedented!), humbly solicited advice from his black friends on a variety of matters, and regularly interacted with blacks in all kinds of other "normal" ways. For John Brown, abolition wasn't just the right answer to an academic question or a detached moral opinion that had little to do with one's daily life. John Brown lived his anti-slavery views because he lived side by side with blacks every day. Whatever excesses Mr. Brown may or may not have undertaken later when he put his anti-slavery views into action, that fact scored points with me.
   
   If you check out my other Amazon reviews, you'll see that I don't read a lot of biographies or memoirs, but every now and then I dive into one. I'm really glad "Patriotic Treason" grabbed my attention. It illuminates a shameful part of U.S. history and again debunks the tired mantra among many that we need to return to the values of our historical past. No, many of those "values" should stay in the past where they belong. It was a dark, evil time in many ways, and John Brown played a huge part in helping this country move beyond it.

1 comments about Faces of Discord: The Civil War Era at the National Portrait Gallery.

1. I found this 300 page volume of portraits and information on many Civil War persons englightening because there are pictures of the Famous and not so famous people who I have read and written about. I will treasure this volume for many years