5 comments about The Destructive War: William Tecumseh Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, and the Americans.

1. Royster's "The Destructive War" is one of the most important works of Civil War Scholarship in the 1990's. He blends a sweeping narrative with extensive analysis to explain the development of "total war" and its effects on Americans. What will really engage the reader is not so much Royster's examinations of General William Sherman's actions and those of his men, but rather the ideas of Stonewall Jackson and the calls for the destruction of Northern cities that they elicit from the Confederacy, a nation that was supposedly only wanted to fight a defensive war. While Royster's argument is not without some structural flaws, it makes some very interesting points about Confederate war aims and the willingness of populations and troops of both sides to destroy the cities of their former bretheren. I've read this book twice for graduate level classes and each time a lively discussion has been generated. An excellent book.



2. The book The Destructive War by Charles Royster, examines the war policies and strategies of the Union and the Confederacy during the civil war. The book talks extensively about Confederate general Jackson and Union General Sherman.

   At the beginning of the war the Union did not attack citizens or their property. The Union did not destroy any property of the citizens of the Confederacy because they anticipated winning the war. They realized that if they won the war it would be their responsibility to help the south rebuild. They also thought of the south and the people of the south as Americans despite labeling them traitors. But despite the reluctance on the part of Union Generals to damage citizen's property it eventually became policy. This change in policy came about because, "northern expressions of support for intensified war-making assumed that the Confederate army was an instrument of the Southern populace and that the populace was a legitimate object of attack," (Royster, 81). Women were also subject to attack. Union soldiers attacked women because "in the conventions of the time, women were supposed to use their power to ennoble and civilize-whereas, Southern women, it seemed, were serving what Elizabeth Cady Stanton called "mere pride of race and class." By promoting war against the union and by showing their hatred of Federal soldiers, they imitated Lady Macbeth and "unsexed themselves to prove their scorn of `the Yankees'." Thus they forfeited their exemption as ladies and noncombatants," (Royster, 87). Confederates did not share this policy. They always were proud that when Lee invaded Pennsylvania in 1863 that he gave an order that soldiers were not to damage citizen's property or plunder it.
   
   The book also talks about General William Tecumseh Sherman. Sherman was a southerner who chose to stay in the Union. "He shared (southern) distaste for abolitionist and for Northern politicians who made hostility to slaveholders a political platform. Still, he told Louisianans that secession was treason and that he would not collaborate with it by remaining in the state," (Royster, 90). He hoped to stay out of the war but eventually he joined the Union army. He participated in the battle of Bull Run and blamed the "defeat on the inexperience and panic of the privates," (Royster, 92). He was the senior commander of central and western Kentucky in 1861, despite his desire not to be in charge. He was dismissed of command of the area and rumors spread that he was insane. He eventually led campaigns down the Mississippi River and captured Atlanta. He became famous for his destructive marches through the south.
   
   General Thomas Jonathan Jackson or Stonewall Jackson was a very famous and effective Confederate General. Everyone even Northerners considered Jackson a "genuine general," (Royster, 42). Jackson on many occasions outmatched many Union Generals on the battlefield. He died on the battlefield on May 2, 1863 from friendly fire. Many Confederate Generals including Lee thought that if Jackson had not died that they would have won the war. After the war Jackson came to symbolize many things after the war. He epitomized the courageous and skilled Confederate soldier. He also represented a model "to all the men especially ambitious and aspiring youths, that the self-control and assiduous application he had become a self-made man," (Royster, 162).
   
   The civil war was "an interior struggle in the (Confederacy and Union), an effort to make the newly forming conceptions of nationality inclusive lasting while they were still controversial and nebulous," (Royster, 145). Both sides believed that the best way to validate their idea of the nation is to destroy the other side's army. The Confederacy thought the best way to establish itself as an independent nation would be to deliver to the north a decisive defeat on their soil. General Stonewall Jackson gave the south many victories against the Union and came to be one of the most famous Generals in the war. The Union thought one of the best ways to bring the Confederacy to its knees would be to attack Confederate citizens. General Sherman was famous for his invasion into the south, wrecking havoc on the Confederate citizens.

   I had to read this book for my Civil War class. I thought that the book was a valuable source of civil war information. However Royster repeated himself several times in the book. The book also jumped alot from subject to subject. The chapters did not flow into each other; they tended to skip from idea to idea. Despite this it was full of very detailed information.




3. This is a brilliantly labyrinthine disquisition on the American Civil War. Royster's premise is the examination of the wars' scale of destruction, and the surprising extent of its violence, developed out of biographical sketches of Sherman and Jackson, who Royster believes best personify the Union and the Confederacy. Further, Royster sees the devastation of the Civil War as incipient in the antebellum period. The Destructive War is interpretive as well as critical, literary as well as historical, dealing as much with the idea of war as the facts themselves. Indeed, the author terms his work " a long essay."

   Royster depicts the Civil War as-primarily-aggresive, anomalous, vicarious, and as the title suggests, destructive. The Confederacy sought aggressive war to achieve quick legitimacy, its viability depending on the ability not only to wage war, but also to take that war north of the Potomac, make the Yankees feel its effects, and thereby convince them that the costs of prolonged combat would be far too dear. Royster argues that the Union pursued aggresive war, ultimately, to bring progress to the South and demonstrate the superiority of free labor over slave labor, by razing the Confederacy to its foundations and then rebuilding it in the North's own image.

   For Royster no one better epitomizes the Confederacy than Thomas Jonathon Jackson, better known by his sobriquet Stonewall, which Royster asserts, reflected a self-created persona. Jackson's Stonewall was an inelegant fusion of plodding resolve, frustrated (if not checked) ambition, and intense piety, smacking of both Calvinism and Arminianism, all funneled into a zealous devotion to duty. His untimely death at Chancellorsville gave birth to the Stonewall myth-patriotic Christian warrior-providing tantalizing 'what if' grist for the counterfactual mill of post hoc Confederate nation building. An advocate of "the tactical offensive in battle" Jackson is certain the Civil War will be "earnest,massed, and lethal."

   The essence of the Union, according to Royster, can be found in William Tecumseh Sherman. Alarmed by Confederate strength and resolve, Sherman presciently observed that tactical defensive warfare would be woefully insufficient in what he believed would be a long and costly war. Egged on by newspapers ravenous for victory on the cheap, and deferring to troops already engaged in wanton mayhem, Sherman embraced, then embodied, that which he originally resisted: total war.

   Royster includes subsidiary characterizations of the war as drastic, Republican, and vigorous. Drastic war knows no limits in the pursuit of emancipation and abolition. Republican war means "Emergency war powers" and "passionate nationalism" which will create "a new republic, purged of antebellum evils and backwardness." Vigorous war is possible because of the "widespread eagerness to be exonerated of the criminality attached to bloodshed." Auxiliary adjectives such as harsh, bitter, ineluctable and causeless are employed to complete the illustration. In the book's chapter on vicarious war the author asks, "How had the naive notions prevalent at the start given way so readily to killing on a scale supposedly unimaginable?" This single question is the essence of Royster's work.




4. While focusing on the deeper causes of the civil war and their play-out on battlefields, Royster rips the lid off one of the most cherished American dogmas: the assumed sacrosanct value of the press. Royster's deep and thorough quotation from newspapers north and south, for decades preceding the war, lays bare a legacy of mutual hate encouraged by newspapers as they whipped their respective constituents up to a frenzy. The horror of "total war" and its major military proponents, in that context, is not only quite explicable but even ordinary -- even tame. The generals are, indeed, seen as essentially loyal ministers to a vast malaise primarily spiritual and psychic, which was hardly original to them, and which has been allowed to fester in this nation for a long time, and which to a degree poisoned populations both north and south before the war.
   
   This is therefore one of the few major books on American history either to take up an original thesis, or to forward one so counter to accepted thinking. You can like it or dislike it, curse it or scream "ouch," but the evidence is there, meticulously laid out. The fact is, Royster throws great and uneasy light on our present culture wars which are also now several decades running -- and flamed in a quite similar manner.
   
   In the meantime, Royster's descriptions of the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain and the burning of Columbia are matchless.
   
   This book leaves all James McPhersons, all Ken Burnses, all Stephen Ambroses, and all similar gurus at the post -- mere babes. No, this is not to say he is some sort of Michael Moore hate America nut, either. He's more on the level of a Tacitus, frankly, or an Isaiah weeping at the gates. Read it and weep.



5. This book won the Bancroft Prize. I can see why. The prose is inspirational, every paragraph a little jewel. The book is absorbing. It was easy for me to get lost in the prose, too easy. But where was this book going, generally? How did the chapters tie together? How does the concept of the destructive war fit into the intellectual patterns of pre- and anti-bellum history? I can't answer these questions and I would hope that no one would ask me this last question on a Ph.D. prelim. I can draw only one conclusion: there was no connection. This was the first modern war in terms of its destructive power. One out of every five who participated, died on the field or, even more horribly, of his wounds, lilke Stone Wall Jackson. The intellectual origins of American politics became uprooted and found no voice in this war. The Jacksonian themes that built on that tradition were mangled by the war. All that was left was the vicarious war: people of all classes struggling to relate to the war in every day language in any way they could. And once the killing stopped and reconstruction began, the destructive war and the vicarious war ended. No one learned anything. Is that the main message of this book? I wish Royster had written it down in black and white.

No comments about Faith in the Fight: Civil War Chaplains.

1 comments about The Inspired Wisdom of Abraham Lincoln: How Faith Shaped an American President -- and Changed the Course of a Nation.

1. I only wish the politicians of today would follow the lead of a man as simple and great as Abraham Lincoln.

4 comments about More Generals in Gray.

1. A tome devoted to biographical sketches of 137 men united only by their arguable status as Confederate generals sounds like one of the ultimate Civil War "buff books". It is a pleasant surprise to open its pages and discover no dreary catalogue of minutiae. Instead, the author has condensed years of research into a series of sparkling capsule lives that reflect the wide range of characters and events in America's bitterest conflict.

   Each of the subjects has some claim to having held the rank of general in the Confederate military but not enough of one to have earned listing in Ezra J. Warner's authoritative "Generals in Gray". However solid or dubious their entitlement to the highest rank, however, they form a cross-section of important and interesting Southern officers and citizens. They came from a variety of backgrounds. Ten were born in the North, nine in Border States, nine abroad (including one veteran of Napoleon's Grande Armee, whose unit's performance in the defense of New Orleans fell short of Napoleonic standards). Not all had embraced independence eagerly. Michael Jefferson Bulger, for instance, voted "no" in the Alabama secession convention but nonetheless enlisted in the 47th Alabama Regiment. At Cedar Mountain, he suffered wounds to his arm and leg, binding the latter with corncobs and suspenders. At Gettysburg, he was captured after being left for dead. Following such mishaps, he ended up living to age 94, enjoying a placid post-war career as a farmer and occasional politician.

   In contrast to the indestructible Bulger, Edward Gantt was a fire-eating secessionist who resigned his seat in the first Confederate Congress to raise a regiment in Arkansas. After being captured with the garrison of Island No. 10, he returned home on parole but then experienced an astonishing change of heart. In late 1863, the formerly rabid states-righter slipped across the Yankee lines and spent the rest of the war urging his former countrymen to lay down their arms.

   Many more such tales are told here. The author has a keen eye for incisive facts and quotations, and his writing wastes few words. For the serious student of the Civil War, this work is a valuable reference. For everyone else, it offers hours of fascinating browsing.




2. I have owned and used Mr. Warner's classics Generals in Blue and Generals in Gray for over 40 years. Mr Allardice shows us the men appointed General by the various Southern States. This book proves the point the Government of the Confederacy was still having growing pains; the point being the generals from the Trans-Mississippi not being confirmed by the CSA Senate, in Richmond, Va. This is a great book for the Civil War Buff. It is a must need in your War Between the States Library.



3. Ezra Warner's classic 1959 volume tells us the stories of the 425 Confederate General Officers about whom we can't argue as to whether they were, in fact, a General; this volume tells the stories of several about whom we CAN argue. Warner gives the criteria, and this book does, too; a man had to be nominated to General Officer rank by President Davis, AND confirmed by Congress.
   
   The reasons to be here, not in Warner's book, are several; most commonly, a man could be a General of state militia, nominated by the Governor, confirmed by the legislature, not a General of the Confederacy. [President Jefferson Davis makes this book that way]. These militia officers can be seen as the equivalent of modern National Guard Officers. In some cases, there was a disconnect between the President and Congress, in others, there is doubt as to who appointed the man, and when. Thus we have the first Hispanic General, Santos Benavides--some records have him as a Colonel, others as a late appointment to Brigadier General. [The first American Indian General is in Warner's book--no doubts about Stand Watie].
   
   A special case is that of nine officers appointed to Brigadier General by General Edmund Kirby Smith using his expanded powers as Commander of The Transmississippi Department. Communication between Richmond and the West was most difficult after the fall of Vicksburg in July, 1863; Smith was, thus, in a situation unique in American history. These nine men are but a small part of a most complicated story; Warner lists them in an appendix; here they get full honors.
   
   In these reviews, I try to differentiate between books for the general reader, and those for "people like me". This book falls, I think, somewhere in between. It is superbly done, well written, well illustrated; a most respectful account of men deserving full respect, even if they aren't a "big name". For those poor folks who are like me, this book is, indeed, essential. You know who you are....



4. I was uncertain about the merit of this title before I purchased, but I need not have been. Author Bruce Allardice has created a worthy supplement to Ezra Warner's "Generals in Gray."
   
   The presentation format of "More Generals in Gray" is very close to that of Warner's classic reference works, but in single column vs. two columns for Warner's books. For most of the 137 entries a photograph, sketch, painting of the person is provided, except where ones were not available. The author provides background information including birthdate, state, parents, education as well as prewar occupation. Following this is a description or relevant military career, ranks achieved, commands, postwar life and death. Allardice closes each biography with a description of what sources led to the inclusion of the particular figure as a general. Notes and sources are provided after each entry as well.
   
   One caveat is that the reader should not expect to find a large list of generals overlooked by Warner, that is not the direction of this work. Instead, Mr. Allardice has cast a wider net to include those who would be legitimately rejected by the earlier criteria. He carefully provides detailed criteria and explanation for his additions. Most names here are men who were either never really promoted/confirmed or who were generals in state service or appointed in the Trans-Mississippi by E. Kirby Smith.
   
   This brings us to the strength of the study: the inclusion of men acting as generals who were either appointed by Kirby Smith or who led state forces as generals in actual campaigns. Both of these are indeed generals in the true sense of the word. Those studying the Trans-Mississippi will definitely find the backgrounds provided here beneficial.
   
   The less exciting entries for the reader are those appointed very late in the war (e.g. March 1865 or later) but never confirmed and really never served in the capacity of general. In addition, there were those referred to as generals in various Confederate post-war histories, but whom the author demonstrates did not really achieve the rank. Though it is perhaps a thankless task, the author is to be commended for setting the record straight with regards to these men.
   
   As a bonus, in an appendix Mr. Allardice lists another ~135 individuals sometimes referred to as generals by less authoritative sources. In one or two sentences for each he explains the reasons for excluding them.
   
   "More Generals in Gray" is a well-written and organized supplement to Warner's work. This volume will appeal the most to a narrower group of civil war enthusiasts and particularly those studying more obscure engagements. Note that now is a good time to obtain inexpensive remaindered copies.

5 comments about The Truth About Jesse James.

1. One word... WOW! Would I recommend this book? YES! History buffs or just Jesse James enthuses will be in for a treat! Betty Dorsett Duke's "Jesse James Lived & Died In Texas" convinced me back in 1998 that Jesse James didn't die in 1882, (I was a skeptic before) but her new book, "The Truth About Jesse James", should convince everyone, even if you are skeptic like I once was! Like the title, it is the TRUTH! From the beginning to the end I could hardly wait to turn the page to see what was going to happen next -- it's defiantly a GOOD read and will be timeless book.
   
   Many things impressed me with this book, I learned a lot of historical information about Jesse James, before his so-called passing which was defiantly a treat. I expected to be drawn right into the day he was supposedly shot. The research the author put into this book! Wow! Working at a community college, I see and edit history papers for peers all the time, this book would definitely be considered an "A" paper. Why? Betty Duke's research is very well done by the way it is presented and most of all you don't get bored, things stay interesting. I was very pleased with the citations, credits and how she used them properly. I wish more people would write like this.
   
   One thing that caught my attention after I read the book was a letter written by Emett Hoctor to Betty Duke, the author about this book. Mr. Hoctor was the man that pioneered the search for the truth about Jesse James through DNA testing back in 1995. Mr. Hoctor had chosen Professor Starr to head the project, and from his letter to the author he was obviously disappointed in Starr's work. The letter Mr. Hoctor wrote can be read by the public on the author's Web site: http://www.jessejamesintexas.com/emmett_hoctor_review.jpg
   
   In conclusion, I highly recommend this book to everyone interested in the TRUTH about Jesse James and his life. This book captures it all and if you are wondering if Jesse lived on after 1882 or died this book will seal the deal. I personally, feel comfortable now about what happened to Jesse James and I feel everyone will feel this way too after reading this book!



2. Following many years of exhaustive research, Betty Duke's book now gives us the real story of Jesse James. This book details so much evidence regarding the events in the life of Jesse James, after the supposed "assassination" in Missouri, that the history books may need to be re-written. We find him to be much alive, living in Texas, raising a family, and then leaving clues for those after him, regarding his true identity. This book will cause the reader to re-think what he has been told regarding the life of Jesse, the preacher's son from a little town in Missouri. Perhaps, the reader will even be inclined, like myself, to dig into his own family's history. I highly recommend this book to all history buffs, and those who want to want to blaze the trail in search of the real Jesse James.



3. someone should have proof read book before it went to print.and the more i read the more i beleave the auther is grasping at straws that her g-grandfather is jesse james.



4. A few copies of this book appeared with different cover and a different title. The earlier title was Jesse James History Mystery: Did He Fake His Death. Perhaps a more fitting title for this book would be Betty Duke in Wonderland. In this volume Duke takes us through the looking glass and down the rabbit hole. She uses a lot of smoke and mirrors. Duke would have us believe that Robert James, the father of Frank and Jesse James, did not die in California in 1850 as history relates. Instead he faked his death, acquired a new wife and began a second career as a Methodist (not Baptist) minister. Robert James becomes the father of the real James L. Courtney and then the real James L. Courtney morphs into someone named Haun.
   
   Jesse James, of course, was not shot and killed by Bob Ford on April 3, 1882, and the real Jesse James morphs into James L. Courtney, the great grandfather of the author. Jesse James did not marry his cousin Zee Mims, but Zee married a cousin of Jesse's Wood Hite. Wood Hite, according to Duke, is the man who is really buried in James' grave in Mount Olivet Cemetery in Clay County, Missouri.
   
   If this is not too confusing for you to follow, don't worry there is still a lot more smoke, mirrors, magic lanterns, secret societies, and coded diaries that are sure to disorient you. Quantrell (her spelling, not mine) did not die in Kentucky at the end of the Civil War, and "Bloody Bill" Anderson was not killed in Ray County, Missouri on October 26, 1864. Both men survived, took new identities, and had long careers in Texas and elsewhere. There is much, much more of this sort of mania in the book, including large doses of the Knights of the Golden Circle, myths, treasure tales, etc., etc., etc.
   
   Not only is this book bad history, but it is bad writing as well. Duke has apparently never made the acquaintance of The Chicago Manuel of Style, or any similar guide for writers. Her punctuation, footnotes, bibliography, grammar, organization, etc. leave much to be desired. A large number of her footnotes cite various internet sources, many of dubious validity. Very few of her footnotes for books give page numbers, and for newspapers she often only cites the year, but not the month and day. She cites at least one work of fiction as if it is a valid reference for historical matters, and several of the books listed in her bibliography are totally unreliable.
   
   Much of the material in the book is not the work of Betty Duke. She quotes pages and pages of other people's work. Some of this she says she has permission to use, but she is totally mum on the subject of permission in other cases. Some of the writers that are quoted at length may want to take issue with Duke about this. It is also interesting to speculate about how the five living great grandchildren of the outlaw Jesse James will feel about Betty's claim that she is also the great granddaughter of Jesse James.
   
   In summary, this book will likely be remembered as a burr (the size of a giant tumbleweed) under the saddle of the history of the Old West. This book has been repudiated by The James Preservation Trust,which preserves the family history of the Jesse James family, and this book has been reviewed unfavorably in The James-Younger Gang Journal, by noted historian and book critic Nancy B. Samuelson, author of The Dalton Gang Story, and by the Wild West History Association of professional historians.



5. An interesting and well researched Jessie James alternate history. Ms Duke cites her sources and lays her cards on the table....... I beleive she proves her case. A must read for James scholars, Knights of the Golden Circle researchers and outlaw hunters...... What a story!!!!!

5 comments about Hospital Sketches.

1. This book was in great condition. The shipping was very quick just like promised.



2. As I write this, there is currently a controversy swirling in Washington DC, about the shabby treatment of some wounded American veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Making the cover of Newsweek, and with the general of a veterans' hospital and the Secretary of the Army being forced to resign.
   
   Alcott's writings take on a very contemporary tinge, under these circumstances. Of course, she wrote of a far bloodier struggle, on American soil. Her descriptions of the Union hospitals do bring forth the primitive treatments then available, and the sacrifices of the thousands injured. Her book is a reminder of the cost of wars. Though the Civil War was necessary to end slavery, while some current readers might reasonably wonder whether entering Iraq was worth it.



3. What aroused my interest in this book? No snazzy title. No enticing aroma of mystery or intrigue about it at all. But am I glad that I did read it? Unquestionably! From start to finish this book never falters, never flags in evoking the times, the place, and the human experience. Louisa's style may require some adjustments and patience from modern readers, and it probably will appeal to a more mature audience. (I don't see young people dropping Harry Potter for the tale Louisa tells.) As another reviewer eloquently noted, the book tears at the heart and makes you smile and laugh. Would that I could write half as good.The truth of the book cannot be denied. Read it and decide for yourself.



4. This little book tells what is was like to work in a Civil War hospital. It is autobiographical, although the author changes her name in the narrative, which was considered proper in women's writing at the time.
   
   Louisa May Alcott had an ability to tolerate chaos and laugh at herself, which lends a charm to her writing, even though it is the sometimes wordy prose that was common in the 1860's. I found the book quick to read and enjoyable.
   
   The book would have been enhanced with a brief biography of the author, perhaps on the back cover. She is, of course, best known for her books for young people, but she had other accomplishments which are remarkable considering that she was afflicted with mercury poisoning, a result of medication given for typhoid, which she contracted in the hospital. In this book, she describes the bout with typhoid from the point of view of her becoming a patient in her room, and how kind the staff was to her. She tells that she lost her hair as an effect of the medication. Eventually her father shows up and she goes back to Massachusetts with him.
   
   Alcott based the book on letters she wrote home while serving in the hospital. Some were hastily written and she did not edit them strenuously because she did not want to lose the immediacy of the writing. In a few places, I longed for more clarity. Also, she makes references to literary characters of the time and most of these were lost on me. Still, there is much of value in this book and it is worth reading.



5. This book is a classic. Wirten by Louisa May Alcott, yes the one that would later write the chlidrens classic "Little Women", tells the story of her service during the Civil War through the eyes of Nurse Tribulation Periwinkle. Although it is a short work, this edition is only 55 pages it brings to focus war and its cost and who pays the bill.
   
   Nurse Periwinkle will have two assigments before she, her self becomes a victum of the war (Typhiod) and must leave. The first is what we would call today an Evecuation Hospital where the wounded are brought from the battle field.
   
   We hear about a un-named soldier who asks only for a sip of wat and Nurse periwinkle has to go to a water can in another building and when she returns the soldier is dead. We hear about the long death of John, of the little Sergent who manages to survive and the Prussian who goes back to fight again.
   
   Nurse periwinkle's final assigment is to the Armory Hospital and to "K" Ward. K Ward is Military talk for where they send those who have run out of medical options and who's fate is in some other power, a large percentage of those on K Ward, will die on K Ward. All Wars have K Wards, I was in the K Ward at letterman Army Medical center for several months during the Vietnam War. Her brief discription is perhaps the best in literature of what hopelessness is.
   
   This book should be read by all and have a place next to Stephen Crains "Red Badge of Courage" in High School American Lit. Class.

2 comments about Subversive Southerner: Anne Braden and the Struggle for Racial Justice in the Cold War South (Civil Rights and the Struggle for Black Equality in the Twentieth Century).

1. Anne Braden courageously opposed the Dixie segregationist establishment. She was born Anne McCarty in 1924 in "Louisville where white folks lived." Her earlier concerns were conventional and non threatening to the social mores of her Jim Crow society. Anne mostly worried about being attractive to boys during her high school years and was even willing to play dumb so as not to alienate them. She underwent a dramatic change in her early adult years while attending college and earning a living as a journalist. The Southern newspapers of that era barely considered a murdered black person worthy of mention. Blacks could fight and die in our wars, but were refused entrance to the voting booth. White criminals were afforded more respect than virtuous and law abiding Afro-Americans. The usual definition of a liberal Southern politician was someone who dared speak out against lynching while remaining firmly loyal to the principle of segregation. Anne ultimately could not make peace with the prevailing zeitgeist. She marries Carl Braden, a man named after Karl Marx. The Bradens soon partner with such luminaries like James Dombrowski, Bob Zellner and Martin Luther King. The latter remarked upon her dedication in his famous "Letter From a Birmingham Jail." Heroic self sacrifice and the constant risk of violence became an everyday reality. The odds were probably no better than fifty-fifty that the Bradens could escape being murdered.
   
   What does the Cold War have to with Anne Braden? Why did the author choose the title "Subversive Southerner?" Catherine Fosl points out the insane eagerness of the segregationists to brand those advocating civil rights as traitors to the United States. In their peculiar way of looking at the world, combatting Jim Crow was the same thing as aligning oneself with our nation's enemies. The Bradens, however, did flirt with Communism and this made it easier for their foes to justify harassing them. A number of prosecutors seeking political power relished the opportunity to put them behind bars for alleged acts of sedition. Anne's relationship with avowed Communists extends to the point where the well known radical Angela Davis even writes the forward for this book. Should we therefore condemn her? Not in the least. Fosl presents a persuasively well put together argument that Anne Braden deserves to be cut some slack. There is no evidence whatsoever hinting that the still living Ms. Braden ever adhered to any orthodox interpretation of Communist doctrine. She seems naively oblivious to the logical consequences of these horrifying set of beliefs. Sadly, mainstream political conservatives did virtually nothing to combat racism in the Old South. Anne Braden was therefore compelled to cooperate with those willing to fight along side of her. She and her late husband were primarily activists and not armchair philosophers. One also does not have to agree with all of Anne Braden's more recent political proposals. Some of these efforts might indeed leave something to be desired. That is beside the point. Ms. Braden definitely has done far more good than inadvertent harm. Catherine Fosl is to be congratulated for making sure that Americans don't overlook her enormous accomplishments. It would be shameful not to honor Anne Braden while she is still alive. I strongly urge you to read this superb biography of one of our greatest American heroes.



2. 'Subversive Southerner' is a must-read for anyone interested in southern history or in the social and cultural upheavals of the 50s and 60s. It's a riveting story of personal transformation and courage in the face of unrelenting persecution by authorities, and a reminder of how fragile and how precious are our civil liberties. Anne Braden is a heroine-- dedicated, single-minded in her pursuit of civil rights, but compassionate and always interested in individuals. There's plenty of bombings, arrests, and HUAC subpoenas to keep you turning pages,and lots of quotes, oral-history style, from major figures from the 50s and 60s. It's well-written--Fosl is an expert interviewer and very good writer.

3 comments about The Secret Eye: The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, 1848-1889 (Gender & American Culture).

1. A Secret Eye was a huge disappointment. The characters were not as developed and colorful as one might expect. The diary/journal form became ho-hum after the first few entries. The dragging subjects and subject matter made the 470 pages difficult to wade through. Augusta has always been my home and I did enjoy some of the local history. I am certain a more interesting story could have been told about my hometown.



2. I thoroughly enjoyed this book! How often does one get to read someone else's diary? (Set during the Civil War, no less.) The author was a well educated, intelligent woman for her time and she is an excellent writer. So many aspects of this diary are completely fascinating. Her pampered southern lifestyle, her views on slavery (she calls herself a liberal re: slavery and yet, she is such a racist.), her feelings on male superiority and her longing to do more with her talents. The entries during the war and after are the most interesting... but DON'T read the introductory notes written by the editor...unless you want to spoil the ending! I wanted the diary to unfold one day at a time without knowing what was coming just as it did for Gertrude. After reading the diary I went back and read the editorial notes which add insight into the author's life. This is a story of a very strong woman enduring unbelievable hardships. If you enjoy history at all you will love reading this diary!



3. I totally diagree w/ the review above because apparently the reader did not understand that this diary is not a novel.
   
   It is true however that the diary does not reveal too much of Ella herself. This is not surprising to me since she states that she is not going to open up to her diary and tell her innomost feelings. Unfortunately!
   However, after she gets married, has children and is much more matured she does reveal a great deal about her life, feelings etc.
   One can only thank that someone took the trouble to record personal information during the antebellum time and afterwards for the readers of the 21st century to read. Thank you.

No comments about Kentuckians in Gray: Confederate Generals and Field Officers of the Bluegrass State (None).

2 comments about The Civil War Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant.

1. The only criticism here is that the editors saw fit to edit this masterpiece of American literature. This is a little like editing Shakespeare or the Bible. Don''t tamper with genius! This criticism aside...

   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. A truly oustanding book.




2. Insight is key to this book written by Grant from basically his death bed. What we learn from Grant in this book gives us an opportunity to understand his intentions, strategies and how he worked with people. Grant tries to be very fair in his writing that covers his early days as a colonel to full-fledged commander of the US Army. His style is basic and easy to understand. At times the book feels like he is giving a history lesson about the war and sometimes is vague about triumphs or failures. I was looking forward to reading about Grant's work with the battle of Cold Harbor and he was completely brief in this book considering it was a major conflict. But, this was Grant's choice to write and memoir depth is subject to author decision. Grant does pack a lot of information in and also has interesting coverage in regards to Lee's surrender. Anyone studying Grant or looking for further insight owes it to themselves to consider reading this book.