3 comments about War Against the Panthers: A Study of Repression in America.

1. This book is a straight forward account of why Huey P. Newton helped found the Black Panthers. This has many historical references to when and how oppression was used by the government in the past and how he would prevent it in the future. This is one of my favorite books by my favorite author. It's a great read.



2. Irakurtzeko erreza, ez oso luzea, oso liburu ona azkenean. Mugimendu beltzaren aurkako Amerikkkak buruturiko errepresioaz zerbait gehiago jakiteko oso liburu erabilgarria. Ez badakizu gauza askorik Black Panther Partyren aurkako errepresioaz, hau da behar duzun liburua. Oso aukera ona./ Easy to read book, not very complex, a very good book at least. If you want to know more about black liberation movement and the repression it suffered, it's a very good option. If you don't know about this matter, this is the book you need. A very good option (excuse my bad english). JO TA KE!!!



3. Excellent book. This book shows why white people should be hated. They are liars. They are thiefs. They are destructive and shalt be burned by God come judgment day.

3 comments about Gettysburg (Voices of the Civil War).

1. I like to refer to this book as a colorful, well done "coffee table" book as it features many drawings, photos and skips the details you would find in other books about the battle. This book is probably not for those looking for details or heavy explanations about a specific conflict in the battle. For one that is looking to get a basic understanding of the battle and aftermath quickly it is perfect. For those new to understanding Gettysburg this is an excellent book. Having read many books about the battle I found this book interesting in regards to the personal accounts that are found on just about every page. Time Life has made a great book and continues their quality as with other series in the past.



2. This is one of the books in the Time-Life Series, "Voices of the Civil War". In these books the authors/editors have taken passages out of diaries, letters to home, and personal observations of Union and Confederate Soldiers, along with photographs and pictures (of the soldiers, if a photograph is available), and given the soldier's viewpoints of the Battle. This is an insightful, moving, inspiring, and tragic account of the particular battle. In this case, the great and terrible Battle Of Gettysburg.

   From such Generals as Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet, W. Scott Hancock, to low ranking officers, to the enlisted men, there are letters, diary entries, and viewpoints taken from these soldiers as they write about "Little Round Top", "The Devils Den", "Culps Hill", "Cemetary Ridge", and other locations where the battle took place around Gettysburg. The letters and viewpoints range from the patriotic, others talk about the terror of the battle, others inform about lost loved ones, and yet there are humorous tales taken from the diaries of the soldiers.

   This is such an interesting book, that once you pick it up, it is hard to put down. The other books in the "Voices of the Civil War" series are just as interesting as "Gettysburg".

   Highly recommended!




3. There are probably thousands of books written about the Civil War, and many of them cover the same territory. But Gettysburg: Voices of the Civil War by the editors of Time-Life Books, provides a new look at this monumental battle.
   
   Voices of the Civil War is filled with first hand accounts of the events leading up to and including the Battle of Gettysburg. Instead of a dry narrative, the authors provide a brief description of events. But they then turn the story over to the soldiers, civilians, families and newsmen who were eyewitnesses. They spent thousands of hours searching out letters, journals, and dairies as well as photographs and sketches. In reading these accounts, we get a more vivid picture of the battle. We can almost see the bullets flying by our heads, hear the constant roar of cannons and guns followed by the anguished cries and moaning of the injured and dying soldiers and horses. We also read about the mayhem and chaos of battle. One soldier writes "I could have walked a half or three quarters of a mile on the dead soldiers of the enemy and not have put my feet on the ground. In some places, they were lying three deep." Recalls a Virginia artillery lieutenant, "The sights and sounds that assailed us were simply indescribable" with "corpses swollen to twice their original size, some of them actually burst asunder with the pressure of foul gases and vapors." Civilians were left to deal with the carnage, and one resident reports on "piles of amputated limbs were heaped outside the open windows." Yet, despite the death and destruction, there was a determination that this battle needed to be fought for a noble cause. A New York Times reporter lamented upon finding the body of his dead son, "O, you dead, who at Gettysburg have baptized with your blood the second birth of Freedom in America."
   
   Yet, throughout the battle, there were tender scenes as well. Civilians especially, helped provide food and medical care to the soldiers of both sides. Even the soldiers could put aside regional hatred. One Confederate soldier came upon a wounded Union man. "I saw that all one side of his lower jaw was torn off. I got him to a shade and fixed him down with his oil cloth, blanket and knapsack, then brought him a canteen of water and how pitiful to see him trying to drink by pushing the mouth of the canteen through the wound in his throat."
   
   I have a selfish reason for being fascinated by Voices from The Civil War. My great-great grandfather fought in the Civil War and was wounded on the second day of fighting at Gettysburg. Having left no written record of his war experiences in diaries or letters, Voices of the Civil War is as close as I can get to understanding what he lived through.
   
   This book has three things that should be required for all Gettysburg books. First, it has an artist's rendering of the battle ground. Second, it has a chronology of the sequence of events. And finally, it includes a list of officers for both armies that includes the generals, corps, divisions and brigades. These three items makes it much easier to see the full picture while reading.
   
   So while some Gettysburg books may give you a more complete description of battles and such, no book will capture your attention, your imagination or your heart like Voices of the Civil War.

5 comments about Rutherford B. Hayes: Warrior and President.

1. Hayes had an interesting life and an active time in the Civil War. This book is aimed at presenting a favorable picture of him, and is written kind of like old-fashioned biographies. It pays excessive attention ro Hayes' diary, and contains considerable trivia. Some chapters are boring. The most interesting chapters are are, obviously, on 1876 and 1877 and the dramatic events around Hayes' election to the Presidency. And yes, the Republicans stole that election too!



2. I have to give Professor Hoogenboom credit for giving it the old college try. He does his very best to portray Hayes as an effective politician and as a real reformer. Unfortunately, the case he makes is simply not convincing.

   To be fair to Hayes, this is not to say that his life was uninteresting. This biography shows that Hayes was not just some non-entity that was tapped for the GOP nomination by the power-brokers of the party, but that he had a pretty interesting life (a Civil War record of real consequence, plus an impressive career in Ohio politics) prior to ascending to the presidency.

   Unfortunately, the only reason we are reading a Hayes biography is because he became President, not because he was a Civil War general or a governor of Ohio. It is when dealing with Hayes' record as President that Hoogenboom fails to persuade the reader of Hayes' impact & commitment to reform.

   For one thing, Hoogenboom pulls way too many punches when it comes to the 1876 elections. He equivocates; he is not willing to say that the elections were on the up-and-up, but neither is he willing to concede that Hayes was involved in what was a truly stolen election. Anyone who thinks the 2000 election was stolen ought to take a good look at 1876. Like it or not, Hayes was complicit in this, and his credibility was compromised from the very beginning of his term.

   It really doesn't get any better from there. Was Hayes a dynamic, reform-minded president? Good luck trying to prove that --- the record simply does not support that contention, no matter how hard Hoogenboom tries accentuate the positive. Granted, Hayes' administration was not the embarrassment of scandals that typified Ulysses Grant's administration, and certainly corrupt Republicans like Roscoe Conkling & James Blaine make Hayes look quite pure, but this does not mean that Hayes had any genuine tendency towards reform. One only has to examine the not particularly comfortable relationship between Hayes and Secretary of the Interior Carl Schurz to see how Hayes felt about the movement supporting civil service reform, for example.

   So we are left with a mixed bag. The only other Hayes biography I have read was written in the early 1930's and was so appallingly racist that I couldn't put it down fast enough. There has been precious little written on Hayes since then, so Hoogenboom has provided a great service. It is a well-written & well-researched biography, so there are no complaints in that regard. I simply do not feel that the author has convincingly made his case.




3. Over the last few years I've read more than 30 presidential biographies, usually using Amazon to guide me to the best book on each president. Hoogenboom's biography of Hayes seemed the best, and I was not disappointed. Hayes comes off as a courageous man of good intentions, but also as a man who was unable to overcome the nation`s problems while he was president. His childhood story is told in detail, and it reminds us just how difficult it was to survive from day to day 200 years ago. He was a genuine Civil War hero. 1876 was certainly the US's most contentious national election. There were so many deals and chicaneries in determining the outcome in 1876 that no one will ever know who should have won.
   
   As president Hayes lacked anything resembling a mandate, and the Republican Party was divided between spoils men and those who wanted reform. Reconstruction had failed, and it is beyond me to imagine what anyone could have done to develop a better outcome for African Americans or national unity. Suffice it to say Hayes didn't solve either problem, and although he could be criticized for not trying harder to bring out civil service reforms and to insure ensure voting rights, there simply was not enough support for these efforts. He did work to make the US economy sound after a stiff recession and he was probably the only president that cared a wit for treating Native Americans in a respectful manner.
   
   To my surprise Hayes was genuinely a good man rather than just another Ohio politician who became a 19th century president. Hayes actually considered his world and shaped his beliefs and actions according to his synthesis of the truth, rather than going along with the crowd. His reactions to the temperance movement and organized religion are worthy of our respect. Hayes made a genuine commitment to education and was a catalyst for funding black universities and Ohio State. He was appalled at excessive wealth and championed redistribution of wealth. At his core he was a man of the people and a good husband. He simply cannot be compared to most politicos of his time.
   
   Hoogenboom's narrative lays out Hayes and his times in readable detail. He is not a great biographer in terms of bringing his characters to life, but this biography is well organized. This is a better than average biography about a fascinating time in US history.



4. One of my favorite biographies, Ari Hoogenboom's "Hayes" is a positive and incisive look at the 19th president. Hayes is the prototypical Midwesterner, successful, yet humble, proper and reform minded, but not priggish or censorious. Hayes had a genuine concern for humanity and America. Though limited in the lengths he would travel to enact social changes we would today deem necessary (or that he himself would wish for), Hayes should be better-remembered. Hoogenboom's work is quite thorough, covering both Hayes's political and personal life.
   Hayes has been criticized for giving up on Reconstruction and thus dooming blacks to a century of repression, but Hayes had genuine concern for blacks. However, by 1877 Hayes was quite limited in what he could do politically to maintain Reconstruction. Hayes was traditionally criticized for doing little to address the growing inequalities of the American economy. But, although he did help put down nation-wide strikes, Hayes was more sympathetic to labor than any other late 19th century president. I was also surprised to read about the extensive post-presidency work of Hayes, comparable to Jimmy Carter.



5. 
   Quoting Mark Twain, who felt that Hayes's presidency "would steadily rise into higher and higher prominence, as time & distance give it a right perspective, until at last it would stand out against the horizon of history in its true proportions," Ari Hoogenboom states that his purpose in writing this biography is "in the hope of fulfilling Twain's prediction ...." Thus from the beginning we are warned that Hoogenboom is out to cast his subject in as favorable a light as possible. He doesn't distort the facts to attain this goal, but his judgments at times seem overstraining and one-sided. For example, a pragmatist to a fault, Hayes compromised on a number of issues (black voting rights in the South, the Chinese Immigration Bill), seeing no use in a fight to perhaps capture the high ground, yet the author is able to dismiss these moves as politically prudent. Hoogenboom includes a 5-page Afterward that is one defense after another of Hayes and his actions as president; it's such a glowing explication of the man that the only thing missing is a standing ovation.
   
   That doesn't mean Hayes was unworthy of any praise. His Civil War career was noteworthy, serving with and leading the 23rd Ohio in many engagements, including South Mountain in Maryland where he was severely wounded. As president, his stand on civil service reform was generally commendable, fighting unsuccessfully against Congress for a civil service commission, introducing the idea of competitive exams for appointments in some departments, and ordering that federal officers not be permitted to take part in political activities. Although hardly mentioned by Hoogenboom, the Hayes administration also did much to stop the wanton destruction of much of the national forest lands. Hayes also was the one who appointed the great Supreme Court justice John Marshall Harlan to the bench.
   
   Of course, Hoogenboom describes in detail the "stolen" election that got Hayes into office. He also relates admirably the post-presidency years of Hayes, his great interest in education and prison reform. Hoogenboom is also a competent writer, and he sweeps the reader along laudably with his narrative. The biography is an informative and interesting account of the nineteenth president; it's just that the author's singular purpose in writing the book must be kept in mind while reading it.

5 comments about Joshua Chamberlain: The Soldier and the Man.

1. I am a admirer of both Ellis Spear and Joshua Chamberlain. They were brave men who served their country well in a time of crisis. After the war it appears that Spear and Chamberlain had a falling out. Neither Spear or Chamberlain are without faults, no one is. However, the author has attempted to make mountains out of mole hills.

   This book is not without merit, but does not measure up to John Pullen's work.




2. Being a Civil War fanatic and scholar I had a tremendous interest in Joshua L. Chamberlain, and most of that interest is from the Killer Angels and the movie Gettysburg. I took this book from the perspective that I knew nothing of Chamberlain. I found Edward Longacre's biography well written and well researched even if his main source of material was Spears memoirs. Longacre dispels many myths of Chamberlain and presents facts to show perhaps a different perspective of the man's career. Sure, Longacre agrees that Chamberlain was a terrific and courageous soldier, arguably one of the best in the union army. But he also understands that JLC had his flaws and can be criticized for being selfish at times. I think the average reader plants the image of Chamberlain from "Gettysburg" or Killer Angels in their brain as they read the book, and that is whythe reviews are mostly poor ones. We must remember that anything Chamberlain wrote after 1865 about the War should be taken for some inaccuracies. Longacre is right that Chamberlain is a romanticizer and prefers the good story over the correct one. I assume Longacre made some mistakes and for that I took a star away but I truly enjoyed this book because it didn't portray Chamberlain as a godly hero but rather as an incredible human being.



3. This book is an unfortunate and biased view of the personal and military life of Joshua Chamberlain. The book is presented in a typically 21st Century journalistic fashion that seeks to over-scrutinize and under-source faults of a 19th Century person to make him "more human". This book is filled with many "statements" from various accounts that suggest many of Chamberlains actions and deeds were embellished and/or fictionalized, often simply on one persons say so or on more that a few occasions, a non-specific hint, rumor or innuendo.
   This is not to suggest that Chamberlain was not a man without fault, just that in this authors eyes, little of what Chamberlain says or does is given any credibility, especially if refuted by any other source, no matter how weak. His only test for credibility is the mere existence of any question of events, actions, comments, etc. The fact is - Chamberlain was human; time, technology and points of view limit our ability to really know or believe every minute detail and every person who conflicted anything related to Chamberlains life, except apparently to Longacre who like many in the various vehicles of today's media seeps bias with less regard for truth and more for digging dirt. The broad strokes of Chamberlain's life suggests a noble, educated, respected and occasionally heroic life. This book is an unnecessary and weak effort in throwing mud at what a majority of authors and public felt was an good and honorable man. The world and our nation wants and needs heroes and heroines. Which ones would survive the microscopic moral compass of todays media? What value exists in always tearing them down?
   
   Pass on this book.



4. This book really should have been called 100 Reasons Why Ellis Spear Hated Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. Another person commented that this book is like reading a National Enquirer account of a person's life. This book is a prime example of how our modern society has become obsessed with tearing down celebrity figures simply because they are celebrities. Chamberlain was not a man without flaw but the author interjects quite a few sniping opinions in a book that should have been written objectively. I don't buy biographies to read what the author thinks of the person -- I buy biographies to read a detailed but objective account of the person.
   
   Why the author uses Ellis Spear as a primary source over and over again, I just don't understand. Why the author attacks Fanny Chamberlain as a woman and wife, I don't understand. Fanny was a flawed person as well but she was not solely responsible for their marital troubles and I'm very tired of reading about her as a cold-hearted villain.
   
   The one good point about this book is it introduces some new material and it points out that Chamberlain suffered from bouts of depression, something I haven't seen many Chamberlain biographers do.
   
   However, if you want a more accurate picture of Chamberlain and the 20th, I recommend sticking to John Pullen. If you're looking for a more accurate picture of Fanny and Lawrence as a couple, I recommend sticking to Diane Monroe Smith. Both manage to write about the Chamberlains without interjecting so many personal opinions.



5. The biggest problem with this biography was the minimal amount of time and pages devoted to Chamberlain during the 50 years he lived after the Civil War, thus rendering Longacre's subtitle "The Soldier and the Man" to be misleading at best. I wanted to know more about how Chamberlain's Civil War experiences shaped his four terms as governor of Maine, presidency of Bowdoin, and numerous businesses he was involved in. Those experiences and topics were barely covered and with superficial analysis.
   
   The second major problem was a shortage of information -- about Fannie Chamberlain (Didn't she write any letters?), Tom Chamberlain, Joshua Chamberlain's actual speeches and articles, etc. The Civil War was unquestionably important, but not the only thing in his long life.
   
   And the book suffered from too much psychological speculation based on the author's opinion and from typos and printing errors.
   
   Overall, I was obviously disappointed and wouldn't recommend this book. I am continuing to look for a better, more comprehensive Chamberlain biography.

2 comments about The Diary of Miss Emma Holmes, 1861-1866 (Library of Southern Civilization).

1. Often overlooked, diaries are the primary source of women's history during the Civil War. Here this elite South Carolina woman documents her life, not for prosperity, but as the custom of her day, via her private diary. Poignant and enjoyable to read, Emma carries through this time of war with the true dignity of Southern womanhood. Excellent social history of the daily life of a Southern woman. Thank you for bringing this wonderful diary to light. Joy Melcher, Civil War Lady Magazine



2. The diary of a single, young Southern Belle who gives us glimpses of her life from before the Civil War, to when the fighting comes close to home and when they have to flee to the West. You experience her emotions and innermost thoughts.

1 comments about Meeting Mr. Lincoln: Firsthand Recollections of Abraham Lincoln by People, Great and Small, Who Met the President.

1. Ms. Radford has allowed us the opportunity to peak in on intimate meetings of individuals with President Lincoln. From statesmen to soldiers, widows to young boys, Americans who had the opportunity to speak firsthand with Abraham Lincoln while he served as President share a common experience. Each felt as if he had the president's undivided attention and utmost respect. If you're looking for a hero, America still has one in Honest Abe. This book is a treat for history buffs.

1 comments about On the Altar of Freedom: A Black Soldier's Civil War Letters from the Front.

1. "On the Altar of Freedom" was an interesting book in that it compiled the letters sent to a newspaper by Corporal James Gooding of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry (the "Glory" outfit). By reading the letters (ie the book), one can get a view of Civil War life from the view of a black Union soldier. The major drawback to the work is that Gooding was sending the letters to the newspaper for the express purpose of them being published. What would have been more interesting would have been to see his private (if any) correspondence. That way the reader would have been able to see the private man. This book is also an interesting read because of the mention of unapolgetic black CSA sharpshooters being captured by Union forces outside Fort Wagner.

No comments about From Blue to Gray: The Life of Confederate General Cadmus M. Wilcox.

5 comments about Lee and Grant: A Dual Biography.

1. There is not a lot new to be said about Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant. They are, undoubtedly, two of the most documented men in History. What is more important, when tackling this subject, is presenting the subject matter in an interesting fashion. In this regard, Gene Smith succeeds.
   
   By alternating chapters, between each of his subjects, the reader follows the lives of two men as they grow and develop. All the while knowing, they are destined to meet in ultimate contest.
   
   Even more than the book's interesting structure, I was impressed with Smith's well formed thoughts. The narrative is never disjointed or piecemeal, and all details are presented in context to the two men's lives, manifesting in a highly readable work.
   
   I laud Mr. Smith for an excellent effort. And I encourage readers, whether new or old to the subject of the Civil War, to read this book.



2. 
   I purchased my first biography by Gene Smith on Woodrow Wilson in 1963 and was suitably impressed to later purchase this book that was published in 1984.
   
   In fact, had anyone but Gene Smith written this one I would not have been interested. Having several biographies of both Grant and Lee on the shelf I would not be too keen on an author attempting to cover these men in one book. But I have to laud Mr. Smith that once again he has written a very readable and interesting biography.
   
   By alternating chapters and concentrating mainly on the Western Theatre in Virgina he has been able to give focus on both these military men. Interestingly enough the humble Grant and the aristocratic Lee both ended up in the same room having a similiar goal in mind: bringing the Union back to peace. I stood in that 'reconstructed' room at the McLean house in Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia, a short time back, and after all the years even the replacement room can still hold a certain historical feeling.
   
   This is a very good, basic biography of these two military leaders and adequate view of the Civil War in Virginia.
   
   Semper Fi.



3. True, documentation on Lee and Grant is extensive, and I enjoyed reading the book - in the beginning. But the minutest details of their lives are told without any kind of passion, making some of the certainly fictionalized mini-events quite boring. Parallelling their lives in alternating chapters would have been much more interesting had more emphasis been placed on the living conditions and philosophy of the time instead of this painstaking effort to details that read worse than the driest of dry history books.



4. The idea of comparing these two iconic figures in a single book seems logical. The author, I think, adds some suspense to the reading by swinging back and forth between the stories of these two men at points of common ground.
   
   Seemingly well researched, the author spends a sizeable amount of time to the pre-Civil War lives of Lee and Grant. This is good, because it is the less known parts of their lives. The post war years also get decent treatment. It's a smart move by the author not to overly reharsh the parts of the story we already know.
   
   If I were to criticize the writing, I would focus on only two points. First, the "early years" information seems overly long without explaining much about how those experiences helped to forge their future personalities. Second, the juxtaposition between Lee as the Scion of the Old South and Grant as the Ideal of the New North should have been driven home earlier. I think those changes might have helped turn this "good" dual biography into something special.
   
   My minor criticisms aside, this is a fine addition to the bookshelf of the Civil War buff in your life. Informative, well structured and not exhaustingly long, it's an enjoyable book.



5. I have been reading about the Civil War for almost 50 years. Despite what most of the other reviews of this biography state, I consider this book the most superficial review of Generals R.E. Lee and U.S. Grant that it has ever been my misfortune to read. However, I do agree with another reviewer that some parts of the book appear to be fictionalized. The book also includes many errors. In fact, the only reason I finished the book was my interest in seeing how many other errors I could pick out.
   
   For example, I seriously doubt that U.S. Grant spent months attempting to take Vicksburg with a northern, overland attack, and several river-borne attacks that were only meant to mislead the Confederates, so that he could finally attack the city by bypassing it and landing further south. I am a great admirer of U.S. Grant, but if he showed up at my house today and told me that the above was true, I would call him a liar. Yet this is exactly what the author suggests Grant did.
   
   Another example, the author claims on one page that a formation of 17,000 Union cavalry was the greatest number of cavalry ever assembled in the *world*. I bet the Mongols would find that amusing.
   
   A third error... The author mentions more than once that 10,000 Union troops died in the attack at Cold Harbor. Meanwhile, every other Civil War historian uses the figure of 7,000. Are they all wrong?
   
   Enough examples, if you want to read good biographies about Lee and Grant then there are a number of them out there, including Grant's own autobiography. A good one-book biography is The Rise of U.S. Grant, and there is an excellent trilogy: Captain Sam Grant, Grant Moves South, and Grant Takes Command

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

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

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




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