3 comments about Pursuit: The Chase, Capture, Persecution, and Surprising Release of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

1. ...but that doesn't make him guilty of a crime.
   
   When the Confederacy collapsed in April, 1865, President Davis got Lee's message to leave while sitting in pew 63 at St. Paul's Episcopal Church...I have sat in that pew for Church services, and if you think that doesn't give a Southerner the shakes, think again. The civil government left town on a slow train that night..... Danville...Greensboro...Charlotte... One by one his cabinet faded away; Davis still wanted to make it to Texas, and continue the war. By then, that idea bordered on lunacy. Finally, after a month in which he ran, but not hard enough, the President was captured by Union Cavalry near Irwinville, Georgia [NOT IN VARINA'S DRESS--that story is a vile lie]. Davis was transported to Fortress Monroe, Virginia....then the real story started.
   
   Abe Lincoln has wanted a peaceful reunion of the country, and was inclined to let Davis, and the others, escape. Some of Lincoln's own people disagreed; we shall never know what would have happened had Lincoln lived. Abe was a strong leader...Andrew Johnson was not, and therin lay the problem. President Davis was locked up, even kept in chains for a week. The Union had several real difficulties...Democrat controlled newspapers came to Davis' support...good lawyers offered to defend him...the Justice Department couldn't come up with a crime to charge him with. Treason? Well...the Constitutional definition of that is very specific. Secession alone won't do it...secession had always been assumed to be legal. Overthrow of the government in Washington? We NEVER sought to do that, merely to form our own. The Yankees had treated us as a real country during prisoner exchanges; now, they were stuck. And then there was the matter of the Yankees' illegal admission of West Virginia. Does that mean I'm an unperson?
   
   Some Northerners tried to frame Davis for the Lincoln murder, but couldn't even get lying witnesses to tell a straight story. Davis would have NEVER traded Lincoln for Johnson, and Judah Benjamin would have never run such an operation without express orders from Davis. Mr. Johnson touched one interesting point, but did not elaborate: Secretary Stanton refused two different Union officers permission to accompany Lincoln to the theater. Both were strong men, who could have overpowered Booth...stories have circulated for years, hinting at Stanton's involvement, because he wanted a harsher Reconstruction than Lincoln would have allowed. The most that can be speculated is that knowing, somehow, about the plot, he withdrew protection.
   
   Finally, after two years [during which his treatment improved], President Davis was released on bail [paid by Northerners]. The Union had gotten itself in a legal mess by holding a man they dared not bring to trial, and were afraid to just let go. Mr. Chief Justice Chase came to the rescue with a novel approach to the Fourteenth Amendment, and the doctrine of double jeopardy. Davis never got his day in Court....
   
   I am a supporter of Jefferson Davis, but I will certainly not assert that he was without faults; pig-headed might be a nice way to put it. His inability to work with men he disliked led to the underuse of Generals PGT Beauregard and Joe Johnston, and hurt the South. Once he decided on a policy, he would simply not listen to reason. Still, his strength of character helped keep the South going. He gave the South someone to rally around during Reconstruction; to the day he died in 1889, he never backed down. He also committed no crime during the war...Mr. Johnson has written a superb book, part adventure story, part legal treatise, all great history.



2. There are different ways to write Civil War history. Some books that are designed for history professors are found filled with footnotes and trivial facts and esoteric comparisons which only another professor of history could enjoy wading through. Then there are others with no notes and no references to sources that tell a rousing good story but one that leaves the reader wondering if he has read a novel or a history book and no way to verify which. Clint Johnson has merged these two types of history into a book which, if you are interested in Jefferson Davis and his capture, is a must read. Johnson focuses on the details of Davis' flight and capture. For those who are looking for something new -- along with the fresh perspective that Johnson brings to the oft-told story of Davis' capture, he has unearthed interesting information, like providing newly discovered details concerning the story that Davis was wearing a dress when he was captured. Many are not aware the Lincoln actively sought to have Davis and his cabinet escape the US or that Davis was never tried for a crime because he never committed one [except in the eyes of the most radical Republicans] and Johnson lets you see the pickle the US government was in as the press and Reconstructors were screaming for Davis to be tried and hung. Johnson seems to have done his legwork. In Johnson's work I did not run across anything which seemed invented, contrived or went against modern Civil War research. Whenever I did want to check the source, I found the cited sources matched Johnson's version. The best part is that the book is well enough written that, once I started, I had to stay up till I finished it. A fascinating book about a fascinating figure in American history. If you are a Civil War history buff, or just want to read a well written account of a very interesting episode from the Civil War, then I recommend you read this book.



3. Another job well done Clint Johnson! As with all of your books you can tell immediately this one was well researched and well written. You are certainly on your way to becoming one of this generations premiere civil war historians. You write with a style that seems as though you have actually lived and experienced the very history you so ably put to type and that is what makes this book so enjoyable. Any student of American history needs this book in their collection.

No comments about Harry S. Truman: The American Presidents Series: The 33rd President, 1945-1953 (The American Presidents Series:).

5 comments about Memoirs (Penguin Classics).

1. Clearly historians and civil war buffs will acknowledge the brilliance of this memoir for its obvious window into the mind of this most important figure of his time.
   I didn't come to this as either one of the former,but as a reader interested in understanding how this man accomplished the most decisive strokes in the war with such skill.
   The greatness of book lies not so much in its explanation of military strategy(which it is) but the powerful definition of the principles of freedom as expressed through a common foot soldier.
   Sherman understood that no elitist and patrician society could stand however strong there reputation ,against a soldier who fought for this principle.
   I found it inciteful that Shermans experience in the prewar south,and his views of its imbalanced society, became more valuable in breaking it than his geographical knowledge.
   That Lincoln approved Shermans plan to march through the heart of the confedreacy at the disapproval of all his advisors shows his wisdom to Shermans argument that the south was a shell,and hollow inside.
   Grants reluctance to this plan,which he approved only out of his loyalty to Sherman, is poignant to read.Grant thought he'd never see his best friend again.
   The genius of Sherman was his utter conviction in the goodness of men to destroy that which was evil,knowing that when his men saw not the soldiery of the south,but its hideous society,he needn't do more to motivate them.
   The miserable condition of slavery was known,but the site of 90 percent of a white population virtually no better off provided Sherman with a civilian population unable and unwilling to resist.Noone but Sherman thought this important,and that his diary records this as a current fact and not analysis years later is powerful reading.
   Defeating the confedracy on this march with no major battles and losing but 100 men of his 62,000, told the south, as well as the north the myth of southern military advantage.
   Sherman became so feared ,Southern commanders as well as thier soldiers fled before him,offering almost no opposition.
   Shermans Army of the West,recruited and trained by him,became the most feared army in the world,for it fought under the true belief of a free people against real evil.
   His own words to that effect are awe inspiring.



2. General William T. Sherman's memoirs, first published in 1875, are primarily an account of his service in uniform during the Civil War. Sherman rallied to the Union colors early in the conflict, but had indifferent success until the searing crucible of the Battle of Shiloh, where he fought under the command of the stalwart U.S. Grant. Shiloh was a turning point. With increasing confidence as a leader, Sherman played key roles in the siege of Vicksburg and in the relief of beseiged Union forces at Chattanooga. When Grant was called east to head up all Union forces, he hand-picked Sherman as his successor in the West. Sherman would go on to take Atlanta, march to the sea at Savannah, and pillage his way through the Carolinas to hasten the end of the war.
   
   Sherman the man, and his memoirs, stand in vivid contrast to his contemporary and close friend U.S. Grant. Where Grant was modest and reserved, Sherman comes across as all nervous energy, talking up a storm and hardly able to sit still doing it. His memoirs are reflective of his personality, passionate and argumentative in between inserted copies of key correspondence. While less polished than Grant's, they are in many ways more entertaining and certainly more revealing of Sherman's feelings and personality.
   
   Sherman expresses an opinion on practically everything. His battles with newspaper reporters, whom he despised, date from an alleged nervious breakdown in the first year of the war. His exchange of correspondence with Confederate General John Hood over the forced evacuation of Atlanta, are a malstrom in miniature of the passions behind the war itself. Sherman is more than frank about the politics within the Union Army, and its sometimes troubled relations with civilian authority. Above all, Sherman recognized the cruelty of the war, and was unwilling to sugarcoat that reality for anyone. Sherman and Grant each understood the grim arithmetic that the Confederate Armies must be bled to death in order for the Confederacy to be defeated and were prepared to carry out that strategy.
   
   This book is highly recommended to students of the Civil War, who will find Sherman to be an instructive and even at times entertaining guide through those portions that he personally experienced.



3. INTERESTING TO READ "SHERMANS" SIDE OF THE STORY !! GOOD READ IN CONJUCTION WITH "CITIZEN SHERMAN" BY MICHAEL FELLMAN !!!



4. Sherman is (perhaps arguably) the most articulate and intelligent autobiographer (and biographer) of the Civil War period. Yes, he was controversial, but that, in great part, came from the times, and the period politics, and later from the political agendas of modern politically correct historians/writers. The overriding elements in Sherman's autobiography are the matter-of-factness and the fairness with which he describes events and people in his life. With much the same exquisite Dignity as U. S. Grant in his memoiors, Sherman speaks to the reader with a clarity and honesty no decent person can help but admire. He is painstaking in relating military associations - sometimes wearily so. But his thorough and candid descriptions of events, people and places still present themselves in an entertaining manner time and time again. For the reader mature enough to accept those times without tainted sanctimonious judgement, Sherman's memoirs will be a fascinating and enlightening glimpse of the people and the soul of our country during one of our most trying eras.



5. There's the example of Julius Caesar, of course. And in America, there was Ulysses Grant, whose orders and dispatches were so concise and unequivocal that they were credited by his subordinates for many of his victories. Grant's Memoirs are widely recognized as a classic of autobiography, as much for their literary merit as for their content. I've had this Penguin edition of "Cump" Sherman's Memoirs on my shelf for so long that the price is about a third of the current, but I've never been tempted to read them, chiefly because of Sherman's reputation for inhumanity during his service against the trans-Mississippi Indians.
   A couple days ago, however, I opened the book on a whim and started reading, and I've hardly looked at anything else since. The writing is fantastic! Utterly unadorned yet vividly descriptive. Witty, and that's a surprise! Forthright, modest, down-to-earth. As thoroughly planned as one of his campaigns, which I find may be explained in part by his frequent assignment of logistic tasks in his early military career. He knew how to move supplies and keep account of where things were.
   
   Like any 19th C memoirist, or any Viking skald, Sherman feels obliged to trace his ancestry for a few pages, which I confess didn't immediately stir my interest. Then, however, when he begins his narrative of his military service in Florida, against the Seminoles, suddenly the saga comes to life. I learned more from this one chapter, as a primary source, about the early Americanization of Florida than from anything I've read elsewhere. I could feel the rash from the palmetto on my skin. Likewise, the two chapters on his years in California just after the invasion of Mexico, took me to Monterey, to Yerba Buena before it became San Francisco, and up the river to Sutter's Mill and the Gold Rush Country more vividly, more "virtually" in the game-boy sense of the word, than any historian's account of those years. Sherman was, in his blunt style, as fine a writer as Twain. No wonder he was so effective as a general. Good writers make good generals, as I said before. My thesis is proven; I'll be sending a sample of my reviews here on amazon to the new Commander-in-Chief in Washington next February, in hopes of an appointment in the field. I will, of course, in true 19th C fashion, remind Pres. Obama of my ardent electioneering on his behalf.
   
   [I had no intention of reviewing this book until I finished it, but the first 112 pages have been so exciting that I wanted to share them. I plan now to add paragraphs to this report as I continue reading.]
   
   One of the thrills of reading Sherman's account of his years in California is encountering the street names of San Francisco -- Mason, Larkin, Stockton, Ord -- incarnated as ardent young bucks, flesh-and-blood yearning for the accomplishments you know lie well in their futures. It's also intriguing - poignant, if you will - to find Sherman hunting geese or courting señoritas in company with young fellow officers whom he will be thrashing on the battlefields in another fifteen years.

2 comments about MAJOR GENERAL ROBERT E RODES OF THE ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA: A Biography.

1. During the Civil War, it was only two promotions from command of a regiment to command of a division. Assuming you were not killed or crippled, two promotions in four years of war seems an easy project. Without a West Point education, a powerful patron and backing of a major state the second promotion was almost impossible to secure. This was even truer in the Army of Northern Virginia, the South's most professional army. A West Pointer and a Virginian fill almost every major command. The list of Brigadier Generals who assumed temporary division command but never get a division is long and distinguished. An example of these men is Evander Law. Their always seemed to be a reason that kept him from getting that second promotion. These few men lacked the necessary qualifications had to rise on merit alone. Simply put, they had to be much much better than the men in the approved group. This was no easy task. Some of the approved group was very good and all of them were connected by their West Point education and army service. Where would George Pickett have been without his association with James Longstreet?
   Robert E. Rodes was a Virginian. However, he came into Confederate service from Alabama. This put him in a position of being almost but not quite a member of both state's group and lost political support, from both, for his advancement. Robert E. Rodes was a graduate of Virginia Military Institute. In 1861, VMI was not the respected fabled school that it is now. This was a school for those not good enough for West Point who wanted a military education. He was promoted after First Manassas to Brigadier General. In January 1863, he received temporary command of Hill's division and was promoted to Major General after leading the attack at Chancellorsville. He led that division until mortally wounded in September 1864. He was considered one of the best division commanders in Lee's army, respected by all and recognized as an excellent combat officer.
   This is a military biography, Rodes was in his mid 30s when he died. Without the American Civil War, Robert E. Rodes and Thomas J. Jackson would be footnotes in a VMI history dealing with the early staff. Rodes would be one of the first graduates to assume a chair and Jackson would be known as "old Tom fool", reputed to be the worst instructor VMI ever had.
   1860 found Rodes, newly married, employed as a chief engineer for an Alabama railroad. The book covers his non-military life in about 60 pages. This gives us a good foundation of understanding and some sympathy for the man. The next 350 pages is an account of the war through his eyes. This gives us a look at life from regiment to division, not in terms of grand battles but personal issues, traumas, disappointments, triumphs and endless effort. Death, illness, exhaustion, bad food, no pay, rain, mud are all woven together into an intensely personal and readable book. The author has a very readable style and is able to describe things in a way that allows us to see and understand them. I am not a great reader of biographies. This is as much a military history on the regiment, brigade and division level as a biography. Rodes is presented fairly, the author recognizes his flaws and failures as much as his strengths and triumphs.
   The book contains nineteen excellent maps at the right location. There are pictures and illustrations throughout. One nice feature, the last picture is of Robert Emmett Rodes IV holding his Great Grandfathers sword. This is a Savas Beatie civil war book. We expect a physically attractive book, excellent maps, artwork that enhances the story. Within a well-written, informative, well-bound book. They have maintained these production values in this volume and it is a worthy member of an exclusive club.



2. Executive summary: A very good read! Clearly written, very thorough, and covers the topic to full satisfaction.
   
   Review:
   
   You know its a very good biography when you feel saddened when reading about the death of the subject. But that's getting ahead of myself.
   
   Mr. Collins sets out to produce a complete biography of one of the best general's in the Army of Northern Virginia. A story of a man well-respected by his superiors, his peers and those who served under him. Collins notes the difficulty in getting some primary accounts about Rodes, the task made even harder because Rodes' wife destroyed their personal letters. Nonetheless, the author went out of his way to provide a large number of personal accounts from those around Rodes - in particular there seem to be a lot from men such as Major Eugene Blackford - who served directly under Rodes, thus having very close first-hand knowledge of the subject.
   
   I should note that the book seems to be well-footnoted, a quick look through the bibliographical contents show some fine research accompanies this work. There is an index, but I haven't really looked at it. I'm not a scholar, so I really am not qualified to judge the quality of the research, but from my readings it looks fine.
   
   The first three chapters describe Rodes childhood through his becoming a brigadier general at the start of the war. This takes about 100 pages to accomplish, and Collins fills it with enough information to not only teach you about Rodes background, but gives you a good feel for the type of man he was at the start of the war. Rodes' trials and tribulations as a railroad engineer after leaving VMI are well documented - but those tough days helped harden Rodes' into a the general he became. The road to the start of the Civil War helped Rodes learn that above all else he had to be reliant upon himself, he wasn't about to be "given" anything, it all had to be earned. The third chapter also details Rodes' entry in what became the Army of Northern Virginia and the opening battle of First Bull Run.
   
   The next 300 or so pages are broken down into 8 chapters, each based primarily around the campaigns he was in with the ANV. Collin's does a very good job here of providing enough general information so as to place Rodes' decisions and actions in proper context, while at the same time remaining focused upon Rodes as a general. In these chapters (whenever appropriate) he also discusses non-military matters that Rodes attended to - including his devotion to his wife Hortense, his fathering of two children, along with the more mundane management of his estate. We also get a very decent look at "Rodes the man" as opposed to just "Rodes the general", there's enough human stories strewn throughout the work describing Rodes more genial nature as well.
   
   As to the military aspects and judgments concerning Rodes, Collins shows fine skill as well as his own good judgment. He doesn't hold punches where Rodes perhaps doesn't perform up to what would have been expected of him. His handling of his troops at Gettysburg for example comes under close scrutiny. Collins questions some of Rodes decisions and non-decisions, while at the same time offering up the potential mitigating issues surrounding Rodes' health. But even there Collins does note that /if/ Rodes was so impaired physically, he should have turned over command. Collins' even-handed evaluation of Rodes seems very fair throughout the book - his praise for Rodes at Seven Pines, South Mountain, the Bloody Lane, or the counterattacks at the Mule Shoe are offset with questions about actions at Gettysburg and other battles where Rodes was less than perfect.
   
   On the personal side Collins also tries to show the love and devotion to Hortense, and then his children. But as the latter were born so late in his short life - his son was less than a year old and Hortense was pregnant with their second child when Rodes died - its a bit harder to understand Rodes' history on that side of the ledger. And as noted earlier, Hortense's destruction of their private correspondence removes a whole slew of potentially important clues on Rodes' personal life. Nonetheless, one does get enough information showing Rodes concern for his wife's welfare, and coupling that with the abundant evidence showing his loyalty and concern for those around him, one certainly does grow to respect and "like" Rodes as one reads the book.
   
   Besides the great job done by the author at achieving his goal, I should also mention the fine quality of book production. The book itself is quite well made, the font is eminently readable, and the book jacket is very nice as well - a fine portrait of Rodes gracing the cover.
   
   As is usual, the number and perhaps the quality of the maps /may/ be one slight negative area. History readers always clamor for more and better detailed maps, but this is really a very small quibble: This is not a military treatise per se, it is a biography after all. To offset this, there are a number of fine photographs of key people mentioned in the text, and a couple of nice pictures of Rodes as well. I don't recall seeing one of Hortense offhand, interestingly enough.
   
   And as I noted in the introduction, as one reads a well-written biography, you do grow to "know" the subject - so when they do die it can be a bit saddening. Especially with one so young, so chivalrous, and so gallant - I'll end quoting the key paragraph:
   
   
   Quote (pg. 402)
   "As [Rodes] was trying to control his mount, Rodes' head snapped violently forward. A bullet or shell fragment (the record is unclear) had struck him in his skull behind the ear. The general hesitated for a brief moment, then tumbled hard to the ground."

5 comments about America's Constitution: A Biography.

1. What an absolutely fantastic reference! Much of this book's praise has been sung by previous reviewers, but I'd like to add that I especially appreciate Amar's powerful paradoxes and equally profound "what-ifs." Buy the man's book so he blesses all of our futures with even more jewels of his erudition.



2. Although there are some tedious places, the book has a number of very valuable and interesting insights - especially the topics of the Second Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, and the "privileges and immunities" clause stood out for me. He does a good job interweaving historical context and the text of the document. There are some unexpected emphases and omissions:for example, it emphasizes slavery more often and more heavily than I expected for an issue that was resolved 140 years ago, and there was a little less on the Bill of Rights and on executive power than I was expecting, although those are more contemporary issues. His chapter on the path, pre-Civil War to the 13th amendment, was terrifically concise but there is very little discussion on the issue of habeas corpus during the war. These aren't complaints, just notifications; overall it was very stimulating. Like most constitutional scholars, he has some outside-the-box interpretations that are obviously developed to accomplish a particular outcome but these are fruitful to reflect on as well.



3. Wow, I learned more about the consitution then I ever could have imagined. I didn't have any idea about many of the themes and debates over the constitution and it's amendments. I'm a novice at political thinking, before the presidential campaign I could've care less about politics. Some of this is a bit over my head since I don't have a background in law or political history. However, Mr. Amar explains it well enough that most should understand. I can't recommend it enough for anyone interested in the constitution.



4. For decades I've been wandering about with a mish mash of semi-contradictory ideas about the constitution. Mr. Amar has managed to correct, justify, and reframe most of them into a (_thoroughly_ documented) coherent whole.
   
   Where the constitution is unclear, he quotes the debates and letters of the founders explaining what they meant. Where there is modern debate, he footnotes where to look for different viewpoints. Where there was debate during the writing of the constitution, he tells you who said what and why.
   
   That would probably be enough to earn 5 stars, but he somehow managed to turn an erudite treatise on the history of one government into a page-turner. I don't know how, but there it is...



5. This is a remarkable book. The author's knowledge, insight, analysis and synthesis are amazing. There's too much to praise about it, so I'll just mention one aspect: Amar makes a very compelling case that from the beginning slavery was a disease spreading infection in our society and political system (aided by the 3/5 clause), increasingly corrupting our character and institutions until a terribly bloody breaking point was reached. The evil was partially righted, then amorality returned, allowing a viciousness to fester until another crisis led to new progress. But it remains that slavery and its legacy constitute the central national failure, which we still haven't nearly corrected. Most of the book is quite positive, and slavery's not the principal focus, but Amar's treatment of it is both convincing and unforgettable.

5 comments about Andrew Jackson.

1. On a recent of list of great presidents in American history, Andrew Jackson was ranked near the top. Yet there is no Andrew Jackson Day. Most people would be hard pressed to name a single fact about "Old Hickory". Yet if he lived in the age of the cable news network, he may have been the most scandalous president ever. In this short but very well written biography, Robert Remini does a comendable job documenting the life of General Andrew Jackson.
   
   Jackson was raised in far from ideal conditions. When his parents died when he was young, he lived with several different relatives at varying times. After growing up in the Carolinas, he moved west to Tennesse where opportunity was available. In Tennesse, he became a very accomplished attorney which allowed him to accumulate wealth. It was in Tennesse that he met his wife Rachel who was in a failing marriage. For a time, Jackson actually lived under the same roof as Rachel and her then husband. When Rachel's first marriage became irreconcilable, she immediately married Jackson. Unfortunately, it was not until three years later that Rachel's first husband officially filed the divorce papers. This forced Andrew and Rachel to marry again to make the union legal.
   
   Jackson's early political career was not remarkable. He had less than fulfilling stints in the House and Senate before he achieved real glory in the military. Jackson is most noted for his conquests in the War of 1812 and battles with American Indians. Riding the wave of his military glory, he was elected president. In doing this he also helped to found the Democratic party. Jackson's accomplishemnts as president include his elimination of the National Bank, forcing the French to pay war reparations, and ending the spoils system that plagued the government. He was championed as a common man's president because of this Tennesse background and military service.
   
   The whole life of Andrew Jackson is not disclosed in this review, but this book is an excellent source to discover his life. Remini's writing is not bogged down in political lingo, but tells the story for those interested in reading about a great life. While a short read, it is thorough and highly enjoyable.



2. Few American presidents could be said to have left such a distinctive mark on the office and the nation as Andrew Jackson. Even as Jackson's legend fades into the mists of the past, we owe it to ourselves to reach back and draw it up into the light of honor accorded such giants as Washington, Lincoln and FDR, because Jackson was a figure of equal stature. One way to accomplish this is to read Robert V. Remini's concise history entitled simply Andrew Jackson, a quick, yet surprisingly thorough chronicling of Jackson's many achievements as president, politician, general and pivotal figure in the establishment and settlement of the state of Tennessee.
   
   What makes Jackson so interesting is the way his checkered past shaped the trajectory of his Presidency. Decades before Lincoln, he was the first president to be born into rustic circumstances and rise above them to achieve greatness, but unlike Lincoln, his story is not that of a paragon of virtue overcoming adversity with folksy charm and wit. Jackson was a bully, an adulterer, a blowhard and a holder of grudges, character flaws that he eventually reshaped to his advantage, and to that of the nation's.
   
   Humiliated and wounded as a boy during the Revolution, Jackson carried a lethal grudge against the British that eventually got its airing during the War of 1812 when he commanded US forces in the Battle of New Orleans and won a lopsided victory that sent a stinging message to the rest of the world about the folly of underestimating America's determination to defend its sovereignty.
   
   It made him a hero and launched his political career, an enterprise that might have been merely interesting were it not for Jackson's staunch determination to take the smug creatures of privilege in Washington by the scruff of their collective neck and teach them a stern lesson about whose country it really was. By 1828 the nation was already in danger of being sold out to the highest bidder and Jackson rose to power on the promise of snatching Democracy from the jaws of Oligarchy. Remini's speculates that, in some measure, this came from Jackson's early experience after having been ripped off in a land deal by moneyed interests.
   
   In any case, Jackson was as good as his word, going after the all powerful National Bank with a vengeance, staring down the threat of secession on the part of South Carolina over a question of tariffs, and defeating formidable political foes with equal helpings of restraint and ferocity. Jackson helped found the state of Tennessee, was instrumental in the establishment of the Democratic Party, virtually invented modern campaigning, was the first president to wield the veto with brio, and elevated the office of the Presidency to its present formidable role. But Jackson's most lasting contribution was his faith in and reliance on the people, even after he'd been elected, a true Democrat of a type almost entirely missing today and one not likely to be resurrected any time soon.
   
   Remini is a comprehensive Jackson scholar, one whose works on the Hero of New Orleans number eleven. This book is more or less an abridged version of his longer work and represents a cherry picking of facts and reflections. Regrettably, the book favors facts over reflections which is unfortunate, because one would like to know more about Remini's interpretations of events. But if you want to pick up a basic understanding of Andrew Jackson and his importance to American history this book is a wonderful start.
   
   Jackson's parting words on leaving office were, "Remember, my fellow citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing." What politician would ever say that today?
   
   That Jackson is increasingly forgotten when discussing the great Presidents of our history says something, too, about our ability to retain the blessing for future generations.



3. Few Americans have won the mythical status enjoyed by Andrew Jackson. Often portrayed, in his day and since, as the champion of the common man, Jackson came to Washington as an outsider, the first President born outside the thirteen original states, indeed the first president born neither in Virginia nor Massachusetts. Throughout Jackson historiography, Jackson via his policy of `rotation' in office has been accused of instituting the spoils system in American politics. This criticism highlights how Whig myths have come to permeate the historical writing on this subject.
   
   Starting with James Parton in 1860, anti-Jackson historians have followed this criticism, blaming Jackson for replacing a supposed merit system with a partisanship that corrupted the civil service for generations. Despite further research since Jackson's time, many historians have uncritically repeated these accusations without examining the actual record of appointments during the presidency unhappily described by some as "The Reign of Andrew Jackson".
   
   There have been essentially four cycles of studies into the life and Presidency of Andrew Jackson. The first cycle began soon after the death of Jackson with the "liberal patrician" or "Whig" school, who were generally unfavourable towards the policy of rotation. Most familiar is James Parton's classic The "Life of Andrew Jackson". So critical of rotation was Parton that he stated "this single feature of his administration would suffice to render it deplorable rather than admirable." Other members of the "Whig" school include Sumner, Schouler and Von Holst, all very critical of Jackson's policy of rotation. Parton's biography was the standard source on the Jacksonian era, until the second cycle represented by the Progressive Historians, such as John Spencer Bassett's "The Life of Andrew Jackson (1911), which cast Jackson in somewhat of a different light. Bassett reduces the amount of blame put on Jackson for rotation by suggesting that his democratic views made him oblivious to unintentional dangers from partisan appointments. However, the Progressives shared with the Whigs the view that Jackson had brought a spoils system to national politics and that its effects were negative.
   
   Historians in the third cycle of Jacksonian studies, of which Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s "The Age of Jackson" (1945) served as a pivotal work, shifted attention away from Jackson himself towards larger forces in his era. Historians of the third cycle, such as Hofstadter and Hammond, debated the effects of class and culture in determining party differences while showing little interest in evaluating Jackson's rotation policy, though tending to criticise it briefly. No biographies of Jackson discussed the policy of rotation in depth during the next thirty years.
   
   The appearance of Robert V. Remini's three-volume biography of Jackson marked the start of the fourth cycle of interpretation. Based on modern scholarship, Remini covers all aspects of Jackson's life and career, demonstrating his contribution to the great developments of nineteenth century America, particularly empire, freedom and democracy. By returning to first hand sources, Remini shows that the policy of rotation in office has been exaggerated and misunderstood. However, having set himself the remarkable task of producing a thorough study of the life and Presidency of Jackson, Remini did not have the scope for a detailed re-interpretation and re-evaluation of rotation. Since Remini's work there have been many scholarly works on Jackson, but none offer an in-depth reassessment of rotation as touched upon by Remini.
   
   Remini states that Jackson has received a disproportionate share of the blame for the spoils system and that there is a need to disprove the Whig myths, which have come to permeate the historical writings of historians over the generations. Remini was not the first to stress the need for such a revision; in fact a similar plea was expressed by J.R. Poinsett in the "Oration on the life and character of Andrew Jackson, delivered July 4, 1845" when he stated about Jackson, "His instinctive love of justice... gave a high tone to his government and exalted the honor of his country. His hatred of corruption rendered his administration pure.... I will content myself with expressing my belief that in future time the impartial historian will justify both his motives and his conduct on this trying occasion.
   
   Remini offers the reader a great insight into the pioneering mind of one of America's greatest Presidents.
   
   
   [The above Review is taken in part from 'Andrew Jackson's policy of 'Rotation in Office' by Alexander Rayden. © Copyright 2005 Alexander Rayden, All Rights Reserved].



4. We had to read this book in my AP U.S. History class. It is good. My theory on the reason why Remini wrote this book was to explain why Jackson did the things he did like the duels and make up for them. I never realized how interesting the presidents were espically Jackson. Good book to read.



5. I have read several of this author's works, and have never been disappointed. It is easy to see why he has become an acknowledged expert on the "Age of Jackson." His writing is always very easy to digest, and his insights are illuminating. I highly recommend this book, and the audio version is equally enjoyable.

5 comments about Stonewall Jackson: The Man, the Soldier, the Legend.

1. It is clear that this book was a labor of love to its author. Robertson presents Jackson in a fair light that draws out all his eccentricities and quirks while also presenting his military genius and moral fortitude. The book is well written and thoroughly researched. Upon completion of reading this book you will feel that you knew the man.



2. This is a great book that helps its readers understand how a poor orphan from Virginia became arguably the greatest general in American history.



3. I have several relatives who fought under Jackson and was a bit reluctant to read this book. Robertson is the premier historian of the Army of Northern Virginia and I thought this would be deification of Jackson. I was so wrong. Robertson has written THE definative work on Stonewall Jackson. Going back in his family history had my interest from the start.
   Robertson does a wonderful job of looking at Jackson-warts and all. He brings out all of Jackson and explains so many aspects of him and is certaintly not an apoligist. Without a doubt, Jackson was one of the most complex people to don an American uniform, next to Patton. When he was one his game he was briliant-such as The Valley Campaign, Second Bull Run or Chancellorsville. But When he was cold he was horrible-such was First Kernstown or the Pennicula Campaign. Robertson tells the story as it was, without excuses. If you want to really know the great Stonewall-read Robertsons book.



4. This may be the best book I have ever read. It's detailed, thorough, yet very readable. You will know virtually everything there is to know about Stonewall Jackson by the time you finish reading this book.



5. If it were possible, I would give this wonderful book twelve stars. Not only is it the best book on the Civil War that I have ever read, but outside of the Holy Scriptures it is the best biography I have ever read period. The work of writing a good biography requires an author of extraordinary gifts. He or she must not only be a painstaking researcher who does not mind wading through the minutia of an endless sea of details, but they must also be able to take those details and weave them into a fluid and interesting story that is vivid while not getting bogged down in the small stuff. To put it another way, the author must give enough detail to be clear and sharp, but he must not lose the forest for the trees. On all of these levels James I. Robertson's landmark work "Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend" triumphs and succeeds marvelously. But what makes this biography so astounding is that Robertson has given us far more than a narrative set of true facts about a heroic man named Thomas Jonathan Jackson, he has given us the man himself. I knew nothing about General Jackson until I saw the film "Gods and Generals", but after viewing that movie I knew I had a new hero (Robertson himself was a historical consultant on that film, by the way). When I read Robertson's biography I realized that, like the queen of Sheba when she met King Solomon, not the half had been told. Robertson hits the nail on the head by recognizing that if you would understand Stonewall Jackson, you must discern that he was first and foremost a soldier of the cross of Jesus Christ. Robertson himself is a professing Christian and so has unique insight into Jackson that many other biographers' lack. I will never have the privilege of meeting Jackson in this present age, but as I read this book I felt that I came as close to knowing Jackson personally as I ever can in this lifetime. I saw in him a kindred spirit. Having lost an infant of my own I could relate to his pain in the loss of two infants and his first wife, but I could also relate to the grace of God and the faith in Christ that sustained him through it all. Jackson and I share the same Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, Stonewall is my brother in the Lord across the sands of time. We share the same Calvinism as well. I found myself relating to his sense of social awkwardness and wanting to emulate his devotion to duty in many ways. Like all of us Jackson was a sinner, a man with large warts and gaping flaws. Forgiveness of others did not come easy to him; he placed loyalty to state above loyalty to family, sometimes not allowing men under his command to go home to bury dead wives and children. You will not find near as much of the noble patience that Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain demonstrated towards his men residing in Jackson. Yet, under his tough and well-disciplined exterior beat the heart of a man who was tender and affectionate towards his wife and baby, who loved to play with children, and whose tender prayers to his God were not soon forgotten. When I came to the chapter that describes Jackson's death following on the heels of his victory at Chancellorsville, I literally began to weep with tears spilling down my cheeks. The image of all those Confederate soldiers pulling off their hats and holding them over their hearts in honor of Jackson's widow when she first stepped away from his death bed is indelibly stamped on my mind. Why did I weep? Because through Robertson's biography, I had found a dear friend and brother in Christ. And when I read of his death, I felt that I was losing a personal friend. Thank you, Professor Robertson, for your eight and a half years of research and for all of your labors. Thank you for introducing me to a friend and hero, Thomas Jonathan Jackson. Our fourth son is named "Thomas Jackson", but we call him "Jackson". And in regards to General Jackson, we have never met, but we shall meet by and by when our Lord and Savior comes again to take His people home. Thomas Jackson, "Bud" Robertson, and myself shall spend eternity side by side with all of God's people throughout all of time worshiping our crucified and risen Savior.

5 comments about Co. Aytch: A Confederate Memoir of the Civil War.

1. There are seveal diary books which are like Co. Aytch however for some reason I could relate to Sam Watkins. When I'm asked about the Civil War/War of Nothern Aggression, I tell them to start their study of that time with two books: Co. Aytch and Testament:A Soldier's Story of the CIvil War by Bobrick. Both books are a 5 star in my humble opinion. After reading those two then go on and read whatever you want.



2. Surely themost informing view of the pasr is the personal diary or even memoir. Often in the military genre we find that what is written in a diary after the battle offers a ver different view than the mrmoir written some time later. Sam Watkins's memoir is the exception. I doubt a diary wou read substantially different from this book. Sam is a mature man who sees through the gloss and temporary glory of the moment both on the field and from his armchair. If you forget the name on the cover, you can believe the person responsible for it goes by the nom de plume of Mark Twain. This is not a book for the military library, it bellongs in every library.



3. Sam Watkins himself describes it best himself,A Side Show to the Big Show. This Book describes the War For Southern Independence, from the eyes of a common Private in the Confederate Army. He was in it from the Start to the End. I've read it 5 times, I enjoy it more each time!! A MUST for anyone studying the WAR!!



4. Mr. Watkins tells a humble and epic story. A confederate private shares his unique perspective. Reveals the grim realities of a glorious cause going from bad to worse and back again. It is truly amazing he survived four years of warfare. Most often death was easier than survival. General Bragg routinely court martialed his troops with a firing squad for deserters. Further punishments like barreling, whippings and deprevations were routine. It got better under General Johnston and worse again under General Hood. The soldiers alternatively cursed and praised the war, its' cause and the Generals. Yet like in all wars, the men fought for each other. So many soldiers met their Maker, whereby Watkins extolls their virtues and praises. Eloquently written and graphically descriptive. Sam's survival is a testimonial to God's protection. Written in the 1880's.
   READ the book and you will find a friend from the ages.



5. Interest in this particular Civil War memoir increased due to its being frequently quoted and referred to in the documentary series on "The Civil War" that aired on PBS stations almost twenty years ago. Thankfully, the success of the series caused "Company Aytch, or a Side Show of the Big Show" to be reprinted.
   
   As a narrative device, film maker Ken Burns compared and contrasted the recollections of Samuel R. Watkins, a Confederate soldier who served in the Western theater of operations (principally in Tennessee and Georgia), with the diary entries of Elisha Hunt Rhodes, a Union soldier from Rhode Island. Both men saw significant combat action and both survived the war.
   
   Although Rhodes recorded his immediate observations, Watkins began his memoirs after the war had ended and his book was published seventeen years after the Army of the Tennessee had surrendered. He had the advantage of being able to meditate on his experiences and I found his book to be of greater interest as a result.
   
   I have read both "All for the Union" (Rhodes) and "Company Aytch" (Watkins). While both books have much to recommend them, I am partial to the latter. As a writer, Watkins produced more profound opinions. There seemed to be more color, humor, poetry and reflection in his prose. Rhodes seemed dull and factual in his summaries which often culminated with the slogan "All for the Union." I do not mean to diminish Rhodes or his military service in any manner, but Watkins is simply a better writer.
   
   The conclusion of Watkins book is quite moving. It was memorable when broadcast on television and it is no less memorable when read from the printed page.

5 comments about Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters.

1. Historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor has based her biography of Robert E. Lee on a huge collection of Lee family letters so that the reader sees Lee through his own words in repsonse to life situations. He comes through as a very complex person with a largely conflicted life. Lee of course was primariy a soldier (at one point he had been superintendent of West Point) and while Lincoln offered him the leadership of the Union army he followed his Southern background and in a few short weeks sided with the Confederacy. In this book we also see Lee as a husband and father. One example of Pryor's insight shows the reaction of Lee and his wife to the Union army taking over their Arlington estate which had been in his wife's family and their recognition that the house had been looted, and as the war progressed their land turned into a military cemetary for both Union and Confederate dead. Pryor says that that incident made the break complete and left the Lees embittered for the rest of their lives.
   This is a fine study of the man based on his own words and is a valuable addition to Civil War history. I would agree that Reading the Man will beocme a standard reference on Robert E. Lee.



2. "There is indeed a certain childish willfulness in the American mind that insists on chastising the people of the past for not being like them, or else pretending that they were. Which is a certain way NOT to learn anything from history." ---Dr. Clyde Wilson
   
   Put it this way - if you are the type of person Dr. Wilson is describing, you're going to love this book! If not, you'll be wishing you had paid for it in Confederate bills instead of U.S. dollars.
   
   The book itself contains roughly 175 pages of footnotes, bibliography and index. There are 50 pages of actual letters, some of which have already been published and others of which are not even by Lee, but by other people. If you're planning on seeing 500 pages of newly discovered letters, forget it. The fewer than 50 pages of new letters by Lee himself will leave you grossly disappointed. Finally, we have 425 pages of Ms. Pryor's perseverative and monotonous interpretations of those letters, which I suppose is the "meat" of the book.
   
   According to Ms. Pryor, Lee did not release the Custis slaves immediately. The terms of the will specified "within 5 years" of the elder Custis' death (in 1857). Lee fulfilled that mandate by manumitting them in 1862. This apparently wasn't satisfactory enough for Ms. Pryor as she repeatedly drones on about Lee's failure to understand how the slaves felt.
   
   Ms. Pryor is also critical of Lee for expecting the slaves to actually work!? Oh horror! Oh horror!
   
   Of course, there is the matter of several slaves being whipped by Lee, something which has never been conclusively proven. Like a second rate shyster, Ms. Brown does her best to drum up the case against him.
   
   According to Ms. Pryor, Lee had no appreciation of other cultures and saw nothing worthwhile in the Mexican culture when he was there during the Mexican war. I'm wondering what Pryor expected Lee, an educated, well-to-do man from one of Virginia's first families, to say when he was in Mexico? "Gee! What lovely mud huts!?" I'm pretty sure that Mexico didn't have Grand Melia and Paradisus or any other resorts at that time, so I can't figure out what Ms. Pryor expected him to see in the place? I suppose to understand her reasoning, or her expectations, one would have to refer back to Dr. Wilson's quote above.
   
   Also, according to Ms. Pryor, Lee had "poor cross cultural communications skills", a term apparently taken from today's lexicon of multicultural drivel. In this case she was referring to his "communication", or lack of it, with the Comanches. I ran this past a native American friend of mine and he almost fell over laughing. I'm not sure there were too many folks at the time who had good cross cultural communication skills with the Comanches of that era, as this particular group wasn't usually given to such things themselves. Would that it were possible to transport Ms. Pryor back in time to the 1850s and observe how her "skills" with the Comanches would fare? I would be taking bets on how long she kept her pretty blond hair.
   
   In sum, this book, touted though it is by most "contemporary" historians, is one more example of the sham that has become what we used to call, "the field of history".
   
   If you feel compelled somehow to read it, buy it used and pay as little as possible. When you're through with it, it will make for an excellent target at the firing range.



3. Robert Edward Lee (1807-1870) has won immortal fame among the great military captains of all time. Thousands of articles and books have been written about him. His most notable biographer is Douglas Southall Freeman's adulatory multivolumed work by a Lee worshipper. In recent years several revisionary works have appeared by the likes of Alan Nolan
   who have castigated Lee for his white supremacist views Now it is the turn of Elizabeth Brown Pryor.
   Pryor has sifted through over 10,000 pages of letters from Lee, his wife Mary and the Lee family. She has almost 200 densely written pages in her book listing first and secondary sources. She has done her homework!
   Pryor has produced what is, in my opinion, a great book on the great Virginian. We see Lee as a great and good man but one who was not perfect. Pryor begins each chapter with a letter from Lee or family memory and then illuminates how that letter became an important mirror into the life of the Confederate hero.
   We see Lee as a brave man who defended his beloved South against the North. Among salient points we learn:
   a. Lee was a white supremecist who had trouble controlling the slaves on the Arlington estate he inherited from Washington Park Custis (Custis was the father of Lee's wife Mary and the grandson of George Washington_).
   b. Lee could harsh in his treatment of slaves. Several slaves ran away from Arlington. He was not adverse to having them whipped for infractions
   of his strict rules. There are reports that Lee was also kind to slaves.
   He was a racist and believed the white race was superior to the African-Americans with whom he interacted. In this belief he was consistent with the widely held belief of the vast majority of nineteenth century Americans.
   c. Lee was a great general as manifest in the brilliant Chancellorsville campaign but had trouble in supervision of his subordinates. Lee also kept inadequate leaders in positions of leadership in the Army of Northern Virginia who should have been replaced.
   d. Lee was Virginia-centric. Lee believed in states rights.
   e. Lee was an elitist who thought upper class white males should be the leaders of society.
   f. Lee was frustrated by his antebellum army career as a member of the engineering corp. He suffered from depression and had a violent temper.
   g. Lee was a good and faithful husband to his invalid wife Mary. The Lees had several children. He was an absentee father due to his military career.
   h. Lee hated the years he spent as supt. of West Point. Following the Civil War he became President of Washington College in Lexington Va. bust disliked the work
   i. Lee was often perceived as aloof and cold. Lee was able to unwind with famiily and close friends.
   j. Lee's ideas on religion varied throughout his life from a mild Deism to evangelical belief in his later years. He was an Episcopalian.
   Not everyone will like this biography of a Southern icon without peer who has been elevated to the ranks of Dixie sainthood along with Elvis!
   As one who has read all the important biographies of Lee I consider this book an essential in understanding the great but enigmatic man. Pryor's book will engender controversy but is a vital read for anyone wanting a good understanding of Lee that does not portray him as a Lost Cause saint.
   Essential and excellent!



4. I think Lee would have liked this book. Remember, Robert E. Lee was a devout Christian. According to Lee's Bible, Jesus Christ said that nobody is "good" but God. Lee was a humble man, and all his life he tried to learn from his own mistakes, his father's, those of others'. That's to say, yes, Robert E. Lee did make mistakes on occasion. And so, I'd bet the one most opposed to the "Marble Man" myth would be Lee himself. I liked this book.



5. Fun to read a pissant writing about a man with such integrity. Taking some letters, scrutinize them carefully, add preconceived ideas and a few tea leaves, and viola, pissant can give a portrait of Robert E. Lee.

5 comments about All for the Union: The Civil War Diary & Letters of Elisha Hunt Rhodes.

1. It isn't easy to find quality diaries written so well from the Civil War sometimes; although this book will rank with in the top 10. Popularized and quoted often in Ken Burn's Civil War series on PBS, Rhodes' book about his life as a soldier come to life. Rhodes brings the excitement and patriotic fervor of being a new recruit in the 2nd Rhode Island Infantry early in the war. This patriotic spirit never dies through out his writing. Many times he writes about the daily hardships such as bad weather, sickness and death while always falling back on the duty to ones country and the saving of the union. Rhodes' duty carries him many engagements where death lingers around every corner. Battles such as Bull Run, Antietam, Fredericksburg and Gettysburg are just a few that this man witnessed and wrote about firsthand. Rhodes' was really an ideal soldier and loved the life. He started the war as a private and by the end of it was a colonel. Many people would benefit from reading this book be it a historian or beginner looking to further understand soldier life in the Civil War.



2. If you are interested in more than big names and big battles this book is well worth reading. Elisha Hunt Rhodes shares his experiences from his enlistment as a boy having never been away from home until his mustering out as a man having earned the rank of Col. He writes in an honest straight forward manner about every aspect of daily life. His strong belief in duty, sense of right and wrong and his ever important sense of humor show in everything he writes. He's an optimist that made it through the war with all these attributes intact. Thankfully for us he kept this diary so that we can understand a little more about life during the Civil War.



3. Anyone who is interested in the Civil War has to read this book. All for the Union is the diary of Elisha Hunt Rhodes and covers the four years that he spent in the Union army. Entry by entry, the reader can watch Rhodes go from an enthusiastic young man, to hard, weary soldier. Appalled by the death and destruction early in the book, by the end, laying down to sleep between the dead and dying barely justifies a comment. A wonderful read.



4. Whie the Army of the Potomac suffered the usual soldier hardships we also have to realize these soldiers suffered some very bad generals in comparison to the Army of the Tennessee. We see the participants sense of this in the memoir. It is best placed in the heirarchy of the Civil War memoirs it must be placed beside Sam Watkins's "Co. Aytch." High praoise indeed.



5. We have works on the Civil War written by generals (e.g., the memoirs of Ulysses Grant and James Longstreet) and other officers (E. P. Alexander, Moxley Sorrell). However, equally valuable is the view from the bottom, by the foot soldiers. From the Confederate side, the paradigm example is Sam Watkins, "Company Aytch". From the Union side, Elisha Hunt Rhodes fills the bill. He rose through the ranks, and his diaries and letters provide a first-hand, ground-level view of the war in the east. As the Introduction by one of his descendants notes (Page xv): "He participated in every campaign of the Army of the Potomac from Bull Run to Appomattox with rapid promotions up to the rank of colonel in 1865."
   
   Incidents are described plainly and with an eye from the front. On pages 15 and following, he describes the march to Bull Run, the state of the troops, the weariness experienced on that march. Then, the battle itself and aftermath are described in an economical manner. Here and after, his observations of fellow soldiers and officers is most useful, giving the reader a sense of what he was perceiving.
   
   On pages 106 and following is his description of his regiment's (2nd Rhode Island) and his corps' (VI Corps under General John Sedgwick) march to and role at Gettysburg. While the corps arrived late, its uniting with the rest of the Army of the Potomac was a great morale boost for the Union forces, as this Corps was the largest in the northern army, bringing it to full strength at this bloody conflict.
   
   Then, his description of the bloody battle at the Wilderness, where he took the measure of Grant, after vicious fighting. In his diary on May 7th, 1864, he noted (page 138): "If we were under any other General except Grant I should expect a retreat, but Grant is not that kind of soldier, and we feel that we can trust him." In that phrase, he captures nicely the bulldog tenacity of Grant as a General, and identifying what was different from him compared with other commanders of the Army of the Potomac.
   
   His rendering the campaign in the Shenandoah Valley, where General Phil Sheridan jousted with Jubal Early's forces is is insightful. He speaks of the classic surprise assault on the Union position while Sheridan was off consulting with Washington. The surprise attack rolled up the Union lines for a time, although the VI Corps held pretty well. His description of Sheridan's role is interesting, as his simple coda for this indicates (page 185): "Hurrah for Sheridan!"
   
   And, finally, these lines (page 221): "Glory to God in the highest. Peace on earth, good will to men! Thank God Lee has surrendered and the war will end soon." Thus, his response at Appomattox Court House.
   
   As with Sam Watkins' observations, so, too, with Rhodes'. These observers provide a valuable and insightful perspective on the war from the ground level. Well recommended for those interested in the soldier's view of the Civil War.