5 comments about The Jewish Confederates (NS).

1. First, I commend Robert Rosen for his dedication to this subject and for publishing this work. I am sure that it ought to be as controversial as recent books (and film) showing dedication of Blacks to the Southern Cause for Independence. I recall as a child watching the march on Montgomery, the seat of the first Confederate Capitol, before it was moved to Richmond. And had it remained in Montgomery, what then?

   Mr. Rosen, an attorney, is clear with his research. Anyone who might wonder why Jews would fight for the Confederacy, or Blacks for that matter, will find this fascinating. Jews from South Carolina, from Louisiana, many of German or Spanish (Sephardic) heritage, were there. I hope that more books, and personal accounts, will follow, from groups whose support for the rights of the States to determine their destinies will be forthcoming. We must learn from history.

   Anyone who would hope to understand what it means to be an American should have this book on the shelf, and read it. To paraphrase Shelby Foote, before this war, the United States could only be conceived of as a plurality, after, a singularity. Yet today, we are no doubt in danger of falling into an abyss of pluralism that threatens any kind of national identity. Yet Irishmen fought one another--at Fredericksburg, and elsewhere--as did Jews, and Blacks, and Hispanics--across stone walls at point-blank range, leaving a legacy of maiming of soul and flesh. We have only to look back 3 score years to the bloodbath of Europe to see we are not yet free.

   Jews fought for home and hearth, "Pro Aris et Pro Focis"--a common Latin phrase embroidered on flags North and South. In the American South, many Jews found that was worth fighting for against an invasion from afar. That experience unites them with us, today.

   Most highly recommended for scholarship and readability!




2. The world is full of people who just don't get it, thanks to the ultra-leftist American media. They consider South "the land of bigotry" and portray the War Between the States, as some sort of referendum on slavery and bigotry. In their minds, the thought a Jew in a Confederate uniform is an oxymoron.

   Of course, the historical record is as clear as a bell-the so-called "Civil War" was a result of high tariffs and the average Southerner's fear of a new political party that sought even more "tax and spend" polices.

   During the antebellum times, Jews were an integral part of the South. A substantial amount of their contribution to the region is still part of the Southern landscape.

   When a Jewish friend of mine from the north side of Chicago recently had an opportunity to travel in the South, he was amazed to learn that the South was not the land of anti-Semitism, as the media-dominated northern urban culture had led him to believe. He was also surprised to discover how much evidence of early Jewish influence in the South still remains.

   Of course, I recommended that he read The Jewish Confederates to help him put it all into perspective. It really shows that many Jewish men and women were proud citizens of the Confederacy.

   Some of the details presented make it clear that many of these brave soldiers of the Confederacy were very serious about their faith and culture. A portion of the book that detail the way the Jewish soldiers were allowed the opportunity to celebrate their holidays was especially enlightening.

   It took a lot of courage on the part of Robert N. Rosen to write such a book. In a day and age when many people arrogantly display their ignorance by equating the Confederate flag with racism, Rosen should be considered national hero for having the guts to bring the world the truth.

   If it were up to me, Rosen's The Jewish Confederates would be required reading for any program on "multiculturalism." It would also be required reading for every liberal history professor who teaches the era of the War Between the States.




3. I've had Jewish friends in Memphis and New Orleans whom I was surprised to learn had Ancestors in the Army of Northern Virgina and the Army of Tennessee. Rosen's book shows that the Civil War truly was a War of Brother against Brother no matter the ties by social status, national origin, or religion.
   
   Rosen has done quite a bit of research and presents his narrative with the recollections, diaries, and letters of the participants and their families and friends. This kind of history by correspondance has always appealed to me more than the memoir type that is carefully thought out later to put the event or individual in the best light.
   
   Rosen presents us with Jews living a normal life in the antebellum South similar to that enjoyed by their White Christian neighbors. The same predjudices and toleration for the "peculiar institution" exist for them as it does for their neighbors but I sense there is more of a toleration amongst this community for the Abolitionists Movement among Antebellum Jews than other groups in the South.
   
   When War comes young men enlist and fight for the same cause as their Christian neighbors and with the same Gallantry. First hand accounts of the struggles and hardships of the War come from the letters soldiers write home to their families.
   
   Rosen presents Jewish Life from the viewpoints of many players from well known Lousiana politician Judah P. Benjamin who held many positions in Jefferson Davis' Cabinet to less well known immigrants from Spain and Germany who started stores in rural Mississippi and Arkansas.
   
   One story that I could not find was that of Sergeant Mordecai Solomon or Solomon Mordecai of Jackson, Mississippi who won the Confederate Medal of Honor at Spotsylvania Court House in 1864 and whose Synagogue was bombed by the KKK 100 years later
   
   The book is a must for Civil War enthusiasts and may be helpful in Geneology research.



4. This is truly a beautiful book. It occupies a prominent place on my library shelf. The subject matter is fascinating, and important. Considering how Jews came to be treated in the South after the Civil War, the story of how Jews other than Judah Benjamin loyally served the Confederacy most certainly should be told.
   
   For telling this story, Robert Rosen deserves credit. But the writing in The Jewish Confederates is pedestrian at best. Most chapters consist of paragraph after paragraph of short recaps of the military service of people with nothing in common other than being Jewish. Rosen diligently did his research, then regurgitated what he found.
   
   In short, I do recommend this book for those interested in either the history of Jews in America or the Civil War, but do not expect to be captivated -- not an unreasonable expectation given the beautiful cover artwork. You will learn, but it will be a chore. Kind of like school, but there are certainly worse ways to spend some time.



5. ....that The Confederacy had Jews. Surprise...A true story: in my exam room, there is always a book on my side table. One day, this was the book; a young girl [I take care of Army Privates] went over and picked it up as if she were touching pork. She informed me that the book was a lie, because there could not possibly have been any Jews in The Confederacy. I pointed to Judah Benjamin's picture among the other Confederate heroes on my wall and told her his story, including the slave owning. She was appalled. She soon knew that the CSA had around 2000 Jews, from Private to Colonel. Then, she asked me the question for which I still have no answer: "How is it that I, a Jew, living in America, don't know that significant a part of my own history?" Sadly, she's a very bright girl, who just didn't know. Much more sadly, BOTH of her parents are history professors. The encounter happened right before Christmas break, and she informed me that she was going to ask her mother about the matter. I gave her several references, and wished her Happy Chanukkah. After the break, she said that her Mom told her that, yes, this is something they knew, but just don't talk about. Look, all of us who deal with history can tell stories of astonishing ignorance. But I've never forgotten that girl; whenever I see ignorance, she reminds me of the obligation that all us who know have to impart [gently] unto those who don't.
   
   Bob Rosen, has, indeed, imparted, and done it superbly. He gives us the story of all the major, and many of the minor, Jews who saluted the Stars and Bars. The two most prominant Jewish Confederates, Judah P. Benjamin, and Phoebe Yates Pember, were civilians, but many wore the gray uniform; Abraham Myers was the Quartermaster General, David DeLeon was the first Surgeon General [Rosen gives the bad with the good; Dr. DeLeon was a drunk, who was soon cashiered]. Major Adolph Proskauer led a charge at Gettysburg, and lived to tell it for many years. Ironically, the two highest ranking Jews killed in the war both fell at Vicksburg, and have monuments near each other. They were Colonels Leon Dawson Marks [Confederate] and Marcus H. Spiegel[Yankee]. Dr. Simon Baruch was a highly respected surgeon during, and after, the war; his son, Bernard, gained fame as a financier. Sgt. Moses Ezekiel was a VMI Cadet who fought at New Market, then was one of the finest sculptors on earth for many years. Many gave much in support; Mrs. Pember's sister, Eugenia Phillips, was a Spy who went to jail twice, and won the hearts of all Southerners by slapping Beast Butler. Rabbis Max Michaelbacher and George Jacobs were central figures in the Richmond religious community. There's even humor here; witness the "damn yankee Jew" asking a child in Norfolk for a piece of matzoah during The Feast of Unleavened Bread.
   
   Interestingly, while the Yankees had around 10,000 Jews in uniform, and the South 2,000, it was the supposedly "racist" South that had Benjamin and Mrs. Pember. Only The Confederacy put Jews in leadership positions. Robert E. Lee and Jeff Davis strongly, and openly, supported the Jewish community, while Grant and Sherman were stark-raving anti-Semites.
   
   This is not just a great book, it's an artistic masterpiece. Great illustrations, well presented. The maps of Richmond, Charleston, and New Orleans even show the modern Interstates as reference points; nice touch. Bob Rosen deserves all our thanks, even those of a goyim like me. Do not fail to read this book.

4 comments about Admiral David Dixon Porter: The Civil War Years.

1. Chester G. Hearn has proven once again that he's among the top rank of Civil War naval historians writing today. His bio of one of the war's most colorful naval officers is thorough and very readable, and provides great insight into the motivations of a most difficult and controversial officer.



2. Chester G. Hearn has proven once again that he's among the top rank of Civil War naval historians writing today. His bio of one of the war's most colorful naval officers is thorough and very readable, and provides great insight into the motivations of a most difficult and controversial officer.



3. I was fastenated by the story of one of America's fightingAdmrials. Porter's success on the Mississpi river prevented the southfrom using it to transport goods and men anywhere. He effectively cutthe West out of the war by maintianing control of this river.

   The book reads as well as any by Bruce Catton. If you think that the Civil war was fought only on the ground, this book is for you.




4. An interesting and well written biography of a key and often overlooked Civil War participant.

   The role of the Federal and Confederate Navies in the War Between the States has been neglected by almost all historians. Why? Most of the more colorful, decisive actions, the events that sell books, were fought on land.

   This is a different type of story from a refreshingly different point of view. It is exciting and enlightening. The Federals could not have won without their excellent Navy, whose role was every bit as crucial as their Army's. This is as good an account of the U.S. Navy's role in the Union's Civil War victory as there is. Viewed through the life of David Dixon Porter, it is a fine testament to the Navy and the man

4 comments about The Lincoln No One Knows.

1. I have not bought this book as I would not let one penney fall into Garrison's pocket, but I've perused this volume heavily. I wish that I could have given it 0 stars. The author is an unreconstructed Confederate who, whenever there is a remotely possible sinister way of interpreting Lincoln's actions, prefers to submit that view rather than acknowledge the findings of recognized scholars' research. For example, he claims that Lincoln is responsible for the creation of the "Imperial Presidency", making possible the abuses of Nixon, Vietnam, etc. But he does not show that Lincoln's powers were often balanced by a war conduct committee, that the Presidency went on to lose considerable authority and esteem in the Reconstruction years, and that Lincoln himself acknowledged that, except in the case of national emergencies, as the Civil War was viewed, the President lacked powers to do many things (like the Emancipation Proclamation). Garrison also blames Lincoln for being uncompromising and contends, without proof, that the Confederacy's desire to continue as a separate nation would have faded, if allowed, resulting in reunification. But most scholars acknowledge that the individual states would have sooner seceded even further into smaller nations, and that other states in the Union would have found reason to secede into new confederacies. Thus, as I've said, Garrison's trash has been disproven yet he pretends as though it has not even been noticed by scholars. It is the vitriolic spite of an unenlightened Confederate clinging to the bitterness of ancestors. This book should be relegated to the heap of trash-writing never to be recovered.



2. Some may find the book ofensive.As Lincoln is one of the greatest American Presidents and heros of all time,but I think to read this book you need to keep an open mind.
   Pople I think do not like for when histrorians and such dig through his hstory and prefer to enjoy the egnima that the man we all love is known today.
   Having said that I would be weary reading this book if you have not read or done lots of resarch on the man.
   I give this book three stars mostly becaouse I knew alot of the information that the book had ,but the point of view the author was giving was intersting.



3. This book is an excellent addition to anyone's library of books about this critical figure in American history. Unlike some reviewers, I actually bought, and read this book, and bothered to research some of the authors surprising assertions.

   It amazes me how hysterical and insulting people will get when faced with facts about something contrary to what they are familiar with. So many Lincoln quotes, for instance, have long been known to be sheer fabrication; mythology, simply untrue and not originating from Lincoln at all. So many assertions about Lincoln's intentions and beliefs have been made that are utterly contrary to what Lincoln himself said and wrote. As with any historical figure, there are people that idolize and create myths, and there are those who are real historians, who actually do their homework. This book is a product of the work of a person in the latter category.

   Shocking and contrary to what we were told as school children about Lincoln, the story of the real Lincoln is much more interesting and base than the myth makers would have us believe. Lincoln was, after all, a politician, a Statist, and a Federalist. He declared martial law, took away citizens basic constitutional rights, jailed newspaper reporters and statesmen that disagreed with him, and went against the founding father's explicit intentions as well as the Constitution and Bill of Rights in creating a massive, unrestricted, powerful centralized federal government. Lincoln, as it turns out, was no saint after all. The real story is always grittier and more interesting than the fantasy. If you want a taste of the real Lincoln, and if you are capable of dealing with some unpleasant facts about the man and the legend, read this book, it's a good start.




4. This book is mistitled because it contains absolutely nothing that is new and certainly nothing that is not presented in better fashion elsewhere. It also lacks any sources, which grants Garrison the freedom to embellish what he doesn't know, e.g., his claim that Lincoln earned $5,000 every year as an attorney.

No comments about Robert E. Lee in Texas.

2 comments about Judging Lincoln.

1. As much as the title of this book states that people may be judging Lincoln it hardly gives that negative feel. Frank Williams has put together a very well written book which explores Lincoln's motivations, desires, thoughts and how he managed people. Williams brings us interesting insight into the man where myth sometimes tells the wrong story. Viewpoints on how Lincoln managed Union commanders, political opponents, slavery issues and people is really what this book covers. Williams treats his subject quite fairly showing both sides of the stories in which controvercy over Lincoln's actions have resided. This book was a quick read although very enjoyable. If you are a Civil War fan, you should consider this book as much is written. How Lincoln handled popular generals such as McClellan, Meade, Hooker, Burnside and others was very interesting!



2. This is an outstanding compilation of thoughtful and provocative essays offered by Judge Frank J. Williams. Anyone with an interest in Lincoln should add this volume to their library. Well written and lucid, Williams provides a highly balanced look at the motivations and actions of the 16th President, with a keen eye to historical accuracy, historiography, historical memory, and balance. Williams, like all good authors and historians recognizes that there will never be a definative word on his subject, but is unafraid to weigh in with his own venture into the fray. As a history teacher, with an abiding interest in Lincoln, I grade this effort a solid A!

1 comments about Three Years With the 92nd Illinois: The Civil War Diary of John M. King.

1. John King's diary provides window into the world of a very provincial country at the time of the Civil War. He does an excellent job of highlighting the attitudes of fellow soldiers, poor Southerners, plantation owners, and new recruits. Claire Swedberg, the editor, has footnoted the book very well, giving context to many of the events mentioned in the book. For every person mentioned, Swedberg has provided some background on their service -- or whether they even survived the war.

   Passages such as King debating with a plantation owner over whether the Bible condones or condemns slavery -- where each side quotes verse -- make this a fascinating window into the past. King's attitude in the diaries is one that reflects the questioning of authority common to American soldiers. He himself is a private during most of the war, though he's promoted to corporal at one point. King evens disdains that rank!

   It's not as conversational as Wilbur Fisk's diaries ("Hard Marching Every Day") but very readable. The diary ends abruptly in September, 1864, 10 months before the end of the war and King's return to his family.

3 comments about Diary of a Confederate Soldier: John S. Jackman of the Orphan Brigade.

1. In February of 1862, 4,000 men left Kentucky as part of the First Kentucky Brigade and marched south. Three years later, 600 returned, among them John S. Jackman. In between, the five regiments saw most of the Civil War in the west -- Shiloh, Vicksburg, Baton Rouge, Chickamauga, the Atlanta campaign -- even ending their days as a unit in Washington, Georgia, just as President Jefferson Davis and his cabinet pass through in their attempt to escape Union troops.

   Jackman saw it all, and as renowned and prolific Civil War author and editor William Davis points out, his account is the longest and most unvarnished of the diaries that have come out of the war about the "Orphan Brigade." "Diary of a Confederate Soldier" is one of the better memoirs to come out of the war, literate, readable, humorous (especially the great snowball battle in March of 1864), and educating.




2. The Orphan Brigade was one of the hardest fighting units in the Army of Tennessee. Jackman writes a very good history from his own expierences, first as a regular soldier then as an clerk for Co. B, 9th Kentucky. He takes us from the first camps of the Orphans through the war, to where he was injured at near where General Polk was killed at Pine Mountain and his hospital visits. While there are thing added either in his transfer of the diary to a new book in 1865 or after the war, William C. Davis helps make clear things that might have been changed. Davis also points out names where Jackman uses initals. Overall, it is worth the price, especially for a Civil War Reenactor like me.



3. This diary of John S. Jackman presents one educated soldier's often daily proceedings, as they "overturn the best government in the world". The entries have a real style, often humorous, with little politics, hate, or even personal feelings. Jackman and this Kentucky "orphan brigade" saw a lot of action in his 3 years, 8 months and 4 days of service; including the Battle of Shiloh in 1862, the blasting of Vicksburg, and Chickamauga and Chattanooga. His group also tried to fend of Sherman's march. On June 14, 1864 a shell fell him till he was out of action, till he joined "the orphans" to see "Uncle Jeff' (confederate president Jefferson Davis), in Washington, Georgia as the president rode away alone --- "and the confederate government ceases to exist".
   
   Jackman's journal was ever present and, as you might expect, there is a focus on food, with talk of getting "bear" (local livestock)", or going off for watermelon and bacon in the morning. Sickness was common for Jackman, and he writes of the pain of new shoes. Jackman's style is often light even in the midst of war, for example, "I fell to my lot to be mounted behind a very large man on a very small horse". He read when books were available, including Cicero (in Latin) and Dickens "Great Expectations". Relevant to today, the soldiers in the confederate army also complained of having their time involuntarily extended. The editor did not over edit the account and the introduction in each chapter was helpful. Including a map would have helped me follow the story.

3 comments about Gettysburg Requiem: The Life and Lost Causes of Confederate Colonel William C. Oates.

1. William C. Oates, the subject of Glenn LaFantassie's "Gettysburg Requiem" is a bundle of contradictions: born poor, died wealthy; apparently racist, secretly intimate with his black servant; a respected attorney and newspaper publisher but shot and killed a man; wounded six times in battle but rose no higher in rank than lieutenant colonel; saw Lincoln's election as a danger to the South, lamented Lincoln's assassination.
   
   LaFantasie's research reveals a Confederate hero whose life was characterized by anger, violence, guilt,inconsistencies, weaknesses, and relentless struggle for success. Oates may well be described as one of those souls who can resist anything but temptation.
   
   The book's bibliography is a compendium of excellent Civil War
   sources, the research seems to be as complete as anyone could compile, and the presentation is as clear and easy to follow as the subject matter will allow.
   
   Those who have climbed Little Round Top at Gettysburg, who are fascinated with the battle between the 20th Maine and the 15th Alabama, who want to know more about the post-war conflicts between General Joshua Chamberlain and "Colonel" Oates over the placement of monuments on the battlefield will find "Gettysburg Requiem" required reading.



2. Two men who have had a very significant impact on the Civil War as we know it today lived a century after it ended. Neither was a soldier; neither was a professional historian. Michael Shaara was a novelist. Ken Burns is a documentary filmmaker. As evidence of their influence, just take a look at that standard reference, Mark M. Boatner's Civil War Dictionary, first published in 1959. Look there to see what you can find out about William C. Oates, the colonel of the 15th Alabama who led the attack against the 20th Maine on Little Round Top. What will you find? Nothing. Oates isn't in the book. Now, however, nearly fifty years after Boatner compiled his dictionary, Oates is a very well known character to anyone who has read Shaara's book or seen Burns's Civil War series.
   This past summer the first full-length biography of Oates appeared, more than 400 pages about a man who never actually attained the rank of colonel, a man who was replaced as commander of the 15th Alabama after leading it for nearly two years, a man who fifty years ago did not warrant a footnote in one of the Civil War's standard reference works. So, does he warrant being the subject of a full-blown biography?
   You bet. Glenn W. Fantasie has done a terrific job of telling Oates's tale, and of using him as a tool to delve into the greater issues that filled Oates's own life and times. Oates's path through life was one that easily lends itself to the telling of a great story. He began as a hot-tempered brawler who frequented the small towns of pre-war Texas. He ended as a Southern politician who could actually entertain, and fight for, the idea of giving black men the vote. In between he raised a company to fight for the Confederacy, was brave to a fault (or so his men thought), lost an arm at Petersburg, served seven terms in Congress fighting against railroad land grants and for free silver, and one term as the governor of Alabama.
   As the title suggests, the cause of the Confederacy was not his only "lost cause," and it is by laying those others before us that Professor LaFantasie makes this biography so much more than just another biography about a Civil War soldier whose main attraction to an author is that he has not been written about before. Oates was a fascinating character. His constant desire to lead from the front made him a prominent figure throughout the times in which he lived. This fine biography does him the justice denied him in times past.



3. On July 2, 1863, the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg, Confederate Lieutenant Colonel William C. Oates let his troops, the 15th Alabama, in the fateful and unsuccessful charge against Joshua Chamberlain and the 20th Maine on the far left of the Union line at Little Round Top. Chamberlain and the 20th Maine have become American heroes, but far less attention is given to Oates. In "Gettysburg Requiem" (2006) Glenn Lafantasie offers the first full-scale biography of Oates (1833 -- 1910). It is an intruiguing picture of a man and his times and of the changing South after the Civil War. LaFantasie is a professor of Civil War history and Director fo the Center for the Civil War in the West at Western Kentucky University. He is the author of "Twilight at Little Round Top", a book which focuses on the stuggle for this famous hill on the second day of Gettysburg.
   
   Oates lived a long and eventful life. He was raised in poverty. In his mid-teens, he fled Alabama to avoid prosecution for incidents resulting from what would become his lifelong propensity to violence. For several years, he lived the life of a wanderer in Texas and Louisiana. Oates returned to Alabama, disciplined himself, and became a successful attorney. An ardent Confederate, he raised a company, served with Stonewall Jackson, and with Lee, and participated in many important battles of the Civil War. He was wounded six times and ultimately lost his right arm. After the Civil War, Oates returned to Abbeyville, Alabama where he became wealthy through his law practice and land speculations. He served seven terms in the United States House of Representatives and one term as the Governor of Alabama. Oates was named a Brigadier General in the Spanish-American War, but he never saw combat in that conflict. In 1905, Oates published a book on which he had worked for years, "The War between the Union and the Confederacy and its Lost Opportunities."
   
   Lafantasie gives a full picture of Oates's career, and he describes Oates's character as well. Throughout his life, Oates was courageous, but he remained prone to violence. After losing his right arm late in the war, Oates fathered a child with a young African American woman who was his servant and was nursing him back to health. Later, Oates fathered another illigitimate child with an adolescent 14 years of age. At the age of 48, Oates married a young woman, "T" who was 19. The marriage was lasting (over 28 years) and Oates loved his family and supported the education of his children, including the two illigitimate sons, through college, graduate school, and successful careers. According to LaFantasie, Oates' life was driven by a desire to have power over others. He describes Oates as racist, sexist, and xenophobic. Yet he recognizes many fine qualities in his subject. In 1901, Oates acted courageously at the Alabama Constitutional Convention where he was in a distinct minority in opposing changes which led to the disenfranchismement of Alabama's black citizens.
   
   The best parts of this book are those which describe Oates's early rootless days of wandering in Texas and those which describe Oates's career in the Confederate Army. Lafantasie has a close, detailed knowledge of the fighting for Little Round Top. By focusing on Oates' role in the struggle, Lafantasie made the battle, and the combat between the 15th Alabama and the 20th Maine clearer to me than many accounts which try to discuss the totality of the action. Lafantasie convincingly shows that the Battle for Little Round Top was the pivotal event of Oates's life. Oates's younger brother, John, was fatally wounded in the fight for Little Round Top. John had been ill, and Oates tried to keep him out of the combat, but John insisted on moving forward. Oates never forgave himself. Many soldiers close to Oates died on the hill. Oates relived his brother's death, the terrible combat, and the failure to take Little Round Top many times during the ensuing 46 years of his life. He tried, unsuccessfully, to get a monument to the 15th Alabama at the point of their closest penetration of the Union position and he corresponded with his one-time foe, Joshua Chamberlain.
   
   Lafantasie also gives a good picture of the changes in the South following the Civil War as mirrored in Oates's long life and in his career as Congressman and governor. Oates became a proponent of the "Lost Cause" school of the Civil War, which romanticized the Old South and blamed the defeat of the Confederacy solely on the Union's superiority in numbers and material. Much in Oates life suggests he remained an unreconstructed Confederate to the end. But he did have moments, especially at the 1901 convention, that show he was finding his way to a different, broader view.
   
   It is good to have a biography of Oates. Lafantasie's study is thorough and well-documented. In places it is also polemical, insufficiently historical, and psychologistic, as Lafantasie criticizes sexist attitudes in the South, in particular, and is overly harsh in his speculations on the reasons underlying Oates' attraction to young women. Lafantasie also at times adopts the tone of a historical novel more than that of a history as he tries to read Oates's thoughts and mind in the absence of hard evidence. With these qualifications, I enjoyed and learned something about Oates, the Civil War and the post-Civil War South from reading this book. Readers with a deep interest in the Battle of Gettysburg or in the South after the Civil War will benefit from Lafantasie's study.
   
   Robin Friedman

5 comments about Stonewall: A Biography of General Thomas J. Jackson.

1. This is an interesting and well-written biography, although not one that I found to be satisfactory on every level. Like John Kennedy and other public figures who died violently at the height of their careers, Stonewall Jackson entered into history in a kind of apotheosis which probably tended to exaggerate his achievements. Aware of the adulatory material that has been written, Byron Farwall is not exactly on a debunking crusade with this book, but he strives so hard for objectivity that readers have to wonder if he errs on the other side and exaggerates the shortcomings of his subject. It's no distortion, of course, to portray Jackson as a quirky personality - the historical record leaves little doubt about that. Like Ulysses Grant, George Pickett, and other military leaders who achieved prominence during the Civil War, Jackson went through West Point with a relatively undistinguished record. A rough country boy with minimal early education, Jackson had to work doubly hard for everything he did accomplish, and he had a reputation for being something of an odd duck and a bumpkin. Two enduring aspects of his nature already apparent at this stage, however, were ambition and a ruthless self-discipline, and he had managed to climb from near the bottom of his class to the top third by the time he graduated. Again like other future Civil War leaders, his first exposure to combat was in the Mexican War, where he was assigned as an artillery officer. He demonstrated a talent for command there, but what marked him more than anything was a utter fearlessness under fire and a hunger to distinguish himself, an objective he accomplished despite what was for Jackson the disappointingly short duration of the war. Assigned later to garrison duty in Florida, his frustrated ambition, no doubt aggravated by boredom, propelled him into petty but vicious conflict with his commanding officer, an ugly little affair in which Jackson revealed his propensity for sustained vendettas against people seemingly out of portion with any real offense. Disillusioned with the peacetime military, Jackson took a job as an instructor at the young Virginia Military Institute. He seemed happy enough in this job, which he held for ten years, even though by most accounts he lacked much talent for it, his stiff manner and inarticulate speech making him unpopular with students. He heard his real calling, of course, with the coming of the Civil War, and he lost no time in seizing the opportunity. It is in the depiction of Jackson's wartime military career that this biography fails for me. It's can't be wholly without reason that Jackson became the legend he did, and Robert E. Lee - nothing if not a judge of military talent - observed that the Southern Cause suffered more from the loss of Jackson at Chancellorsville than it gained from the victory. Yet even though Farwell acknowledges Jackson's "brilliance", even occasionally his "genius", these qualities really don't come alive in the narrative. In describing Jackson's victories, Farwell invariably focuses on the incompetence of his opponents, or on the valor of his soldiers, or on his "luck" in somehow being in the right place at the right time. Except in a couple of episodes, we don't really get a feel for the man in action. In contrast, Jackson's failures, such as during the "Seven Days" campaign in the summer of `62, are placed squarely on his shoulders, recounted for us in the context of his poor planning, rashness, compulsive secrecy, inability to accept advice, and his often dysfunctional relations with peers and subordinates. Farwell does a more balanced job, in my judgment, in depicting Jackson's personality and his private life. We certainly see the vindictiveness, self-righteousness, and eccentricity that often characterized his behavior. But Farwell reveals another side to the man as well. Numerous accounts survive that indicate a great deal of personal warmth and humor when he was relaxing with friends or family. Prior to the war, he spent time in New York and Europe, clearly enjoying cosmopolitan pleasures seemingly at odds with the stereotypical image of him as a dour Presbyterian fanatic. His relationship with his wife, while patronizing by modern standards, was intensely loving and faithful, and fully reciprocal. Apparently based in fact was the odd and touching story portrayed in the recent movie "Gods and Generals". During one lull in the fighting, Jackson spent time at a private home near Fredericksburg, where a little girl attached herself too him, coaxing out of him a playful and kindly side rarely apparent during the war years. To the astonishment of his staff, Jackson wept openly when news came to him later that the child had died of scarlet fever. After being wounded in a nighttime "friendly fire" incident in the very midst of his triumph at Chancellorsville, Jackson had an arm amputated and died from pneumonia contracted during his convalescence. The religious faith which led him to see the hand of God in every victory or defeat, allowed him to approach this painful demise with the same disregard he showed towards the prospect of sudden death in battle. This complex and contradictory portrait of Jackson seems consistent with his nature, and I found this dimension of Mr. Farwell's book to be highly enlightening. While I haven't read other biographies of Stonewall , I imagine that further reading is necessary to get a fully rounded picture of the man's role in the American Civil War.



2. I gave the book three stars for the information but the author's opinions make this book less valuable then it otherwise might have been. For instance he claims the fact that Jackson never lamented his decisions meant he never thought he made a mistake. Jackson wasn't the type of person to go around talking about feelings so no one knows if he did or not. Also the author claims he must have an child out of wedlock and cites sources (just the word sources and not actual people) while at the same time discounting others who claimed the rumors were a lie. The author is just a bit too judgmental and quick to believe things without any proof to back them up. The information may be okay but I found it hard to read with so many of the author's opinions being paraded around as facts.



3. This book is a "must read" for everyone looking for a balanced view of Jackson. Farwell's history of Jackson's military exploits and personal shortcomings (as in Florida prior to secession) are well supported by reference to original documents and by the author's personal research.



4. Biography's of great historical figures are frequently given to exaggeration. Farwell set out to give an account of the "real" Stonewall Jackson, rather than an overly ballyhooed legend. In some respects he did that, painting Jackson as an oddball, eccentric, prude, who bordered on insanity. While the book succeeded in painting Jackson as being more human, I felt the overall tone of the book was far too critical and cynical. It seemed every good thing Jackson did was credited to other soldiers or blind luck...while every bad thing Jackson did was blamed upon his ignorance, stubborness, or lack of sleep. In all honesty, I came away from the book wondering if the author had and "ax to grind" against Stonewall Jackson. Overall the book was well written, and would provide a reality check to those who envison Jackson as being super-human. But just as there are numerous puff pieces on Jackson that make him better than he was...I feel this book to be somewhat of a debunking, which makes Jackson look much worse than he was. In reality, he was somewhere in between. He was a good and godly man who had an uncanny ability to lead men in battle. But he was hard to get along with and a little too bull-headed at times. For a much more accurate view, I would suggest "Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend" By James I. Robertson



5. Byron Farwell's biography of Stonewall Jackson is a comprehensive account of the life and military career of the famous Confederate general. Once I started reading the biography, I couldn't put it down, mainly because of the author's easy-to-read style (given that battles need to be described in reasonable detail). Useful maps accompany the text and enhance the reader's understanding, although the photographic section is somewhat brief.
   
   In contrast to some reviews here, I thought the author was fair and objective with Jackson: he cites first-hand accounts of Jackson's marches, battles and personality, though I'm not sure of the selectiveness or otherwise of these. If anything, he refrains from discussing and interpreting Jackson's strengths and weaknesses at length, leaving the reader to form his or her opinion. Given Jackson's personality, it would have been interesting to have included a comprehensive modern analysis of Jackson's psychological profile.
   
   I have yet to read other Jackson biographies, so I can't compare them with Farwell's biography, but I certainly don't regret buying this book. It made me appreciate the extreme hardships that Civil War soldiers experienced, and brought home the difficulties of serving under Jackson both as a soldier and as an officer, but at the same time it highlights Jackson's military genius and his 'warmer' side.

No comments about Lee: An Abridgement of the 4 Volume Biography.