3 comments about John C. Calhoun and the Price of Union: A Biography (Southern Biography).

1. Prof. Niven's book fails on a number of counts, but mainly on that of familiarity with the sources of Calhoun's political thought. For example, in describing Calhoun's indebtedness to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Niven says that neither document contemplated action by an individual state. To correct this impression, one need only consult Jefferson's draft of the Kentucky Resolutions; how anyone who had even read this five-page document could see it as anything other than a threat to interfere with enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Acts within the boundaries of Kentucky is beyond me. The book is full of similiar evidence of Niven's failure to acquaint himself with even the most basic sources. Try Bartlett's Calhoun biography, instead.



2. John Niven, professor emeritus of American History at the Claremont Graduate School, has shed new light on a statesman that history has long viewed as just another inconsistent headstrong Southerner, John C. Calhoun. Niven convinces the reader that this prominent politician of the antebellum south was much more consistent and levelheaded in both his public and private lives than his typical portrayal as a protean, stubborn hot-head from South Carolina would suggest. A lifelong advocate of the South, John C. Calhoun served as a member of Congress at the time of the War of 1812, secretary of war under James Monroe, vice president with John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, secretary of state under John Tyler, and then as a senator from South Carolina until he died in 1850. The key to Niven's success in bringing to life to this "cast iron man" is drawing on Calhoun's personal life and experiences in order to gain persuasive insight into the motives and stances of his political career. (back cover) Instead of telling the classic tale of Calhoun's shift from nationalism, during the War of 1812 and the tariff of 1816, to sectionalism and states' rights in later years, on the issues of the protective tariff and slavery, Niven convincingly exerts the original contention that Calhoun had always stood behind individual liberty and states rights. In Calhoun's view, as supported by his own papers, his apparent nationalistic support of the war and the tariff of 1816 was actually an effort to "provide for the common defense and to utilize the resources of all to strengthen the states as individual entities." (p. 127) When national policies began to benefit northern states at the expense of his home, the South, is when his states' rights sentiment began to manifest itself as sectionalism. The weakness of Niven's otherwise masterful biography is that "as a northerner, born and bred in New York and Connecticut," Niven is never able to completely shake his own predisposition against slavery and present Calhoun's feelings on the issue as being valid views with their own arsenal of support. (p. xv) Although he obviously attempts to be completely objective, Niven's own views show through in his portrayal of the slavery problem as Calhoun's resistance against the antislavery movement as opposed to the antislavery movement threatening Calhoun's southern way of life and ingrained teachings. John Niven's somewhat unconventional view of the career and motives of one of the leading spokesmen for the Old South, John C. Calhoun, is convincingly and understandably expressed in this original biography. He succeeds in depicting Calhoun as a very consistent man with a humanity and complexity entirely devoted to the preservation of the South.



3. In his opening remarks John Niven makes the promise that he would not undertake psychoanalysis of John C.Calhoun, Much to his credit, he is true to his word. What Niven has delivered is an eminently readable and straightforward account of South Carolina's greatest political figure. We forget all that he did: senator, secretary of war, secretary of state, and vice president, in a distinguished career that began in the early days of Madison's presidency and concluded during the Taylor-Fillmore administration, a span of nearly four decades.

   Niven's disclaimer, however, is telling. There is a tendency to use Calhoun's career as a sort of national inkblot. For constitutional scholars and ideologues of many stripes Calhoun's writings survive as either the last great stand of states rights or as a subversive manifesto for the tragic secession that would follow. For politicians and observers of human behavior, Calhoun is either the consummate patriot or his own worst enemy.

   From the data Niven provides, it can be said that while Calhoun may have been eccentric, he was not crazy. Everyone born in primitive eighteenth century America survived with a history, and Calhoun, born in 1782, was no exception. His family and his colony shared a history of terrible suffering at the hands of the British [those were Calhoun's people slaughtered in Mel Gibson's "The Patriot."] Calhoun himself was orphaned as a young teen and appears to have spent a studious but lonely existence until he studied law at Yale under the famous Timothy Dwight.

   Calhoun arrived home with his diploma just in time to ride a wave of strong Carolina resistance against the Virginia-New York axis that seemed to control presidential elections. This handsome, passionate, articulate favorite son soon found himself elected to Congress where he naturally became a leading advocate of war against the hated British. On June 18, 1812, Calhoun and other hawks got their war, but the thoughtful Calhoun quickly ascertained that the United States was woefully unprepared. Calhoun regretted his impetuousness, and nothing would absolve his guilt for this nasty war.

   Calhoun would do penance for his sins by serving as Secretary of War under Monroe. Niven commends him for an outstanding tenure during which Calhoun reformed the army's purchasing policies, developed stronger defense outposts in the west, and crafted an almost enlightened Indian policy. An ambitious man, Calhoun not unreasonably expected his War Department success to catapult him toward bigger and better things.

   But here one of the major themes of the book emerges: Calhoun was an unlucky politician. It was his bad fortune to reach his prime concurrently with an unusually large class of outstanding statesmen: Henry Clay, William Crawford, John Quincy Adams, Daniel Webster, Andrew Jackson, and Martin Van Buren, to name a few. While he could console himself with the role of "everybody's favorite second" in the 1824 election, that convoluted contest left him tainted goods in the eyes of many, and an outsider in the Adams cabinet to boot.

   Calhoun reluctantly threw his lot with Jackson in 1828, but by this date the South Carolinian was having long thoughts about his home region. Cotton prices were low, and protective tariffs seemed to him to exact a crushingly heavy toll from southern growers like himself. And although he shared some of Clay's enthusiasms for internal improvements, most notably transportation systems for the inner reaches of the Carolinas, Calhoun became increasingly suspicious and hostile of the federal government, dubious about its ability and will to protect slavery and Calhoun's idyllic picture of the agricultural southern life. A highly sensitive man, he internalized what he saw as the political treachery of Clay, Van Buren, and especially Crawford, who raised Calhoun-baiting to an art form, for reasons never precisely spelled out.

   Calhoun began to write prodigiously on the subject of states rights and federal encroachments. As Niven observes, his writings were alternately brilliant and contradictory. Potboiler states rights speeches and pamphlets were common in America as the young nation sorted itself out. But how far could a politician really go on the matter of a state's autonomy? Until the Jackson era there seemed to have been a gentleman's agreement that the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions represented the boundary of political good taste. Calhoun crossed that line in his defense of nullification, increasingly preoccupied by perceived threats to his beloved South Carolina, In doing so Calhoun lost his national political base and a sense of the national pulse. No longer viable as even a regional candidate for the presidency, he assisted President Tyler by his skillful negotiating with Great Britain on the Oregon border question. But he objected to the Mexican War, not on humanitarian grounds but because he feared the socioeconomic consequences of the acquisition of Mexican territory, i.e., new free soil states. He was correct in his assessment that the consequences of the Mexican War would bring political turmoil to the United States. He had few horses to trade on the floor of congress as the Wilmot Proviso was debated, but his style till the end was magnificent.

   From Niven's account it is fair to say that Calhoun was never a universally recognized spokesman for the South during his own lifetime. The Richmond Junto despised him. Unionists were still a majority in the South at the time of his death in 1850. Moderate southern businessmen even in his home state found his philosophy antiquated and at times deleterious to their state's economy. Many found him unbearably pedantic. Only later, as the nation polarized, would his political philosophy become a revered creed for those who dared to think the unthinkable.

   Niven's work is a fine presentation for the casual reader and a more than adequate primer for those eager to delve into the mind and works of the consummate antebellum apostle of states' rights.

5 comments about Ulysses S. Grant: Soldier & President (Modern Library Paperbacks).

1. Geoffrey Perret's previous work, "A Country Made By War," which is a general military history of the United States, gives him the background to put the military career of Grant in perspective. He worked closely with the editor of Grant's papers to acquire the background to write this biography. His short chapters don't go into great details on individual battles, but capture well the development of Grant's personality, generalship, and presidency. J.F.C. Fuller's "Grant and Lee" and "The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant" go into greater detail in analyzing the military strategy, strengths and weaknesses, of Grant's command both in the Western and Eastern theaters. But Perret's book is well worth reading. He captures the spirit of Grant well.



2. There are already several reviews of this book printed here, with which I agree heartily, so I'll keep my comments brief. Perret's "Ulysses S. Grant, Soldier and President," is the twelfth book on Grant that I've read (I can't seem to get enough of this topic). Perret's writing is crisp and intelligent. He doesn't drag out his thesis in long jumbled sentences, rather, he keeps his reader focused on the point he is trying to make on each phase of Grant's personal and professional life. He exposes flaws in previous Grant biographies by proving their lack of documented evidence and holding the authors to task for their shoddy scholarship. At the same time, he does not give the impression that he intends to "show up" other Grant biographers, he just sets the record straight.

   I recommend this biography to anyone who wants to understand America in the Nineteenth century. Ulysses S. Grant is the key: he saved the Union, he fought for the rights of the freedmen during Reconstruction, he was always honest-though he did make his share of mistakes - and when he erred, he accepted the responsibility for his mistakes. Grant was a devoted family man, was loyal to his friends and forgiving of his enemies. He was humble and appeared ordinary, yet he achieved amazing things. Perret's most insightful point in this work is his statement that Grant's religion was patiotism. I agree. No one ever loved this country more.




3. This book is truly an astonishing piece of work. Considering its grotesque factual errors and bizarre misreadings of source material (more than I have ever seen in a single work of non-fiction,) the pompous writing style, the author's grating tendency to make childishly snide (and irrelevant) side comments, and--most bafflingly--the remarkable hatchet-job he does on Grant's wife Julia, I think I can state unhesitatingly that this is the most thoroughly unprofessional biography of anyone I have ever read. I find myself genuinely baffled that Perret evidently still has a career as a historian.

   As appalled as I am by the thought that readers who had no prior knowledge about Grant will be led to take some of this tripe seriously, I am even more stunned by reviewers who state unblushingly that Perret's allergy to accuracy does not matter, as long as he is pro-Grant and writes in what is, to them, an appealing writing style! There are few people who defend Grant more wholeheartedly than I do (hey, I even maintain he was a pretty good President,) but I believe that a bad defense of USG can, in the long run, be as damaging to his reputation as no defense at all. My advice to Grant neophytes? Read the man's own words, in his acclaimed memoirs and fascinating private letters, as well as first person accounts like "Campaigning With Grant," and give this silliness a wide berth.

   And those cracks of his about Julia REALLY set my teeth on edge.




4. He was born Hiram Ulysses Grant in 1822 (how he became Ulysses S. Grant is a story in itself). This book, by Geoffrey Perret, is a good workmanlike biography of Grant.
   
   It depicts his childhood and his journey to West Point. It discusses his marriage to Julia (with James Longstreet and Cadmus Wilcox, ironically, as two of his three groomsmen; they would be on opposing sides in the Civil War). It describes his service in the military--including some genuinely courageous behavior in the Mexican War. It also lays out his failures in the Army and his departure. His struggles in Missouri and then working in a family business in Galena, Illinois.
   
   Then, with the outbreak of the Civil War, his opportunity to rejoin the Army and become an officer. The book traces his unassuming rise in the Union Army, from early efforts at Belmont through Forts Henry and Donelson to Shiloh to Vicksburg and so on. Ultimately, of course, he came to command all Union forces and attained the exalted rank of Lieutenant General.
   
   After his work in the Civil War, his presidency is discussed, warts and all. Perret's view is somewhat more nuanced than those of others who have evaluated Grant's terms as President. Nonetheless, his failings are described.
   
   Finally, his desperate dash in the race against death to complete his memoirs and secure some degree of financial security for his family.
   
   This is not a great biography, but it is serviceable and is a nice addition to the literature on Grant.



5. By far the finest field commander produced by the North or South during the US Civil War, US Grant saved the Union and delivered our country as we know it today. Reviled in the South as a butcher and thought of as a drunk in the North, Hiram Ulysses Grant is possibly the finest general ever produced by the United States of America, and one of its worst Presidents.
   
   Geoffrey Perret pulls no punches in this biography. Grant failed in private life before re-entering the Army, and he says so; Grant failed in several of his early campaigns, Belmont for one, and was stunningly surprised at Shiloh, and he says so; and his Presidency was riddled with corruption, and again, Perret says so. But despite his many failures this tenacious, never-say-die individual had the backbone and determination to defeat every Confederate General he was to face and captured 3 complete Confederate Armies intact, in the field: Fort Donnelson, Vicksburg, and the vaunted Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox. And he damn near bagged Bragg in middle Tennessee. To put these accomplishments in perspective, no other General Officer, North or South, captured even one.
   
   This is a good, workman-like biography of the first modern general the US ever produced. Perret does an excellent job of focusing on his subject, Grant, and does not spend too much time analyzing his campaigns. As a result, the author moves the reader topically through Grant's life experiences and we get to know him as an individual. Intensely interesting, this work's 476 pages simply fly by. Despite the 8 miserable years of his failed Presidency and his subsequent Wall Street bankruptcy, in true Grant fashion, he works diligently to complete his memoirs, does so and restores his family's fortune 8 days before he dies. His was a most remarkable life.

No comments about The Inner Life Of Abraham Lincoln: Six Months At The White House.

2 comments about God Help the Irish!: The History of the Irish Brigade.

1. Mr. Tucker's book is a good overview for those who nothing about the Irish Brigade. Unfortunately the book focuses on the usual suspects, Nugent, Meagher, Kelly, and most of the field grade officers. I was surprised to see Captain Maurice Wall mentioned--however Mr. Tucker didn't provide us with the details of Captain Wall's escape with his buddy Lieutenant Charles Grainger. Mr. Tucker completely ignores Irish Nationalism in the equation--this seems to be a recent trend by American authors.



2. The famed prowess of the Irish Brigade at Antietam and Gettysburg is well known, but "God Help The Irish!: The History of the Irish Brigade " takes a look at their other exploits and their day to day lives and how they became one of the most elite combat units of the civil war. A fascinating and valuable perspective on America's nineteenth century inner conflict, "God Help The Irish!: The History of the Irish Brigade" is thoroughly recommended to civil war studies shelves and civil war enthusiasts everywhere.

No comments about With Lincoln in the White House:: Letters. Memoranda, and other Writings of John G. Nicolay, 1860-1865.

No comments about Lincoln Observed: Civil War Dispatches of Noah Brooks.

2 comments about Recollections of Alexander H. Stephens: His Diary Kept When a Prisoner at Fort Warren, Boston Harbour, 1865; Giving Incidents and Reflections of His Prison ... reminisc (Library of Southern Civilization).

1. This is a reprint of the original diary kept by Stephens while at the fort. It is the only book still in print that was written at Fort Warren. If you had a Confederate relative imprisoned at Fort Warren, this gives a terrific insight to the daily routine at the famous bastille.



2. This book is a fascinating voyage through one of the great 19th Century Southern political minds; perhaps second only to John C. Calhoun. Alexander H. Stephens was a strange little man, never weighing more than 100 pounds, and standing only 5' 7" tall; but "Little Aleck" had the heart of a lion. He was possessed of a small head with protruding ears and piercing black eyes. Trained as a lawyer, with a frail almost boyish figure, he never married and was totally devoted to his half-brother, Linton, who served in the Georgia Legislature, on the Georgia Supreme Court and as a Confederate officer, and whose family Alexander Stephens adopted as his own.
   This diary covers Stephens experiences as a prisoner after the War Between the States had ended. The War basically ended in April, 1865, but Stephens who had served as the Vice President of the Confederacy, had already gone home to Crawfordville, Georgia, his home town. On May 11, 1865, Tim, one of his servants, came running into the parlor saying: "Master! Yankees have come! a whole heap are in town, galloping all about with guns." Thus Stephens, who unlike other Confederate cabinet officials had never attempted to flee to the sanctuary of another country, came to be a prisoner. He was transported to Fort Warren in Boston Harbor and thus begins this diary.
   Throughout the diary, Stephens was indignant that he was even a prisoner, for in his mind (he was probably right) he had done nothing wrong. He had always acted according to the principles of the United States Constitution to which he was totally devoted. He had served 16 years in Congress and had retired in 1859, and when the War started in 1861 he was called upon to serve the Confederacy. As he repeatedly points out the States created the Federal Government, not the other way around. The Federal Government's rights were limited. He had served as a Whig in Congress in the beginning of his career and served with Lincoln who also served as a Whig in the 30th Congress in 1847, when Lincoln served his only term in Congress before becoming president in 1861. Stephens felt he knew Lincoln well and this may be one of the reasons he was elected vice president of the Confederacy, in addition to the fact that he cautioned against secession and for this reason it was felt perhaps he may have had gained some influence with Lincoln.
   In any case, the diary covers everything about his life at Fort Warren, where after an initial period of discomfort and apprehension (there was the possibility he may be hanged), he was treated rather kindly by his captors. Stephens read and discusses such books as the Bible, Prescott's Conquest of Mexico, Swedenborg's Doctrine Concerning the Lord, Cicero on Duties, Cicero on Oratory, Aristotle on Economics, Aristotle on Politics, and so forth demonstrating that he was a true intellectual. He discusses the food he ate, his living conditions, and people he met and dealt with such as his guards, other prisoners, and even the little girl who was the daughter of one of his wardens who would bring him flowers and thrust her little hand through the bars to put them in a little flower pot in his cell. Stephens only spent four months and nineteen days in prison. His treatment was much less harsh than that of Jefferson Davis who served two years at Fort Monroe. In the end, like Jefferson Davis and others, he was released and not prosecuted for any offenses. It has been said this was because in truth they had committed no offenses and acted against the Federal Government in much the same way the leaders of the 13 Colonies had acted against the Crown when the 13 Colonies sought their independence from England and thus could not have been convicted of anything.
   All in all, a wonderful diary; I have not enjoyed reading a diary as much since I read James Boswell's London Journal 40 years ago.

No comments about Freedom's Shore: Tunis Campbell and the Georgia Freedmen.

No comments about Brothers' War: Civil War Letters to Their Loved Ones from the Blue and Gray.

5 comments about Four Years With General Lee.

1. Taylor, as Lee's trusty staff member thoughout the war, is a great reference on Lee. Not all his words are to be taken at face value, however. For example, he had provided himself with a lovely suie with a piano and all he needed, far grander than Lee's abode. When Lee commented that Taylor had himself "finely fixed" there, Taylor responded " It will do." Lee was rightfully astounded, and left, although Taylor does not phrase it this way. Just a warning.



2. Wonderful book describing the massive work and devotion to duty that General Lee adhered to. Written by his A.A.G. A must read for southern patriots.



3. Taylor's approach to covering the history of the Confederate struggle is encouraging to read. Though the title of this book tends to be a bit misleading. It should be called Four years of Confederate history. Taylor tends to describe battle movements and give calculations as to the manpower of divisions, brigades and regiments to a dragging sense. This books I recommend highly for those trying to get an accurate count of soldiers available for each battle, how many were casualties, after battle net amounts,etc.. Rarely are daily affairs of Lee covered. When I read this book I was disappointed to find out that it wasn't a book about General Lee and his daily livelyhood as I wanted to read about. Since Taylor was Lee's secretary I thought who better than to describe Lee's motives, attitudes, triumphs and defeats? Very rarely did Taylor ever mention Lee in this manner. Not enough to capture the man and tell his story. This book is a quick refresh of battles and movements throughout the war of the Army of Northern Virginia which hardly fits being called Four Years With General Lee. Credit is due to Taylor's ability to calculate total manpower and army positions throughout the four years though falls way short in covering Lee.



4. As did Gilbert Moxley Sorrel (Longstreet), staff officer Walter Taylor offers his insights of the War of Southern Independence. Indeed, Taylor has rightful claim to his judgements, as his acquaitance with Lee offered him first-hand knowledge of events. However, I caution future readers that this is NOT a memoir or diary per se - Taylor rarely gives any unique slants to anything, and more often than not, seems occupied with setting the "numbers straight" - many, many, many tables and charts are provided giving the numbers available for this battle and that battle, etc...I suggest this book only for serious students of the war - and more particularly, those wanting "first-hand" data on "numbers." Of final interest, though, is Taylor's disdain for Hiram U. Grant (accurately recognizing Grant as a true butcher - merely throwing big numbers at an under-manned, under-supllied army) and the insertion of a speech given upon the anniversary of Genl Lee's birthday (albeit NOT written, or presented by Taylor himself)



5. A history of the Civil War by Lee's aide Walter Herron Taylor.
   
   This is more a history than a memoir, and I get the impression that Taylor's other book has more personal reminiscence, though I haven't had a chance to see it yet. It clearly has served as a major source for generations of scholars; it describes most of the ANV's actions with a fair amount of detail and also discusses Lee's early campaign in West Virginia. The numerical strengths of the armies are tabulated in detail.
   
   Taylor's hero-worship of Lee is clear in his analyses of events and in the appended anniversary address, which doesn't make this a less useful source but should be taken into account.