5 comments about General John Buford: A Military Biography.

1. Yes, thank goodness for the movie, Gettysburg since without that movie, this fine and very needed biography on General John Buford may never been written or published. The movie brought forward General Buford's finest day as a soldier and this biography bring forward the real man behind the Hollywood image.
   
   Its appears that writing a biography on Buford may have been a problem due to lack of first hand material. Its appears that Buford was not a writer or many of it did not survived. But what comes out from Longacre's book is story of a decent and highly motivated man who took the long road to Gettysburg. His premature death probably robbed him of greater Civil War fame since he have proved to be one of the best cavalry commanders within the Army of the Potomac by the time Gettysburg came about. What he could have done if he lived would be one of the great "what if" of Civil War trivia.
   
   Longacre's book is bit short on Buford's early life, lacking material would be my guess on this short coming. But the author was successful in bring out Buford's early military career, thus doing justice the subtitle of this book, "Military Biography".
   
   Only part I am not sure on Longacre's account was his take on where Buford and General John Reynold's initially met on that first day of Gettysburg. Most well known and movie take would be at the Lutheran Seminary Cupola where that most quote "The Devil's to Pay" came out. Although the actual words may be questioned, I don't exactly buy the author's contention that the first meeting came about in the town of Gettysburg. Why would Buford be there, away from a crucial battle? This was based on civilian eye witnesses, of course the same type of civilians even today who can't tell the difference between a new born 2nd LT and a three star general!!
   
   Other then that, this book proves to be quite readable, nicely researched and quite informative on the life of John Buford. This is the only biographical material I have read on Buford outside of that booklet I brought at Gettysburg back in 1995 written by Michael Phipps and John S. Peterson titled "The Devil's To Pay".



2. Edward Longacre's "General John Buford" is good summary of General Buford's career. It is written in straight forward language and is therefore an easy read. Anyone who has a strong interest in the American Civil War probably is familiar with Gen. Buford through such works as the book "Killer Angels" and the movie "Gettysburg". Longacre's book provides much desired pre-civil war and civil war background information. He does interpolate a certain amount of descriptive coloring, but as an attempt to get a feel for the subjective qualities of the man this is not necessarily a bad thing. One could always hope for more detail and information, but Longacre does an admirable job with the available resources.



3. John Buford is perhaps best known for his aggressive actions on the first day of the Battle of Gettysburg. However, he merits more consideration than for one day's worth of sound generalship. This book does a good, solid job of introducing readers to General Buford.
   
   Although born in Kentucky, he later moved to what was to become Rock Island, Illinois. In the late 1840s, he entered West Point and graduated in good standing. Some of those whom he came into contact with at "The Point" included Ambrose Burnside, George Stoneman, George Steuart, William Jones, John Tidball, and Hugh Ewing (William Tecumseh Sherman's foster brother). In the "old Army," he was a trooper, including serving in "Bleeding Kansas" and into the Valley of the Saints, as the United States aimed to chastise the Mormons.
   
   As the Civil War began, Buford was assigned to administration, although he wanted to be "in the saddle" as an active cavalry officer. After considerable frustration, he earned an active command. He did good service before Second Manassas/Bull Run, trying to alert General Pope of Longstreet's advance through Thoroughfare Pass, threatening Pope's flank. Alas! The significant intelligence never found its way to the right people. Indeed, this illustrates one of Buford's strength--gathering and passing on crisp intelligence (one function of the cavalry was to serve as "the eyes" of the army). However, later, he was consigned once more to administrative work.
   
   When Joe Hooker became commander of the Army of the Potomac, Buford's luck changed again, as he was given an active command. After the debacle at Chancellorsville, General Robert E. Lee began his raid northward. Here, Buford played a key role. First, in gathering intelligence. Second, for his role at Brandy Station, when his cavalry put great pressure on one wing of JEB Stuart's cavalry, beginning to tarnish the reputation of the irrepressible Stuart's command.
   
   Then, on to Gettysburg, where he arrived on June 30, assessed the land and the military features around the village, and decided to make a fight of it, fully realizing that his two cavalry brigades were facing Early's corps moving south toward Gettysburg from Carlisle and York and Hill's corps moving east along the Chambersburg Pike. As everyone knows, he held long enough for John Reynolds Union First and O. O. Howard's 11th Corps to arrive and join the battle.
   
   After, Buford continued his good work, although he would face reverses as he pursued Lee's retreating army. Once the Army of the Potomac re-entered Virginia, he continued to play a role. However, illness cut short his career.
   
   All in all, a useful biography of a figure who deserves to be better known. Indeed, the author originally refused the offer to write this book, because he did not think that there was enough information to do a competent biography. Readers ought to be appreciative that Longacre's assessment was wrong.



4. as the author complains by lack of personal source material. Buford died during the war, had no surviving children, didn't write any kind of memoirs etc... Longacre did a solid job of discussing the union cavalry command but many aspects of the book like sections on Gettysburg and West Point seemed rushed. Certainly many other commanders had nice things to say about Buford unfortunately Longacre only found 1 or 2 of them.



5. This is a nice, solid military biography. It was very readable, and I was happy to see it had a strong thesis (Buford was "a true dragoon). I came away from the book admiring Buford a great deal. True, there could have been more information in here, but isn't further information one of the purposes of an appendix?
   
   I highly recommend this book to U.S. Civil War buffs and anyone interested in learning about someone who achieve success without playing many political games.

5 comments about Eleni.

1. Author Nicholas Gage tells the story of the Greek civil war and how it personally affected him and his family. Most notably this book describes how politics, fear, greed, and desperation combined to culminate in the brutal torture and execution of his mother, Eleni, for the crime of merely saving her children from starvation or forced separation.
   
   My brother highly recommended this book to me. I was a little put off by its length and the obscurity of its subject (I had never even heard about the Greek civil war), but as the story unfolded I found myself completely engrossed in it. The first 100 or so pages were just a little difficult absorb because of the necessary build-up of the scenario and the characters. I also struggled throughout the book to get a grasp of the numerous greek names of people and places. However, these were minor inconveniences to pay for the huge reward of learning about this incredible and disturbing experience.
   
   Nicholas Gage very eloquently describes the cruelty and injustice that war tends to inflict on so many innocent victims. Everyone could benefit from learning about this story that he has so vividly portrayed in Eleni.



2. I have owned this book for over 10 years. Every time I read it I thought of my maternal grandmother (that was her generation) and all the other brave Greek mothers before her and cried like a baby. I passed it onto my second husband who is not of Greek descent. He loved it and really liked the name Eleni. That was about 5 years ago (we've been together over 6).
   Our second daughter was just baptised Eleni in the Greek Orthodox church. It was the only name we could agree upon. My aunt & uncle came from Greece and told me a story of when my uncle was a little boy. He was injured by an unexploded bomb and was taken to a hospital in Athens. His grandmother went to visit him. She had been born and raised in Athens, although now living about an hour outside of the city, so she knew the short-cuts to the hospital. On her way to see her beloved grandson she was shot dead, mistaken for a man in disguise. This was at the beginning of the civil war. I had not heard this story before, and had no idea who my paternal grandmother was. Apparently, her name was Eleni. I wonder if this is why I was steered to this book and so moved by it? Ain't life funny?



3. There are few books on the Greek Civil war that erupted after 1945 between Communists and the rest of Greece. During the war some 158,000 or more people died, many at the hands of the Communists. Yet most books on the subject in English are still sympathetic to the Communists (seeRed Acropolis, Black Terror: The Greek Civil War And The Origins Of The Soviet-american Rivalry,1943-1949) and refuse to condemn the red terror and the mass killings. This book goes a slight way towards setting the record strait if only because it shows the story of one peasant woman in a small village known as Lia in the mountans of northern Greece. But the story of how the vilagers were used as slave labourers by the COmmunists, starved and finally tortured and murdered is a story of what befel all northern Greeks during the Communist insurgency. Westerners present this insurgency as 'romantic' as only westerners can present genocide as 'romantic'. But this sad and disgusting train of thought is finally shattered by this excellent and daring book that tells the story not only of Lia but of the peasants who lived there and Eleni and of course her son who survived and who has lived to return to Greece to tell the story.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman



4. I'm generally not into reading, but I decided that I would give this one a shot, expecting it to be as good as Face/Off. Boy was I mistaken. Cage should stick to acting. Do you remember in Snake Eyes when he punched that guy in the face? Do you remember in Boy in Blue when he punched that guy in the face? I enjoyed those moments more than I enjoyed reading Cage's book, or reading anything for that matter.



5. This true story reveals humanity's deepest capacity for evil, and also its strongest drive to nurture, protect, and do good. It is a demonstration of the depths to which one can be pushed when survival is the basic need.
   
   A most important, riveting read. It should be required reading for any political science classroom or discussion on the nature of the human. I strongly recommend this for any book club. You won't be able to put it down.

2 comments about Secret Lives of the Civil War: What Your Teachers Never Told You About the War Between the States.

1. Nicely enhanced with occasional illustrations by Monika Suteski, "Secret Lives Of The Civil War": What Your Teachers Never Told You About The War Between The States" by Cormac O'Brien is an informed and informative compendium of odd facts, unsung heroes, obscure vignettes, and bizarre anecdotes that are a part of the American Civil War that are not presented in traditional classroom lectures, textbooks, or histories. For example, Mary Todd Lincoln's claim to receive valuable military strategies from ghosts in the spirit world; Jefferson Davis importing camels for Confederate soldiers stationed in the American southwest; Ulysses S. Grant mounted on a horse named 'Kangaroo' during the Vicksburg campaign; James Longstreet fighting in the Battle of Antietam wearing carpet slippers; William Tecumseh Sherman surviving two shipwrecks on the same day; and so many more surprising and unexpected but quite true stories of people and events. Not the least of which is the story of the infamous and feared Confederate guerrilla leader William Quantrill whose skull was to end up in the basement of a fraternity house from 1905 to 1942. "Secret Lives Of The Civil War" is the result of meticulous and painstaking research, making it an absolute 'must' for personal, academic, and community library Civil War Studies reference shelves and supplemental reading lists.



2. Over the past few years, a sub-category of history books has emerged with the goal of presenting a warts-and-all retelling of the historical record. This book, for instance, wants to unveil "what your teachers never told you about the War between the States." The resulting volume is a broad, interesting and informational introduction to some famous Civil War movers and shakers.
   
   The personalities covered in O'Brien's 26 chapters are mostly "the usual suspects" such as 'Father Abraham' and his wife, Grant, McClellan, Burnside, Sherman, Jefferson and Varina Davis, Lee, Jackson, Stuart and others such as Harriet Tubman, William Quantrill, etc. The life of each is covered in 10-12 pages with O'Brien relating their triumphs, tragedies and pecadilloes in a lighthearted, evenhanded fashion.
   
   Dedicated Civil War buffs will be familiar with much of the material appearing in the hefty (300+ pages) little volume. But it only retails for $16.95 so what the heck! Likewise if you're just getting interested in the Civil War, this is a very HUMAN introduction to some people who have since assumed legendary stature.
   
   Recommended.
   
   ****
   One suggestion: Drop the illustrations and go with period photographs.

5 comments about Jefferson's Secrets: Death and Desire at Monticello.

1. Jefferson has now fallen into the same category as Lincoln: given the zillions of books already written about him, what is there left to add? Burstein's previous book on TJ ("The Inner Jefferson") established that he had quite a lot to contribute to the literature, much of it quite unique in perspective. The same is certainly true of this volume as well.
   
   The focus here is on the retired Jefferson (1809-1826), and much of the author's material is drawn from TJ's private papers after leaving office. One of Burstein's great virtues--perhaps his greatest virtue--is that he looks for unique aspects not generally already addressed by other historians. For example, the impact of "time and mortality" on TJ's thought; his medical concerns and how these concerns are reflected in the unique vocabulary of the 18th Century (e.g., what is the meaning of "sensation"?); and whether there is something to learn about his political views from looking at these issues. Similarly, how did he conceive of "nature"?
   
   Burstein also looks at that perennial issue of TJ and slavery, including an interesting chapter on "sex with a servant" in an effort to probe that relationship. Did TJ's affinity for the ancient Greeks impact on his relationship with Sally Hemmings?--this is the kind of issue that only Burstein would explore. The most fascinating section I found dealt with Jefferson's efforts to get favorable history written so that his record would remain untarnished after his death. I am not quite sure anyone else has dealt with this issue. Finally, the topic is TJ and dying, which ends up focusing upon TJ's religious orientation during this period. Burstein's research is, as usual, prodigious as he searches for evidence to support his interpretations. While a great deal of speculation and imaginative thinking are at work here, Burstein continues to generate scintillating and provocative work that is highly unique and valuable. While one may not always agree with his interpretations, the process of considering them continues to be of substantial value.



2. Burstein has written an insightful book on the Jefferson, as he says, that has usually been ignored by many other historians, i.e. in the period after his presidency. Specifically, Burstein analyzes the thoughts and attitudes held by Jefferson on life, the role of women and slaves in society, religion, freedom of thought, politics and other topics. The Jefferson that emerges from Burstein's study is a multi-faceted man who both inspires awe for his intelligence and his abilities but also sets him in place as a creature of his time, especially concerning the issue of slavery.
   
   Burstein is especially keen on observing Jefferson's use of words to convey his inner most feelings and thoughts. He is especially observant of the medical terminology that Jefferson uses in discussing many different subjects. As Burstein mentioned, he usually didn't give his correspondent everything he was looking for in terms of revealing his innermost thoughts and secrets. After his presidency, Jefferson preferred a retreat from the public sphere and generally guarded his privacy. But we do get to understand Jefferson's devotion to his family, his sometimes very contradictory statements on human liberty and freedom especially when juxtaposed against the very present institution of slavery, his views on republican government and many other areas that he expounded on.
   
   There are friends, family members, well-known politicians, doctors, thinkers and others who emerge in Burstein's book, mainly through the correspondence that Burstein uses to help bring light to the elusive aspects of Jefferson's attitudes and sensibilities. The controversies surrounding Jefferson and the institution of slavery are discussed, especially concerning the generally accepted sexual relationship with Sally Hemings, with interesting insights by Burstein on Jefferson's attitudes on sexual relationships, racial differences and so forth. Though he would be considered a racist today, he was a creature of his time, with an odd, but seemingly well-thought out view of the nature of the races (not that his view was right).
   
   Burstein really does try to understand the foundations of Jefferson's inner beliefs and sensibilities. Jefferson was a devotee to the rights of man (though this didn't include everyone in his day), his family (he was especially close to his granddaughter Ellen), and the principles of republican government. Interestingly, despite his advocacies, he often turned to others to make the effort to combat his political opponents, we see this in his wanting to combat the histories written by such Federalists as Chief Justice Marshall.
   
   The reader will get to see snippets of the inner Jefferson in this book. Burstein, as he stated he wanted to accomplish, succeeds fairly well in presenting the living Jefferson as opposed to the dying Jefferson, though we do read of the effects of aging and other health issues that gradually took their toll on his physical body. We see the many facets of this highly intelligent human being who was such an influence in his day and through his words, actions and ideals continues to be to the present. The debates go on.



3. Thomas Jefferson was a great and brilliant, but flawed and unconventional man. What can the zillionth book add that hasn't already been said? Quite a lot. It should not be anybody's first book on Jefferson, but it should be everybody's second, or third. Of course, Burstein hasn't got Jefferson "figured out", but neither does anyone else.....
   
   This wonderful volume focuses on Mr. Jefferson's later years, and does give us a good view of his thought processes. Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and Jefferson can be quoted to "prove" ANYTHING. "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that this people are to be free,..." The inscription on the wall of the Jefferson Memorial ends with a period, but look up the rest of the quote. I use the comma deliberately. He who said that "All men are created equal" also had things to say about the orangutang. And he also had sex with his slave, Sally? Well...maybe. In any event, he documented his views on this subject, too, complete with charts. The ongoing arguement with John Marshall gets coverage, too. It has been more completely documented elsewhere, but Burstein does an excellent job. This feud is truly one of the most profound topics in American history. It spanned from their early years till the day Jefferson died, and beyond, going from a rivalry, to disagreement, to blind, unreasoning, hatred after the Aaron Burr treason case of 1807. My own opinion is that the cause of the whole mess was multifaceted, involving familial, personal, political, and philosophical elements. {Not religious; they agreed about that} In this battle of giants, we have the origin of the Civil War, and of much of our political conflict today. An athiest who "swore on the altar of God"? This is covered, too. Jefferson may not have been orthodox, but he was assuradely not an athiest. A slave owner who hated slavery? Not unusual...the same is true of George Washington, Patrick Henry, John Marshall, George Wythe, and Robert E. Lee. {Lee inherited his slaves, and freed them before he had to}. A word of caution; though some of the founding fathers did not believe in slavery, they certainly did not believe in Black equality, either.
   
   Andrew Burstein has produced a superb work. As I said, NOT a first book on the subject, but an essential one. For a first book, see Joseph Ellis, or Noble Cunningham. Dumas Malone is, of course, definitive, but few will mine the gold in those six profound volumes.



4. There is next to nothing here that caught my interest. I was looking forward very much to this work, and I was extremely disappointed in it. I had just finished an excellent biography of John Adams, which impelled me to try this one. I can only recommend that you don't waste your time. Every moment on this book was, to me, a complete waste of time.



5. The good stuff in this book is invaluable to anyone with a serious interest in Jefferson. I'd award five stars for such unique scholarship, but I've subtracted two stars as a rebuke to the author and to his editors, if there were any, for perverse self-indulgence. The readability of "Jefferson's Secrets" is damaged by its repetitiousness; Burstein even repeats the same quotations from Jefferson's letters in three and four chapters, without significantly adding to his exegesis. But a more serious flaw is Burstein's rhapsodic admiration of Jefferson's mind at the same time that he protrays the man as a consummate hypocrite and egotist--not only a slave-owner and unreconstructed racist but an exploiter of servants to the point of callously making one his concubine, a Jacobin in rhetoric who lived in the style of an ancien regime aristocrat, a man who gave his daughters a decorous education yet maintained that women had no claim to equality. Burstein's defense seems to be that we should forgive Jefferson's inconsistencies because he was conflicted, and a man of his times. Indeed, the central theme of the book is to demonstrate exactly how Jefferson was a man of his times, whose world-view was shaped by the ideas and particularly the scientific knowledge of the Enlightenment. That's the good stuff, the analysis of what Jefferson himself thought he meant by what he said and wrote, given the "vocabulary" of his time and place. However, in the next breath Burstein proceeds to declare that Jefferson was in some sense the first Modern Man, a harbinger of Romanticism precisely because of his ambiguities, the very same ambiguities that Burstein has just dispelled. Really, Professor Burstein, it seems to be YOU who are conflicted, by your adulation of the "timeless" Jefferson even while you pin the human Jefferson to the cultural matrix of his lifetime!

1 comments about Abraham Lincoln, Slavery, and the Civil War.

1. FOR ME THIS WAS A PAGE TURNER. I FELT LIKE I WAS THERE AT THE TIME THESE LETTERS AND SPEECHES WERE WRITTEN. VERY EASY TO GET LOST IN THE TIME PERIOD. IF YOU LOVE THIS SUBJECT, YOU'LL ENJOY THIS BOOK.

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.
   
   * It's worth noting that Sherman was only slightly more successful during the 1850s than Grant. Despite his intrepid energy, probity, and obvious business skills, he found himself in 1858 with no significant wealth, no stable occupation, and a family of a wife and four daughters. Perhaps it wasn't so easy, after all, for a person without deep pockets to achieve success in ante-bellum America, except by luck, dishonesty, or slavery. Sherman's last job before the elction of Lincoln was as the superintendent of a "military seminary," that is, a school for the sons of planters, in Louisiana. Knowing that his moderate criticisms of the slave system would get him fired anyway, Sherman resigned as soon as Lincoln was elected. No one around him in Louisiana expressed any doubt that the preservation of slavery was the "fighting issue" behind secession.
   
   ** As Sherman left his youth behind and entered the fray of the Civil War, he shifts his tone from that of an adventurous raconteur to an earnest historian, and I've found that I need to read him differntly also, less for pleasure than for historical knowledge. I've slowed down and taken time to evaluate his reportage in comparison to what I already 'know' of Civil War historiography. Sherman's manner of constructing his narrative also changed; he began to incorporate documents - his field reports and letters, the field reports of other officers, etc. By the mid 1870's when Sherman wrote these memoirs, the true course of events and the soundest interpretation of them were already afire with controversy.
   Two insights, from Sherman's perspective: 1) the elite Louisianans whom Sherman conflicted with, over the act of secession, were amazingly confident that there would be no war and that their 'peculiar institution' would thrive. They were all remarkably civil and genteel in their agreement to disagree, and Sherman departed without obstruction and with his pay in his pocket! 2) from Sherman's perspective, right at the front firing line with his green regiments, the Battle of Bull Run was a wash; either nobody won or both sides did, but neither side had the military skills to follow up and inflict a tactical victory. The war would continue until somebody on one side or the other knew how to win... and as "we" know, that would be Grant and Sherman himself.

1 comments about Civil War Goats and Scapegoats.

1. "Civil War Goats and Scapegoats" is a highly readable, even-handed book that does an admirable job in defending generals who have been maligned unfairly and censuring those who committed major blunders. It's well researched and amply illustrated, hard hitting but fair, and includes clear descriptions of military terms and Civil War military organizations as well as interesting anecdotes on the pre- and post-War lives of many of the commanders. The book is recommended for anyone - novice or serious student - interested in the Civil War.
   
   Three scapegoats defended passionately by Winkler are J.E.B. Stuart, often criticized for his controversial performance at Gettysburg ("He was following Lee's orders, and he provided Lee with substantial cavalry assistance, which Lee misused," Winkler wrote); Charles P. Stone, a Union general vilified by the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War (or JCCW, of which the author is repeatedly critical) for his defeat at Ball's Bluff; and Henry Wirz, the commandant of Andersonville, the infamous camp in Georgia for Union prisoners of war.
   
   Winkler is equally passionate in blaming generals for incompetent performances, including Stonewall Jackson for his "chronic tardiness" in the Seven Days' battles (though, as he notes, Jackson was ill); Ulysses S. Grant for his suicidal attack at Cold Harbor; and Grant and William T. Sherman, then one of the former's division commanders, for being "completely and shamefully surprised" at Shiloh. In the book's most provocative passage, Winkler wonders whether Jackson's mortal wounding by his own troops at Chancellorsville might have been an intentional act. Also interesting is Winkler's assertion that George McClellan, in addition to being undone in the Seven Days' battles by his notorious cautiousness, also was undermined by political intrigue leading up to those battles, with Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and the JCCW chairman, Sen. Ben Wade, as the chief culprits.

5 comments about Frank and Jesse James: The Story Behind the Legend.

1. That any reviewer can grant this book five stars, as some here have, boggles the mind. I have to seriously ask them what books they read that they consider this one worthy of such a high rating. Yes, the subject of the James boys is inherently fascinating and, yes, Ted Yeatman's research was extensive, which is worth one extra star, but as a writer he failed to present his material in an interesting fashion. First, he is too much in love with facts and uses them whether they are necessary or not. (I do not need to know, as just one example, the name of every insignificant Missouri militia outfit that ever marched in the same county as the James boys unless that name is relevant to them. Footnotes would have been a better location if Yeatman felt compelled to include this arcane data.) Another reason the narrative bogs down is that Yeatman failed to heed his word processor's grammar checker when it pointed out the thousands of passive sentences he wrote. Or perhaps he had that feature turned off. If so, he should flick it back on immediately. Lastly, a good writer spins out a narrative that flows like water. Yeatman's jumbled writing contains too many icebergs the reader must dodge or sink in the process.
   
   I am not yet finished reading it and am not certain that I can continue to the end much as I want to learn about the James boys. What a shame. Bad writing made this book a great waste of the author's extensive knowledge. I fail to understand why Cumberland House published this book without extensive editing or not publish it at all. Obviously, they thought the subject material would carry it.



2. I have to agree with some of the reviews of Mr. Yeatman's book.
   This is extremely poorly written. If I had wanted to read a Civil War recantation, I'd go back and re-read the many in my library.
   While some of the historical references during that period may be necessary background for the James family, more often times than not, in this book, the author flies off on a tangent leaving the reader wondering "what happened?"
   Trying to muddle through this book is like wandering through a blizzard. There are moments when the snow clears, only to be shrouded again moments later.
   Where were the editors? A fascinating subject that has been sadly botched by this effort in my humble opinion.



3. This is high-quality 19th century history that captures the tension with which the James brothers lived. It places the reader in Frank and Jesse's historical and geographical context. Above all, it is fair. Yeatman lets the reader decide. Frank emerged as particularly complex, because he was able to straddle the life of a respectable taxpayer and a dangerous outlaw.
   
   This work is particularly poignant, because of current U.S. debates about government spying, habeas corpus, posse comitatus and many other issues that matter as much today, as they did in the days leading up to the Civil War and Reconstruction.
   
   Yeatman's handling of the James brothers Civil War material is particularly deft.
   
   Yeatman's work is filled with numerous historical gems, such as Bess Truman's family's connection to the James brothers; Phil Sheridan's connection to the bombing of the James Sammeul home.



4. Much has been written about this icon of American outlaw mythology. If you are into the facts in detail, and an even-handed view of this subject, then I would highly recommend this book. If you are looking for an exciting tale, full of action and mayhem, you might wish to look elsewhere. All in all, it's a fine read with a lot of facts, and would make an excellent text source for a univerity class. There is a lot of interesting material within, such as Frank James' life after his brother's death. It's well worth the price of admission into this world.



5. The information is great, but it just did not grab my attention. I love the photos of the family and era.

5 comments about The Long Pursuit: Abraham Lincoln's Thirty-Year Struggle with Stephen Douglas for the Heart and Soul of America.

1. Abraham Lincoln is probably the most famous past president in our history, with the possible exception of George Washington. Lincoln was a great man, but most people don't remember that for much of his life, he was largely a political failure, if a principled one. The chief reason for this was a political rival, a Democrat named Stephen A. Douglas. Douglas was a powerhouse in the Senate for a quarter century, forging compromises and legislation, arguing the cause of compromise with the South so that discord didn't destroy his party and country. Douglas and Lincoln met in debate repeatedly, and were rivals in Illinois politics for a considerable time.
   
   While they were rivals, they were also at least cordial, if not outright friends. Finally, in 1857, Lincoln was nominated for the Senate seat Douglas held, and the two met in a series of debates. Douglas won the election, but had to say things in the debates that alienated the South, while Lincoln managed to engage, even energize the Republican sentiment in much of the country with his side in the debates. Within two years, Douglas was a weak candidate for president, fatally wounded by a rival Democrat nominated by the Southern Democratic party, and so Lincoln triumphed in the presidential election in 1860.
   
   The story of all of this is very well-recounted in this book by Roy Morris Jr. Morris is careful to give Douglas his due. Frankly, Stephen A. Douglas should be a better-known figure in American politics. When Lincoln won the presidency in 1860, Douglas, in spite of the animosity that had permeated the election, immediately endorsed Lincoln, and castigated the South for their threats to secede. This sort of politics is today very unusual, and you wonder whether anyone today thinks they could learn from the past.
   
   I really enjoyed this book and would recommend it to anyone interested in Lincoln or the 19th Century.



2. It is a common observation that we are shaped, morally and intellectually, by the people we choose as friends. As demonstrated by this book, we may be shaped even more dramatically by our enemies and competitors.
   
   Abraham Lincoln was such an amazing president that we often forget how difficult was his climb from obscurity. As Roy Morris makes clear, Stephen Douglas was essential to Lincoln's training. The competition between these two men brought out the best in Lincoln, and forced him to refine his political skills and ideas. In particular, it forced Lincoln to define a moral yet measured approach to limiting the scope of slavery in the territories, with the hope of sending the institution to its ultimate extinction.
   
   My main surprise was Morris' limited treatment of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. However, he makes up for that deficiency with many insights into related issues, such as Douglas' struggles within the Democratic Party at the time of the 1860 presidential election.
   
   Morris weaves into his narrative many interesting opinions and suppositions about Lincoln's subjective reactions to the events swirling around him. However, at times Morris seems to get carried away, and projects onto Lincoln opinions that are inconsistent with the historical record. For example, he makes a passing reference to the "notably irreligious Lincoln," which is hard to reconcile with Lincoln's profound religious beliefs, reflected in his many speeches and letters, and culminating in his powerful Second Inaugural address. (See e.g. White, Lincoln's Greatest Speech)



3. Coming, as I do, from the Land of Lincoln, new books on our 16th president are always of interest. Rarely do they seem to take a new tack on an old story. Though some are better written than others, many seem to cover the same ground. Morris, however, does something interesting in his book, The Long Pursuit. He gives us a look at Lincoln through the long-standing relationship/rivalry between Lincoln and the other important Illinois politician of the time, Stephen Douglas.
   
   In fact, if the truth be told, Douglas was the more important of the two figures right up to the point that Lincoln won the presidency in 1860. Throughout the 1850's, Douglas was the powerhouse Democratic senator from Illinois and perennial candidate for president while Lincoln remained, if not an unknown, certainly a small-time, provincial politician. It was, of course, his series of debates with Douglas and the resulting fallout during the senate election of 1858 that finally took Lincoln to national prominence and gave him his shot at the presidency two years later.
   
   In some ways, it is too bad that Douglas has been all but forgotten except as Lincoln's foil in those all important debates. (Can you tell I'm from one of the cities in which those debates took place?) Considering his impact during those antebellum years, Douglas deserves better. And, to his credit, Morris does him justice here. We are offered plenty of fair insight into Douglas's character here and how he tried to navigate his way through difficult times while being a powerful leader. In many ways, I feel I know Stephen Douglas much better from reading this book.
   
   Still, this is Lincoln's story. And it is Lincoln's story under a spotlight focused on a very particular period of time. We get very little of Lincoln's youth, now well-passed into legend. The story really picks up with Lincoln's arrival at New Salem, Illinois, as a young man, soon to enter political life. It follows Lincoln through his ups and downs in Illinois, his encounters with Douglas (including details on those all important debates), his positioning as the Republican candidate for president, his improbable yet inevitable election, and finishing up with his swearing in as president. Nothing is mentioned of his years in the White House. Which is just what this book needs as it tells a different story. Within months of Lincoln's swearing in, Douglas was dead.
   
   In the end, this is an excellent book. In a well-ploughed field of history, it is unique. Not only that, it is well-written and informative about a period of Lincoln's life that is less well-known and brings back to life Stephen Douglas--a man who, but for some twists of fate, could be as well-remembered as Lincoln (if not as well-respected, perhaps). For anyone interested in Lincoln's life, this is a book that should be read.



4. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas were the two preeminent Illinois politicians of the pre-Civil War era, and their debates are an important part of American political history. On the eve of the 150th anniversary of these debates comes the release of "The Long Pursuit," which chronicles the complicated political relationship of these men far beyond these famous debates. I'm a neophyte to Lincoln history, so I approached this book with some trepidation. Fortunately, the book is well-written and straight-forward enough that I was able to follow along without knowing a great deal of Lincoln history.
   
   The average person knows Douglas mostly through his debates with Lincoln, and Roy Morris Jr. notes with irony that most people think that Douglas lost the political race in which the debates occurred. Instead, Douglas won the Illinois Senate race against Lincoln; he was considered a star in politics, whereas Lincoln remained essentially a relatively obscure country lawyer. When Douglas became an obvious Democratic nominee for the Presidency, these debates actually ended up helping Lincoln, as his supporters in the Republican Party could argue that Lincoln knew Douglas and his debating style so well that he could match up well with Dougles, despite the earlier loss. Fortunately for Lincoln, his stance against the spread of slavery into new territories gained greater acceptance in the North than did Douglas' appeasement approach, and he managed to spring to the Presidency over the better known Douglas (helped by the entry into the race of several third party candidates).
   
   Indeed, throughout his early career, Lincoln seemed to be inexorably tethered to Douglas, although history obviously has dimmed the reputation of Douglas, who was known as the Little Giant in his day. "The Long Pursuit" is interesting reading, and the material is certainly timely given the anniversary of their famous debates. Roy Morris Jr. does a good job placing their relationship in historical context and including enough interesting stories to keep this Lincoln newbie interested. I was a bit disappointed that the Lincoln-Douglas debates were not covered in greater detail; however, that simply may have been beyond the scope of this book, and that material does seem to be covered in many other texts. What this book did do is whet my appetite for more information and to seek out other books on the topic.



5. This title is essentially a dual biography of the political lives of Douglas and Lincoln. Although well-researched and informative, with numerous personal anecdotes covering both men, it never quite brings Lincoln or Douglas to life.
   
   Instead, Morris emphasizes the growing struggle of words, political parties and ideas as America grappled with its "irrepressible conflict." The author conveys Douglas as a capable conventional politician with "practical solutions to political problems" who nonetheless "failed to recognize that many northerners and southerners had moved beyond mere politics into a realm of theoretical certitude as exacting and precise as a hard-shelled Baptist's understanding of sin." (p. 193) Douglas strove to stand on a middle ground that was dividing like a geological fault line. The chasm opened and Douglas fell through - obvious with historical perspective but not so to Douglas and his followers in the late 1850's.
   
   Too intellectually intense to be a simple "good read," this book nonetheless conveys well a recurring theme in politics when a paradigm shift suddenly renders a "reasonable" viewpoint out of date. In ordinary times, the experienced and capable Douglas might have become president. But times were not normal, and so a rustic, funny man with a gift for speaking and a latent consistency of purpose rose to become America's president in its hour of greatest need.

5 comments about That Devil Forrest: Life of General Nathan Bedford Forrest.

1. have nearly every book written on Nathan Bedford Forrest. He was a complex man, a man that should stand out more amongst the 'peacocks'. Who, having had any knowledge about the War Between the States, does not know JEB Stuart? Forrest did not believe in plumbed hats, jackboots or riding around the Union army to prove a point to the Union troops and his Father-in-law. He believed war was fighting and fighting means killing, and his brilliant military tactics demonstrated this. I think by being raised on both sides of the pond, Forrest first fascinated me because I saw much the same 'force' in Forrest I admired in William Wallace. They were common men, men who were willing to give all in a cause they believed, men that were driven by fighting at 110% and never giving quarter. Many of Forrest's tactics of near guerrilla fighting came from Lighthorse Harry Lee's tactics against the British in the Revolutionary War (Robert E. Lee's daddy by the way!!), a character in himself and much in the vein of Mel Gibson's Patriot. The North despised Forrest - why?? Because he was SO EFFECTIVE. One wonders, what the outcome of the War Between the States would have been had Forrest commanded the Army of the Potomac instead of Lee. Grant and Sherman hated him - Grant giving him the label of 'that devil Forrest', while Sherman admired him - grudgingly - considering him "the most remarkable man our civil war produced on either side", and by Lee `the most extraordinary man the Civil War produced'. Historian Shelby Foote called him one of the two great geniuses of the period (Lincoln being the other). Sherman moaned in disgust that Forrest's men could travel 100 miles faster than his troops could 10. Forrest 'liberated' more guns, horses and supplies than any other single Confederate unit. He did not play at war. He rose from the rank of private to a Lieutenant General - the ONLY man to do that in the Confederate army, but he was just as a complex man before and after the war.

   Perhaps, you will not come away liking Forrest, but you cannot doubt his sheer genius, his driven power and his ability to spur men to match his dedication and willingness to give all - just as Wallace did.

   There are many books that give interesting views of Forrest, but I hold a special spot in my respect for this book, for unlike the others that were written with the distance of time and careful study, this was written by John Allan Wyeth - a surgeon who died in 1922. Wyeth served as a private in the Confederate army until his capture two weeks after Chickamauga. This was written by a man who lived through the war, not an arm chair historian. So his view is unique, more vivid than any other writer or biographer on Forrest. The text is base almost solely on accounts of military papers and records and the people who knew Forrest personally.

   So if you have come searching for information on Nathan Bedford Forrest, you collection MUST have a copy of this work.




2. Nathan Bedford Forrest was one interesting character. A self made millionaire, most definitely an entrepreneur by today's standards, he was a maverick in every facet of his life. Shelby Foote called him the only genius, other than Abraham Lincoln, that the Civil War produced: High praise indeed.

   It is easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to paint him with the brush of evil and dismiss him. Slave trader, first Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan, the Ft. Pillow massacre, these are not the calling cards of sainthood. But if we try to view life as he saw it, if we can empathize with him enough to where we can react to his environment, during his times and with his skill set, then maybe we can come close to understanding Mr. Foot's comment.

   The Southern High Command did not develop senior generals well. They anointed 8 at the start of hostilities. Without exception, those that weren't killed or injured were still in charge of things at the end of the war. Forrest was one of the few who earned the right to fill the ranks of those who fell.

   Independent, devoted to the cause and goal driven he pounds his way to the top. One of his key adversaries, William Tecumseh Sherman, gives him his finest accolade with the words 'that Devil Forrest'. He is a tenacious fighter and good at his job. Judge for yourself, but no one on either side fought under greater hardship, with fewer resources, while amassing a string of truly pivotal victories than he did. No Lost Cause apologia here, Forrest is the genuine article, a true Confederate war hero. You may not wind up liking him but you will wind up respecting him.




3. I've read the dry memoirs of a few Civil war heroes. Grant, Sherman, Sheridan. They're fine. But if you want the real guts'n'drive factor of this war, this doctor's story of Forrest is what you're after. As another reviewer has mentioned, when you get into other major characters you actually find less good action, more weakness, time-wasting. Forrest has his flaws, but more along the lines of all of ours. Hold a grudge if you like, but give the story its due. This has it all, in spades.

   The doc is a passionate storyteller but doesn't prejudice the tale. He's written to a fine line.

   The other major biographer, Steel, is known as the fairest (and the most recent and "professional"), but with him we get excessive DRYNESS. Who needs that. Moreover, Steel bends over backwards to discredit the hero Forrest, giving more than equal time to every potshot against him. This is called fairness. The shots never hit their mark even with Steel, yet he gives them their due and their due dilutes, taints and distracts the story. ---Even more so than Forrest's own flaws do! (Touche'.)

   Wyeth is a clean historian yet lets the story's vigor come through just right. The adventures of Forrest will keep you riveted from start to finish. There's no other way to put it.

   Forrest's covering of Hood's (?) final retreat was, in that day, declared to be the inevitable future subject of EPIC poems. We haven't seen any such thing, sadly. But that's the scale of this story. It would still be worth the effort, I think. A movie anyone?

   Of course, every angle is worth savoring---including the old partisan Lytle's "Critter Company" bio.

   But enjoy the doc. --JP




4. I'm torn on this review. I'm a new student to the ACW, but new enough to still know that NBF is one of the more intriquing characters of the war. I thought I did my research well and picked the right book to read about him by choosing "That Devil Forrest."

   Well, I'm a little disappointed. Not because the book is bad, but more because it wasn't what I quite expected and mostly because I read it out of place (more later on this). The focus is 95% on the military side, which is not all bad. After all, that's what makes him the wizard of the saddle. But the problem is I found the account very dry at times. Much of it is rehashing Official Records and what others have said in their memoirs. I never got the feeling of being there, in the middle of the battle, with bullets zipping by my ear. The only way I can describe it is a very nuts and bolts reading of what troops went where and what troops did what, with a little bit of prose thrown in. Certain chapters are handled better than others, but from time to time I found myself drifting away from engagement to engagement because there wasn't much to make it unique.

   Now, I realize not every one can write like Catton or Foote, but considering Wyeth did ride in Forrest's cavalry, I was hoping for a little more from that POV.

   As far as the details of the engagements, they are extremely well done. Clearly you will walk away from this book understanding how many casualties he infliced, what companies and who their leaders were who rode on particular missions, etc. It is truly a micro history and if you are unfamiliar with the bigger battles that may have intiated NBF's specific participation (i.e. Shiloh, Murfressboro, etc.) you might get a little lost in the details.

   I think I need to read more of a true biography first, and then follow up with "That Devil Forrest" to fill in the military details. That would make a very good one two punch.

   So, in short, if you're fascinated by Forrest, but know little of him, I wouldn't start with this book. I think you'll get lost in the details. However, if you have a thorough understanding of the ACW and good back ground info on Forrest the man, I think you'll find this book a good compliment if you're after the details. Another high point is the footnotes and references are impecable. Although the author has a very clear biased opinion about his feelings toward Forrest, he does back up the numbers so to speak.




5. New Yankee Doodle
   
   Yankee Doodle had a mind
   To whip the Southern traitors,
   Because they didn't choose to live
   On codfish and potatoes.
   
   Yankee Doodle, doodle doo,
   Yankee Doodle dandy,
   Aand so to keep his courage up,
   He took a drink of brandy.
   
   He was the best Confederate general of the entire Civil War, according to his superior. Born in Chapel Hill, Tennessee, into a well-to-do family, he was a Southerner born and bred for greatness. After the war, he had ties in Memphis, (a world away from the values and customs of Middle Tennessee) where a park including a statue of him is in existence. There is an unusual statue of him outside Nashville on I65; look for the Confederates flags and you'll marvel at this site created and paid for by a prominent lawyer. This slanderous book (all Myths) was devised by two UTK English professors with false information from Memphis sources.
   
   I can't fanthom why this review was not listed on my site. It is a sore spot for me as I personally told one of the writers that what they had researched is not true. After the book was printed anyway, I told the other one on the phone the same thing. He said the nasty part about Fort Pillow which they based their myth on was in Memphis documentation. That does not make it right or true. None of us at the meeting had heard about what happened at that place, and yet they based a slander about what might not have happened.