1 comments about Ten Years in the Saddle: The Memoir of William Woods Averell 1851-1862.

1. This interesting autobiographical account was written by a West Point graduate of the 1850s. His experiences in the pre-Civil War west are especially informative, as not many first-hand narratives of that era have been published. His assignment after graduation from the military academy was to the New Mexico territory. There, he participated in the short Navajo war, and with vivid descriptions, tells the story well. He was wounded during the conflict and after being sent home for convelescence, tells about the most difficult choice confronting those classmates of his from the southern states in their future direction. Although Averell didn't excel at his later military career, never the less his work with the pen makes for interesting reading.

1 comments about Recollections and Letters of Robert E. Lee (Dover Value Editions).

1. If you are a civil war reader or a Robert E. Lee fan, than this book is for you. His private letters allow us to forget that we are reading history and allow us to step right into the soul of the man.

2 comments about Terry Texas Ranger Trilogy: Terry's Texas Rangers, Reminiscences of the Terry Rangers, the Diary of Ephraim Shelby Dodd.

1. This book is a must have for anyone interested in Terry's Texas Rangers (8th Texas Cavalry). It contains three rare first person accounts of the Ranger's activities during the Civil War including the diary of Ephraim Dodd who was unjustly hung as a spy by Federal troops. There are also several photos and an excellent introduction by Thomas Cutrer. I highly recommend it.



2. I have been interested in Civil War history and wanted to read about Terry's Rangers since they came from the part of Texas I live in. This trilogy further reinforces how poorly equipped many of the Southern troops were and how much of their time was foraging the land for food, water, and horses. This was a good book.

1 comments about Davy Crockett.

1. Some have complained, over the years, that this book was more novel than biography. Okay, then... what a great NOVEL! This was in my elementary school library in Elgin, AZ, and if I'd studied my textbooks like I studied this, I might have been a MONSTER! Connie Roarke made a great book, and I bless her name for it!

   BONUS: Read how Davy was a true Small-government conservative in the Jacksonian (read that "Proto-Clintonian") big-government epoch! It's the true hero tale of the book!

   Al

5 comments about Little Phil: A Reassessment of the Civil War Leadership of Gen. Philip H. Sheridan.

1. As another reviewer said, this book makes some good points, but ultimately is too one-sided. Phil Sheridan's image may be more untarnished than it should be, but if the author wanted to bring it into proper perspective, he could've accomplished that simply by giving us an honest, reasonable portrait, pointing out the shortcomings that others have tended to gloss over. Instead he has given us a diatribe. The author is an attorney, and I happen to be a judge. When a lawyer refuses to admit that his opponent has ANY evidence or legal authority in his favor, when it is obvious that he does have some, I tend to look more askance at that lawyer's entire argument. I had the same reaction reading this book. Instead of being content to bring Sheridan's lofty reputation back down to earth where it belongs, he "trashes" him, and thereby weakens the force of his argument. Had Wittenberg simply argued that Sheridan was not as good - even not nearly as good - a general as he is commonly thought to have been, one might be readily inclined to agree. But he essentially argues that Sheridan was a bad general, and the evidence does not support that argument. Those who like so-called "advocacy history" may enjoy this book; those who believe that historians should simply attempt to present what they believe to be the truth, without having an axe to grind, will likely not.



2. I found lawyer Eric Wittenberg's book on General Sheridan entitled "Little Phil" just appalling and frightening, that this book was even published and author is considered a noteworthy Civil War historian. Once again we have a non-military historian or professional trying to view the profession of arms through some ridiculous method or process, this time applying law as in a legal case. As a three-decade veteran of the military, I was shocked by the lack of general military knowledge, which is such a current fade of historians who are not in the same class as "SLAM" Marshall, John S. D. Eisenhower, Trevor DuPuy or even Stephen Ambrose, who got things wrong and crossed the integrity line, but most of his books are doctrinally accurate. Wittenberg's understanding of combat, war, the dynamics of changing tactical application, the levels of war and so much more, is dreadful. Saying that according to Dennis Hart Mahan that cavalry operations should be conducted by some military tactical manual and not change and adapt with the real-world fact of combat is so ignoramus that it would haunt any combat veteran. To say that cavalry was not to "fight battles" is so absurd, because, guess what? It was happening! They were fighting cavalry against cavalry battles as nations had since the Crusades and Ghenus Kahn and Napoleon. Mahan, according to Wittenberg, should run out at Haw's Shop and announce, "Stop! This is not in my book, you are not following my manual."
   The author needs to stick with law, because he is no historian and lacks the training. To measure Sheridan like he was a race horse with a tally sheet is pathetic. What Wittenberg fails to see, that through Sheridan's aggressive operations, win or lose, he ripped the initiative from the Confederate cavalry and they had to fight him on his terms. There has never been a military leader who has not exaggerated or misused his reports to a degree, made tactical or operational mistakes, including Washington and Frederick the Great, and though winning the battle as Sheridan did at 3rd Winchester, the execution was flawed. Mr. Wittenberg's concept of war is to be a clean, gentleman's contest with no hurt feelings, fair rules and clear winners. Who cares if Sheridan fires a couple of officers in the heat of battle. He is the commander and lives are at stake. War is not a popularity context.
   There are so many errors, flaws and ignorant comments, one-sided bias and just immature criticisms of Sheridan in this book that I could not finish it; the first time in my reading career. One example, in Wittenberg's assessment of the Overland Campaign he faults Sheridan for failing to link up with General David Hunter at Charlottesville and escort Hunter's army to join General Meade. This did not happen of course, but in Wittenberg's litany of Sheridan's failures he fails to address the fact that Hunter was defeated at Lynchburg and retreated west back into the Shenandoah Valley. Even if Sheridan would have gained Charlottesville, Hunter never made it. This is extremely prejudicial history for even a lawyer.
   The scholarship is so bad, that Mr. Roy Morris and other biographers should share in the royalties of the dozen of so books sold. Where does one go to claim a refund?



3. OK, to believe this "reassessment" of Phil Sheridan, we must believe that the general fooled Union leaders Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, and Halleck, and Civil War writers from Bruce Catton and Fletcher Pratt to James McPherson and Shelby Foote (as well as British military authors such as Jackson's biograper, G.F.R. Henderson). Not to mention scores of non-coms who fought under Sheridan."It might be worth making a fight if Grant were their commander. But not against this man". So was the report of Napoleon III's troops after Sheridan led a movement after the war along the Rio Grande to block French forces occupying Mexico. Bismarck also praised Sheridan upon the latter's counsel in the Franco-Prussian war.You do not need to dislike an unadmiring book to be shocked how author Eric Wittenberg relies selectively and heavily on prejudiced and "hurt" sources, as well as taking exclusively critical but minor remarks from favorable Sheridan biographers.For example, sources for Wittenberg's "reassessment" include rebel General Jubal Early and guerilla Colonel Mosby, and Union General George Crook (whose claim to credit for the decisive move at Fishers Hill on his own came AFTER a falling-out with Sheridan over American Indian policies AND after Crook was heavily criticized for the Union near-loss at Cedar Creek.) Wittenberg fails also to remember that commanders base their decision partly on the input of lieutenants. Whatever Crook's contribution to victory was at Fisher's Hill, it was Sheridan's decision after meeting with his division leaders. Wittenberg even tries to deny Sheridan his widely-received credit for his amazing victory at Missionary Ridge by favoring another Brigadier's claim of capturing the enemy's cannons. Yet Sheridan was seen celebrating his charge by straddling one of the cannons in victory before continuing on as the only commander to pursue the retreating enemy. Wittenberg does not note that Sheridan was in this pursuit when he said the guns were "recaptured". And although most historians credit Sheridan for this win (including those mentioned above), Wittenberg is only able to footnote one magazine article.But in many matters like these, Wittenberg outrageously resorts to calling Sheridan a liar even when he does no better than show them to be one man's word vs. another.But it is obvious from the number of pages on Sheridan's supposed insubordination and harshness that these are Wittenberg's biggest criteria for generalship. Insubordination? Harshness? Hmmm... sounds like another general. His name was PATTON. One must wonder than how Blood-n-Guts would fare in a Wittenberg "reassessment."Regarding Wittenberg's biggest Sheridan victim, Governeur Warren, the latter General had let down both Grant and Meade and was previously considered for dismissal. Mainly, he was Sheridan's opposite in personal leadership and drive and played second-guesser at critical moments. He was not seen by Sheridan on the field at crucial moments ("By God, THAT's what I want to see! General officers at the front!" he cried, seeing Joshua Chamberlin.). As Bruce Catton observed, the real mistake was that other men lacking Sheridan's leadership were not cashiered earlier. In comparison to the ink spent on these subjects, Wittenberg greatly understates Sheridan's victories early in the war, mentioning Booneville without obererving that Sheridan clinched victory over the rebels forces with a 90-man rear charge. And though Sheridan outnumbered the rebels in the Shenandoah Valley, he bested the military maxim that attacks on an entrenched foe should be with a 3:1 advantage. His masterly use of combined arms is cited by the US Chief Military History office.INCREDIBLY, Wittenberg faults Sheridan's use of cavalry as a separate fighting arm, yet many consider it to have been the precedent for freewheeling armored strikes. Again Sheridan was like Patton, who wrote: "Good tactics can save even the worst strategy."



4. Little Phil: A Reassessment Of The Civil War Leadership Of Gen. Philip H. Sheridan by civil war historian Eric J. Wittenberg is a 272 page examination of the legendary Union Army general. This controversial study challenges the existing literature on Sheridan arguing that his war record has been commonly overrated. Informed and informative reading which is confidently recommended to Civil War buffs and academia alike, Little Phil is a provocative, iconoclastic, well written study that will enrich and enhance our understanding of one of the Union Army's most famous yet fallible officers.



5. Wittenburg writes a very compact critical book on the military skills and ethics of Phil Sheridan. The author writes in a concise fashion presenting factual detail centering on the most important moments of Sheridan's career. After a review of Sheridan's early career including the near bayoneting of a senior classman at West Point, the author spends virtually the remainder of the book on Sheridan Civil War career offering rather severe critiques of Sheridan's military ability as a cavalry leader and tactician, as an unfair supervisor of subordinates, his inability to follow orders, his inability to tell the truth abut early forays and his failure to recognize the contributions of subordinates. Although this does appear to be pretty harsh treatment of Sheridan, Wittenburg presents the information in a flowing economic narrative that sets up the final chapter's evaluation as a virtual summary of points categorically describing Sheridan's weaknesses. The author virtually starts with Sheridan's failure not to bring on an engagement at the battle of Perryville, to his inability to follows Meade's directions to open the road to Spotsylvania to his possible bypass of Grant's original orders for him to join Sherman. The author notes thst Sheridan's typical veteran post Civil war memoir glories in abundant hyperbole that speaks of frequent victories over southern horsemen. Sheridan's most interesting conflicts are personal with Crook, Averell and of course the cataclysmic collision with General Warren at Five Forks. However, in spite of the numerous criticisms, Wittenburg acknowledges that in the final theater during and after Five Forks, Sheridan was relentless in pursuit of Lee's retreating army earning accolades. And perhaps this last phase balances the book in that although Sheridan had his faults and ego, he had a certain ruthless drive that could truly make war hell for his his opposition in the valley or Indians and he could apply total war when the end was near. Grant's respect for Sheridan at the end seems to be at its zenith when he tells Sheridan that he may sack Warren with total authority and discretion. Of course Sheridan sacks Warren most likely without facts or reason but more so for perception and past negatives that Meade did not hold Warren accountable. Sheridan and Warren are perhaps the most interesting pair in conflict during the Civil War other than Jefferson C. Davis and William Nelson where the former assassinated the latter. Wittenburg's critiques may be controversial but they are well presented and many are well proven. But the debate is still on in the end because Grant has full confidence in Sheridan and with Sheridan brimming with confidence and his well-supported cavalry force, he literally pulls the plug on Lee's valiant and hopeless attempts at escape. A well-written book with controversy but the best part is that the book challenges your thought professionally leaving room for argument.

No comments about The Civil War Diary of Cyrus F. Boyd Fifteenth Iowa Infantry 1861-1863.

2 comments about The View from the Ground: Experiences of Civil War Soldiers (New Directions in Southern History).

1. As a non-American, my knowledge of the American Civil War is very limited. To be quite honest; I don't know a whole lot of it, besides that the two sides were the Union in the north with soldiers wearing blue uniforms, and the Confederacy in the south with soldiers dressed in gray. The slave issue wasn't the only matter fought over - even though it was obviously a very important matter indeed - and throughout the war several of the great battles of military history were fought, for instance the battle at Gettysburg, which also became the turning point of the war.
   
   This is, in a nutshell, basically all I knew and thought of whenever someone mentioned the American Civil War. (Okay, fine... I also thought of Patrick Swayze's character Orry Main from TV-series North and South. Well, actually, the one I really thought of was the lady he secretly dated. And especially her cleavage. But don't blame me, I was young and impressionable.)
   
   This highly limited knowledge - combined with the fact that when it comes to books about war and war history I find it much more stimulating to read about the ones who actually fought the war instead of what tactics the leaders used and the politics behind their decisions - resulted in me eagerly anticipating to get started on The View From the Ground.
   
   Because this book does indeed focus on the soldiers who were maimed and killed on the battlefields. The reader is invited to share the thoughts and feelings of these men about such issues as slaves and race relations, the image of the enemy, the conflict at large, the civilian population, and the multitude of religious and moral dilemmas that soldiers of faith had to deal with.
   
   At large, all ten contributions are highly interesting; especially since the reader realizes that the war wasn't exclusively about the issue of slaves and that many of the Union soldiers didn't care too much either about the non-whites. However, the two contributions that really stand out are David W. Rolfs' "No Nearer Heaven Not but Rather Farther Off: The Religious Compromises and Conflicts of Northern Soldiers" and Kent T. Dollar's "Strangers in a Strange Land: Christian Soldiers in the Early Months of the Civil War", two essays dealing with the bizarre compromise where faithful Christians were able to justify the ritualized and sanctioned mass-killings that active warfare, when it comes down to it, actually means.
   
   The book contains no photographs or illustrations whatsoever, and that's definitely most unfortunate.



2. This excellent collection of essays moves away from the "grand man" approach to Civil War history which focuses too often on generals and politicians to refocus on the common soldiers who actually endured the war. The basic assumption of the collection's authors, according to editor Sheehan-Dean, is that "soldiers are real historical actors who have the potential to shape, not simply respond to, their environment."
   
   So, for example, the various authors argue (1) that Northern soldiers, disgusted by their firsthand experience of slavery as they moved southward and recognizing that slavery was a key point of Southern resistance, began to advocate for emancipation long before the Northern public; (2) that Southern soldiers grew in hatred for their Northern enemies as the war took on "total" qualities, and that tales of fraternization between Rebs and Yanks are much exaggerated; (3) that Christian soldiers on both sides were religiously ambivalent about their participation in the horrific killing of the war, often undergoing religious crises in their efforts to reconcile religious rhetoric encouraging holy war and Christ's commands to love one's enemies; (4) that after a certain point in the war, southern soldiers tended to be so trapped in their own horrible world of fighting, privation, and diminished hope that they misunderstood and resented civilians who complained about their own (very real)hardships; (5) that the voluntary nature of the northern and southern armies stamped many soldiers in the ranks with a self-confident autonomy that ill-tolerated self-important by-the-book officers; and that (6) the rough conditioning of the battlefield left at least some Northern troops with few inhibitions about calling for the exile or death of Copperheads.
   
   Now, all this is fascinating, and the essays that defend these theses are well-written and well-researched. But there seems a crucial tension in all this that I wish the authors had explored. Granted, Civil War soldiers were historical actors, not simply pawns. In fact, given the voluntary nature of the armies, they probably exerted more autonomy than any U.S. soldiers since. But at the same time, they were also the same men who allowed themselves to be slaughtered time and again by stupid or foolhardy or enraged officers who ordered them to make impossible or unnecessary assaults. What is needed is more thought on this unbearable tension between autonomy and powerlessness in the Civil War soldier's experience. I look forward to the authors in this collection taking on such a project.

5 comments about Lakota Noon: The Indian Narrative of Custer's Defeat.

1. This book is excellent for those who are interested in a detailed history of the battle at Little Big Horn - "Custer's Last Stand" from the indian's point of view. The author painstakingly breaks the battle into 10 minute intervals from start to finish based on interviews with the various tribe members. His goal is not to "De-Bunk" all that we have read and studied about the battle but to give a well balanced narrative based on those who did survive it. It is well worth the time and effort of the reader.



2. researched and written by an author who makes his point by badmouthing and criticizing all other authors. His points are well taken, however; this has been written by a person who has never witnessed, or experienced the fog of war. Much of his less than honorable mentions of other ideas would have had more bearing if he took that into account. Still, much of it is enjoyable, although hard to follow with his jumping around, discounting one indians theory while using another to make his point.



3. Author Greg Michno put a valiant effort into reconciling the multitude of Native American testimonies that surround the Little Big Horn battle. I personally wish he would have quoted their exact testimony, THEN provided his interpretation of their statements. It would have saved me time in looking up their actual statements in my collection. Obviously, there is much dispute over what a particular warrior was trying to say and in most cases, Mr. Michno's views are as valid and thoughtful as most. I did find some of his "Discussions" contradictory however. For example, when discussing the "Henryville" archeological finds, Mr. Michno states that these shots could not have been fired at the soldiers on Calhoun Hill. In support, he states that the Native Americans did not shoot it out with the soldiers at close range, preferring instead to snipe from long range. Thus, this position "had to be" occupied later in the battle. He also states in that discussion that the warriors did not close for hand-to-hand combat. This is contradicted by his interpretations that 1)they did charge in this battle,overrunning the soldier positions 2) that in the earlier stages of the battle they primarily used bows and arrows (very short range weapons, especially when firing uphill), 3) in order to reach positions to charge they had to close to very short range, & 4) that tests proved that the effective range of the Henry and Winchester rifles was only about 100 yds, with hits dropping off dramatically at greater ranges.
   
   Overall, however, his book provides food for thought and helps fill a niche that has been too often overlooked.



4. Michno's work is excellent, with the exception of his failure to include the reports of the Crow scouts. The main question that plagued me (and historians) is: Did Custer or any main body approach or cross the LBH? Michno partly answers the question: By focusing on the stories of the four to eight defenders at the river, Michno proves an Army force went to the river and was repulsed. He also provides strong analysis that it was not Custer, nor were there two deaths at the river. The best book on the incident by far.



5. I read this after reading "A Terrible Glory" and was amazed that so much Native American testimony of the battle is available, even if it is fragmentary, contradictory, and often given decades after the events they describe. Some of the Native veterans of this battle were still alive in the 1940s and 50s and still offering views of what happened. Of the thousands of people in that village that was attacked by Custer, it seems a shame that only 40 or so seem to have ever had their memories recorded by historians or military or civilian interviewers. Why were so many of the others neglected? This is a compelling account of the battle and, along with the archaeological record and Army records up to the time that Reno's unit split from Custer's, is basically all that is available. Unless something else turns up.

3 comments about A Year in the South: Four Lives in 1865.

1. Try this one, it has four!!

   Steve Ash brings four lives so alive that one feels one can reach back 135 years and touch them. So too with the details of their daily lives. The author does a great job capturing what life was really like back in 1865.

   His style of writing makes it even more fun to read as the characters' stories "leapfrog" with the seasons, which spurs the reader on and on!

   A great, must read!

   Ellen Cumming




2. A worm's-eye view of 1865 in the South as the Civil War grinds to a halt and social instability (verging on chaos) sets in. This is an excellent counterbalance to the big picture studies of Reconstruction which are too much policy and too little impact on daily life. Four well-written biographies woven together; a book you will enjoy reading even if you start with no interest in the Civil War or the South.



3. Stephen Ash takes you into four entirely different lives in the South during early reconstruction. You will not leave this book without actually feeling the despair, sadness,panic and even rebellion that many southern folks felt immediately after their defeat.
   Read about the devastation that ultimately comes out of war. A must for any Civil War library.

No comments about The Spirit Divided: Memoirs of Civil War Chaplains-The Union.