5 comments about The Class of 1846: From West Point to Appomattox: Stonewall Jackson, George McClellan, and Their Br others.

1. This book is a MUST READ for any serious student of the Civil War. It lets us see how the West Pointers were trained and how they bonded. It gives us the insight To the meaning "an Officer and Gentleman". You find many times over the gallantry and foolishness of men. You also find the depth of friendships that led to the healing of wounds so a young nation could move forward.
   It is hard to see these young men's dreams fall to battle. Without their leadership it would have been so much worse on the average citizen. Read it, then cry for all our nation lost.



2. This book is at its best in the first 200 pages, when all of the classmates get fairly equal coverage at West Point and the Mexican/frontier Wars.
   
   The book is extremely entertaining and well researched throughout, and the author is not attempting to challenge any aspect of Civil War history, so the narrative on the soldiers as we know them in that War does not change.
   
   As mentioned in other reviews, the Civil War portion of the book is discombobulated almost out of necessity, since the soldiers were no longer equally important. Doing so would make the book incredibly long, and the simple truth is that people will inherently be more interested in Jackson than Stoneman.
   
   Regardless, it's still a more than worthy book to pick up, if only to see how opinions and relationships were molded over a 15 year period of time among all these brothers turned enemies.



3. This is a standard rendition of two primary Civil War generals: Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson and George McClelland. In this portion of the book Waugh tells us what we already know about George, that while he was always at the head of the class moving up the ranks, he failed miserably once at the top. Similarly, Stonewall, no doubt as crazy as a loon, became the Civil War's finest and best tactician produced by either side.
   
   Focusing as he does on the West Point graduating class of 1846, the year the War with Mexico was initiated, we meet numerous men who studied together and fight together in the Mexican War, the Indian Wars, the Mormon War and, in the climax of their military lives, against each other, in the Civil War.
   
   Having gone through school together for 4 years, these men competed against each other for most of their adult lives. But as the competitions were intense, the personal relationships were even closer. Cadmus Wilcox was Sam Grant's best man; James Longstreet was also in the wedding party. George McClelland and Robert E. Lee served together on Winfield Scott's staff. Gideon Pillow and John B. Magruder brevet a youthful Tom Jackson at Chapultepec. Clarendon Williams, Jackson's graduation day dancing partner, dies in the Navaho war. Lee, George Thomas, George Stoneman, John Bell Hood and Albert Sidney Johnson serve for 6 years together in Texas in the US Second Cavalry. Lewis Armistead, William T. Sherman and Winfield Hancock serve together in California.
   
   John Waugh has produced a unique view of the Civil War, through the eyes of men who, while they fought against each other with all the skill they possessed, fought against comrades, close friends and former classmates who at times, just couldn't have seemed like the enemy.



4. Having read a number of Civil War books lately, I was surprised at how many officers were friends and colleagues from their days at West Point. The Class of 1846 From West Point to Appomattox: Stonewall Jackson, George McClellan and Their Brothers by John C. Waugh is a good place to start to learn some of this background.
   
   The class of 1846 at West Point was an illustrious class in many ways. This was the biggest class in academy history up until that time, and included such luminaries as George McClellan, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, George Pickett and Ambrose "A.P." Hill. At the time, West Point was one of the best colleges in the nation and certainly the best engineering school. Waugh provides a glimpse of what it was like to be a cadet, and I can't even imagine spending ten hours a day in the classroom as a freshman with seven hours of math and three hours of French (most military manuals were written in French at the time). Of the 122 plebes who began in 1842, 59 graduated four years later.
   
   Timing is everything and soon after this class graduated, the Mexican War started heating up and the president doubled the size of the regular army. This put the class of '46 on the fast track for promotions. Fifty-three served in the Mexican War, and it was here that they met many other West Point graduates and future Civil War leaders including Robert E. Lee, P.G.T. Beauregard, Ulysses S. Grant, James Longstreet and Winfield Scott Hancock.
   
   The majority of this book deals with the Civil War. Twenty-two members of this class became Union or Confederate generals. Waugh focuses on how these men contributed to the battles and events of the war. The handsome, dashing and intelligent George McClellan graduated number two in his class and great things were expected of him. After a promising start in the Mexican War, the vain and pompous McClellan proved to be a big disappointment. The true star turned out to be quiet, unassuming Stonewall Jackson. Jackson barely met the entrance requirements and started off at the bottom of his class. Through hard work and perseverance, he graduated number seventeen. "Nobody saw in him any suggestion of genius or gift for command." When Jackson died after Chancellorsville, it truly was a blow to the Confederacy. Prior to reading Waugh, I thought Stonewall was just plain crazy. After, I've gained a new respect for this eccentric general.
   
   The Class of 1846 has a section of photos and drawings, as well as a list of the many classmates that are mentioned in the book. This helps to keep the lesser-known characters straight. However, Waugh should have included some maps to help the reader with battle locations. Otherwise, I found this book to be very interesting.



5. I initially heard of this book after reading a review in the Wall Street Journal. I was very impressed with the way Waugh weaved this story together. We bond with the characters as they struggle through their years at West Point. The friendships started in the Academy are then forged on various battlefields in Mexico (a war about which most Americans know next to nothing... including me!). Then, these life-long friends turn into enemies during the Civil War.
   
   I have to admit that when reading Waugh's description of the surrender at Appomattox, I was moved to tears... while deadheading in an airplane full of passengers! I was totally caught up in Waugh's storytelling. Masterful job and a great read.

3 comments about In Front of Your Nose, 1945-1950 (Collected Essays Journalism and Letters of George Orwell).

1. Essays and journalism and very good footnotes deal with starvation in Europe, prevention of literature, Gandhi, an attempt to form an organization which would deal with issues like expelling people from their homes, people forced back to Soviet Russia, and much more including civil liberities for anarchists.



2. The late James J. Martin stated that one could learn great prose from reading George Orwell. Orwell's anthology titled IN FRONT OF YOUR NOSE is a good book to learn political insight and excellent writing. Orwell was not only knowledgeable, but he expressed some of the political tragedies and problems of the 20 th. century in this book. Readers should note this book is the fourth volume of essays of Orwell's essays literary criticism, political protest, etc.
   
   Orwell was one of the very few who realized what a disaster W.W. II was for both Europeans and Asians. His essays on the forced repatriation of millions to the Soviet Union to miserable die in concentration camps were among the first to publicize this tragedy. Orwell's essays were blunt in stating that the only real winner from W.W. II was Big Communism especially in lieu of the rapid disintegration of the British Empire.
   
   Orwell gave a good description of the inconsistent thinking of the British people. The British wanted total victory at any cost, and found themselves in bad economic shape. Many British complained about the immigration of Polish refugees to mine coal in Great Britain. Yet, the British public also complained (whined) about coal shortages. Orwell indicated the inconsistency of these remarks and commented that the British failed to see the logic between acts and consequences. Orwell Presented a clear picture of what was to occur with the British Empire which disintegrated rapidly after "victory" during W.W. II.
   
   Orwell's essay on Gandhi is an interesting case study of Orwell's honest assessment of political leaders. Orwell is clear that he could not live like Gandhi, and Orwell admitted that he probably could be friends with the Hindu leader. Yet,Orwell highly praised Gandhi's courage, policy of nonviolent resistence to the British rules, and Gandhi's honesty. Orwell gave Gandhi praise for being honest and a decent man among political rogues, hypocrites, and cowards. Whether one agrees with Gandhi, he was indeed a brave, honest man. Among poltical figures these are rare traits indeed.
   
   This reviewer disagrees with part of Orwell's criticism of James Burnham. Orwell correctly shows Burnham's errors in predicting the outcome of W.W.II. However, Orwell should have recognized Burnham's book THE MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION was a solid account that political and economic affairs were to be controlled by managers and "experts" rather than a market economy and by traditional political processes.
   
   Orwell's anthology has interesting essays of literary criticism and correspondence. Orwell was suprisingly well versed with continental European poltical leaders and literary figures. There is an interesting letter that Orwell wrote to Arther Koestler, author of DARKNESS AT NOON,in which Orwell favorably compares this book with Orwell's own 1984.
   
   Orwell also has some disturbing remarks regarding "allied" abuse and torture of defeated German prisoners of war. Orwell reflected that he remembered British and U.S. propaganda against the Germans before and during W.W. II. Yet, right in front of his nose, the "allies" were acting in the same beastial manner against those caught on the wrong side of the war. This was quite disturbing to Orwell, or any thoughtful person.
   
   This reviewer has always been very impressed with Orwell's work. Any thoughtful individual who is not afraid of clear writing, honesty, and truth would enjoy Orwell. Unfortunately, the number of such people is small. As Orwell wrote one time, propaganda and lying do not decieve people. Propaganda and lying only help people who want to be deceived.



3. This fourth volume concludes the excellent essay collection from a man who died much too young and with whom I do by far not always agree, but who provided me a very satisfying and instructive reading experience.
   I chose the headline from one of the essays in this volume because it gives Orwell in a nutshell, including my own ambiguities about him. He argues against the Soviet apologists, in the early post war time, who say that one must break eggs to make an omelette. (Is that a Lenin quote, btw?) His question: so where is the omelette? strikes me as witty and appropriate, but at second glance as callous and cruel. After all he seems to imply that yes, you may kill a few million people for a 'good' purpose, but the purpose must be met.
   In such moments Orwell is deserted by his own devotion to clarity and he gets caught in his own puns. That does happen to him. As much as he lambasts against bad language, he will write e.g. 'I could multiply these examples endlessly' (talking about bad stories from the Soviet Union), when he actually means, he could add to these examples for some time.
   Reading the man for 4 volumes gives me the conviction, that this suspicious interpretation of mine is unfair. No, he would not have intended to mean that.
   The title 'In Front of Your Nose' refers to our ability to harbor contradictory notions without suffering too much from it: the English intelligencia in the 30s was able to oppose Hitler as well as disarmament and conscription. Another example: the gospel of Matthew tells us that Jesus descended from Abraham and David through his father Josef, and then proceeds to tell us that Josef was in fact not the father. (I am sure theologists are perfectly able to talk this contradiction away.)
   Vol. 4 has plenty of worth while literary criticism as well, like the previous 3. The essay on good bad books predicts that Uncle Tom will outlive the complete works of Virginia Woolf. (Frankly speaking for me that has already happened.) Jack London could tell his stories well, but they are not well written.
   Let us close our Orwellian peregrination with a timeless reminder: political language is designed to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. Right, my AFs in the much afflicted US?

1 comments about The Many Faces of Alexander Hamilton: The Life and Legacy of America's Most Elusive Founding Father.

1. This crisply written volume of eleven essays by leading Alexander Hamilton scholars provides an excellent reading experience for any person interested in the founding years of the United States. The essays are well documented and present new scholarship and a clearer understanding about the centrality of Hamilton throughout the founding period of the U.S. The beauty of the book comes from the clarity of writing and information conveyed, while not glossing over the debates still surrounding Hamilton and his many legacies.

5 comments about Joan of Arc: A Life (Penguin Lives).

1. The Penguin Lives series are not traditional biographies. They are short essays on the meanings and mysteries of a person's life, at the time they lived and in the present for us. They are for people (like me) who would not, could not read an 900 page book containing every detail of Joan's life, times and trial. There are plenty of those big biographies out there if you need them. But for people who want a little thoughtful insight on how a teenage girl in 1431 was able to accomplish the unheard of, unprecedented things she did, this book is perfect. This is a book I will always keep and reread.



2. It's a bad mistake to trust Mary Gordon to tell the objective truth about anything. This is a woman who sneers at democracy and bashes men for a living. Predictably, she reinvents Joan of Arc in her own image. That is to say, she imagines Joan as a sex-hating, social climbing fascist who despises her own humble origins and drools over the aristocracy.
   
   Don't believe me? Check out the interminable passage about how Joan never menstruated. That's Mary Gordon's idea of "purity."
   
   Joan's real purity came from caring about her family, her friends, and her country, and giving her life for them. But Mary Gordon dismisses Joan's family with a sneer, saying they were "one more thing she had to escape from." Tells you a lot about Mary Gordon's feelings about the old neighborhood (The Irish are so frightfully vulgar in Queens, my dear.) Tells you nothing about Joan of Arc.
   
   Then there's the problem of men. Common sense tells you that Joan of Arc got along well with soldiers, that she brought out the best in them simply by believing that even the roughest character was capable of compassion and decency. Boy oh boy, is that beyond Mary Gordon's comprehension! Men are pigs, you see, and they betrayed Joan of Arc. Uh, yeah. Only the amazing thing is that they ever followed her in the first place! Joan worked miracles because she believed in men.
   
   Mary Gordon ought to try it sometime.



3. In this book, Mary Gordon brings Joan's story to life. I can see that she really understands the character of Joan but does more than just tell her story. She explores the mystery that people saw in Joan. Such as the contradictions and mysterious desires that propelled her from obscurity to glory. I began to understand what drove Joan to do all the magnificent things she did. Mary Gordon tells this story in a way that makes me feel like she actually knew Joan and her feelings. She uncovers those feelings and created a better understanding of the mystery of The Maid of Lorraine.
   
   I have never heard the story of Joan's life depicted in such a descriptive manner. Mary Gordon told Joan's story and makes it some what adventurous. I learned a lot from this book but there were some things that could have improved. I think she should have made it more suspenseful and should have added more action. She had quotes and really didn't create it in a story form. It would have enjoyed this book more if these qualities would have been added. But over all it was a heart warming, emotional story.
   Kayla,lake havasu city,15



4. Even being a brief book, the writer accomplished the hard task of turning Joan's life into a sometimes boring narrative. Anyway, if you're looking to start knowing the basics, this is a good book to start.
   
   The chpater at the end where the writer spent time writing about dramatization in books and movies about Joan's life is utter useless, in my opinion is totally desnecessary and the worst part of hte book.
   
   Also, do not expect detailed accounts of the battles.



5. La Pucelle is not well served here. This is a pretty mediocre, superficial treatment of Joan's life. Gordon brings a novelist's flair to what amounts to a somewhat stream-of-consciousness extended essay. Gordon likes Shaw's play, SAINT JOAN, and you can see how Shaw's view of Joan's voices/religious identity clearly shaped Gordon's perspective. Stick with Regine Pernoud's various books on Joan, which are superior in every aspect to this flawed offering.

1 comments about America's Rasputin: Walt Rostow and the Vietnam War.

1. Milne's biography of Rostow demonstrates the futility of creating a independent state without having any support of the native population. Rostow thought that is possible to end the Vietnam War by merely bombing North Vietnam. The North Vietnamese fearing for their industry would stop supporting the Viet Cong and bring NVA troops across the border and thereby an independent South Vietnam could be preserved. But this theory backfired and the North Vietnamese will strengthened and chaos erupted in South Vietnam. Still Rostow stayed true to his theory and persuaded Johnson to ignore offers of a bombing halt by Harold Wilson, Henry Kissinger, and members in Johnson's own cabinet. The only weakness of this book is that Milne ignores the influence of Thomas Schelling on members of the Johnson cabinet and their decision to bomb North Vietnam. Nevertheless one can see elements of Rostow's theory about bombing in order to create a stable state in John McCain's rhetoric about bombing Syria and Iran in order to create an American backed Iraqi state.

No comments about Madness, Betrayal and the Lash: The Epic Voyage of Captain George Vancouver.

5 comments about Gerald R. Ford.

1. My dad enjoyed Gerald Ford as President because of his honesty, integrity, and rare human quality.



2. This is a good book. It makes you realize that Ford was really a hard working, intelligent, well qualified person at the time that he was selected to be Vice President. It also brings to life, the 70's. As the country gets ready to celebrate another birthday, we can also celebrate the persons who have been willing to get involved in service to their country.



3. Writing a short biography on a president who served such a brief time is a difficult proposition. It is to Brinkley's credit that he did not try to do more with his subject than what the subject deserves (such as Kevin Phillips failed work on William McKinley). Fortunately, Ford is not as an obscure, or I should say unimportant, a presidential figure as some others (e.g., Chester Arthur).
   
   The most dramatic issue for Ford was his pardon of Nixon. The author concludes that Ford acted correctly. Perhaps this is true, that is debatable. I lived through the same time (I almost voted for Ford in '76) and I am not sure that the country would not have been better served if a trial did occur. It may have prevented the recent efforts to devise an imperial presidency and the resulting calamity in foreign/domestic policies. Ford thought that a 1913 Supreme Court decision made clear that Nixon accepted the pardon and his guilt. That was not an accurate conclusion. His position would have made more sense if Ford required Nixon to have explicitly agreed with that conclusion. Ford didn't and Nixon spent much of his remaining years still deflecting blame.
   
   Left out of the bio was the significant revelation after Ford's death that he criticized Bush's Iraq War, but he directed that his thoughts not be published until after his death. In strengthening Ford's stature by highlighting his character, the author seems to have conveniently lost the chance to consider if his silence was consistent with the character issue. In fact, Ford was a party man to the death. His silence, therefore, is consistent with that stance, but was that of high character?
   
   Regardless, I too accept Ford as a very decent person and his presidency was at least (but no more) of average significance. His Helsinki agreement is rightly cited in this book as a landmark act. He was, though, a poor national candidate and that prevented an extension of his presidency.



4. Ford was our longest living president at 93, outliving Reagan by 46 days. He became president without a single vote. Nixon put him in office as someone who would grant him a pardon. Ford became known for his clumsiness, tripping and bumping his head at every opportunity. He put his foot in his mouth in a debate with Jimmy Carter when he declared that Poland was not dominated by the Soviet Union.



5. Well known historian Douglas Brinkley has written this brief biography, as a part of the American Presidents series of works. In the series editor's Introduction, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. notes that (Page xv): "The president is the central player in the American political order." Gerald Ford was an accidental president, taking over after Richard Nixon's downfall resulting from Watergate and his subsequent resignation.
   
   Gerald Ford's name at birth was Leslie Lynch King, Jr. His father had a violent temper and the marriage did not last long. His mother later married Gerald Rudolf Ford; after a time, her son was renamed Gerald Rudolph (an Americanized version of the stepfather's middle name) Ford. As a youngster, he excelled at athletics and even had the possibility of a pro football career. However, he chose law school and, shortly after that, electoral politics. He saw action in World War II.
   
   When he was elected to the House of Representatives 1948, he began to formulate the ambition to become Speaker of the House. His chosen career was in the legislature. The book does a nice job profiling his rise in the House, with carefully crafted advancement through the ranks; it also depicts the start of a long-time friendship between Ford and Richard Nixon.
   
   When Ford finally became Minority Leader in the House, he used his conciliatory approach well. As Brinkley says (Page 31), ". . .he played the good coach, giving his squad wide latitude to speak their minds. In exchange, he wanted no bickering. Ford's open forum proved smart strategy." Some tho9ught him rather slow of thought, but his amiability and ability to work with others represented a great strength.
   
   When Nixon was elected President, he tended not to work so well with Congress--including his own Republican mates. Ford did not distinguish himself with his unabating support for Nixon after Watergate became a public matter; after former Attorney General John Mitchell reported that the White House was not involved, Ford clung to that long after so many others had seen through the falsehoods.
   
   Then, the unlikely story of his rise to Vice-President and his subsequent ascension to the presidency after Nixon's downfall. The book does a nice job in a brief space noting the major decisions/actions of the Ford Administration, some working out well and some not so well. Here, we read about Whip Inflation Now, swine flu, the withdrawal from Viet Nam, the Mayaguez incident, the Helsinki Accords, and so on. The internecine Republic nomination politics of 1976 essentially doomed him to lose to Jimmy Carter. Then, the amazing life after the presidency and people's changing reflections on his accomplishments. . . .
   
   Another well turned work in the American Presidents series. These short volumes cannot go into the depth that I would sometimes like, but the tradeoff is accessible books for people who might not have the patience to wade through a 600 page tome.

3 comments about Letters From Prison.

1. The letters that make up this volume, written by the infamous Marqus de Sade, show more about the man himself in terms of his daily thinking than he his erotic fictions ever could. Whereas his fiction is born of his imagination, what he writes here are his own opinions and ideas of his life and his surroundings.

   He writes frequently to his wife from prison and has what I think of it as, a scathingly dark sense of humor about it all. If your already a devote fan of the Marquis or just a curious reader, (then even before you pick up his own works, I would recommend reading this first to get an idea of the man) then you should find this collection of curious correspondence to your liking.




2. I have read many things about the Marquis de Sade and I've also read his erotic stories, but this book shows a whole different side of the man with the dark sense of humor and off-kilter philosophies. Letters from Prison is a memoir of sorts -- a series of letters, entries and overall views on his life and things in general. His letters to his wife are especially insightful. The reader gets to know the Marquis on a more personal level, without his rather interesting erotic fiction standing in the way. What transpires is an interesting book that explores a more human side to the Marquis de Sade, a side that is seldom mentioned in biographies.
   
   I recommend this book to those who have devoted time to reading various biographies based on this unique man's life. This is something far more personal than anything you could ever read about the Marquis. And the fact that he wrote these letters and entries from prison makes them all the more riveting. You cannot help but appreciate the complexity of his mind and wonder if he was an evil genius or just a philosopher with a penchant for controversy.



3. The poor Marquis has such a terrible reputation, having his own sexual disorder named after him and all, but behind all the hoopla lies a sharp, dark wit.
   
   Imprisoned by his mother-in-law for 14 years under a lettre de cachet, 29 years in prison total, these letters to his wife uncover a very different sort of man than you would imagine. In here you will find his obsession for counting, mood swings, his search for himself, and his sexual obsessions. More importantly herein lies his philosophy and development as a writer, and a strength of spirit.
   
   "Either kill me or take me as I am, because I'll be damned if I ever change..." -- De Sade

4 comments about The Life of Francis Marion.

1. This is well written Narrative of the life of a real hero and his participation in the revolutionary war



2. I wanted to read a contemporary book about General Marion. This is an interesting book but was written in 1844. It is undoubtedly accurate but I found it difficult to read for a nonhistorian.



3. Few "giants" of the American Revolution have deserved more attention and praise than Francis Marion. Unfortunately, Marion, the brilliant general and statesman, has not received the attention he rightfully deserves. Simms classic biography is a remedy to this predicament, and Dr. Busick's erudite introduction to this new edition allows for an even fuller understanding of a true American hero and his contribution to American social and political life. Reading Simms on Marion, guided by Busick's careful and terse introduction, we can recover the military genius and personal affability of the man Tarleton called the "old fox."
   
   H. Lee Cheek, Jr., Ph.D.
   Chair, Social Sciences; and Professor of Political Science, Brewton-Parker College, Mt. Vernon, Georgia
   www.drleecheek.com
   Author of _Calhoun and Popular Rule_ (University of Missouri Press, 2001 and 2004).



4. Sean Busick has done us all a wonderful service by bringing back to print William Gilmore Simms's Life of Marion. It's a classic work of historical narrative suitable for most readers. Not only does Simms provide a interesting account of the life of one of early America's most courageous figures, he captures the complicated and often turbulent world of Revolutionary South Carolina.

5 comments about Winfield Scott Hancock: A Soldier's Life.

1. "On each of the three days of the (Gettysburg) battle (Hancock) played a significant role - rallying the beaten forces on July 1 and selecting the battlefield, redressing the Sickles blunder the next day and saving the left wing of the army, and finally beating back the last and greatest assault of the Army of Northern Virginia. ... Gettysburg was Hancock's field." - author David Jordan
   
   It was these three days in July, 1863 that established Winfield Scott Hancock as perhaps the best corps commander to serve in the Army of the Potomac. Yet, his career of loyal service to his superior officers, his Commanders-in Chief, and his country extended for a multitude of years on either side of his command of the Second Corps, which encompassed the relatively brief period from June of 1863 to November 1864, and which included the battles at Gettysburg, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, and skirmishes around the Petersburg entrenchments.
   
   Hancock's Civil War generalship earned him the affection of his troops and the country's citizenry and the respect of his fellow officers, all of which were sustained and flourished during his post-war career as a Reconstruction military administrator, a Great Plains Indian overseer, commander of the Military Division of the Atlantic (states), during which time he earned the gratitude of the nation in quelling labor violence, and, finally, as a three-time seeker of the Democratic nomination for President (1868, 1872, 1880) and his party's nominee for that office in the 1880 election.
   
   David Jordan's WINFIELD SCOTT HANCOCK is an extensively referenced, solid, immensely readable biography and work of popular history. Jordan obviously thinks highly of the man. Even Hancock's less than illustrious stint as commander of the Military Department of the Missouri from August 1866 to August 1867, during which he stumbled around the Great Plains without a clue as to the nature and culture of the Indian tribes he was tasked with controlling, goes pretty much uncriticized. After all, Hancock was only following the orders of his superior, General Sherman. And that's what Winfield did best all his life - follow orders.
   
   If there's a failing to this volume, it's that it suffers from a limited photo section, and helpful maps are either absent or rudimentary. Beyond that, the book is a fine tribute to an American for whom much honor is due in the nation's history.



2. A well written biography of a mostly forgotten soldier. Hancock was in many battles and his influence was felt long after the Civil War.



3. At the Battle of Williamsburg, as the Army of Potomac crept up the Peninsula toward Richmond, Virginia, General Winfield Scott Hancock attempted an aggressive flank attack on Confederate positions. At a moment when serious damage could have been wrought against the Confederate forces, a timid Union commander recalled him. Even at that, he was able to deliver one last serious sting to the southern forces. General George McClellan noted that "Hancock was superb yesterday." Hence, the nickname "Hancock the Superb."
   
   This is a serviceable book on this talented Union general. There is not enough detail on the battles in which Hancock was engaged; much of the book is "underdetailed." Nonetheless, one gets a sense of why Hancock was held in such great respect.
   
   The book covers his early years, his time in West Point, his service in the "Old Army" (with the capstone being the lugubrious final meeting after the firing on Fort Sumter among him and future Confederate generals Lewis Armistead and Albert Sidney Johnston in California).
   
   Briefly, he was consigned to a desk job. Soon, however, McClellan got him a brigade command. Then, his service where he earned the sobriquet "The Superb." He did good service at one point at Second Manassas/Bull Run; he served well at Antietam, where he advanced to division command. Then, the dreary battles at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville where, once more, he served the Union well. After Chancellorsville, he earned command of the Second Corps.
   
   It is at Gettysburg, though, where he may have had the best three days of generalship of almost any commander in the Civil War. He brought order out of chaos at the end of the First Day; he shuffled troops all over the place on the Second Day, providing "Hairsbreadth Harry" narrow escapes (think his ordering of the First Minnesota into a suicidal attack against vastly superior forces to buy a few moments time for reinforcements to get to the scene); his command of the center of the Union line on the Third Day, where he commanded the troops who destroyed the charge by Pickett's, Pettigrew's, and Trimble's attacking forces. He was also seriously injured, and the damage done to him hindered his physical ability throughout the rest of the war.
   
   After a convalescence, he did well at the Wilderness (his flank was rolled up by Longstreet, but he rallied his troops and led them well); he led a massive in depth attack at the Muleshoe at Spotsylvania. Eventually, his Second Corps bled down and he gave up his command in front of Petersburg.
   
   After the war, he served in the South, against the Indians, and had a long career as a general officer. He even ran for President of the United States. This book introduces us to Hancock; I wish that there had been more exploration of his character and more detail in a number of the chapters. But for those who want to learn more about "Hancock the Superb," this is a good starting point.



4. This book does a good job in painting Winfield Scott Hancock as this perfect general, great human being, and fair politican while tearing down those (U.S. Grant for example) who opposed Hancock. In this biography, Hancock always comes out as a honorable family man who put duty to his country first and at the same time this book shows how kind and considerate Hancock was to friends and strangers alike. However, a closer examination of the man reveals that Hancock was flawed. What upsets me the most about this book is David M. Jordan ALWAYS find a way to excuse/pardon Hancock's behavior. Jordan does a great disservice to readers when he refuses to deal with legitimate criticisms of Hancock.
   
   Let's deal with one of those criticims: Reconstruction. Hancock believed in state's rights but his noninterference in a time of great racial strife shows a man who allowed his personal feelings and not duty to his nation, get in the way of him doing his job. Let's be honest...Hancock was a racist, as most white men of the 19th century were. However, most white generals (Grant, Howard, Thomas and even Sherman) regardless of how they felt about blacks, understood that Reconstruction must work for the good of the country. It has been said and proven that Hancock's behavior not only help prolonged Civil Rights in the South for another 100 years, but that his policies helped foster the rise of the KKK. Jordan refuses to admit or examine that this is one of the reasons why U.S Grant removed him from the South because simply put...Hancock was NOT doing his job.
   
   I understand Hancock was a man of his time, but David Jordan should be honest in admitting how Hancock's policies (good or bad) affected the people of Louisiana and Texas and why others took offense to them. Jordan is so determine to paint Hancock as this great man who did no wrong, it begs the question about Jordan's motives.
   
   Mr. Jordan, it is true that Hancock was obviously a great man, but he was flawed. Tell the whole truth is all I am saying....



5. This highly readable account of Winfield Hancock's life does not disappoint. Never commanding a Union Army on his own, Hancock emerges from the Civil War one of the most accomplished, most successful of all Union battlefield commanders. His performance at Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor and Petersburg earned him the sobriquet McClelland bestowed upon him early in the war during the Peninsula Campaign, "Hancock the Superb". Simply stated, he was one of the most important commanders in the American Civil War.
   
   Jordan does a very credible job of tracing Hancock's origins from the Mexican and Civil Wars to his service in the Plains Indian Wars, his controversial reconstruction command at New Orleans and ultimately, his unsuccessful bid for the Presidency in the 1880 campaign. Combining broad strokes with an eye for interesting detail David Jordan delivers a biography of a most interesting personality whose life embodied a unique reflection of America's history for much of the nineteenth century.