No comments about Directors of Central Intelligence as Leaders of the U.S. Intelligence Community, 19462005.

5 comments about Chasing Ghosts: Failures and Facades in Iraq: A Soldier's Perspective.

1. Personally I am not a big reader of books. However, with a brother in his 3rd tour in Iraq and growing up in a military family and having known Paul as a simple aquaintance in high school, I was excited to check out his book. Not many people from our high school make it into the public eye like Paul has. From the moment I picked up the book I was hooked. It is a powerful and inspiring account of a true and rare American patriot. A patriot who knows what his beliefs are and who is willing to put his life on the line to defend those beliefs. It stirred up a lot of emotions from laughter, tears, and in the end a belief that our soldiers are true heros. I would definately recommend this to anyone and do. Congratulations Paul and look forward to following your inspring career in the years ahead.



2. As someone who has read a large amount of literature concerning the current state of international affairs, specifically in the "War on Terror" and as a hopeful future officer in the United States Army, I found Paul Rieckhoff's account of his time as a platoon leader in Iraq to be not only well-written, but helpful and insightful. From the accounts of under-equipped Guard units, to the sometimes seemingly trivial nature of the Rules Of Engagement, the book paints a quite vivid, and scarily what I imagine to be accurate, picture of the face of America's first gander at twenty-first century warfare.
   Though I found parts of the read to be erie in nature, and though the book provokes questions and doubts about our great nation's leadership and decision-makers, it in no way influenced me to give up joining the military. Rieckhoff has made it clear that the country's leadership is quite questionable, and in part of his writing acknowledges the fact that a new generation of veterans will soon be stepping into the political realm.
   
   Chasing Ghosts deserves to be read.



3. This was a great book and an easy read as it kept you engaged and intrigued. Enjoy!



4. Rieckhoff is a well-spoken and thoughtful individual who, in this memoir of his service as part of the occupying force in Iraq, takes the reader on his journey from intelligent inductee to Generation Kill to intelligent advocate for peace. It's a good terse read with very little fluff or filler, and is required text for anyone wanting a soldier's perspective on the invasion and occupation.



5. Chasing Ghosts is an honest and powerful account of Reickhoff's experience in Iraq. While it's tough reading at points, I think it is good for us to recognize the reality of what we're asking the men and women of our armed forces to do for this country every day.
   
   It took a lot of courage for Reickhoff to write this book and my hat goes off to him for doing it; and for the important work he's doing for veterans every day now.

5 comments about Hell's Guest.

1. To begin, I am not related to Mr. Frazier; this book was recommended to me by a friend, so I told them I would read it. To my surprise, "Hell's Guest" is a book that cannot be put down until it is finished. This true story is gripping in its intensity, and you have to keep turning the pages to see what happens next. How Glenn Frazier survived the Death March of Bataan, much less everything that followed is nothing short of a miracle of God. If you are interested in a glimpse of World War II history - without the rose-colored glasses - then read this amazing book.



2. I am not one for writing reviews (this is my first!), but I was so impressed and affected by this book, I had to leave a review. I met Col. Frazier at a book signing, and had him autograph a copy for my bro-in-law. On the way home I began reading Col Frazier's story and within a few pages, I found I couldn't put it down. Hell's Guest is engaging, amazing, horrifying, painfully honest, and beautiful. It is told so well, you can almost hear the bullets and feel his pain as a POW. I also appreciated how he didn't censure how he felt about the situations he found himself in - he doesn't set out to tell a heroic story about himself. He just tells his story honestly and vividly.
   
   Whether you are a WWII fanatic or not, this book will affect you page after page. With so many of our WWII vets passing away, there is an important part of history well preserved in Hell's Guest.



3. During a visit to the USS Alabama memorial, my family had the priviledge to meet Col. Frazier during a book signing. Having had an Uncle who survived Pearl Harbor, this book hit very close to home and brought back painful memories that all our brave military went through during those defining years. I don't even like to read all that much, but I read this book cover to cover in just one day! A real heartfelt masterpiece.



4. Like other folks that wrote a review, I also met Col. Frazier at a book signing. Col. Frazier talked with my children that are (8) and (10) years old and have left a life long memory in their mind of a great man. I read the book in just a couple days and it is a great story and Col. Frazier is amazing to have survived in the Philippines in battle and as a POW for 3 years. I highly recommend this book to anyone.



5. I meet Col. Frazier at the USS Alabama while coming home from vacation. I remembered him from "The War" series. Mt wife and I talked with him for 20 minutes and purchased 2 books. We gave one to my dad and he read it in 2 days. The other I am reading and am greating enjoying his story.
   His life after the war is very interesting.

4 comments about Wellington: The Iron Duke.

1. The book aims to be realistic - the fog of
   war is foggy indeed, and Wellington sometimes makes mistakes. The
   casualties at Waterloo are appalling, and the battle almost lost.
   Lt.-Col. Trant of "Sharpe's Rangers" fame actually appears, an excellent soldier but "the most drunken dog there ever was" in Wellington's words.

   Unusual is the emphasis on Wellington's Indian campaign and on the
   Peninsular War - the period of Sharpe's Rangers is the most important in
   the book. The Battle of Waterloo is treated as somewhat of an
   afterthought, as I suppose it was (if Nap had won it would have been a
   very different matter, of course). There are a number of good plates,
   including a daguerrotype of the Iron Duke himself in his mid-70s, looking
   buth shrewd and oddly sympathetic.




2. This is one of those books that once you take it up, you can't put it down!

   Its balanced treatment of Wellington the man, the military man and the politican, has meant that this is not just a book about Waterloo.

   One is left with the impression that Wellington was a great man, with equal weight given to his 'greatness' and his 'humanness'.

   Very readable and highly recommended.




3. Richard Holmes's "Wellington - The Iron Duke" is a well-written survey of the active life of the First Duke of Wellington. In just 300 pages, Holmes presents a balanced, even nuanced view of a man who was both the quintessential military professional and a complex human being. Through Holmes' efficient prose, we see Wellington as an extradinarily dedicated soldier who mastered his profession in ways few of his contemporaries did, yet who sometimes paid a price on campaign for his insistence on micromanaging his armies. Wellington comes across as a remarkably honest and duty-bound public servant; as a young man, he was also relentlessly ambitious, and as an older man, sensitive about his military reputation.
   
   Holmes provides some useful insights. He suggests that exhaustion and strain were responsible for Wellington's uncharacteristically poor performance at the Siege of Burgos in 1812. Holmes examines the academic dispute over Wellington's relationship with the Prussians during the Waterloo Campaign; he tellingly notes Wellington's responsibilities to his alliance partners and to the British Government and finds that he served both. Holmes acknowledges Wellington's extramaritial activities but resists the urge to obsess over them or to indulge in psycological speculation.
   
   Serious students of the Duke and of the Napoleonic Wars will find no new scholarship here; indeed, Holmes readily acknowledges his debt to earlier works such as Elizabeth Longford's exceptional biography and Jac Weller's battlefield narrative trilogy. Holmes has provided an accessible biography for the general reader, supported by well-chosen quotes from the Duke' contemporaries and by a nice selection of illustrations.
   
   This book is highly recommended to the general reader with an interest in the man and the era.



4. Richard Holmes is an eminent historian and a splendid TV presenter but, though I found his study of the great Duke of Wellington an enjoyable biography that I couldn't put down until it was finished, I also found myself being irritated on too many of the 303 pages (hardback edition) by mis-spellings and stylistic and punctuation inconsistencies. An example of the latter was the mixed and varying use of inverted commas (quote marks). My own preference is for the end of a phrase or a sentence to appear thus: '................... end,' or '..................... end.' Too often the style was thus '........................ end', or '........................... end'. Mr Holmes ought to have made up his mind which way his work was to appear or his editor ought to have been sacked!
   
   Another niggle was that the Duke's Hampshire home was named only once as 'Strathfieldsaye,' with '[sic]' to follow. Mr Holmes should have been aware that that was the original spelling and that 'Stratfield Saye' is the more modern name of the house and estate.
   
   I mustn't criticise too much, however, because I learned a lot from a very good book and I recommend it to other lovers of our British history and other admirers of one of the greatest and most courageous Britons ever to have been born.

No comments about Household Baggage: The Moving Life of a Military Wife (2nd Edition).

2 comments about Memoirs of a Revolutionary (Sightline Books).

1. 
   As I have noted in my review of Leon Trotsky's memoir My Life (click see all my reviews) today's public tastes dictate that political memoir writers expose the most intimate details of their private personal lives in the so-called public square. Here, as in Trotsky's memoir, Serge will offer up no such tantalizing details. These old time revolutionaries seem organically averse to including personal material that would distract from their political legacies. That is fine by me. After all that is why political people, the natural audience for this form of history narrative, appreciate such works. Contemporary political memoir writers take note.
   
   Serge was a militant from his youth. However the October 1917 Russian Revolution is the real start of his political maturation and wider political influence. I believe the reader will find the most useful information and Serge's most insightful political analysis dates from this period. Serge became a secondary Communist leader after the Bolshevik seizure of power and in various capacities, most notably as a journalist for the Communist international, witnessed many of the important events in and out of Russia in the 1920's and 1930's. Moreover, for a long period of time he was a key member of the Trotsky-led Left Opposition to the rise of Stalinism which formed in the Russian Communist Party and later in the Communist International in the 1920's. Serge eventually broke politically with Trotsky in the late 1930's over the class nature of the Soviet state and organizational differences on the role of the revolutionary party in the struggle and in power. Serge's later politics and activities are murky, somewhat disoriented and the subject of controversy (see the Appendix in Memoirs and my review of Serge's book Kronstadt). However, Serge's analysis and insights as a witness to this period of history retain their value, especially his analysis of the, for leftists, very troublesome Stalinist purges and terror campaigns of the 1930's.
   
   Thus, as with Trotsky's memoir, you will find a thoughtful political self-examination by a man trying to draw the lessons of the degeneration of the Russian Revolution, the subsequent defeats of the international working class movement, the devastating destruction of the fellow revolutionary cadre who made and administered the early Soviet state while still defending the gains of that revolution. Overshadowing these concerns is a constant personal struggle to maintain one's revolutionary integrity at all costs. That is, not to wind up like Bukharin or Zinoviev and the like, compromised and lost to the struggle for socialism. All this, moreover, and perhaps hardest of all still maintain a sense of revolutionary optimism for the future organization of human society.
   
   Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin once commented that in the run-up to the October Revolution the political whirlwind stirred up by that revolution inevitably brought those individuals and organizations looking for the resolution of the revolutionary dilemma into the Bolshevik orbit. This was most famously the case with Trotsky's Petersburg Inter-District organization that fused with the Bolsheviks in the fateful summer of 1917. That same whirlwind later drew in the best elements of the Western labor movement as word of the revolution reached the outside world. Previously, Serge had been close to the French anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist movement but as happens in great revolutions he, like other militant anarchists, was drawn to the reality of the Soviet experiment despite political differences over the question of the state. Despite this he, generally, like the non-Bolshevik militants served the revolution with distinction. Thus, this fateful political decision to cast his personal fate with the Russian Revolution led him to the series of political adventures and misadventures that enliven his memoir.
   
   At the beginning of the 21st century when socialist political programs are in decline it is hard to imagine the spirit that drove Serge to dedicate the better part of his life to the fight for a socialist society. However, at the beginning of the 20th century he represented only a slightly younger version of that revolutionary generation of Eastern Europeans and Russians exemplified by Lenin, Trotsky, Martov and Luxemburg who set out to change the history of the 20th century. It was as if the best and brightest of that generation were afraid, for better or worse, not to take part in the political struggles that would shape the modern world. Those same questions posed at the beginning of that century are still on the agenda for today's generation of militants to help resolve. This is one of your political textbooks. Read it.



2. There is not a better record of the Left Opposition to Stalinism available. A moving, sincere, exciting and interesting memoir of a largely forgotten political current of the first half of the twentieth century.

5 comments about Kit Carson's Autobiography (Bison Book).

1. Disclaimer: Kit Carson is my first cousin, five times removed! And that's why I read this book.

   It took a while to sink in, but the compelling feature about Kit's autobiography is the editing. There are extensive footnotes throughout that put Kit's text in historical perspective, point out errors in his memory, and round out the story.

   He describes his 16-year life as a Mountain Man in almost monosyllabic terms. In other words, he compresses a whole year into a single paragraph. A short paragraph!

   But it gets better when he has something to say about his scouting and Indian relations roles.

   Why does it explain it all? Because I have this wanderlust locked up inside me, and I've always wondered where it came from!




2. Kit Carson was a man of few words in life and in his own autobiography. It is unfortunate that such a dynamic individual didn't write down more! Quaife does a terrific job with the notes. Explaining everything that Carson failed to include. This is a common problem as, for example, Kit Carson will say something to the effect: Fought indians today, and Quaife will fill in all of the details about what tribe, how many, who was killed or wounded in both parties, etc. I am fascinated by how much detail is known of Carson's time. Very readable, my only complaint was that it was too short! The editor has included a nicely laid out index. I found the book well worth the purchase price! BTW, for those of you looking for information on William F. Drannon, he is not mentioned anywhere in Carson's autobiography.



3. Kit Carson was everywhere and did just about everything. I must agree with other reviewers and Milo Milton Quaife in his introduction, that because of Carson's nature, the book seems somewhat curtailed of descriptive events. What may have taken a few months to happen, Kit says it all in a paragraph. That aside, he came out west at the age of sixteen to become a mountain man. As time went by he was involved with trapping adventures, expeditions with Fremont, the Mexican War and as an Indian agent. Maybe it was a sign of the times, but Carson certainly does not hesitate to boast about how many Indians he killed during his day to day adventures. This may have been brought about by his upbringing as a young child. The settlers in his part of Missouri where he was living at the time had to "fort" themselves against the activities of hostile Indians. This may have carried on into adulthood. Nevertheless, this was a good book on an extraordinary and remarkable man of the early American west.



4. Excellent read Milo Milton Quaife did a nice job on filling many facts, the only problem I had was with Mr. Carson wish he would of writtn more. Good read on airline flight.



5. This is an interesting read for a history buff.
   Written by a friend from Carson's oral reminiscenses.

5 comments about George B. Mcclellan: The Young Napoleon.

1. I'd like to knock some sense into this little brat General.
   
   Lee rules Dixie! Long Live the South.



2. History and historians have, on the whole, not been very kind to Major General George B. McClellan. Lately a trend, or better, the beginning of a trend, can be discerned in Civil War historiography towards a kinder view of McClellan. I'm referring to books like: "McClellan's War" by professor Ethan S. Rafuse, the book on McClellan by professor Thomas Rowland and to the 3 books on the Army of the Potomac by Russell Beatie.
   All these books are very good and offer many valuable insights.
   
   Yet I remain convinced that the reputation of George B. McClellan is quite beyond saving and that that there is only one man who comes in for the lion's share of blame for this: George B. McClellan.
   
   On the plus side, and this has to be acknowledgded, McClellan never got near enough credit for his greatest achievement: he MADE the Army of the Potomac. He really did, and it was a magnificent job, considering the time he had to do it in.
   So often we read about McClellan: "oh well he was a great organizer, but a very bad general" but that -unfairly- belittles his tremendous skills in that respect. So more kudos to McClellan for that. It is very, very hard to organize, to build, to equip arm, feed and clothe an army, and then to train and drill it in preparation for it's deadly work. Then of course there was another task: he had to select it's leaders, from the senior command level on down. Don't think to lightly about this. McClellan did so superbly. He gave men like John Gibbon, George Meade, Henry Hunt, Rufus Ingalls, John Buford, Winfield Scott Hancock, John Sedgewick, Charles Griffin and Andrew Humphreys their first commands on brigade level.
   
   He should never have led it out to fight himself, though, his beloved Army of the Potomac. He was distinctly unqualified for that. I think that deep down inside of him, he was aware of this, read his correspondance (also compiled in a magnificent book by Stephen Sears, buy it!!!): his letters offer a case-study of a man plagued by insecurities, complexes and paranoia.
   
   mr. Sears comes down hard on McClellan, very hard. But the points he argues are correct: McClellan was singularly unfit to lead an army.
   Yet he was so boastful and arrogant that he put himself first and the Union war effort second, as is witnessed by his behaviour during the interlude in august 1862, when Major General John Pope commanded half of MacClellan's army aginst Lee. McClellan preferred to let Pope (who possessed as annoying a personality and as large an ego as McClellan) be beaten by Lee than come to his aid.
   
   By then Lincoln was don with him: he let McClellan lead the army for the Antietam campaign, in order to drive Lee from Mary land, but when McClellan again started whining and dragging his feet he fired him.
   "Alas, my poor country"McClellan wrote his wife after his removal from command. Alas indeed: the war was to last another two and a half years, while he could have ended it in one day, had he not so utterly mismanaged the battle of Antietam.
   That is McClellan's enduring bequest to his country: two and a half more years of war.
   
   What baffles me is this: why wasn't he brought to account for this in his own time??? Instead he was honoured, admired and even nominated for the Presidency in 1864!!!
   McClellan lost the 1864 election to Lincoln, thank God. Had he won the world would not have been the same: maybe America would still be split in two countries: the USA and the CSA, or the Civil War would have restarted and be contested with even more bitterness and more ruinous consequences for the nations after his presidential term, or even terms.
   Why he was not impeached, tried or court-martialled after his inept campaign in september and october 1862 is a question I ask myself. Surely others must have too?
   
   Lincoln should have made McClellan Quartermaster-General in Chief of the Union army and put him in charge of supply, armament, recruitment, equipment and training. That was what he was good at. He would have been the Union's Lazare Carnot: "the Organizer of Victory" of the French Revolution. There is litle doubt in my mind he would have done a very good job.
   
   A solid biography on this remarkable man. Well done Stephen W. Sears!!! Keep 'em coming.



3. Billed as neither an indictment nor an apologia, Sears makes it pretty plain that George B. McClellan was a failure as a military leader. Overly cautious, slow to act, seeing the worst in every situation, McC was probably his own worst enemy. It's easy to see why so many of the soldiers liked him, though: fighting with McC meant there was a good chance you wouldn't see much action and if you did it was with the utmost planning for the soldiers' safety and well-being. He always thought he was outnumbered by the enemy and let opportunities for victory slip quickly through his fingers. Sears makes the point that McC always planned his campaigns and battles as if facing an overwhelming enemy force, and in that regard they were superb plans. Unfortunately, that wasn't the way it was on the field. Antietam probably should have been McC's best chance to destroy Lee's army and perhaps end the war then and there, but he squandered every opportunity and left a third of his army in reserve. Even worse, and what surely makes the man detestable, was his tremendous ego and feelings of self-importance. Sears' biography covers McC's entire life, though 90% of it deals with the Civil War years. Well written and interesting.



4. Stephen W. Sears proves once again that he is a master of Civil War histories. A must ead for students of America's greatest conflect.



5. Has anyone of so much purported skill and promise failed so spectacularly at such a critical moment in American history as General George B. McClellan? If there is, I can't imagine who it would be. Douglas MacArthur comes to mind as a possible analogue (indeed, Harry Truman turned to Lincoln's dealing with McClellan for inspiration in dealing with MacArthur), but at least MacArthur ultimately prevailed in the Pacific in WWII and can at least point to Inchon as a moment of triumph.
   
   This biography is heralded as scrupulously balanced and fair. If so, few actors on such a large stage have had so few redeeming qualities, the fascist and communist dictators of the twentieth century included. The man that Stephen Sears describes is incorrigible - there is no other word for it. Sears paints a portrait of a fool. Several Union generals matched wits and nerve with Robert E. Lee and suffered humiliating defeat, but such men as Ambrose Burnside were, at least, self-aware. They recognized the enormity of their task, felt inadequate, but pressed ahead to the greatest of their ability to fulfill their duty. McClellan, as Sears portrays him, was delusional. His arrogance and conceit were colossal. As he stumbled from one miscue to the next - and the Lincoln administration fretted over how to prod their field general into action - McClellan was convinced that history would confirm his genius and place him in the pantheon of military greats. Not American military greats, mind you, but alongside the likes of Napoleon, Caesar, and Hannibal.
   
   The only positive things that Sears has to say about McClellan is that he was not disloyal to the Union (he was committed to seeing re-union as a precondition to peace with the South, but disagreed vehemently with the Emancipation Proclamation), he never intentionally contributed to the defeat of another Union general, such as Pope at Second Manassas, and he had a loving and tender relationship with his wife. Beyond that, this biography is essentially an indictment of McClellan's military conduct at the head of the Army of the Potomac and his character as a military officer and human being.
   
   What this biography fails to do is explain why so many people - from the front ranks of business, politics and the military - thought so highly of McClellan, so consistently and for so long. McClellan was one of the highest paid railroad executives in the country while in his early 30s. He received the vigorous patronage, as Sears describes it, of Jefferson Davis when he was secretary of war in the Pierce administration and Salmon Chase when he was secretary of the treasury in the Lincoln administration, but Sears never describes how or why those relationships developed or why those men had such confidence in McClellan. When the Civil War broke out, the governors of the three largest states in the Union - New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio - all turned to McClellan as their first pick to lead their state militias. McClellan clearly had the ability to impress intelligent and experienced men - the type of men one would expect to be good judges of talent and character - yet the reader gets no sense of this from the Sears biography. Moreover, for all of the failure and hardship endured by the Army of the Potomac while under McClellan's command, the rank-and-file largely remained loyal to the general, often enthusiastically so.
   
   Sears emphasizes several themes throughout the biography. First, McClellan had utter disdain for civilian control of the military and the performance of non-regulars in the army, an opinion that emerged during his early days of service in Mexico and that he carried, unaltered, through the Civil War and to his grave. Second, McClellan harbored a personal animus against his superior, Abraham Lincoln. He felt that Lincoln was his social and intellectual inferior (McClellan regularly referred to Lincoln as "the gorilla" in his correspondence with his wife), and resented the commander-in-chief's meddling in military matters. Third, Sears argues that McClellan was paralyzed by the unknown and unexpected. If a maneuver met with unanticipated resistance or a plan seemed to go awry, McClellan's impulse was to freeze and react to enemy movements. Sears frequently contrasts McClellan's timidity with Lee's flexibility in the face of regular surprises and setbacks. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Sears stresses how badly the Army of the Potomac intelligence apparatus, run by Allan Pinkerton, failed to understand the order of battle of the Confederate Army of Virginia. Throughout McClellan's tenure as commander, the general belief was that the Union troops were outnumbered by as much as two-to-one, when the reverse was usually the case. The catastrophic intelligence failure of the Union (and McClellan's eagerness to believe the inflated numbers) raises the question: if McClellan had accurate intelligence on Confederate numbers, would it have changed his behavior and battle plans? Sears never addresses that question directly, but one can anticipate his response: no, it wouldn't have changed anything.
   
   Political scientists Eliot Cohen and John Gooch argue in "Military Misfortunes" that readers should be suspicious of the "man-in-the-dock" explanation to failure on the battlefield. In short, large scale military failure is rarely the result of one man's actions (or inactions). Yet, it seems to me that McClellan has been squarely put in the dock by history for the failures of the Union forces on the Peninsula and for not destroying the Army of Virginia at Antietam after receiving Special Order 191. Is that fair? This biography suggests that the answer is "yes," but I'm not convinced. I'm no fan of McClellan, but there had to be more to this man than Sears conveys here.

4 comments about Beloved Bride: The of Stonewall Jackson to His Wife.

1. This is a wonderful little book and shows, believe it or not, the "tender" side of General Jackson. While the mere mention of Jackson's immortal sobriquet, "Stonewall," would strike fear in the hearts of Union Army commanders, his wife would one day write of, "...that tender and exquisite phase of his inner life." This book reveals Jackson as a "humble Christian and loving husband father" and bolsters the contention that Jackson is a worthy hero for men and boys today. Buy the book. (Rick Williams, author of "The Maxims of Robert E. Lee for Young Gentlemen.")



2. This book shows how kind and loving Stonewall Jackson was. It is quick reading and easy to understand. It shows you his devotion and shows you the true Stonewall and not the mean and tough person history books portray.



3. ~Beloved Bride: The Letters of Stonewall Jackson to His Wife~ is a compilation of love letters written by the great Confederate general to his beloved wife. Bill Potter and the Vision Forum have put together a remarkable compilation of letters of the great southern General Thomas Jonathan Jackson better known posthomously after the war as 'Stonewall' Jackson. These letters chronicle Jackson's courtship leading to his marriage with his beloved wife Anna Morrison Jackson as well as the turbulent wartorn years that follow. You really get a feel for the anguish of the soldier on the field-who longs to be at home with wife and child-but realizes he has a duty to country to fulfill. Stonewall stands out not only as a man of brilliant military genius, but as a man of dignity, honor and integrity. He was an accomplished West Point graduate and a renowned professor at VMI. Though he remained a humble and pious man with a deep abiding faith in the Gospel of Christ and a firm steadfast belief in the sovereignty of God. The editor Bill Potter does a remarkable job at offering a cursory background on Jackson and his character. He was an exemplary man of character who loved his wife Anna and his child very deeply. Sadly, he was accidently shot by his own men. But Jackson knew that all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to God's purposes (Romans 8:28). (FYI This was one of Jackson's favorite passages of Scripture.) The cover art features a photo shot from the recent blockbuster Gods and Generals of Stephen Lang who played Jackson. I also recommend _Christ in the Camp_, which is a story of religious revival and proclamation of the Gospel during the war between the states by the same publisher.



4. In Beloved Bride: The Letters of Stonewall Jackson to His Wife, Bill Potter presents some of Stonewall's letters to his wife, Anna, written during the war. These letters give a beautiful insight into the mind of the military hero. They show his deep love and respect for his wife, his country and his God.

   There are glimpses into their everyday life, as he discusses gardening, tithes, and his consent for one of their slaves to marry. He referrs to Anna as his "dove" or "beloved" or "esposa" and makes it clear that he dearly loves her.

   Very little is ever mentioned of the hardships of camplife or war. My guess is that he wished to shield her from that as much as possible. He continually encouraged her to put her faith in God for his protection and reminded her that his life was in God's hands.

   His letters show him as a gentle, though strong and steadfast, man, with great respect for others trying hard to live the Christian life. If he treated the troops under his command with the same respect that he seemed to show in all the other aspects of his life, it is no wonder they cheered when they saw him.

   Over all, this is a warm, uplifting read that gave me an even greater respect and admiration for Stonewall. It is a nice change to see the private life of a hero match his public life.

3 comments about The Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant, Vol. 2.

1. General Grant wrote this book while dying of throat cancer. He had been swindled by a dishonest Wall Street Broker and his trophies and possessions were stripped from him to satisfy the demands of his debtors. Bankrupt, suffering from a terminal illness and never passing a moment without acute pain, he produced this magnificent monument to his greatness. Those who denigrate Grant as a drunkard, butcher, bumbling President need to read this book in order to correct these errant assumptions. It is impossible to read this book and not realize that Grant was an inordinately intelligent man and one hell of a writer.

   Grant's Memoirs are a deserved classic in American literature and considered the greatest military Memoirs ever penned, exceeding Caesar's Commentaries. Grant wrote as he lived: with clear, concise statements, unembellished with trivialities or frivolities. The only "criticism" the reader might have is that Grant bent over backwards not to wound the feelings of people in the book. He takes swipes at Joe Hooker and Jeff Davis, but what he left unsaid would have been far more interesting. A compelling and logical reason why Grant was so spare in his comments was because he was involved in a race with death. He didn't know how long he could live and therefore, "cut to the chase."

   Grant's assessments of Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan and other military leaders are brilliant and engrossing. His style, like the man himself, was inimitable and couldn't be copied. In everyday life, Grant was a very funny man, who liked to listen to jokes and tell them himself. His sense of the absurd was acute. It's no accident that he loved Mark Twain and the two hitched together very well. Twain and Grant shared a similar sense of humor, and Grant's witicisms in the Memoirs are frequent, unexpected and welcome. There are portions where you will literally laugh out loud.

   Though Grant's Memoirs were written 113 years ago, they remain fresh, vibrant and an intensely good read. I have read them in! their entirity 30 times in my life and I never weary of the style and language that Grant employed. He was a military genius to be sure, but he was also a writer of supreme gifts, and these gifts shine through on every page of this testament to his greatness. All Americans should read this book and realize what we owe to Grant: he preserved the union with his decisive brilliance. In his honor, we should be eternally grateful.




2. General Grant wrote this book while dying of throat cancer. He had been swindled by a dishonest Wall Street Broker and his trophies and possessions were stripped from him to satisfy the demands of his debtors. Bankrupt, suffering from a terminal illness and never passing a moment without acute pain, he produced this magnificent monument to his greatness. Those who denigrate Grant as a drunkard, butcher or bumbling President need to read this book in order to correct these errant assumptions. It is impossible to read this book and not realize that Grant was an inordinately intelligent man and one hell of a writer.

   Grant's Memoirs are a deserved classic in American literature and considered the greatest military Memoirs ever penned, exceeding Caesar's Commentaries. Grant wrote as he lived: with clear, concise statements, unembellished with trivialities or frivolities. The only "criticism" the reader might have is that Grant bent over backwards not to wound the feelings of people in the book. He takes swipes at Joe Hooker and Jeff Davis, but what he left unsaid would have been far more interesting. A compelling and logical reason why Grant was so spare in his comments was because he was involved in a race with death. He didn't know how long he could live and therefore, "cut to the chase."

   Grant's assessments of Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan and other military leaders are brilliant and engrossing. His style, like the man himself, was inimitable and couldn't be copied. In everyday life, Grant was a very funny man, who liked to listen to jokes and tell them himself. His sense of the absurd was acute. It's no accident that he loved Mark Twain and the two hitched together very well. Twain and Grant shared a similar sense of humor, and Grant's witicisms in the Memoirs are frequent, unexpected and welcome. There are portions where you will literally laugh out loud.

   Though Grant's Memoirs were written 119 years ago, they remain fresh, vibrant and an intensely good read. I have read them many times in my life and I never weary of the style and language that Grant employed. He was a military genius to be sure, but he was also a writer of supreme gifts, and these gifts shine through on every page of this testament to his greatness. All Americans should read this book and realize what we owe to Grant: he preserved the union with his decisive brilliance. In his honor, we should be eternally grateful.




3. This book is a good subject for the Civil War buff that delves into the personal accounts of a general from birth to retirement. This a must companion for "Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant, Volume One."