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.

5 comments about Edgar Allan Poe: His Life and Legacy.

1. I know a lot more about the life of Edgar Allan Poe after having read this book, and for that reason Iým glad I read it.
   
   Itýs not, however, the most flattering of biographies. It would be an exaggeration to call Jeffrey Meyerýs biography a hatchet job, but not much of one. You get the sense that the author wanted to take Poeýs reputation down a peg or two. He portrays the troubled writer as not much more than a hypocritical, back-stabbing, often insincere hack who had the good fortune of stumbling upon a few brilliant turns of phrase. I donýt doubt any of the factual information that Meyers provides about Poeýs life. I just question the authorýs intent in piling high so many unflattering details. After a while, you get to wondering why Meyers even bothered writing a three hundred page book about the man.

   I recommend this book to fans and scholars alike for the facts it provides about Poeýs life, but with a warning regarding the biographerýs unsympathetic and often harsh tone.




2. This book was great it shows all sides of Poe. I learned a lot about Edgar Allan Poe by reading this book. Anyone who wants to know anything about Poe should reasd thsi book. A great choice.



3. besides being a thorough biography on Poe this book describes his influence on American and European literature.I hadn't realized before how many writers were influenced by Poe's writings and consciously or subconsciouly tried to imitate him.The way that Poe liked to accuse authors of plagiarism he would have a field day on the authors both major and minor who "borrowed" his ideas and style.Some of these authors after criticizing Poe's work either are shown by the author this book as "copycats" or insignificants.The better authors however have given Poe his do and acknowledge that he broke the ground for a new style of literature more the "art for arts sake" type works.Also for his exploration into the deeper(and sometimes sinister) levels of the human psyche.This is a great book,from the descriptions of the cynical sneers from Poe's asymmetrical face to the strategic, boyish,vulnerable,charm he displayed at times.You'll be glad a person like Poe came along and glad that someone was able to tell his story the way this author has.In a side note it is comforting to know that from Poe's honorable military service that had he lived today he would qualify for assistance from the VA,and perhaps this would have alleviated alot of his suffering in regard to his family.



4. Edgar Allan Poe: His Life and Legacy is a biography that focuses both on Poe's personal life and his literary legacy. While it doesn't go into great detail about the writing process of Poe's tales and poems, the book does discuss in detail the impact that his work had on other authors of the time and in the future, such as Baudelaire and Arthur Conan Doyle. The book also discusses Poe's contribution to modern writing styles, such as the detective story and the adventure tale. When dealing with Poe's personal life, the author wrote about the negative as well as the positive in what seemed to be an attempt to present the facts about Poe's life and temperament in a sympathetic fashion - though the author does have a few obvious "What the hell was Poe thinking?!" moments when writing about Poe's self-destructive behavioral tendencies. Overall, I found the account to be a fascinating and enlightening read, and I highly recommend it for Poe fans who are curious about the man behind the tales.



5. This book was purchased because my 13-year old chose it for a book report. She learned about Edgar Allan Poe's early life, his parents, his wife, things he wrote, influences on his writings and lots of other things. She found it to be a little slow and tiresome at times but after all she is only 13. She should be writing this review instead of her mom.

2 comments about Winfield Scott: The Quest for Military Glory.

1. It's ironic that after 60 years, two biographies of Winfield Scott appeared almost simultaneously. John Eisenhower's Agent of Destinyattracted more attention, but Johnson's book is by far the more satisfying of the two. A professional historian, Johnson places Scott within the context of his time, giving the reader a better appreciation of the general and his place in 19th century American history. I read both books, and I have to say I was surpised to be disappointed with the Eisenhower book as much as I was. I liked his book on the Mexican-American War "So Far From God", but I think he overreached with this one. He focuses on the man, while Johnson focuses on the man and his times. In doing so, it gives a more complete and ultimately more satisfying account. Highly recommended!



2. This is a superlative bio of Scott, a man who spanned a considerable amount of time in the formulative years of the United States and its army. The events of the Civil War, and all its eccentric generals and characters have tended to overlook Scott, but his overall influence on the period can not be denied. Often eccentric, and certainly arrogant, Scott virtually created the modern US army. His regulations and drill manuels professionalized this nations army after its embarrassing and ameteur performance in the War of 1812. Scott, who fought prominently in that conflict at both Chipawa and Lundy's Lane drilled his brigade to a standard that no other American units reached in that war. He saw the need first hand to improve the army's standards and drill. Heavily influenced by French and European models, he standardized the US army and paved the ground for its development and vast improvement.

   Scott was a vain and arrogant individual, he was not called Old Fuss and Feathers for nothing. Found of gaudy uniforms, and pomp and ceremony these outward ego trips belied his inner genius. Many US Presidents disliked Scotts arrogance and his virtual control of the army. Scott in turn looked upon the likes of Jackson, Harrison and Tyler as the Dark Ages in American politics!

   Scott was an elitest, he was aristocratic in his outlook, and it is perhasps for this reason that he has often been overlooked in US History. To better understand the emergence of the US and the professionalism of its army, the need to understand Scott's contributions in that regard is paramount. The army he painstakingly created all through the first half of the 19th Century saw final fruition in the Mexican war of 1846. Here Scott's brilliant generalship and strategic outlook ensured his success against the Mexicans. The army he created not only could outmaneaver the enemy, but could outfight them as well. In every major action, the US Army inflicted two or three times the losses on the Mexicans, even while the latter were often defending in fixed positions. All the future greats of the Civil War, Grant, Lee, etc. acknowledged Scotts genius. The Mexican campaign was a model for all to follow. Sherman's march to the sea was certainly inspired by it. In order to have a greater undertanding of the Civil War, and antebellum American in general, we should not neglect the contributions of Winfield Scott.

   Timothy Johnson's biography is probably one of the most satisfying bios one can ever read. Unlike most bios it does not get bogged down with excessive details pertaining to an individuals life. Johnson keeps Scotts life and career moving at a comfortable pace, with ample time for reflection on the times he lived in. We see the great general in all his strengths and weaknesses. Johnson accomplishes this in a leisurely 240 odd pages, far more satisfying than many bios we encounter today which feel the need to be twice this length most of the time. In short, I cannot recommend this work highly enough for its depiction of the man, and the times he lived in.

5 comments about The Roosevelt Presence: The Life and Legacy of FDR.

1. If you are seeking a hatchet job on the greatest President of the 20th century, this is your cup of tea. Maney attempts to paint FDR with a black brush, but makes so many factual mistakes in his narrative, that his attempt is weak and ultimately pathetic. His gross lack of understanding about the causes of the Depression and the impending European crisis are almost laughable.

   FDR made mistakes in judgment (attempting to pack the Supreme Court), but he was the quintessential and perfect leader for this country in the midst of its greatest crisis of the past 100 years. Imagine Tom Dewey or Wilkie leading this nation against the Axis powers. Contemplate that one... if you dare!

   There are many outstanding examinations of Franklin Roosevelt and this is certainly not one of them. It's a polemic and poorly written attempt to diminish FDR's influence and greatness. It fails on all levels. The only people who would embrace this treatment would be the die-hard Roosevelt haters.




2. All ya'll been about misreviewing this book, but it was tight, yo! My man Maney gets scientific in his approach of talking about a cat nobody can touch, and he has the cojones to take a stand, and tell that s--t real. And none of you ever been to the Depression, so don't be even trying to talk about how he was wrong about it. Give Maney props, he gives an even-handed book telling of the many things, good and bad, or Franklin Roosevelt, our former president.



3. Despite its lack of heft, Patrick Maney has produced a wonderfully balanced and nuanced portrait of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Indeed, Maney's book may be the finest jumping off point for those looking to get acquainted with FDR in full bloom, and not just with the nostalgic, sometimes mawkish, remembrances of politicians.

   When it comes to FDR, far too many readers, including a number of other reviewers here, only want to hear about positive aspects: the New Deal, winning World War II, etc. As a professional historian, Maney is not in the business of producing such hagiographies. As such, what we have here is the cool judgment and dispassionate analysis of a writer who is constructing a narrative of the historical record; not someone who is cheerleading for a particular political persuasion. Those who want a softer and friendlier treatment of Roosevelt should look elsewhere.

   In addition to Roosevelt's many triumphs, Maney provides great detail about some of FDR's more negative aspects, such the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, or his near pathological secrecy that kept him from grooming a successor. Maney also lays bare Roosevelt's personal peccadilloes, such as his long-term affair with Lucy Mercer.

   In the end, Maney has done a fine job of presenting Roosevelt, and he should be commended.




4. Other reviewers have accurately noted that Maney both praises and criticizes Roosevelt. I based my purchase on this expectation of a balanced portrait. What they didn't note is that both the criticism and the praise are done from an extreme left perspective.

   Unlike most books written about FDR from the left, Maney does address some of the low points in Roosevelt's presidency. However, when doing so he at times goes into bizarre explanations/justifications which left me scratching my head. For example:

   1) Roosevelt's plunging the recovering economy back into depression in 1937 by deliberately shrinking the money supply and reducing government spending. Explanation: He only meant to slow down the growth of the economy, he couldn't have expected this to slow down the economy.
   2) Roosevelt's decision to imprison Japanese Americans in WWII against the advice of J. Edgar Hoover (no softie on security!). Explanation: It wasn't his fault, he was given bad advice by the people he appointed.
   3) Roosevelt's postwar plan to create a soviet style economic model in the US where the government could dictate which job any person had ("labor draft"), and guaranteed food, shelter, clothing, and recreation to all in return. Explanation: The fact that he didn't advocate the abolition of corporations and the total redistribution of all wealth shows that Roosevelt was becoming a moderate.

   I wouldn't have believed these examples (and others), had I not read the book! The other thing that surprised me were some of the horrifying things Roosevelt did which clearly didn't bother the author at all. For example, neither Roosevelt's attempt to "purge" the Democratic party of those he deemed not ideologically pure, nor his breaking the back of the supreme court in the infamous "court packing" case troubled the author.

   With all this said, the worst part of the book by far was the concluding chapter "Reputation and Legacies". This last rambling chapter bemoans the fact that President Carter could not have predicted from FDR's experience that restricting the national oil supply would create a recession. He drones on for several pages on this theme of how FDR let the world down by not having the foresight to give advice to future Democratic presidents. The final paragraph concludes with "There is much to admire about Roosevelt... yet as the experience of his successors helped confirm, his greatness was much too deeply rooted in the circumstances of his own times... Among presidents, alas, [FDR] was not a man for all seasons." While I'm not opposed to criticizing Roosevelt, this is as unfair as it is disappointing. How can we blame FDR for addressing the key issues during his presidency? At the same time, important topics like the legacy of Social Security, FDR's decision to give Stalin N. Korea, the complicity of members from the Roosevelt administration in bringing Mao to power in China (to name a few) are left undiscussed.




5. In The Roosevelt Presence, Maney does his best to justify and explain away issues relative to the New Deal, the Roosevelt administration, and various methods the Roosevelt administration created or implemented to solve various crises, chief among them economic difficulties in the `30s and war issues in the `40s. Maney clearly exposes his liberal, left-leaning stance by being critical of Roosevelt in certain areas but being supportive in other areas. As a historian, Maney should have presented the facts and let the reader decide. If Maney wanted to voice his opinion or other relevant personal position information, he should have included that in an introduction or in the endnotes. The fact that the University of California press published this book also speaks to the left-leaning position.

No comments about The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin: & Selections from His Other Writings (Modern Library).

No comments about Representative Americans: The Civil War Generation.

1 comments about "...the real war will never get in the books": Selections from Writers During the Civil War.

1. i thought it was full of interesting information and interesting facts not normally exposed in us history books...

3 comments about The Lees of Virginia: Seven Generations of an American Family.

1. This was a very enlightning book about the Lees history. Some very fascinating stories about the lees and their roots



2. "The Lees" tells the story of a remarkable American family from its establishment in Virginia to General Robert E. Lee. It gives us a glimpse into their lives and the stages on which they played.

   One theme which runs through the book was that this family had many failures. Although there were shining lights, such as Richard Henry Lee and Robert E. Lee, the more typical Lee was R.E. Lee's father, Gen. Lighthorse Harry Lee, who squandered his wealth, spent time in debtor's prison and ended his life in flight from his creditors.

   The two leading figures of the family are Richard Henry Lee and Robert E. Lee.

   Richard Henry was one of the leaders of the call for American Independence. As the sponsor of the Independence Resolution, he would have been a natural for the Committee to draft the Declaration. His opponents in the Virginia delegation blocked his appointment, insisting on the conservative Benjamin Harrison. Less conservative delegates blocked Harrison, with Thomas Jefferson being the compromise choice. Oh, how history could have been different! Richard Henry had a long and, on the balance, distinguished career during which he led the "Lee Party" consisting of himself, his brothers and other Lee relatives.

   The coverage of Robert E. Lee amounts to a biography lite, with an emphasis on his involvement in family matters. There are better sources to learn about him.

   Much of the book consists of quotations from letters and the provisions of wills of many people who would have never been mentioned in a book had they not been related to Richard Henry Lee and Robert E. Lee. This makes portions of the book rather boring.

   I picked up two ideas which emerged from this book. One is the tremendous importance of inheritance for the Lees. This may have been exaggerated because wills are documents which survive, but many people's destiny seems to have been dependent on the inheritance of a farm or a plantation. The other is that it seems that, but for a few government positions, few of them ever aspired to any job other than to manage their farms. This may reflect the nature of the economy and may also reflect the social limitations on their class.

   Overall this book has some merit. One could read biographies of Richard Henry Lee and Robert E. Lee and forget the rest, but then the reader would miss the story of how this family worked together over the centuries. Make you own choice.




3. This book is a fascinating look at a famous and influential family in a time and place I happen to find among the most interesting in all American history: Virginia from its founding until 1870. Within a few decades of the founding of Jamestown in 1607, the first Lee arrived in the Tidewater. For the next three centuries, more or less, the Lees were at or near the center of Virginia's -- and later America's -- history. For readers familiar only with Robert E. Lee, it may come as a shock to realize just how important his family was before and during the Revolution. But even for those for whom that's not a surprise, Paul Nagel's work is still richly rewarding.
   
   That's because "The Lees of Virginia" isn't really a composite biography of each individual member of the vast Lee family. Many of them do receive pretty thorough portraits, of course. But Nagel's main purpose is to chart the connections and relationships within the family, and to explore the influence of the family *as a* family.
   
   In so doing, he paints a fascinating picture of how characteristics and traits passed from generation to generation -- and how, just as importantly, subsequent generations learned from, and tried to do things differently than, their forebears. Perhaps the most interesting contrast here is between the erratic and debt-ridden "Light-Horse Harry" Lee and his son Robert Edward. R.E. Lee, in this analysis, comes across, frankly, as something of a moralistic prig, and one who more or less chained his daughters to their invalid mother's bedside. Nowadays, it's not uncommon to say about someone, "Well, he came from a messed-up family." I have more appreciation for Robert E. Lee's greatness, as well as his human failings, for seeing that he, too, came from a messed-up family.
   
   If I do have a complaint about this book, it might be that ending the narrative at R.E. Lee's death in 1870 seems a little arbitrary. Certainly, General Lee could be seen as the last truly great or influential member of the family. But as Nagel himself mentions, the General's sons and nephews continued to play relatively important roles in the history of Virginia, including service in Congress and as governor of the Commonwealth. Families wax and wane in their influence, as Nagel's book on the Adamses also proved. But I would have been willing to follow Nagel's reporting for another generation or two, just to see what happened.
   
   That aside, though, this is a fine book about an interesting family in interesting times. There are several members of the family I hope to find out more about -- especially Francis Lightfoot Lee, signer of the Declaration of Independence, whose relatively reclusive personality -- at least as contrasted to his more attention-seeking brothers -- was especially intriguing to me. I've always thought one sign of a good book is how much it makes you want to explore related topics, and "The Lees of Virginia" delivers in that regard too.

2 comments about Remembering Georgia's Confederates (Images of America).

1. Best collection of Georgians in their Confederate uniforms I have ever seen! The book features over 120 images of this type and another 100 or so of Georgians returning from the war. Very impressive!
   
   Good work for the younger reader who wants to know more about Georgia's Confederate heritage but also for the serious researcher.



2. Dr. Wiggins has assembled an outstanding collection of photographs, as well as commentaries on dozens and dozens of Confederate soldiers from totally unknown men of the ranks to well known subjects. Not only can the historian or reenactor gain much from the details of the uniforms and weapons but we all have the opportunity to look into the eyes of men long gone who marched off to a horrifically brutal war. Images of the men at reunions decades after the war show us old men who lived with the wounds, amputations and memories of what they had done in their youth. A remarkable book preserving these men for all time.
   
   Hugh T. Harrington
   author of: "Civil War Milledgeville, Tales From the Confederate Capital of Georgia," "Remembering Milledgeville, Historic Tales From Georgia's Antebellum Capital" and "More Milledgeville Memories."

4 comments about John Wilkes Booth: A Sister's Memoir.

1. To say that John Wilkes Booth was a fanatic would be like saying that Hitler had a personality disorder. An egomaniac, shallow, zealous, bordering on lunacy, Booth destroyed any hope that the South would have had for a peaceful reconstruction. Somehow, I get the feeling that had John Wilkes stayed with the theater, he would always be in the shadow of his brother Edwin. In a twist of irony, Booth was accosted by a drunk shortly before the assassination. The drunk commented; "You'll never be half the actor your father was" To which Booth replied, "There will be some fine acting tonight....when I leave the stage, I will be the most famous man in History..."



2. This memoir written by his sister was not a way of defining the man who shot Lincoln in front of a theatrical audience. She had a selective memory and dwelled almost totally on his Southern "background" as if that excused his impetuous deed. John W. Booth was supposed to abduct the president and transport him to Richmond, VA, where Jefferson Davis had his headquarters. His oration as he made his 'last moment of glory' at Ford's Theatre when he jumped from the balcony, "Sic Semper Tyrannis!" (Thus always with tyrants) is the motto of the Commonwealth of Virginia. "For doing what Brutus was honored for, what made William Tell a hero," he went down in the history books as an infamous loser.
   
   
   One of the conspirators, George Atzerodt was supposed to kidnap Vice President Andrew Johnson but reneged. Like Booth, he got drunk, but passed out instead of becoming violent. John W. Booth was born at home on a Maryland farm May 10, 1838, to a play-acting father and second wife. Edwin Forrest was one of the leading tragedians during the Civil War, no relation to N. B. J. Brutus Booth, the father, was deemed a great actor with keen stage prescence. He dared not hope to be as good, nor did he attempt to rival brother, Edwin. Each had his own following and dramatic flair. This book is just a part of the complex legacy of two leading men in American theatre.
   
   Sister Asia was not beautiful like John. She looked more like the older brother. Their father had acted for 44 years and died in 1852. The mother lived in New York at Edwin's house. It was said, in April 1863, "John plays not from stage rule as did his brothers Junius and Edwin, but from his soul -- inspired with genius. As a child, he liked Shakespeare, he thought Shakespeare, and like young Geoffrey Chaucer, he spoke Shakespeare. He loved music, especially sad ballads -- a man after my own heart.
   
   For over an hour on April 14, he drank whiskey and water at the Star Saloon. Around 10:15 p.m., he made the appearance of his life when he entered the Presidential box and shot Abraham Lincoln dead-on. As he made his dramatic escape, the spur on his right heel caught in the flag which was draped on the exterior, causing him to lose his balance. When he landed on his knees 11 1/2 feet below on the stage, a bone in his left leg was fractured two inches above the ankle. His ego showed in the tatoo (his own initials) on his right hand. At the time of his most famous stage appearance, he had a large fibroid tumor on the back of his neck.
   
   Edwin's career was harmed as the shame put the whole Booth family in hiding. Both brothers had commanding stage presence and rich, expressive voices. John was more handsome and excelled in romantic roles. Women swooned over him. Edwin was more classical (both played 'Hamlet,' however); his sad legacy was to beome known as "the brother of the man who killed Lincoln."
   
   Not a vestige of anything which had belonged to John W., according to his sister, remained after his death; his books of music even were stolen, seized and destroyed. There was a general destruction of papers and effects including all written or printed material found by the authorities in the family's possession. Any and all information contained in criticism, letters, playbills and theatrical records, was lost. Everything that bore his name, either about or by him was confiscated. A sad ending for a misguided young man who drank and thought too much.



3. Asia Frigga Booth Clarke was John Wilkes Booth's sister. In 1874 when she was six years into self-imposed exile in England and the pain of her brother's death as a consequence of his assassination of Lincoln was still fresh in her mind and the country's consciousness, Asia wrote down her recollections of their childhood mostly spent on a bucolic Maryland farm. Asia died in 1888; it was fifty years later in 1938 that her heirs published her memoir about her beloved brother entitled "The Unlocked Book". "A Sister's Memoir" is a modern revised version of the core material from the original edition that has been carefully annotated and edited by Professor Terry Alford to include additional family letters and insightful biographical information about Asia.
   
   John Wilkes Booth was adored by his family and he dearly loved them in return. Asia's story is a glimpse into the every day life of a very unique comfortable middle class family of the mid nineteenth century. It is intimate and poignant and in the end tragic and heart breaking on so many levels. One comes away with a better understanding of the complexity of John Wilkes' personality and the family dynamics that shaped his character. She reveals to us a person who possessed a keen intellect and was passionate and loyal to his family and friends. We see a loving person who was playful, cheerful and kind. Asia restores her brother's humanity that was forever stripped away on April 14, 1865. John Wilkes Booth was a fascinating person who has often been the victim of poorly researched, two-dimensional biographies from pens tinged by the historian's emotional response to Lincoln's assassination. Asia does not gloss over the painful ending of her brother's story. Her love for him makes it even more heart wrenching and the reader understands perhaps only a small measure of how much the Booth family suffered immensely afterward.
   
   Professor Alford presents Asia as a gifted poet and writer possessing intelligence and great sensitivity. She was deeply religious and spiritual but she essentially lived a sad life. She endured a difficult and failed marriage and great personal tragedy beyond the loss of her brother. Her dying wish was fulfilled when her children brought her home from England and laid her to rest beside her parents and the brother she loved so well. I think the most notable thing about "A Sister's Memoir" is that Asia speaks to us from her heart and shows us that love abides beyond all reckoning even through eternity.



4. For a compelling re-imagining of Booth's childhood from the perspective of his sister read Booth's Sister by Civil War scholar and storyteller Jane Singer. Now available from Bell Bridge Books.