5 comments about Lost Victories: The Military Genius of Stonewall Jackson.

1. To hear Bevin Alexander tell it, Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson was the only general in the Army of Northern Virginia who knew which end was up. All the others were incompetent.

   Further, not only was 'Stonewall' better than any of them, he had the infallible secret of Southern victory in his head. If only Lee and Davis had _listened_, he would have ended the war in 1862 or '63, with the Confederacy triumphant.

   These are strong claims. Does Alexander establish them? No.

   Alexander goes over Jackson's career in the Civil War Between the States, recounting what happened at various times and giving some of Jackson's ideas on how to fight and what targets to attack. He also claims that many of the ideas that are commonly asserted about Jackson are just wrong: e.g., that Jackson failed to perform during the Seven Days Battles. (Bevin gives evidence that it was A. P. Hill's impatience, and Lee's mistaken estimate of Union intentions that kept the Army of the Potomac from disaster).

   This is very interesting stuff, and earns the book three stars. I recommend it to all students of the War for Northern Independence of Southern Aggression. But he provides no arguments for his larger points.

   Alexander confuses his own visions with evidence. He'll present one of Jackson's ideas (invade Maryland, manuver north of Washington, cut the rail lines from the capital to Baltimore). Then he'll speculate about what would happen (Washington DC starves, loses the will to fight the war, and surrenders). Then he treats the speculation as a certainty. Repeat endlessly, and you have the substance of the book's claims.

   So this book is worth reading, but can't be taken too seriously.




2. To hear Bevin Alexander tell it, Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson was the only general in the Army of Northern Virginia who knew which end was up. All the others were incompetent.

   Further, not only was 'Stonewall' better than any of them, he had the infallible secret of Southern victory in his head. If only Lee and Davis had _listened_, he would have ended the war in 1862 or '63, with the Confederacy triumphant.

   These are strong claims. Does Alexander establish them? No.

   Alexander goes over Jackson's career in the Civil War Between the States, recounting what happened at various times and giving some of Jackson's ideas on how to fight and what targets to attack. He also claims that many of the ideas that are commonly asserted about Jackson are just wrong: e.g., that Jackson failed to perform during the Seven Days Battles. (Bevin gives evidence that it was A. P. Hill's impatience, and Lee's mistaken estimate of Union intentions that kept the Army of the Potomac from disaster).

   This is very interesting stuff, and earns the book three stars. I recommend it to all students of the War for Northern Independence of Southern Aggression. But he provides no arguments for his larger points.

   Alexander confuses his own visions with evidence. He'll present one of Jackson's ideas (invade Maryland, manuver north of Washington, cut the rail lines from the capital to Baltimore). Then he'll speculate about what would happen (Washington DC starves, loses the will to fight the war, and surrenders). Then he treats the speculation as a certainty. Repeat endlessly, and you have the substance of the book's claims.

   So this book is worth reading, but can't be taken too seriously.




3. This book clearly and accurately details the genius of Stonewall Jackson. Alexander's conclusions are not really all that mind-bending, and quite resonable when further examination is done. He is hard on Lee, but only as pertaining to Jackson. All-in-all, a book that is anything but conventional, but remarkable in it's logic.



4. In "Lost Victories" author Bevin Alexander advances the proposition that Stonewall Jackson was the only military genius who could have brought victory to the Confederacy, had his initiatives not been thwarted by the limited visions of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. The main idea is that Jackson saw that the only way the South could win was through a bold invasion of the North. He begins his story with descriptions as to how advances in arms, primarily in rifles and cannon, switched the advantage from the attack to the defense. The narrative then leads the reader through many of the major battles of Virginia and Maryland as it explains the troop movements for which the various generals were responsible. During the descriptions of the battles, Alexander points out the many mistakes made by leaders on both sides. Toward the end he argues that, had Jackson been at Gettysburg, it is likely that he would have prevented that battle from being fought and would have guided the fighting to land favorable more to the Southern cause.
   
   This book makes a good effort in establishing its point. It is well written, although, at times, it drifts into minutiae over which units were where it the line, etc. The reader is left with an appreciation for Jackson's admirable talents in the military arts. I tend to be suspicious of second guessers who tell us how much better things could have been done. Lee's actions are open to critical analysis while Jackson's dreams have not undergone the test of battle. Maybe Lee and Davis did blow it by not following Jackson's advice, but I remain unconvinced. I am glad, however, that I read Alexander's brief.



5. I find it downright amusing reading those who say this book unfairly criticizes the sacred Robert E. Lee. While Lee could inspire men, time after time he used the wrong strategy for what he had to work with.
   
   As it is brought out in the book, the Union had more than three times (4.6 million) possible soldiers than the South (just over a million). The best strategy would have been to avoid losses and offensive operations except when carefully chosen and destroy the union army as soon as possible. As shown in the book, time after time Lee wasted his soldiers in frontal assaults.
   
   Let's look a few of General Lee's disasters:
   Malvern Hill
   D.H. Hill wrote afterwards, "It wasn't war; it was murder." Lee's army suffered 5,355 casualties with a frontal assault versus 3,214 Union and nothing was accomplished.
   
   Gettysburg - Lee attacked a well-fortified and larger Union army again. He let Stewart leave him blind in enemy territory. Confederate Losses about 23,000 out of 72,000; Federal 23,000 out of 94,000. This includes the disastrous Pickett's Charge. From Wikipedia: Approximately 12,500 men in nine infantry brigades advanced over open fields for three quarters of a mile... with over 50% casualties.

1 comments about The Memoirs of Lt. Henry Timberlake: The Story of a Soldier, Adventurer, and Emissary to the Cherokees, 1756-1765.

1. I was amazed at the life of Mr. Timblake. If you wished to get insight into the Pre Revolution Era life, then Read this Book.

1 comments about An Honest Calling: The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln.

1. In An Honest Calling attorney Mark E. Steiner makes good use of his professional training and years spent in helping to compile Lincoln's legal papers.
   
   Study of Lincoln's law career has long been hampered by the scattered nature of Lincoln's court documents throughout Illinois and the Midwest. Now they are gathered together, and Steiner has made a fine presentation of what they reveal about Lincoln's "day job," which may have consumed as much of his time as politics did. Steiner deals with Lincoln's law practice in general and with some individual cases revealing Lincoln's handling of particular issues (including slavery and railroad corporations). Civil and criminal practices are covered.
   
   This is an excellent introduction to Lincoln's law practice, and will also interest persons seeking information about the influence of attorneys on the Western frontier.

5 comments about Autobiography of Malcolm X (4 Cassettes).

1. Every American should read this literature. It discusses America's most obvious flaw. More importantly it demonstrates the power of transformation, tolerance of self and of others, cooperation and the importance of hope.



2. An excellent unflinching book about Malcolm X read for my "Understanding Religious Traditions in Multicultural America" last spring. While at times unnerving to read due to its stark honesty, it was very illuminating. As a non-American, it really helped give me further insight into how powerful and tense race is of an issue in American culture. As someone born into a Muslim family, but is a closet agnostic, the perversions I felt Elijah Muhammad perpetuated made me severely uncomfortable anyway. Several parts of this book made me cry, or be wistful I could somehow have found peace in Islam as Malcolm X did.
   
   A very good book.



3. Despite the dispiriting revelation that this book was almost totally written by Alex Haley, "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" remains one of my favorite books. Which is a little strange, since his well-known struggles with civil rights, the police, Black identity, and Islam have little or no relevance to my life. Sorry.
   
   The part of this book that affects me most deeply is where Malcolm is in prison educating himself, studying on the floor of his cell in the dim night light. I can't think of another tale about the birth of an autodidact and the rewards of reading that is as uplifting and memorable as Malcolm's. I first read this book about twenty years ago, and that's the part that always sticks with me: the power of books to change your life, regardless of who you are or what you've done. And much of the rest sticks with me too, for example the poignant case of "West Indian Archie."
   
   I would like to advise, however, that you buy this edition: Autobiography of Malcolm X (Penguin Modern Classics), rather than the Ballantine edition, as the binding on the latter has proven unreliable, to say the least. I have gone through three different copies of the Ballantine edition of Malcolm X and the binding has fallen apart on all three of them -- to the point where the covers have come completely off, even though I don't really mistreat books. It can't just be bad luck.
   
   Malcolm X was said to have been a formidable debater, yet it's curious to me that none of his opponents ever made the obvious, unanswerable point: that whatever crimes and horrors the West can be charged with vis-à-vis the African slave trade, those of Islam have been even more extensive and blood-soaked. They go back a lot further, and continued a lot later. In fact, it was only two years previous to Malcolm's making his Hajj to Mecca (1964) that slavery was made illegal in Saudi Arabia!
   
   Hence jettisoning Christianity and Western culture for the supposed moral high ground of Islam was, when you think about it, a dingy move on Malcolm's part. Yet it is, unfortunately, the entirety of his position.
   
   But you'll find this book a cracking good read nonetheless.



4. I read this book along time ago and still retain alot of what I learned from it. There is no beating around the bush in this from the beginning he tells of his life as it happened. He tells of an early career in crime to his time in prison and he does not attempt to sugarcoat anything. He does explain his reasoning for having done what he had done in his youth, but he does not claim to be innocent.
   He did manage to find a better way to fight his enemies during his incarceration, and anyone who has ever seen any footage of Malcolm X will understand what I mean. The man was a very acticulate and confrontational speaker. He was the spark that ignited the engine of the civil rights movement in many respects. The civil rights movement began as far back as pre-civil war and was slow to develop with minor progress for each generation. Malcolm was the man brave enough to say enough and to make his voice heard over the many voices of the nation that tried to rise over him.
   Here is a man that took it upon himself to correct a society that had become accepting of the crimes of their ancestors and simply ignored them. It is only a stonesthrow back in time if you think about it and yet it is painful to imagine people could be so cruel.
   I recommend this to anyone who hasn't read it as it is an excellent book and is a document of the life of a man who managed to play a pivotal role in changing the way America viewed itself.



5. first off i want to thank malcolm x for his thoughts on race after visiting mecca.he saw that persons of all races got together to worship and were colorblind.i will see this man in heaven he saw past racism in america to be a great christian!also i would like to give a big F to public schools in america for not teaching everything about slavery and who was involved,for example it wasn't until i went to college to major in history that i learned the truth about slavery.the white man didn't just go to africa with a big gun and round up black people as slaves,they established trade with the local tribes who traded goods with tribal leaders who had their own slaves as spoils of war and traded them with the white man as just another trade good so the tribes that traded were africans tradeing off other africans to the white's.try to find this in high school history or elementary school history,not likely.it is true that some white slave owners treated slaves horribly and i'm sure african tribes even treated some of their slaves horribly also.wrong is wrong no matter what your skin looks like!slavery is wrong!racism is wrong!!!!! ! ! "everyone" should be able to live free and should be able to worship freely and have pride in their people without being called racist! i'm guilty of being white, i love my race,does this make me a racist! no i don't think so. LOVE,RED

5 comments about The Southern Haunting of Truman Capote.

1. This book is simply a rehash of information which has already been published. I am a big fan of Marie Rudisill's and loved FRUITCAKE and SOOK'S COOKBOOK. I advise she work on her own and not coauthor with Simmons again--her books with him just don't allow her wit and humanity to show through.



2. This book has so much detail in such few chapters. This story tells how Truman was first left to stay at Jenny's house..Also featuring the special tree house, the bone fence and the Sunday dinners. All these stories were wonderful. I've never read such interesting, real detail about Truman's life..this book is a must have for every Capote fan. Way to go Marie



3. This book has so much detail in such few chapters. This story tells how Truman was first left to stay at Jenny's house..Also featuring the special tree house, the bone fence and the Sunday dinners. All these stories were wonderful. I've never read such interesting, real detail about Truman's life..this book is a must have for every Capote fan. Way to go Marie



4. The reviews of this book vary widely from Capote fans that treasure every shred of information to those that feel the book recycles known information to others critical of the co-author. I am a Capote fan and do treasure information on Truman. The book is short but I found it well written and fascinating. The text also captures the Southern frame of mind so common among those raised in the South (as I was). In addition, the hardcover is an attractive book and will stay on my shelf for years to come. It has a high quality binding; the dust jacket and interior are handsome and well made. Given the price, not only is it a fine volume for Capote fans but it is a good value.



5. I REALLY LIKED THIS LITTLE BOOK BECAUSE THERES NOTHING LIKE READING ABOUT SOUTHERN PEOPLE AND SOUTHERN WAYS. IT WAS JUST A WONDERFUL LAID BACK MOOD. VERY RELAXING TO READ.

5 comments about Grant (Great Generals).

1. Mosier has done something few historians are willing to do- he compares the achievements of U.S. Grant with other great generals, namely Wellington and Napoleon. He also compares Grant's eye for strategy with later developments in American strategic doctrine. I.E., the notion of overwhelming an enemy's forces with eye to destruction as opposed to capturing territory are direct descendants of Grant's strategy to defeat the confederacy.
   
   Mosier spends to much time on Grant's early career and not enough for a curious reader on his leadership of all Union forces post 1864. All in all- this is a great introduction to a great general. Mosier often draws the ire of military historians for his methods and his desire to write about the things that people really want to learn about (namely, how does Grant compare across time as a general?)- to often historians are unwilling to make any such comparisons. This is a great intro to Grant.



2. Have to concur that the book abounds in factual errors and this is a shame because the overall approach and observations about Grant's genius are sound. Mosier dispels the myth that Grant was a dullard at West Point (not challenged enough) or a chronic alcoholic-- more likely an "episodic alcohol abuser" who had it under control by war. Other points: Casualties were as great, and often greater, in the Napoleonic Wars but armies were made up of the dregs of society and most of the dead weren't missed--harsh but probably some truth in that. So Grant wasn't a "butcher" but all strata of society was now represented even in the lower ranks and, coupled with a literate society and a lively press, deaths shook the nation, especially starting with Shiloh. Halleck comes off even worse than in most works: he set Grant up for Shiloh. Anyway, the novice really needs to get his facts elsewhere--and some decent maps--elsewhere but should eventually read this book.



3. I wish that I read these reviews before purchasing this book and hope that a few will save their dough by reading this. Not only is the book filled with basic factual errors it paints such a saintly figure of General Grant that one would suspect Mosier is related. From the author's perspective, Grant is not only a genius but his alchoholism and depression were actually assets! U.S. Grant was an excellent commander, far better on the offense than on the defense but Mosier's treatment would lead one to believe that he won the war single handedly. Again, I urge you to save your time and money, and find a good copy of Grant's Memoirs.



4. In my humble opinion, while Mosier has written a book with interesting insights and conclusions about Grant's ability as a general, I feel that he got too much into analysis of his personality and why he did what he did. I say this because at the beginning of the book, Mosier admits that he does not have much information on Grant the man. So why draw all of these conclusions if you do not know much of the man's personality? Why not just instead analyze his successes and failures?
   
   Another point of contention I have are the lack of good maps. While Mosier does have some good descriptions of Grant's campaigns, there are not nearly enough maps to detail his Civil War movements.
   
   Granted, while I am a lifelong Civil War buff, I am by no means and expert on the period. However, I do believe readers will get more out of reading other titles on Grant, specficially: "Grant" by Jean Smith, "Grant and Lee" by JFC Fuller, or the titles by Bruce Catton (Grant Moves South, Grant Takes Command).
   
   Complaints aside, I do believe that Mosier has written a book that will challenge the reader to further assess Grant's ability as a general and president.



5. I admire Washington, Lincoln and Grant. While the former two have garnered numerous accolades, Grant has been unjustifiably denigrated personally (alcoholic, fool, depressed) and professionally (butcher). His presidency has been unappreciated. Mosier makes a persuasive case that General Grant was probably a genius. In the final chapter, he briefly discusses Grant's undervalued presidency. I would highly recommend two other brief succinct biographies one by Korda and another by Bunting both of which explore Grant's presidency.
   
   Mosier dispels many Grant myths. He was not an alcoholic in a medical sense. He was self-taught in algebra. He entered West Point which was one of the best educational institutions in the world. West Point entrance examination had a 50% failure rate. He graduated 21st in a class of 39 but 40 of them failed to graduate so he was in the top 25%. He was a good artist with a great 3-D vision which was essential for a commander during battle. He was a great horseman.
   In the Mexican war, Grant was a quartermaster who demonstrated tremendous skill in logistics. This experience was vital when he commanded the Union armies and he made sure his men got enough ammunition, food etc. He displayed tremendous personal courage during the Mexican war (riding away to get ammunition) and ingenuity (dragging cannon to a church steeple).
   
   Mosier compares U.S. Grant favorably with other great generals, namely Wellington, Napoleon and Foch. He finds Grant to be superior all of them. Without him, the North would have lost the war. Grant never lost a battle. Mosier defends Grant against charges of butchery by comparing Civil War casualties with those suffered by the British and French in World War I. Robert E. Lee said, "I have carefully searched the military records of ancient and modern history, and have never found Grant's superior as a general". Grant's magnanimity in victory is still an American tradition.
   
   The book contains some historical errors which other reviewers have pointed out and I will not belabor here. This prevents me from awarding 5 stars. I am happy to find a book that appreciates this good, decent, honest everyman, great general and undervalued president.

1 comments about Fighting with Jeb Stuart: Major James Breathed and the Confederate Horse Artillery.

1. There have been many stories written about the Amcerican Civil War. But I've seen few written about the artillery, and to my knowledge none at all about the Horse Artillery that served with and went with the cavalry. This alone would make this book a welcome addition to a Civil War library.
   
   Wars are fought by young men. Still it is a surprise to read when a 'kid' of only twenty-one becomes an officer, and shortly thereafter is a Major.
   
   Major Breathed was already a physician when he joined the Confederate Army. He served all through the war, not as a physician but as a combat leader. He was in almost all the significant battles in the Eastern Theater. This reports on an aspect of the war that is little known.
   
   The book is extensively researched and well written. It reads well yet is full of detail that fills in the story in a most interesting way.

5 comments about Three Months in the Southern States: April-June 1863.

1. Lieut. -Col. Arthur Fremantle has not given us in this work a tired and boring look at strategy and tactics. He has also not told us anything new about the leading men of the Confederacy. What the reader will get is an excellent look at day to day life in the Confederate army and in the southern nation itself.

   The lack of tactical detail could result from the fact that Fremantle, although a career military man had never seen combat until Gettysburg. It could also result from his desire to avoid aiding the north by giving away secrets while the war was still in progress. There are, after all, instances in the book where Fremantle makes it clear that he is not writing about all he saw for that very reason. Whatever the reason, I'm happy he left out the tactics for it would have only slowed down a marvelous account of Fremantle's trip through the Confederacy.

   It is obvious early on that Fremantle is very taken with the south and some of his stories about happy slaves might reflect a bit of propaganda. Overall however, his stories of individual behavior are more than credible and drive home the point that this war was affecting the lives of real people, not historical figures. The stories of hotel keepers in northern territory that were hesitant to let him have a room until he produced gold coin for payment, the slave of a Confederate officer leading a Yankee prisoner by a rope tied around the poor prisoner's neck, and the several stories of southern women being far more antagonistic toward the north than were the men, all help bring the human side of the civil war to life. Reading Fremantle's account of General Lee's behavior as his broken troops returned to Seminary Ridge after the disaster now called Pickett's charge almost makes the reader feel as if they were there.

   Read this book with a small grain of salt, remembering that Fremantle is writing this book in England while the war is still in progress. His anti-Irish bias kept getting under my skin but as with the rest of the book, you must keep in mind who is writing the narrative and when it was written. Overall however, I think the reader will find that Fremantle's observations are both entertaining and enlightening.




2. Freemantle offers us a interesting look as if opening a time capsule of information in 1863. Freemantle enters Texas and his journey starts there. Soon he discovers how soldiers and civilians of the south live and handle the hardships of war. Freemantle meets many popular Southern leaders such as Johnston, Davis, Lee, Longstreet during his travels. He is very fortunate to give us interesting views of the people involved in hardships and conflicts in various cities of the south such as Jackson, Vicksburg, Richmond, Winchester and others. His information certainly documents the timeline. I was most interested in reading about his Gettysburg exploits as he has become more famous in modern times most likely due to the movie, "Gettysburg" in which he presented. I was curious to read about his opinion and eye witness accounts which helped support explanations regarding the Battle of Gettysburg. Freemantle doesn't involve himself in many details of battles or conflicts. He likes to write about people and share his opinion of them. After Gettysburg Freemantle travels north to board the ship China which will take him back home to England. In doing this we are offered more interesting commentary as he writes about northern views and how northerners are coping with the draft, slavery and the war. Overall this is a quick book to read although it is vital for any historian looking to understand people and places during the early summer of 1863. I recommend it!



3. Succinct yet powerful, this volume is a treasure trove of information. The personal observations of Colonel Arthur J.L. Fremantle of His Majesty's Coldstream Guards, this volume covers his travels and experiences as a British Army observer from his landing at Matamoras, Mexico up to and including his observations at the Battle of Gettysburg. Fremantle is extremely observant. This short, quick read describes conditions, thoughts and attitudes in the South during the spring and summer of 1863. It is surprisingly well written. Colonel Fremantle had an eye for detail that is second to none.



4. After reading this book, I can only conclude this guy must have been in the pay of the Confederates in one way or another, or of someone else who wanted to help promote their cause in Europe or at least in the UK. Who paid for his trip anyway? Perhaps the historians out there can enlighten me. This is the only explanation, as I can see it, for how he can misread the direction the war was taking so badly (willfully?) when he had in some cases first hand experiences of the events (Gettysburg) and evidently direct access to the main decision makers. The way he accepts the southerners explanations that some slaves might have been beaten, but only by "Northern born" owners is frankly a joke, as is the repeated emphasis on how culturally connected the "gentlemen" leading the Confederate cause are to UK aristos. The disappointing introduction doesn't address these - and the many other issues his diary raises - at all adequately. Fremantle is poorly understood - there's more to this guy and his three month mission than is picked up here.
   
   I am surprised by all the four and five star reviews that describe this as a must read and yet arrive at the same conclusions about where this book is weakest.
   
   That said, I'm in a quandry over the number of stars to give it - it's entertaining but see it as a piece of spin rather than the account of a super source.



5. A quick but pleasant read, I struggled to lay it down. In nearly fifty years of studying the War Between the States, I had seen Fremantle quoted many times, but had never read his actual work.
   Picked it up in a book store, read until closing time, did not want to quit, had to finish it later.
   Never mind biased haters who detest anything positive about the South. If you want to read first hand what the leaders, people and attitudes of the Confederacy were like, this is a fine source. Remember, this was written by an English army officer, who was on leave, and had come to observe the war.
   And like all of Gods children, he has his prejudices. But is in the end, I feel, as fair and honest as he can be, except to the Irish.
   Interesting prose, filled with facts and humor. I recommend this to any student of American history.

2 comments about One of the Most Daring of Men: The Life of Confederate General William Tatum Wofford (Journal of Confederate History Series).

1. " This biography offers a provocative study of one of Georgia's truly great sons, an appraisal which is long overdue."



2. " Needless to say, it has happened again with John McGlone's excellent Civil War series. ONE OF THE MOST DARING OF MEN by Gerald J.Smith tells the life of Confederate General William Tatum Wofford. ... It is an outstanding work... if you like the Civil War period in this nation's history, you just can't get them any better."Damon Veech,TIMES-PICAYUNE,July,1997

5 comments about Give Your Heart to the Hawks: A Tribute to the Mountain Men.

1. Winfred Blevins' `Give Your Heart to the Hawks' is exactly what its sub title claims - a tribute to the Mountain Men. It is neither a historical novel nor a pure history. Rather, it is accurate history, albeit with Blevins' interpretation of the thoughts and emotions that the mountain men were experiencing during some of their most dangerous and daring exploits added. This technique removes the book from the roles of strict history, but works well in creating the tribute that the author intended, for his goal was not simply to chronicle the bones of their history, but to bring to life their wild and free existence and allow the reader to enter into the spirit of the mountain man's life.
   Blevins does not attempt a comprehensive account of the mountain men. Some are covered extensively, like John Colter, the prototype mountain man, Jim Bridger, and Jed Smith, the most atypical and perhaps greatest of the mountain men. Others, like Old Bill Williams, Joe Walker, and Kit Carson are barely covered or mentioned only in passing. Blevins does not cover the mountain men of the southwest at all. Instead, he illuminates his chosen subjects in depth, choosing to fully explore the life that the mountain men lived rather than broadly covering the entire scope of their collective history.
   To recreate the wild drama of the mountain man's life, Blevins tells some of the most thrilling tales of the era, like John Colter's desperate naked run from Indian braves pursuing him for sport, Hugh Glass' amazing solo trek through 300 miles of wilderness without weapons or any tools for survival after being left for dead when mauled by a grizzly, or Jed Smith's daring crossings of the desert and mountains to find a land route to California. He writes of these men, "Any man who survived for several years as a trapper, taking responsibility for his own survival alone in the wilds, had been schooled thoroughly by the Rocky Mountains. ...He had graduated from Rocky Mountain College, a pragmatic university that gave no degrees, but flunked men into their graves." Between the various stories of specific mountain men, he includes interludes that detail important aspects of their life and trade - trapping, yarning, rendezvous, buffalo - cuisine premiere, mountain craft, mountain mating, and trappers and Indians are a few of the interesting subjects of mountain life dealt with in these interludes. He also includes a few colorful accounts written by the rare, literate mountain man detailing their unique life. He succeeds admirably in breathing life into this too often neglected period of amazing individuals who blazed the way for the westward expansion of the American nation.
   While Blevins' writing is not always stellar, he manages to create an effective and stirring tribute to the wild individuals who chose to live free in the Rocky Mountains. No one who is interested in the period should miss it. Both students of the period of the mountain men and fur trade and those looking for a good introduction to the subject will find `Give Your Heart to the Hawks' a fascinating and rewarding reading experience.
   
   Theo Logos



2. Never have so few lived such adventurous lives! During the era of the Mountain Men, lasting from 1806 to 1843, a few hundred Americans trapped or traded for beaver in the Rocky Mountains. Blevins tells the romantic story of some of these men, especially those who made their living around the northern Rockies in Wyoming, Utah, and Montana.
   
   The famous stories about the Mountain Men are told here: John Colter's run, Hugh Glass's encounter with a grizzly, Jedediah Smith's long overland journeys to California, the peregrinations of Jim Bridger. The lives, customs, and tortured language of the Mountain Men, including the debauchery of rendevous and the joys of Indian women and gorging on buffalo meat are well described. The author celebrates the Mountain Men and if you're not familar with the era and its heroes this is a good place to start -- although with the understanding that you're not getting the whole story. The fur trappers of the Southwest, including Ewing Young and Kit Carson, are scarcely mentioned. Nor do the British competitors of the Americans receive their due. But the untamed West in all its pristine glory is well-described in "Give your Heart to the Hawks."
   
   From the vast literaturee about the Mountain Men. "Across the Wide Missouri" by Bernard DeVoto is probably the (difficult and irritating) classic of the genre.
   
   Smallchief



3. This book is much more than just a history of the fur trade and mountain men. In fact, if you read the Preface, Win states that he wishes to portray the thoughts, feelings, and actions of the mountain men from a subjective point of view. He accomplishes the task. It's a wonderful read about the mountain men (not ALL of the mountain men but a select, representative few) and their lives. You may ask, how accurate is his subjective view. The answer lies in the fact that Win is well researched in the lives of the mountain man, well learned in the mountain ways, and skilled enough to give these historical figures a heartbeat. As mentioned before, the number of mountain men chronicled in this book is limited. So, if you are looking for a good primer on individual mountain men, then maybe "The Mountain Men" by Laycock would be a better place to start. Otherwise, this is an excellent book and not as dry as some of the books on individual mountain men.



4. I highly recommend this book very authentic, but entertaining, enthralling and compelling. My advice is to get the paperback, and mark it up as you go thru, as you will want to return to it often for reference or refreshing.



5. It's often said that a good writer makes his characters seem real, but this is more of a book about 'real characters.' It's as if the author was an adoring tag-along, describing the misogynistic adventures of these mountain men with not much consideration for the humanity of the victims. These adventurers also set the stage for wholesale slaughter of Native peoples as a way to get the land they lived on. I don't think it serves the author or his readers to ignore humanity when you're saluting heroes.