5 comments about Pure Goldwater.

1. Let me state from the get go that I am a Senator Goldwater and President Reagan style Republican.
   
   What I think this books value is in 2008 is how it sheds alot of light on Senator Hillary Clinton who was a Goldwater girl as well as Senator John McCain who in his pre 2008 years was more Goldwater minded than most people know. But he has gone off course so badly and isnt the same open honest straight talking express man he once was.
   
   Also of interest to me was how Libertarian minded Senator Goldwater was and not the conservative Republican of recent years which is right wing Christian close minded mode. I say this as a Christian who is Goldwater mode.
   
   This is a book that anyone interested in sanity, smaller government, and Constitutional law should read. Sadly so many people probably see Goldwater as some right wing zealot. Thats President G. W. Bush, not Senator Goldwater.



2. What a Gem! Honest, thought-provoking, riveting and well-written. Pure Goldwater gives an insightful look at an important time in history. Entertaining and politically relevant during this election year. Conservatives will love it, and so will just about everyone else.



3. For those of us of a certain age, Barry Goldwater was the prickly candidate for president in 1964, whose "extremism in defense of liberty" speech turned away millions of voters. But Goldwater stayed around long after that and it's a good thing he did. "Pure Goldwater", a neatly arranged compilation of his journal entries (along with some letters and speeches) reveals a much more complex and attractive man than the public got to know more than a generation ago.
   
   The title of the book could not have been more appropriate. Here we see Senator Goldwater in all of his frankness, lambasting presidents with whom he worked, yet revelling in the love of his family, photography, flying and service to his country. In reading "Pure Goldwater" it's not hard to be in agreement with him on one page and subsequently want to wring his neck on the next. He seemed always to be on the cutting edge of the day's events, even when he was doing some of the "cutting", himself. It's fascinating to see him comment on every president from FDR to Clinton and there was much about most of them he didn't like.
   
   Much of the book centers around his relationship with Richard Nixon and the trials and tribulations of Watergate and perhaps the most intriguing part of the book follows his recollections on summing up Nixon's chances in the Senate for impeachment survival. I remember that day well and how it changed my mind about Senator Goldwater. Here was a true statesman rising to the occasion in a most difficult time in our nation's history.
   
   Barry Goldwater's seeming drift to the left regarding such issues as women's choice and gay rights no doubt sent shivers up and down the collective spines of his conservative colleagues. But Goldwater reasoned well and was always practical and this will be a big part of his legacy...a conservative man ahead of his time. "Pure Goldwater" is a pure joy to read and I commend John Dean and Barry Goldwater, Jr. for allowing us this terrific look at the senator...as told through his own words. I highly recommend it.



4. Pure Goldwater is just what the title indicates, vintage, pure Goldwater. How good it was to read about my conservative, political hero once again. This book was a delight to read. Sen. Goldwater's character, honesty, and leadership traits shine throughout the book. You always knew where the good Senator stood on issues - he didn't waffle; the book does an excellent job bringing his noble traits out. There were few people in the 1960's his equal, and even fewer today. In your heart you know he was right then, and he is just as right today. Bravo for such a great book. Pure Goldwater should be mandatory reading for US History students.



5. I live here in AZ and allot of things here are named after Goldwater. Some streets, buildings and foundations. And living here 12 years I know nothing about him! Only that he was a senator. My curiosity got the best of me and I ordered this book (audio book so I can listen on my way to work). And in finishing this book I feel I have a very intimate, honest, and broad look in to Goldwater's life. From the lil notes that he jotted down that were discovered, to whole letters written to and from the president!... It really shook me at the core, very raw stuff. Goldwater really had some simple and firm beliefs that once I was exposed to it (this book), I am now a firm believer. To go a step further, I considered myself a Democrat. After exposure to Goldwater's thoughts on many issues I realized how dead wrong I was on my stance as a Dem. I actually think now that I am a Republican or even a Libertarian (can't believe I just said that). More to the point, I'm a Goldwater believer now. To think, I almost cast my vote down the wrong path, & I am glad that I read this book in time for the election.

5 comments about Edith Kermit Roosevelt: Portrait of a First Lady (Modern Library Paperbacks).

1. I read this biography as a companion to "The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt" and "Theodore Rex" -- partly because I wanted a different perspective, and partly because I wanted to know what happened to Theodore after 1908 and volume III of his biography isn't likely to be out in the near future. In the end I am glad I read the book, and I learned a great deal more about President Roosevelt and his family -- but I think for the serious or dedicated history buff you must also read the aforementioned books to get a more detailed, nuanced view of the Roosevelts' life and the times in which they lived.

   Morris's writing varies markedly from section to section, perhaps due to inconsistent editing rather than her own writing.




2. Her lifelong romance with Theodore Roosevelt is certainly the stuff that films (or at the very least, TV movies) are made of. She never stopped loving the brilliant, bellicose, captivating, exasperating "boy" she had fallen in love with at a very young age. She helped mold him into a man. How two strong-willed persons of such opposing personalities thrived in such a successful marriage is even more reason why their story in film would be interesting. If Edith, certainly one of the most private historical figures in our country's history, had not the burned thousands of letters from her "Teedie"/Theodore (wishing to keep their lifetime of thoughts and passions to themselves), their romance might be up there with John and Abigail. TR also destroyed most of the letters from "Edie"/Edith because of Edith's constant pleading to him to do so.

   What has survived through thousands of letters that friends and relatives did not destory and through Edith's 40+ years of private diaries (left to her daughter Ethel) is a portrait of a iron-willed, intelligent, passionate lady who survived many family crises and lived through enough U.S. political history for a couple of high school textbooks.

   She was often the mother AND the father of her large household of children and pets as TR would often leave to go on hunting trips, safaris, and political campaigns. She ran the household in every area mostly because she had to get control of the family finances. (TR almost had to sell Sagamore Hill before he married Edith because he had lost so much of his inheritance in the Badlands. His older sister helped him get through some lean financial years.)

   But, she knew that he would always return to her bed and to no one else's. She often looked down at her sisters-in-law, nieces, and female friends who had married "safely" and did not have a passionate, romantic partnership such as the one she shared with TR. In many ways she was as contradictory in her beliefs as her husband. She was certainly Victorian in her moral strictures, yet one of her closest confidants and friends in the later White House years was the not-so-in-the-closet homosexual chief military aide to her husband (and this gentleman, Archibald Butt, would later help many of the Titanic's passengers to safety before he perished).

   One of the most poignant chapters in the book deals with the sons getting ready to go off to fight in the Great War. Quentin, her baby, is eighteen and falling in love with the daughter of one of the anti-Roosevelts, the Whitneys. Edith and TR are concerned with their son falling in love with one of the "plutocrat" Whitneys. However, once they meet Flora they fall in love with her and take her into their family as one of their own. Quentin has to leave the safe environs of Sagamore Hill and the Long Island air training centre and be shipped off to Europe. The elder Roosevelts try to get passports for themselves to travel with Flora so that Flora can marry Quentin in Europe. They can't get passports to travel overseas during the war. Quentin is shot down over France, and TR & Edith have to break the news to her at Sagamore Hill. Flora would remain close to some of the family members until she died many years later.

   In short, this is a detailed biography of a great lady, First Lady, wife, world traveler, mother, and grandmother. The vivid detail of the White House during TR's electric eight years at the head of the country is worth the price and time alone. The Kennedys and Camelot had nothing on the intellectual and artisic salon that the Roosevelts inspired and supported during their many years in Washington.




3. During a recent visit to Sagamore Hill on Long Island (the home of the Roosevelts), this book caught my eye because it gave a such a different perspective of Roosevelt history. Though I am now only about 3/4 of the way through, I cannot say that I am at all disappointed. It reads like a novel and is extremely well written. I cannot put it down. While it is true that there are other books which better cover the details of TR's colorful political career (Sylvia J. Morris's husband's books accomplish this) and even TR's earlier family history (try "Mornings on Horseback" by David McCullough for this), this book is must for those interested in the story of Edith and her remarkable family. Also, the story does have a great deal of romance and some poignancy -- particularly in the death of TR's first wife, Alice Lee, and his troubled relationship with his daughter, Alice's namesake. I agree with one of the other reviewer's -- Edith's story would make a marvelous motion picture.



4. Being an admirer of the Roosevelt family (Theodore and his kin), I was amazed at how I much this biography. The insight into her life, the little they know (from diaries and a few letters she did not burn) is amazing and her love for Theodore (and his love for her) is so incredibly romantic, showing intense it became over the years as opposed to just dying out.
   Edith was an amazing woman, probably the epitome of the First Lady, wife, mother and a woman in general. She stood by her husband, helping him along, while still standing for what she believed in and caring for her large family.
   It's an excellent read about an excellent woman.



5. I agree with the other reviews who say there should be a movie about Edith Roosevelt. I didn't know much about her at all but the biography was well written and very informative. Everything about her would make for a great movie. Edith was an intellegent woman and possibly one of the best first ladies we ever had. She seemed very well organized and very efficient whether she was running her family household or the White House staff. I highly recommend reading this biography.

5 comments about Nancy: A Portrait of My Years with Nancy Reagan.

1. If I wanted to read a biography about Michael Deaver I would have bought his autobiography. Extremely full of himself and his feelings, accomplishments, etc.... I felt it seriously lacked the biography part for Nancy. Although occassionally he would throw something in about her. I was very disappointed.



2. Although too young to vote for him in either election Ronald Reagon was one of the best presidents this nation ever had. The book "Nancy" opened my eyes in so many ways. No matter what she was always right by his side every step of the way! They had the kind of marriage and relationship that was and still is an example to us all. I remember it like it was yesterday....the day Ronald Reagon almost left us due to John Hinkley's bullet. This book shows just how much she loved the man and would do anything for her and he for her. I thank God for people like Ronald and Nancy Reagon. Although the book is called "Nancy" you'll learn quite a bit about the "gipper" as well!



3. Mike Deaver was able to explain the relationship that Nancy and Ronald Reagan had from an insiders view. So little was ever written about the private side of Nancy Reagan, and he captures some of those moments very well. It was a pleasure to read also about their relationship then and even now. The public knew that they stood by each other no matter what, but I think Mike took care of both of them. He was as concerned about the President as he was the First Lady. I'm so glad to have read this book about a truly beautiful married couple, written by someone who has known them for 30 some years.



4. forget. Nancy Reagan was so much more than a first lady...she was Ronnie's first lady and he always came first in her eyes.
   
   Deaver tells so much of her life, feelings, ardent admiration and deep love for her husband and an insight into the man himself..our President Reagan.
   
   It left me hungry for more and so I ordered A DIFFERENT DRUMMER from the same author. His style is so impressive in it's simplicity (do not take that the wrong way) that I read this book over a days' time. I liked the way he told all...the good and the bad and did not try to explain away anything about NANCY, but did explain some misconceptions.
   
   A marvelous, resiliant woman that any man would be proud to have as his wife, on his side and at his side. And we know now how she truly did protect and stand by her man. It was not political...just human and entirely focused on Nancy Reagan; the woman, the wife, the partner.
   
   Whatever tempted me to buy this book, which is not something I would normally read; I am grateful that I did for it was truly a wonderful experience and has opened a whole new genre for me and showed me another aspect of myself.



5. I sometimes remind myself of Mel Gibson's character, Jerry Fletcher, in the movie "Conspiracy Theory," who couldn't pass up a copy of "Catcher in the Rye" without buying it. But in my case, I can't seem to pass up a book about Ronald Reagan, his family, or his administration. By my count, this is the forty-sixth such book that I have read. Perhaps that's why I was so surprised to read in the "Booklist" blurb, above, that in this book "his [Deaver's] portrait [of Nancy Reagan] comes across mostly as stale rehash."
   
   Strangely enough, despite all the books which I have read before, I found this one to be like a breath of fresh air, a long overdue breath of fresh air. For it wasn't long ago that there was a cottage industry in the liberal media centers of America doggedly cranking out one negative story about Nancy Reagan after another. No matter what she did or how she did it; what she said, or even how she looked; she was reviled for it. Unlike Jacqueline Kennedy, who in the eyes of the media could do no wrong, Nancy could do no right.
   
   This book, then, struck me as truly refreshing and it made delightful reading. For, in it a long time close associate and friend revealed a side of Nancy Reagan that few have bothered to try and understand and which I had not seen before. Perhaps she simply tried too hard and loved too much. So, to all those who have written so disparagingly about Nancy over the years, I say: put down your spears, daggers, and pens, pack up your PCs and take a chance. Perhaps if you tried to understand the lady, you might have some second thoughts. To all others, I say: I think you'll enjoy reading this book. I did.

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.

No comments about The Life of Benjamin Franklin, Volume 1: Journalist, 1706-1730 (Life of Benjamin Franklin).

No comments about With a Flash of His Sword: The Writings of Major Holman S. Melcher 20th Maine Infantry.

5 comments about Allan Pinkerton: The First Private Eye.

1. This books encompasses all of Allan's PI's work. I had an enjoyable time reading it. It is a fasination subjet for me. I am considering of changing careers and going into the PI business.



2. Pinkerton Biography

   The story of Allan Pinkerton, a poor Scottish immigrant and former working-class radical who rose through the ranks of society to become the protector and confidant of presidents and tycoons is a quintessential American story that deserves such a thorough telling. This book was a fascinating read, and left me wishing that the author had delved more into the numerous early cases that were only hinted at in the text.

   The only serious criticism of this biography is the author appears to have gotten a little too close to his subject, which in several points has clouded his objectivity. This is apparent in the book's tendency to rush to Pinkerton's defense, particularly regarding the handling of the Molly Maguires and other labor disturbances of the late 19th century. A sweeping condemnation of the labor activists as "terrorists," or stressing the fact that they greatly outnumbered the Pinkerton operatives during violent strikes, are intended to make Pinkerton and his agents "the good guys" in the eyes of readers. This stance is questionable, however, considering the book's general lack of background information on the U.S. labor situation at this time. The author also neglects to explore how Pinkerton, a well-known Glasgow labor radical in his own youth, so readily sided with "other side" -- the titans of American industry -- later on in life.

   But overall this book is a good read and well-researched, especially the chapters concerning Pinkerton's early life in Scotland and his association with President Lincoln during the Civil War.




3. Mackay is as talanted a literary detective as Allan Pinkerton was as a criminal detective, written in a clear style that's a pleasure to read. It's a well balanced account, explaining the character's actions in the context of the times.
   Mackay's first surprise is that Allan Pinkerton wasn't born when most biographers say he was. From there he goes on to uncover the truth about Pinkerton's early career in Scotland, and the truth about a 'supposed' assasination plot against Lincoln before he took office. (The plot was independently confirmed by a political enemy of Pinkerton who had no motive to make Pinkerton look good--which convinced Lincoln the plot was real, and to follow Pinkerton's suggestions to foil it. Political enemies of Lincoln denied the existence of the plot to make Lincoln out to be a coward.) Before he finishes the Civil War period, Mackay has 'rehabilited' the often pilloried Union general McClellan (whom Pinkerton worked for) and divulged startling information uncovered in 1967 about the plot to assasinate Lincoln. This book is outstanding, a definite 'keeper'.



4. This biography of the inventor of the private investigation industry is not only a thrilling look at a fascinating man, it is also a fresh perspective on a slice of American history. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in mystery fiction or detective novels, as well as anyone who is looking for a history book that isn't boring. While it may well be a bit biased, the presentation is thought-provoking and makes me want to research the period of the late Civil War/early Reconstruction more thoroughly.
   Better than most fiction I've encountered lately, and definitely an overlooked gem.



5. As one who is both a American history buff and a lover of mystery, Private
   Eye novels- I was very drawn to this book.
   
   I am not familiar with the author James MacKay- he is very deep in his
   research and writing.
   
   If you can get through the first 2 chapters of the book, You'll find a
   very interesting novel.

1 comments about No Ordinary Women: Irish Female Activists in the Revolutionary Years 1900 - 1923.

1. I have yet to read the whole book, but what I have seen so far looks to be an exciting resource on a much neglected subject. The bios are excellent. I will critique the rest when I have a chance.

5 comments about Joseph E. Johnston: A Civil War Biography (Norton Paperback).

1. Joseph E. Johnston was my great-great grand uncle. This book has become required reading for everyone in my family, and I will have my children read it as well. Craig Symonds recounts Johnston's life accurately, and for this our family is proud. A must read for all people interested in the civil war, or the life of an old world general!



2. I like Joe! I really like Joe. And this is a great biography of the man. Too many folks bring all the world's troubles down on him. His was a rough role to play. I mean, he was head quartermaster in the US Army. That meant that caring for the soldier's welfare was first and foremost in his mind..hence the later Civil War cautiousness. Joe's cool. Don't be too hard on Joe. Read this book.



3. Whatever your opinion of Joseph Johnston, in my humble opinion, Craig Symonds has written a fabulous biography that is easy to read and seems to be fair in its treatment of Johnston.
   
   Symonds comprehensively covers several areas of Johnston's life:
   
   1. Early life in Virginia.
   2. Years at West Point.
   3. Service in Mexican War.
   4. Army service between the Mexican War and the Civil War.
   5. Civil War service - First Bull Run, early part of the Peninsula Campaign, Vicksburg, Atlanta Campaign, Bentonville, and surrender to Sherman.
   6. Relationships with various Civil War generals and politicians.
   7. Family life.
   8. Post-Civil War years and death.
   
   Symonds is fair and objective by pointing out Johnston's weaknesses (temper, sometimes a little touchy, prone to fight a defensive war), and his strengths (cared deeply for his troops, managed to win some battles while not suffering major defeats, ability to get along with Robert E. Lee, etc.). The writing style is fine and flows freely throughout the book.
   
   After reading this title and the biography of Patrick Cleburne, I have concluded that Symonds is one of the best Civil War biographers around.
   
   Read and enjoy the book and form your own opinion of one of the most controversial Civil War generals. Highly recommended!



4. During the Civil War, General Joseph Johnston was viewed as one of the South's three greatest Generals; today, he is essentially forgotten....he has exactly one monument [in Georgia], while Lee and Jackson have an untold number. And yet....he was never defeated on the field of battle...he won the first AND last major battles of the war...Generals Grant and Sherman each said that he was the toughest commander they faced [Lee said the same about McClellan; interesting]...maybe there was more to Joe than we realize....
   
   Like many Civil War officers, Joe Johnston was the child of a Revolutionary War officer, though he was raised with niether the vast wealth of Polk, or the crushing poverty that afflicted Lee. He followed a life pattern typical of the breed....West Point....service as an engineer. Joe resigned from the Army due to low pay and lack of promotion, but didn't stay out long....while a civilian engineer with a group of inexperienced troops in Florida, he saved the day when the unit was attacked by Seminoles. Distinguished service in Mexico....eventually he became Quartermaster General of the US Army; this fact was to cause profound problems later, as Joe was the only General Officer to follow the South. [His portrait hangs in the main auditorium at Ft. Lee, VA, along with all the other Quartermasters General].
   
   Joe Johnston could be a vain, difficult man; touchy about his dignity, he forever resented not being made the senior full General of the CSA [he was fourth]. He hated for his equals to call him "Joe", yet any of his soldiers was free to do so. The profound dislike of Joe Johnston and Jeff Davis for each other was a disaster for the South. Davis resented that Joe wouldn't communicate with him, and Joe knew that communicating a secret to the President's office was equivalent to printing it in a newspaper. After Joe was wounded at Seven Pines [Davis was properly supportive of his injured General], Lee took over the Army of Northern Virginia, and Joe was relegated to a series of assignments that involved cleaning up the messes of others...
   
   Johnston was a General loved by his troops...they knew he wouldn't waste their lives. He had the "common touch"...Symonds relates an incident where Joe jumps down in the mud to help free a stuck cannon...reminds me of the scene in "Patton" where Patton plays traffic cop, getting jeeps out of the mud. He was criticized as being too "defensive", and was replaced in command of the Army of Tennessee by John Bell Hood [whom I consider a great General]...US Grant later said that the South might have won the war by leaving Joe in place, as he would have simply outlasted the North's desire to fight. Sort of like the US in Viet Nam; we could have nuked the North Vietnamese into submission anytime, but.......
   
   After the war, Joe served one term in Congress [he headed the committee that cleared the name of Fitz John Porter], and was a US Railroad Commissioner. He and Davis continued to hate each other, and put their bile into print.
   
   Craig Symonds has written a superb book about a great man and General who still doesn't get the respect he deserves. This is the finest book about Joe, and one of the finest about any General. Yes, Robert E. Lee was a great man, and so was Jeff Davis...a series of tragic circumstances deprived the South of the full service of a great officer. It's time you knew....



5. Joseph Johnston was one of the top ranking generals in the Confederate Army (at the outset, he was one of the five top ranking Generals with others such as Robert E. Lee, Albert S. Johnston, and Samuel Cooper). He is also a controversial figure. His feud with President Jefferson Davis is legendary. He was viewed by many as too timid militarily, willing to give up space rather than fight hard. On the other hand, more friendly analysts have mentioned that, unlike Robert E. Lee, he understood the value of preserving as much of his army as possible, rather than being bled to death by sanguinary battles with the larger Union forces. In that, some see him as the "anti-Lee."
   
   This biography does a good job of describing Johnston's military career, the controversies that he engendered, his accomplishments and his failures.
   
   There were certainly high moments: his role at First Manassas (or Bull Run); his skillful retreat before William T. Sherman's much larger army as he fell back on Atlanta (although critics would argue that he was far too unwilling to engage Sherman); his pulling together shattered Confederate forces for a final confrontation with Sherman at the battle at Bentonville.
   
   There were low moments: his botched generalship at Seven Pines ranks pretty high.
   
   Then, the more ambiguous examples. Was his behavior at Vicksburg visionary (as he sought to save Pemberton's army rather than the redoubt at Vicksburg)? Or disastrous, as he refused to try to fight through the far superior Union forces to relieve Vicksburg during the siege? I think the case can be made that Johnston was far wiser than others in this campaign--but it is also clear that he may not have been vigorous enough in trying to realize his vision. Did he fail in his role as supervising general in the western theater? Or was his role crippled from the outset? Questions without clear answers.
   
   In the end, there is much ambiguity about his role in the Civil War. In retrospect, I think that he was one of the more capable Confederate generals and one of the few who understood that bloody conflicts against overwhelming Union forces was suicidal for the Confederate cause. But his prickliness and inability to work with the political directorate (headed by Davis) certainly undermined his efforts.
   
   At any rate, this is a sensitive and fair biography of one of the major military leaders of the Confederacy.

4 comments about The Campaigns Of General Nathan Bedford Forrest And Of Forrest's Cavalry.

1. The book was written for the most part by a contemporary of General Forrest's, himself a Confederate general. Nathan Bedford Forrest read the proofs, suggested some changes, and approved of the product. It is easily read and gives great insight into this greatest of all cavalry wizards.



2. A meticulous and detailed account of the military operations that Gen. Forrest was involved in, showing the skill he had in combat, and the man that he was. Also provides short insights into many of the men that served under him. At times, I wished there were more (and more detailed) maps, so that I could follow the movements of Forrest's Cavalry and their enemy more precisely. Provides fair treatment of analysis of both sides of the war, as well as some feelings and evidence that dispute some of the myth and legend surrounding Gen. Forrest. I would suggest re-reading the introduction after you finish reading the book, as it works as a good post-commentary. This book is excactly what I was looking for to learn about cavalry operations during the Civil War.



3. I have read many different books written by people that lived in the era of the War Between the States, and this one has to be one of the best that I have read on one of the most audacious leaders that came out of the war on either side. I THOROUGHLY enjoyed reading this book. There were plenty of maps, and since the book was written under the watchful care of Nathan himself from his notes during the war, I believe it is one of the most complete works of this nature. I highly recommend the book to anyone. It is not just another boring read!



4. This book delivers more details on the battles than what was available in Jack Hurst's book. It has little about Forrest's personal life (none after the war as it was written in 1866). At close to 700 pages it gets a little too detailed in places but is overall a very good book.