5 comments about A Nearly Normal Life.

1. I don't write many reviews anymore, who has time? However, this book stood out so much above the rest I've read lately that I just had to share. The book is about a polio survivor, the 50's, the discovery of the vaccine and oh so much more. It's about living the life you were handed, not the want you thought you were going to get.

   His epilogue is pure poetry. An example: "Life continues to change. New things surface; old wounds hidden by bigger wounds show up when the bigger wounds are healed; new clusters of misgivings and confusion take shape to replace old clusters of exhausted adjustments. New things come along to be accepted with grace and peace. The disability and its challenges continue to evolve, and one must achieve acceptance and grace and peace again and again, day after day."

   I highly recommend this book to everyone. I read about 5 books a week and this book is in my top 20 of all time.




2. From long experience with this area, Mee's accounts both of the era of his youth and the experiences of polio ring very true from the pen of an accomplished writer. One senses that Mee never really made peace with his disability and its impact, inasmuch as he was able to evade, compensate, head into intellectual endeavors, etc., so there are many polio/disability issues not well dealt with here. (Significantly it ends with his finding an oasis in the intellectual world of the Ivy League and the intellect.) However, one has to suspect that the decision to tell the story, with insight and honesty, may represent at long last a step in addressing what he may have hoped at one time to simply "leave behind." Perhaps there will be a sequel in which his historical training and writing skills are again focused on the complex interrelationships between disability, psyche and society. This is a good read, though, even if it is not the full story.



3. For those interested in understanding the impact of polio, this is the definitive source. No one tells the story like Charles Mee. The depth of his insights are stunning. He makes a powerful comment on the human condition. This book is a MUST READ.



4. In 1953, when he was a robust 14-year-old, Charles L. Mee was stricken with viral polio. This memoir describes his struggle with polio, and also comments on the treatments (sometimes horrific) that were tried to beat this virus that, in 1953 alone, struck over 50,000 people. His struggle was not an easy one, and his later life wasn't either, but he comes to terms with his limitations, becoming a successful historian and playright. It's a real eye-opener, and he doesn't mince words, which makes for a compelling read.



5. I think if the author hadn't written his memoir in such a vain way--it would have been better??

2 comments about Chief of Staff: Lyndon Johnson and His Presidency.

1. Who would have thought there's such a thing as a book on politics you can't put down? Marvin Watson's Chief of Staff is quite simply one of the best two or three nonfiction books I've read this millennium. Fascinating from start to finish, the book makes presidential politics come alive, vivid even for the politically uninitiated.



2. Once while visiting Alaska with my family, we saw coming out of a bar a young woman in a peasant blouse who was extremely well endowed above her waist. Later, I asked my five-year-old son what he thought about the woman. "Dad," he said, "those things were so big my little eyes couldn't even see them all."
   Lyndon Johnson also was so big most eyes could not see all of him. But, Marvin Watson had as close a look as anyone outside Lady Bird and the girls.
   But therein may be the only problem with this story -- discretion in telling all as long as Lady Bird is alive. Had I been in Watson's position, I also would not want to reveal what many would relish in a true tell all.
   Nevertheless, you'll get your money's worth for the time Watson faithfully served his big boss in the power center of the world.

2 comments about Custer And His Wolverines: The Michigan Cavalry Brigade, 1861-1865.

1. The Michigan Cavalry Brigade achieved its' greatest triumphs under the command of George Armstrong Custer. The troops were greatly disappointed when he eventually moved on to higher command. Under his impetuous leadership the Brigade gained respect for the Union Cavalry and its' famous red ties, emulating Custer, were a badge of pride and honor. Books by members of the Michigan brigade make it clear that the youthful Custer was greatly respected by his troops. The book is a useful tome describing the times and experiences of this unit. Like most Civil War books it bypasses the hardships, disease and despondency of the troops in favor of describing the battle related history. The book is worthwhile reading for students of the war, cavalry and Custer.



2. As a history of the Michigan Brigade and its famous commander, this is a worthwhile addition to the library of Civil War and military history enthusiasts. It is well-written, engaging, and makes solid use of primary sources. Coverage of the formation of and early service of the various regiments is quite good.
   My only two serious complaints are: Inadequate maps - a real flaw for a military history; A terrible index - undoubtedly not the author's fault, but the index is useless in that the vast majority of people, places and events described in the text are nowhere to be found in the index. This is the book's main problem and it handicaps the reader.
   All that said, certainly a good item to have on your Civil War shelf.

3 comments about Combat Medic: World War II.

1. Combat Medic: World War II is a fascinating memoir by John A. Kerner, M.D. His medical school training as an OB/GYN only in one instance stood him in good stead as a doctor whose ultimate assignment took him from D-Day plus 1 at Omaha Beach, through the Battle of the Bulge, finally ending with the Army of Occupation in Germany. When he signed up for the Army, he thought he'd be assigned to a stateside hospital delivering babies for Army dependents. He never even got as far back from the front as a field hospital. He was up with the troops for the whole time, and he has two Bronze Stars to show for it.
   
   I met John and his wife, Gwen, on a tour through Northern Spain in 2000. He's a fascinating man, although older than I. At the time he was thinking of writing his memoir. For posterity's sake I'm glad he did. While he's not a Stephan Ambrose, he tells it like it was, down and dirty, being there, a true hero of the greatest generation. I really enjoyed reading his book, having known the man. I wholeheartedly recommend this book to anyone interested in first person accounts of what it was really like trying to save lives while cold, wet, and in the mud with a lot of unfriendly German infantrymen trying keep you from doing your job by making you keep your head (and other parts) down.



2. An interesting look at WW2 from the inside by a man who unexpectedly was there. From the invasion on thru the battles, Kerner keeps your interest by relating his experiences as well as his observations. The section where he delivers the baby of a young French woman near the battle field will keep your interest right to the end. Should be on everyone's gift list.



3. I am not a WWII buff and I normally do not read medical memoirs, perhaps because I was an ER nurse for many years. I read this book more or less for background information for a novel I am writing. But it immediately became more than research material for me. Dr. John Kerner's story is both poignant and unpretentious. As I read the book I found myself wanting to know this man and now, at the end I feel perhaps I do. As a writer I was impressed by his honesty and his natural voice. As a retired RN I was impressed by the doctor's humility. And as a woman I have to say I loved all the references to the women who were a part of his life (especially his brief affair with the Red Cross volunteer!)I recommend this book to any one of any age who enjoys candid accounts of real people who have done remarkable things.

1 comments about Woodrow Wilson's Right Hand: The Life of Colonel Edward M. House.

1. Edward House was one of the most influential diplomats in American history, and has faded into an oblivion inverse to the role he played in shaping the foreign policy of the man HL Mencken described as the "Archangel Woodrow."
   
   If you're still in high school, or perhaps doing undergraduate work, this book will prove to be invaluable and immediately accessible in helping you write a paper. If you're looking sources to do your own research, this book will also be quite helpful. But it's far too short, and lacking in detail and judgements to do justice to House's legacy.

5 comments about Andrew Jackson: The Course of American Democracy, 1833-1845 (Andrew Jackson).

1. Excellent finish to an excellent 3-volume biography; the first volume took us from Jackson's birth through his tenure as governor of Florida; the second took us from there through the end of his first term as president and his successful bid for re-election. This volume takes us from the beginning of his second term to his death.

   As with both previous volumes, the marvellous thing about this book is that Remini provides the reader with sufficient information that it is possible, with nothing more than the information he provides, to disagree with his evaluation of his subject. Clearly, on balance he is much more taken with Andrew Jackson than I am, although there are a few instances in which I actually think that he is too harsh in his judgement. But the marvellous thing is, he gives me sufficient information to make that judgement, an invaluable characteristic in a biographer.

   Anyone interested in reading a detailed, in-depth biography of the first truly populist president (whether one considers that a good or a bad thing to say about the man says a lot about one's personality) and the president who appointed Roger Taney, the chief justice responsible for the Dred Scott Decision, to his post as Justice of the Supreme Court, needs to read all three volumes of this set.




2. Robert Remini completes his biography of Andrew Jackson in an excellent third volume. This biography is very well written and a pleasure to read. Remini is so well versed on his subject and really makes Jackson come to life as one of the major figures in U.S. History. This is as honest account of an individual that I have ever read and have come away with a new found respect for Andrew Jackson.
   Remini does not shy away from Jacksons many faults nor does he make excuses for them and he also shows how tender and loyal Jackson can be to those that were family and friends. Remini makes the case that Jackson was the most influential person in shaping the Presidency and government to the modern democracy it is today and I am inclined to agree with him. Jackson had certain convictions on government and policy and would not bow under pressure and reshaped the role of the Presidency despite pressure from Congress. I would definitely recommend this biography to everyone interested in Andrew Jackson as well as those interest in the evolution of our government.



3. If you have read my reviews of the first two volumes in this biography you already know my opinion of Remini and of his subject. Suffice it to say that if you are serious about learning about American history these volumes are for you. Not only are they an excellent introduction to many of the political and social issues of the era but they also allow the reader to wrestle with our national proclivity toward uncritical hero worship. Our past leaders were every bit as complex, as flawed and as human as our current crop .... What follows is a small portion of what I have learned from Remini's hard and honest labors.
   Jackson's accomplishments were extraordinary by any standards and some of them are quite ironic. He very much believed in states rights yet he probably did more to strengthen and expand the executive part of the federal government than any President until Franklin Roosevelt. Consider the following (all discussed in Remini's volume):
   1. He was the first President to use the pocket veto. He was the first to use the veto power for nonconstitutional reasons. We are so used to our Presidents using the veto because of policy disagreements with legislation that we forget how much of a shift this was in the balance of power as envisioned by the original generation.
   2. He reformed every department of the federal government and greatly expanded the bureaucracy as a result. He eliminated much of the graft that was rampant at the time and (at least, gave the impression of) greatly democratizing the civil service by making it more of a meritocracy. All this inevitably led to more people working for the government. A lot more people.
   3. Jackson changed the relationship of the various Cabinet members to the President. He was the first to fire a Cabinet member because of a disagreement over policy. Up until then Cabinet officers and ambassadors, because their appointments had to be approved by the Senate, were regarded as being accountable more to Congress than to the President.
   This is only a partial list of the ways that Jackson's Presidency changed the stature of the Executive branch of the government.
   Jackson's ideology (as I see it) comes from him trying to work out the tensions between his state's rights philosophy with his military experience, which taught him the necessity of a clear uncontested chain of command with his love of and trust in the people. I will comment on only one portion of that dynamic. Like so many of our leaders, the tensions in Jackson's ideology led him into conspiracy theories. He believed in and trusted the American people to always make the right decisions (the ones he would have made) and almost always credited any electoral reverses to cabals acting to befuddle and delude the populace.
   As a result, he became one of ablest early advocates of putting a good spin on the issues. Early on in his first term he helped to establish a newspaper that served as the official organ of the administration. Altogether, Jackson was a fascinating and maddening character.
   I find myself greatly in the debt of Remini. Jackson has always repulsed me by his blatant racism and his paternalism. Remini has humanized Jackson quite a bit for me. I am more appreciative of Jackson's great accomplishments and I have learned quite a bit of the politics of the time. I will be reading Remini's book on Van Buren next along with Seller's biography of Polk. One of the ways that I evaluate the work of a historian is by how much they increase my interest in further reading on their subject and on the period in question. By this standard, Remini belongs to my first rank of American historians.



4. The final volume in Robert Remini's definitive biography of Andrew Jackson follows the life of the seventh president from the beginning of his second term through the end of his life. In it, we see many of the things that made Jackson one of our most important presidents despite his significant flaws.

   Prior to Jackson's presidency, the executive office was much weaker. The designers of the Constitution, with their fears of strong central figures, had intended Congress to be the most powerful of the supposedly co-equal branches. Jackson, however, viewed himself as the sole representative of the people - the only person elected by a nation, not a region - and through various measures such as an expansion of the use of the veto, was able to shift the balance of power. Although the following presidents would be weaker, the presidency as an office had been redefined.

   As the book begins, Jackson's second term was beginning and he needed to deal with South Carolina and the Nullification Crisis. Essentially successful with this problem, he also dealt with other issues, including his war with the Bank of the United States and bad relations with France. By many measures, his presidency was a success, but there were a number of negatives as well, in particular his treatment of Indians and his disregard of slavery issues. His appointment of Taney to Chief Justice would eventually lead to the Dred Scott decision. Remini finds more positives than negatives with Jackson, but he doesn't disregard the black marks.

   Probably only Washington was as universally adored in his time as Jackson was, and unlike Washington, Jackson was a true man of the people, a populist who courteously met with rich and poor alike. Even after his retirement, his popularity guaranteed his continued political clout, and few Democrats defied his wishes while he was alive.

   The three volumes in this biography are around 1300 pages (plus notes and indexes), but Remini is such a good writer that this is far from a burdensome read. There may be shorter biographies of Jackson, but there aren't better. Remini knows this era well (he also has written excellent biographies of Clay and Webster) and he brings it to life.




5. Few Americans have won the mythical status enjoyed by Andrew Jackson. Often portrayed, in his day and since, as the champion of the common man, Jackson came to Washington as an outsider, the first President born outside the thirteen original states, indeed the first president born neither in Virginia nor Massachusetts. Throughout Jackson historiography, Jackson via his policy of `rotation' in office has been accused of instituting the spoils system in American politics. This criticism highlights how Whig myths have come to permeate the historical writing on this subject.
   
   Starting with James Parton in 1860, anti-Jackson historians have followed this criticism, blaming Jackson for replacing a supposed merit system with a partisanship that corrupted the civil service for generations. Despite further research since Jackson's time, many historians have uncritically repeated these accusations without examining the actual record of appointments during the presidency unhappily described by some as "The Reign of Andrew Jackson".
   
   There have been essentially four cycles of studies into the life and Presidency of Andrew Jackson. The first cycle began soon after the death of Jackson with the "liberal patrician" or "Whig" school, who were generally unfavourable towards the policy of rotation. Most familiar is James Parton's classic The "Life of Andrew Jackson". So critical of rotation was Parton that he stated "this single feature of his administration would suffice to render it deplorable rather than admirable." Other members of the "Whig" school include Sumner, Schouler and Von Holst, all very critical of Jackson's policy of rotation. Parton's biography was the standard source on the Jacksonian era, until the second cycle represented by the Progressive Historians, such as John Spencer Bassett's "The Life of Andrew Jackson (1911), which cast Jackson in somewhat of a different light. Bassett reduces the amount of blame put on Jackson for rotation by suggesting that his democratic views made him oblivious to unintentional dangers from partisan appointments. However, the Progressives shared with the Whigs the view that Jackson had brought a spoils system to national politics and that its effects were negative.
   
   Historians in the third cycle of Jacksonian studies, of which Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s "The Age of Jackson" (1945) served as a pivotal work, shifted attention away from Jackson himself towards larger forces in his era. Historians of the third cycle, such as Hofstadter and Hammond, debated the effects of class and culture in determining party differences while showing little interest in evaluating Jackson's rotation policy, though tending to criticise it briefly. No biographies of Jackson discussed the policy of rotation in depth during the next thirty years.
   
   The appearance of Robert V. Remini's three-volume biography of Jackson marked the start of the fourth cycle of interpretation. Based on modern scholarship, Remini covers all aspects of Jackson's life and career, demonstrating his contribution to the great developments of nineteenth century America, particularly empire, freedom and democracy. By returning to first hand sources, Remini shows that the policy of rotation in office has been exaggerated and misunderstood. However, having set himself the remarkable task of producing a thorough study of the life and Presidency of Jackson, Remini did not have the scope for a detailed re-interpretation and re-evaluation of rotation. Since Remini's work there have been many scholarly works on Jackson, but none offer an in-depth reassessment of rotation as touched upon by Remini.
   
   Remini states that Jackson has received a disproportionate share of the blame for the spoils system and that there is a need to disprove the Whig myths, which have come to permeate the historical writings of historians over the generations. Remini was not the first to stress the need for such a revision; in fact a similar plea was expressed by J.R. Poinsett in the "Oration on the life and character of Andrew Jackson, delivered July 4, 1845" when he stated about Jackson, "His instinctive love of justice... gave a high tone to his government and exalted the honor of his country. His hatred of corruption rendered his administration pure.... I will content myself with expressing my belief that in future time the impartial historian will justify both his motives and his conduct on this trying occasion.
   
   Remini offers the reader a great insight into the pioneering mind of one of America's greatest Presidents.
   
   
   [The above Review is taken in part from 'Andrew Jackson's policy of 'Rotation in Office' by Alexander Rayden. © Copyright 2005 Alexander Rayden, All Rights Reserved].

5 comments about Hillary's Choice.

1. This book really has nothing to do with Hillary or the Clintons -- it has everything to do with Gail Sheehy - her mean-spiritedness, her willingness to gossip, her jealousy, her arrogance, her pain. This book is not good journalism -- not recommended for anyone to read.



2. Believe it or not, I am one of the few in the country that is not intimately familiar with all of the scandals of the Clinton presidency. I had hoped that, in reading this book, I would understand a little bit more in depth what had happened to have the nation in an uproar and gain some valuable insights to Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, the bias is so evident in this book that I know that I do not have a complete picture as to what actually happened.

   In Ms. Sheehy's eyes, Clinton is a proverbial villian and she just assumes everyone else feels the same way too. While she could still present her case against him and not interfere with the integrity of the story, she takes every opportunity to make jibes and call him names. It is hardly objective to call him a philanderer incessantly - whether he is or not. However, the main problem with this attitude is that she lets this get in the way of reporting the evidence fairly. For instance, she makes reference to the stories of the State Trooper's quite frequently. She is overly eager to use their stories against Bill when it concerns his affairs. However, when the same sources indicate that there was an affair with Vince Foster by Hillary, she refutes their legitimacy. Then she goes on to refer to their allegations against Bill, seeming to forget that they also made allegations against Hillary. Which is it? Were they really discredited? Were parts discredited? If so, what parts and how? If they were discredited, why include a remark from an alarmed Bill Clinton to the effect that the AR governor should not be upset because he controls the state police? This only legitimizes their stories which gets us back to, so what's the deal with Vince Foster? As you can see, this book left me with many more questions than were answered.

   While I do have a clearer picture of Hillary Clinton, the picture painted of her while in the White House, gives me serious reservation about how she would act if she was actually the President. If this book's assertion that there was really nothing to hide is true, it means that Ms. Clinton can not be trusted to be forthcoming when she believes that the hand is being called - even if she knows she has a winning hand. It would have made more sense to lay out the evidence against her and then give her argument as to specifically why she was withholding evidence. Maybe I could have seen myself doing the same thing if faced with the same situation but this is presented as a woman's grudge against the media for no justifiable reason. Of course, she also nevers really hits the question as to whether records were withheld by Mrs. Clinton. She spends a few paragraphs on the possible reasons an administrative assistant might not come forward with a box if she had been asked to find it and, not finding it, found it under her desk months later. After spending almost a hundred pages on her early life and college years, couldn't we spare a few to address the questions that would undoubtedly be brought up by events during the presidency? It simply doesn' hold water in my opinion. People have to have a reason for doing what they do. Especially people with advisors.




3. I have had the dubious pleasure of reading and rereading quite a number of works addressing the life and times of Hillary Clinton.
   While I am not a great fan of Billie, I must admit to sort of an admiration for Hillary. Be-that-as-it-may, I enjoyed this book. It was well written and I thought pretty well ballanced. Many of the "facts" presented, will have to be tested by time, but for now, I feel they are probably as close to the truth we will get.
   Ms Clinton is certainly one of the more fascinating individuals of our times and I am quite sure history will continue to judge her as such. She is an interesting subject. In many ways, she is us. The author of this book is an interesting writer and between the author and the subject, we get a very interesting story. Thank you Ms Gail for writing it.



4. Read this book and you will understand why Bill and Hillary act as they do. ..... This book is much better than Hillary's fictional account of her life, "Living History". ..... "Hillary's choice is not to know what she knows." ..... A very enlightening account. ...... A "must read".



5. I must really confess that I can,t stand either women, either the author or the Clinton.
   When in college I was forced to read the Rhetoric by Aristotle.Thank goodness, he went on and on and on about how a speaker must first establish her/his reputation and give reasons why she/he should be listened to.
   Isn,t this the same Gail Sheehey who plagarized (read stole) important parts of her first novel Passages from a UCLA Psychiatry professor who was doing research on the subject.She settled out of court wisely, gave the good Dr. some dough, and must have laughed all the way to the bank.That was a long time ago and like Hilary she thought "wow, I can steal a lot of good stuff, not use some of it, pay the guy off and make a fortune." She has churned out book after book,none very good.She should have gone into politics in another country.Obviously, i was biased against the book but tried hard, really, to see if it had many redeeming qualities.
   There is a great deal of factual information about Hilary, her childhood, her relationship with BIll but the interpretations of why she is motivated to do such and such are pretty shabby. I am a psychiatrist and find her attempts at divining both CLinton,s adult personalities from their childhood truamas pathetic guesswork by an amateur. I dont, think the Clinton,s can really stand each other, has anyone seen ANY genuine affection between them for all the time they,ve been on the world stage?They stay together for political and financial reasons and both seem to have very small conscienses while now both getting filthy rich.
   Too be totally fair, some parts of the book are very interesting about many factual occurences Mrs.Clinton background but it didn,t change my mind about the author or the politician.

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 William Lloyd Garrison at Two Hundred (David Brion Davis (Gilder Lehrman)).

No comments about The Biggest City in America: A Fifties Boyhood in Ohio (Ohio History and Culture).