2 comments about The Private Mary Chesnut: The Unpublished Civil War Diaries (A Galaxy Book).

1. This is the one indispensible book for anyone interested in what went on in the South behind the battle lines. As Pepys gives us a living picture of the London and court of Charles II, so does M. Chesnut give us a bird's eye view of the Confederate government and the society she lived in.

   A wise and witty woman, Mary Chesnut spent most of the war years close to ground zero in Richmond, VA. She knew Jefferson and Varina Davis intimately. She rubbed elbows with congressmen and cabinet members. Mrs. Chesnut was a sharp tongued woman who pulled no punches and she tells us much that, but for her, would remain unknown about the leaders of the "Lost Cause".

   Anyone who enjoyed the Woodward/Muhlenfeld editon of Mary Chesnut's memoirs can't afford to miss this publication of the materials from which she created her masterpiece.




2. I've recently developed an interest in Civil War history, an era that had not heretofore intrigued me. In doing some reading on the subject, I kept coming across references to "the diaries of Mary Chesnut," and decided to read them. Most historians look upon these diaries as a major source of information on what took place in the South during the Civil War, because the lady was present at some of the important events and was certainly herself effected by them. As the editors write, she was often reduced to moving "eventually from one place of refuge to another as a fugitive from military invaders (p. x)" and "Living out of her trunk in hotels or rented rooms (p. x)." The quotations or information gleaned from this resource do indeed illuminate the narration in the historical works in which one comes across them. They are not, however, easy to read.

   I gather from the introduction to this book that the diaries had been edited for publication as a continuous narrative--minus the more embarrassing self-revelations--entitled by a hand other than the lady's a "Diary from Dixie." The author herself had died long before the book was ever printed, leaving the details of publication to a relative. The editors of the current text despair the latter work as "heavily cut and carelessly edited (p. ix)," because it prevents the reader from knowing well the lady as a character herself.

   The Private Mary Chesnut is just what the Diary from Dixie is not, a real diary. As such, it contains entries that are for the most part endless mentions of people with whom the reader probably will not be knowledgeable unless he or she is very "into" the South and Civil War history. One is frequently reduced to checking the footnotes for information on the individuals named. Unfortunately the editors of the diary give only the barest of facts about them, usually social or military rank or relationship to Mrs. Chesnut or another individual mentioned in the diary. The writer's comments often leave one trying to read between her lines for some inkling of "what's really going on!" because there is the merest glimpse of some probably very interesting underlying story. The editors of the text, however, either will not or cannot give these details. Because of this dearth of underlying social information, the book comes across as either confusing or a little boring, a simple catalogue of parties and people met at parties, of polite social visits paid back and forth. This is definitely not an Edith Warton!

   Spaced throughout the document are nuggets of truly golden information about the Civil War and antebellum period. [THOSE WRITING PAPERS IN AMERICAN LITERATURE OR HISTORY TAKE NOTE] Because the lady was well connected by virtue of her own social status and oft sought company, she is privileged to the opinions of and gossip about significant individuals. She knew people who had met or knew the Lincoln family and was herself intimately acquainted with the Jefferson Davis family. One of the more interesting quotes was gossip associated with Mary Todd Lincoln's notorious household economy in the White House (pp. 30 and 31-32). This gives a much truer picture of what the social elite thought of the Lincolns, particularly in the South, and makes clear, that Washington D. C. was--and probably still is--more part of the southern social milieu than that of northern or national.

   Certainly the lady herself comes across quite real in these diaries. In short she is often vain, opinionated, over-indulged, and wasteful by modern standards--at least by middle class standards--but she is also a well educated, astute and outspoken judge of political events and of the social ills of the institution of slavery. [THOSE WRITING PAPERS IN AMERICAN LITERATURE OR HISTORY TAKE NOTE] Her discourse on its ills, particularly of misogynation, are eminently quotabl--and often are. My favorite is that beginning with "I wonder if it be a sin to think slavery a curse on any land (p. 42-43)," etc.

   While the book is difficult to get through, for those with a desire to know more than just the bare facts about the Civil War period and its society, this book is probably a good source for that information. [THOSE WRITING PAPERS IN AMERICAN LITERATURE OR HISTORY TAKE NOTE] This would definitely be considered a primary rather than a secondary source for the topic.

2 comments about The Making of a Confederate: Walter Lenoir's Civil War (New Narratives in American History).

1. I really enjoyed this book.Although it teaches us much about history, it is well written and reads like a novel.
   I must admit that Walter Lenoir is an ancestor of mine but I still highly recommend this book to anyone who enjoys learning and reading about the Civil war.
   It is a EXCELLENT book!!!
   Kudos to the author.



2. The Making of a Confederate: Walter Lenoir's Civil War (New Narratives in American History)
   
   Good Read, but upon finishing the Introduction I became fully aware that the author was very much against any Southern slave owner identified in his research. You have to watch or he sneaks in his little jabs of self righteous contempt regarding the punishments given to the slaves of the subject family so very long ago.
   
   Of course, being a Professor of History at the University of North Carolina it was to be expected!
   
   Research appeared excellent for the subject matter.

5 comments about First Great Triumph: How Five Americans Made Their Country a World Power.

1. This book by a former U.S. Ambassador is an elegantly-written history of the Spanish-American War of 1898, when the United States acquired colonies in the Caribbean and the Pacific and emerged as a major world power. The nuanced, balanced narrative deals with "big picture" geopolitics and historical trends but never loses sight of the human factor or the role that ego and personal ambition played in America's rise to power. Zimmerman doesn't flinch from concluding that American troops committed atrocities in the Philippines or that our acquisition of Hawaii and the Panama canal zone was little more than theft. At the same time, he avoids ahistorical condemnations of turn-of-the-century imperialism. His book will leave leftwing revisionists and flag-waving rightists equally disappointed -- surely a sign of scholarly achievement.

   "First Great Tiumph" brims with insights into diplomacy and politics, based on Zimmerman's many years in the U.S. foreign service. Indeed, many parts of the book are eerily topical, such as the discussion of how war-lover Theodore Roosevelt seized on the sinking of the battleship Maine as a pretext for a war in Cuba. The book was published prior to the non-discovery of the much-hyped WMDs in Iraq but the parallels to current events are there for any intelligent reader to see. I gave the book four stars instead of five only because the "multi-biographical" approach is a bit contrived and results in the inclusion of much unnecessary biographical material in the first section of the book.




2. What do the above have in common? The answer is provided quite nicely in Warren Zimmerman's book "First Great Triumph". In it, he explains what 5 great Americans - John Hay, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Theodore Roosevelt, Hencry Cabot Lodge, and Elihu Root had to do with the forming of the American century (the 20th Century).
   
   Each of these men played his own role in creating Imperialistic America, starting in the late 19th century, and their contributions to American foreign policy continue through to this day.
   
   This is an important book for anyone that wants to understand the personalities of these five men and the actions that each took to make America the dominant player in world affairs that it has been during the last 100+ years.
   
   The book is divided into two sections; biographical sketches of each of these five men, and then a section on how America became an Imperalistic power, similar to Great Britain or any of a number of the European countries in earlier centuries. Starting with the Spanish American war, the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands, and pushing through to American intervention in World War I, this book does a fantastic job of explaining the events that occured and the personalities involved.
   
   I now understand why Zimmerman chose these five men to study in this book - when I first started to read it, I thought that perhaps others, such as William McKinley or William H. Seward should have been included in the biography section, but Seward's contributions were too early to be included in this study, and McKinley was too reserved to be included in a group of men that firmly believed in American expansion, much as earlier Americans had proclaimed "Mainfest Destiny".
   
   I enjoyed the book greatly, and would highly recommend it to anyone that is looking for a study of early American foreign policy, or an understanding of why America played such a big role in world events during the 20th century.



3. Empire building is not necessarily a bad thing. As such the First Great Triumph tries to force the reader to understand our nations obsession with empire and empire
   
   building. The book starts off by telling us about the west. Our nation was growing and the American people were driven to move across the country to carve out homes
   
   and states west of the Mississippi. Once our nation grew from sea to shining sea the energies behind empire building became global. We could no longer focus our
   
   energies on the continent of North America, so we had to look outward. This incredible drive to expand, and the passions behind it, became a central part of the American
   
   spirit.
   
   But in order to bring our manifest destiny to the global scale we had to become a force that would be strong enough to hold on to our gains. As such we needed to
   
   become a first rate power. One who could compete among the nations of old for dominancy in this brave new world.In order to gain such power we needed leadership to
   
   guide us. Theirfore the First Great Triumph is not only about empire building but about the figures who helped bring our nation into this new found power. The author
   
   concentrates on five powerful Americans. They are ; Theodore Roosevelt, Alfred T. Mahan, Henry Cabot Lodge, John Hay, and Elihu Root. All of which , our author feels,
   
   were instrumental in guiding our nation onto the world scene. The belief the author has is that without these five, our nation would not have risen to our present status of
   
   a world power. Let us examine why.
   
   The top of the pyramid was Theodore Roosevelt. It was his leadership that made our nation's stature as a world power possible. An influential man both as a states
   
   man and president. It was he who had the vision to build up America's naval power and turn it loose upon the world. The great white fleet was assembled and sent out
   
   under his guidence. The showing of such a fleet of ships was enough to prove to the world that we had become a first rate power. Under Theodore's leadership we gained
   
   influence in both Latin America and the Pacific. This was due to Theodore's timely usage of naval power. Theodore had also assembled a cast of first rate leaders around
   
   him and was able to use them to the best of his abilities. Theodore was able to delegate his many tasks among the two others to help establish American hegemony.
   
   Root was given the task of setting up the government of our conqured territories while Hay was given the task of handling our nations diplomacy with the other forgein
   
   powers. Both performed admirably and were able to give Theodore a stable base from which he could direct his energies upon the world.
   
   John Hay was the statesman from which all diplomacy flowed. He was pro-europe but also an American. As such his unique perspective allowed him to see problems
   
   and solutions from both sides. As such he was an excellent diplomat and arbitrator. Theodore would view him weak, but in reality Hay's greatest strength was his ability
   
   to have patience. His skills with diplomacy , when used, would help smooth out problems the U.S. was having and as a direct result Hay would win wars with words
   
   instead of bullets.
   
   But diplomacy and leadership are not the only tools one needs to run a country. You need beauraucrcy, that day to day grind that makes politics and government
   
   possible. For that we had Elihu Root. Root was instrumental in creating new ways of governing our new acquisitions. They were not perfect but they showed us what
   
   could work, and what could not work. As such Root would be able to show our government how to administer conquered territories. Root's ability to do this paved the way
   
   for our country's dealings with later nations and later wars.
   
   While Theodore's trio was able to expand the power of the executive branch, Lodge was able to channel the energies of the legislative branch to greatness. Lodge was
   
   not only an incredible intelectual but he was a man of vision. He dreamed of an imperial American, one that could rival Brittain in both power and strength. As such Lodge
   
   dedicated his abilities into keeping the pressure up on the legislative branch. His dedication to empire building left a stamp on congress and Lodge's actions helped sway
   
   several presidents towards the battle for empire. His observations of the dying world regime helped stir the American public into understanding their new role in the world.
   
   Spain was dying and Brittain was winding down. As such the American star was rising and a key to world dominance would be by gaining American soverignty over the
   
   area in the Pacific.
   
   All of these thoughts for empire stem from Alfred T. Mahan. It was his writtings on seaman ship and Naval power that got this entire ball rolling. In order for a nation to
   
   be great you had to be able to control the Oceans. Mahan had based his writtings on history and how the ancients giants, throught time, all had control of the seas
   
   (Oceans). He argued that the United States would always be considered a second rate power as long as their Navy was second rate. To build up the NAvy not only meant
   
   new ships. It also meant the training of a profesional class of sailors, new technologies, and refueling ports / way stations for the ships to be based at. Only by combining
   
   these three points would the U.S. gain dominancy in the world's seas and as a direct result gain dominancy on the world.
   
   But in order to understand history we sometimes have to look at how the author presents his material. What I found at in this book was that it is not an enjoyable read.
   
   The author has fallen in love with the big five and treats them like lovers. Their faults are glossed over and their actions are heightened to god like epics. As such you
   
   agree with the author. After all the author believes that these five mortal men changed the face of America. By their labors, and their labors alone, they turned our country
   
   into a first rate power. But the author is biased. It is his thesis after all that these men made America, so he will do anything and everything to back it up. Now the author
   
   never lies about the five, but he does seam to make them heroic. Never the devil, these five are always building our country up and never bringing it back down. They are
   
   the "Music Makers" after all and to attack any one of these idols would be an assault to the author. One he could not stand.
   
   The author wants you to feel sympathy for the five as both men and Gods. As such he imerses you into their past. Hopeing to gain your sympathy and trust the author
   
   instead disgusts and bores you. After all the book will speak of the historic events these men made, yet instead of completing the story, our author has decided to fill you
   
   in on the history of the "music Makers" while in the midst of the story. Instead of breaking down the history of the characters in an orderly fashion, you instead are given
   
   snippets of the character's personality. Once the personality is constructed you are then given the history of the person. But this history is given piece meal and while the
   
   author is narrating a story. As such the reader can become confused and bored while learning about these heros. It is also obvious that the book was written for an
   
   audience already familiar with the five. As such amusing incidents are placed , like Easter eggs, throught the entire book. Instead of amusing, I found them unapropriate.
   
   The detracted from the content of the book since I was out of the loop and unable to figure out the joke.
   
   The book is also a racist book. This is not to say it is a bad thing but the book has been written with the gloves off. Theirfore it is shocking to read about. Now I did
   
   enjoy the honesty the author wrote about. After all it is rare now adays to read a piece of work that has not been cleansed by the censors. The author's dealings about
   
   empire building stir strong emotions in people. His objective look at how race influenced empire building was refreshing. All to often we stay mute on race. It is a tender
   
   subject. But you can not deny how the concept of race has shaped our nation. Learning that our nation of the past felt so strongly about white America helped shed light
   
   on these topics. The conflict of civil rights has always been a sore spot in our nations history. Now, at last, you can understand some of the pettiness and even some of
   
   the injustices. To know that our nation had dificulty dealing with our black population is one thing. But to finally learn that our nation thought all races but the white man's
   
   were beneath his was fascinating. And these ideas were ones our nation was building it's empire on. Even with all the bias and hero worship in this book I still feel that it
   
   is a must read. Simply for the way the book reaches you about race relations and how the White man viewed his world back then.
   
   The First Great Triumph not only teaches you about the founding of modern day America and the people who helped create it but it also teaches you the reader about
   
   his own personal history with the United States. As such a bridge is formed between past and present and we can learn about our American heritage in all its being. That
   
   being both monstrous and glorious.



4. If you want to know how the United States became a great power this is the book to read. The United States quest for empire and manifest destiny can be summed up by the five men covered in this book: TR, Elihu Root, John Hay, Alfred Mahan and Henry Cabot Lodge. The book focuses on conquest in the Philippines, Cuba and Mexico as well as the importance of the Panama Canal. It is a very interesting read that offers a lot about the course of US Empire. Imperialism and Americanism can be seen as one in the same during this time period and these five people acting together set America on a course to become not only a great power but eventually a super power. A must have for anyone interested in America's imperial past.



5. Warren Zimmerman uses short but trenchant bios of five important American decision makers and opinion leaders to tell a story about the beginnings of the American empire.
   
   John Hay, Navy Capt. Alfred T. Mahan, Elihu Root, Henry Cabot Lodge and Theodore Roosevelt are the principal actors. These men provided the intellectual atmosphere and the institutional framework that enabled the United States to step away from her traditional isolationism, recognize her place in the world as a power of the first rank, and take up that role. In order for that to happen the American people first had to understand the dangers that expansionist European powers presented to their nation. Zimmerman weaves the various strands that these five men bring to this story as well as the reluctantance of President McKinley and the objections of actors like Mark Twain and former senator and newspaper editor Carl Shurz, into an exciting and thoughtful work. The book is worth the price for the bios of the principals alone but it is the story of this interaction, as skillfully told by Zimmerman, that makes this book so interesting and such a quick read.
   
   For those who believe that America is not an imperial power (though not quite cut in the mold of European imperialism) this book will provide much to think about. For those interested in knowing how we became a world power in such a short time, this book is invaluable.
   
   The author is a former foreign-service officer who obviously has experienced the mixed blessings of the nation's global responsibilities.

5 comments about Jefferson the Virginian (Jefferson and His Time).

1. Jefferson: The Virginian by Dumas Malone is a masterful work on Thomas Jefferson's early years, from birth to being appointed as an ambassador to France.

   This work is one of the first comprehensive biographies of Jefferson's life. This is the first of six in the complete set. Malone is a distinguished historian so you will read about Jefferson's ancestry, along with Jefferson's youth, education, legal career, his marriage, the construction of Monticello. Not that was enough for one man's life, but we see the writing of the Declaration of Independence and Jefferson's work on the "Notes on Virginia."

   We get an insight as to how Jefferson conducted his highly successful legislative career and his governorship. But what we do NOT see is the soul of Jefferson... the man, the human being. We get facts and more facts about a very complex individual and a monumental man. But the richness of the breath of life is left out.

   Nonetheless, the book is a very scholarly work, one of the first to complete a comphensive work on a mulitfarious man. I enjoyed reading this volume for its historical importance and significance. This volume lays the ground work on which all of the other volumes set.

   This work being well documented is a good start into reading about the life and times of Thomas Jefferson. One fact the comes through loud and clear... Jefferson is a Virginian foremost and always... there is no mistaking that fact.




2. Malone, once called "the greatest Jeffersonian of them all", originally conceived this biography in four volumes. By the time he published the last book in 1982, at age 89, it had grown to six volumes. It remains the standard life of Jefferson, an indelible and important portrait of a great man, flaws and all, by a great scholar.

   JEFFERSON THE VIRGINIAN begins things with Jefferson's birth into a family of much distinction. His father Peter was a noted surveyor and a man of inordinate physical strength who nevertheless died fairly young (in his fifties). The book covers Jefferon's education at William and Mary (at a time when formal education was not a widespread thing, even among the gentry), his law practice, his beginning the construction of Monticello (which would preoccupy him right up until the time of his death), his terms in the Virginia House of Burgesses (one of which was served after his governorship), his writing of the Declaration of Independence (his initial version, a scathing indictment of King George, had to be toned down by his compatriots), and his controversial governorship (in which he sustained much of the blame for the British army's inroads into the Old Dominion state). It ends with his appointment as an American ambassador to France.

   Obviously this is no primer on Jefferson. Malone spares no detail. His prose is fastidious, elegant, and easy to read, although you may find yourself putting the book down from time to time to absorb what you have just read. Overall, Jefferson emerges here as a man naturally scholarly and reclusive, content to build his home, pursue his studies, and tend to his family, who is pushed into action by the obligations of his caste and by his own fervent patriotism.

   Malone has been criticised for writing a virtual hagiography of Jefferson, ignoring the "darker" aspects of the man's personality. In other words, unlike Fawn Brodie, Malone did not reduce his subject to some psychological cripple and sex deviate. The charges are balderdash. Malone DOES recognize Jefferson's flaws (e.g., his lack of a sense of humor and his sometimes indecision in taking action). He simply refuses to turn Jefferson into a whipping boy for his own ideological preoccupations.

   This is as complete a contemporary biography as we will probably ever get of this great man.




3. What can be said about this monument to Jefferson scholarship? I am sure that somewhere in universities around the United States there are "scholar squirrels who want to put down this invaluable resource in Jefferson studies. It is always the way that mice attempt to gnaw at lions. This is not a perfect work (and my remarks refer to all of the books in the series as a whole), there are somethings, namely Sally Hemmings references which are wrong and will not sit well with American 21st century mores. There is the issue of slavery which was handled much differently 50 years ago than it is now.
   Jefferson is not worthy of our interest because of Sally Hemmings and because he kept slaves. Jefferson is great because of the Declaration of Independence and his fight for the rights of man. While it may have been hypocritical to preach liberty and keep slaves, it is doubtful that slavery ever would have been abolished if Jefferson had never gained the prominence that he did. This book and the others that follow show why we should continue to honor the public man even though his private side may have been wanting.



4. VERY detailed account of Jefferson during the his life in Virginia. Although it had in depth description of the political structure, the people, and Jefferson's involvement in the politics of the United States and Virginia, it did not include a very detailed account of his personal life as is best depicted through letters. Surprisingly, despite Jefferson's extensive correspondence during the 41 years that the book covers, this correspondence was not used sufficiently to shed further light on Jefferson's personal life and intimate thoughts. Additionally, Dumas Malone did not focus enough on one of Thomas Jefferson's greatest contribution - the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.



5. I am currently attempting to read a biography of every President. For Washington and Adams, I settled for one volume biographies, the latter which was fortunate enough to be the Pulitzer Prize winning effort of David McCullough. After researching the available biographies for Thomas Jefferson I decided to plunge into the six volume work of Dumas Malone, partly because I did not find a one volume effort which I felt adequately delved into all the aspects of Mr. Jefferson's life in which I was interested, but mostly because as a University of Virginia alumni and admitted Jefferson admirer I wanted to read the most comprehensive and definitive biography available.
   
   Thankfully, I have not been disappointed. (Note: This critique refers only to the first volume, Jefferson The Virginian. I will review each volume separately as I complete it.) The book is surprisingly readable and written in a very straightforward and engaging prose. Surprisingly, this first volume, if anything, is less detailed than I would have wished, especially regarding Jefferson's early life. As Mr. Malone recounts, Jefferson's home at Shadwell burned in 1770 and many documents that would have shed more light on Jefferson's early life were lost.
   
   The other notable quality of this work is, though ultimately encompassing more than 3000 pages of text, each chapter has a narrow and well organized focus limited to 10-20 pages. This allows for quick reads of short chapters, which makes the reading of this large work more manageable and also aids in better retention of information.
   
   There is not much I can criticize of Mr. Malone's work, at least as it pertains to this volume. Obviously Mr. Malone is a Jefferson admirer, and that should be taken into account by the reader, although I can find no example where this is so pronounced as to circumvent a fair presentation of his exhaustive research, leaving the reader to ultimately decide for themselves. It should also be noted that this book was published in 1948, so obviously some scholarship since then may be missing (notably the children he fathered with his slave, Sally Hemings, which would not pertain to this volume in any event). Finally, it should be noted that Mr. Malone assumes a working knowledge of Revolutionary history. For example, the text mentions important events such as the Stamp Act, Townshend duties, and various battles, but makes no attempt to expound upon them in detail beyond what is required for the purpose of the biography.
   
   In summary, I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in a thorough study of the life of Thomas Jefferson. While a vast and comprehensive work, it is so well written and organized as to be easily accessible to all.

5 comments about Buffalo Bill's America: William Cody and the Wild West Show.

1. The Historians of today, especially those who have a different perspective of America instead of the "Good versus Evil" themes that folks like I grew up with like to shatter legends and myths.
   
   Not that a bit of reality is wrong. For example it is good to know what a virulent racist Nathan Bedford Forrest was, or how wrong it was to label the entire Abraham Lincoln Battalion as a bunch of "Commie Rats" (although with the release of much of the Moscow archives, it can be verified that up to almost 90% of them were either Communist Party or Young Communist League members - not the 40-60% as stated in past histories).
   
   It is however suspect when a Davey Crockett, long believed to have died swinging "Old Betsy" at the advancing Mexican soldiers at the Alamo, died, shot down as a captured prisoner, by Santa Anna's orders; or that the gallant Custer was a reckless fool.
   
   Which leads me to Dr. Warren's interesting biography of Buffalo Bill. Having got it as a holiday present I was at first enthralled by the depth and detail of this work which covered practically every aspect of this simple yet complex American hero.
   
   Then Dr. Warren had to spoil it all.
   
   First, he cast doubts on whether or not William Cody ever rode with the Pony Express. He cites available records, but admits Cody did ride for the Express parent company - Russell, Majors and Waddell.
   
   Secondly, he then claims Cody rode with Jennison's Jayhawkers instead of working as a Scout for the Union Army. In other words, Cody was involved in some of the ugliest savagery on the frontier as Unionists retaliated for the depravations of Quantrill, the James-Younger boys, Bloody Bill Anderson, and other Confederates. Yet, if that was the case, and with rosters of the 7th Kansas being available, why haven't Civil War historians made light of this in the past? Warren seems to imply that Cody was one of the 7th Kansas boys who faced down Bedford Forrest at Tupelo and Brice's Crossroads, but where is the evidence? (note: I do stand corrected as I have found another source on Cody's experiences in the 7th, and indeed they did fight Forrest in Tennessee and Mississippi, but were recalled to Missouri in time to help stop Sterling Price in the fall of 1864, a campaign where Cody and Bill Hickok fought practically side by side)
   
   Third, Warren also seems to claim that there was an almost unfriendly rivalry between George Custer and William Cody, and that outside of the celebrated Buffalo hunt with the Grand Duke Alexis of Russia, the two men rarely met or studiously avoided each other. Why? Because Libbie Custer only named Wild Bill Hickok as a Custer intimate, not Buffalo Bill. Furthermore, Warren also describes the Custer marriage as being as troubled as that of the Codys. He has even suggested that Libbie Custer had an affair with another (unnamed) cavalry officer - that's news to me as I'm sure it is to others who have read extensively of the Custers and their marriage. Custer jealous of Bill Cody? Hmmm. And why would Bill Cody present Custer as an all-hero in his future shows if he didn't feel a regard for the late soldier's heroism on the American Frontier?
   
   He then describes Cody as being benevolent and more open-minded towards Native Americans, yet almost a cruel overseer to those Indians who rode and worked with the Wild West Shows - try suggesting that to Sitting Bull. Oops, you can't because he's long dead. But then again, so is Buffalo Bill Cody.
   
   What is even more troublesome is Warren's wanting to put a societal spin to the life and times of Buffalo Bill. He pictures America of the late 19th Century as being a nation split between the "haves and have-nots" with another Civil War looming in the distance. He brings up the Haymarket Square Riots, and calls Albert Parsons, the former Confederate Soldier turned Radical leader the William Cody of the Confederacy, yet offers no evidence to prove this. For me, that was a major disappointment, because I would have liked to have seen where a young Confederate hero, having risked his life for the reactionary South, could change so drastically to push for the violent overthrow of bourgeois America. He also brings in the Johnson County War as if to suggest that Cody could easily play both sides down the middle - lionized by the proletariat Cowboy and loved by the intolerant landowners.
   
   In the end, with little or no commentary about those final, almost destitute years of Cody's life - including that poignant final year when after riding in a Wild West Show he had virtually no say in, with his kidneys shutting down, and being in constant pain, helped by his "son" Johnny Baker, Cody went home to die. Warren surprisingly makes little comment about this sad history, which is even more surprising when one sees how much he placed detail on irrelevances or suggested things that never have been proven before.
   
   Maybe it is because I like my biographies to be straightforward -and my Western History to be not simplistic but not mired down in complex issues either that this once promising work turned me off towards the end. That, and another unfortunate debunking of another real American hero. After all, Mr. Cody isn't around to say whether or not he exaggerated his life and\or career, or to refute or not some of Dr. Warren's more damaging charges.



2. William Cody was the most famous American of his times, renowned as a Pony Express rider, soldier, buffalo hunter and overall hero - but his creation of the Wild West show, a traveling company of cowboys and Indians which toured North American and Europe for over thirty years, solidified his importance and his name. BUFFALO BILL'S AMERICA: WILLIAM CODY AND THE WILD WEST SHOW provides the most detailed critical biography of Cody to appear in over forty years, considering his showmanship, his achievements, and the controversies which swirled around his life, both during time and into modern times. Chapters use source material references and quotes but maintain a lively style which lends to appeal by leisure audiences as well as students of American history.



3. I was quite pleased witht the speed of delivery on this book and it's excellent condtion. It was all I could have hoped for. 5 Stars!
   
   Don Gilmore



4. Great book from a great professor. Reading this was like sitting in Dr. Warren's class again. He can totally make history come alive and this book is no exception.



5. This book is a bore with minimal facts and an author with a wild imagination. Tries to tie many outside events whether real or imaginary to the theme and because of this he has been able to add 200 maybe 300 plus pages of fantasy.
   
   Don't waste your time like I did and try to find something a lot better.
   
   Sorry, I don't like to belittle authors but this was one of the worse books I have read in many years.

5 comments about Douglass and Lincoln: How a Revolutionary Black Leader and a Reluctant Liberator Struggled to End Slavery and Save the Union.

1. This is a truly fascinating book and an exciting story.
   The Kendricks' use letters, articles and mountains of other research to bring these men and their struggles to life. I found myself seeing them not as icons, but as people. It is an exciting story to follow Douglass' mission to make the Civil War about freedom, his son's perilous experiences as soldiers and the Kendricks' interesting take on Lincoln's evolution.
   Watching Lincoln through Douglass' gave me a Lincoln I had never seen before. While they do not hold back with aspects of Lincoln on race that may surprise you, he emerges as great because he is not paralyzed by his prejudices as he rises to monumental deeds.
   I cannot recommend this book highly enough. These two have a true gift for making history interesting and inspiring.



2. As a student of history, I found this a compelling look at two towering figures and a cogent study of their rarely-explored relationship through the Civil War. Approaching the subject with subtlety and sensitivity, Kendrick and Kendrick make a case for the mutual influence of their dialogue. It was this force that ultimately cemented Lincoln's conviction to continue the war, not just his aversion to breaking the Union. Through new primary sources--unpublished letters, black abolitionist papers--the book provides critical background which gives abolition new resonance.



3. Having read both Oakes' Radical and the Republican and the Kendrick's new book on Lincoln and Douglass (the Abolishionist, not the rival Senator), it seems to me that this recent book gives a much fuller human dimension to the relationship. Though this is an amazing political story (one Americans should know more about), Douglass and Lincoln offers a more vivid, personal insight into these very complicated, indeed enigmatic, men. All told, I enjoyed the book, and have no hesitancy in giving it the full five star treatment. In the current deluge of Lincoln books leading up to the 200th anniversery, this is one book that truly has a fresh angle on a well-worn topic. To see the struggle of the Civil War through Frederick Douglass' eyes makes it all seem new, even surprising. A wonderful read even for people tired of the Civil War.



4. As the Kendrick's stated at a recent book talk on their new work: 'we often approach this war [Civil War] through the lens of its ending...but it wasn't like this at all at the time.' This book chronicles, in a very enjoyable novel-like way, the constantly shifting dynamics of the War as reflected in the personal relationship of two great men. Not afraid to tackle the folklore that surrounds each man, Paul and Stephen Kendrick provide helpful insight into a profound relationship.



5. Douglass and Lincoln is an exceptionally researched and well-written book on the relationship between these two important men. Most of the book focuses on Douglass rather than Lincoln, perhaps necessarily so. The Kendricks do a superb job of tracing Lincoln's slow transformation from a leader reluctant to press the emancipation issue to one who eventually embraced it, all within the context of Douglass's lifelong struggle not only for emancipation, but for equality. Douglass and Lincoln met only a few times, but it's evident in this book that they held a mutual respect for each other due to each man's struggle against adversity in their early lives. I recommend this book not only because it is well-researched, but because it's well-written. It's quite a page turner. I couldn't put it down.

2 comments about Brokenburn: The Journal of Kate Stone, 1861-1868 (Library of Southern Civilization).

1. Kate Stone is one of my favorite Civil War diarists. She is an admixture of a great privilege, passionate beliefs, lover of literature, keen social observations and amazing fortitude. Her Civil War was dangerous, turbulent and life changing.

   Brokenburn was a large plantation containing over 150 slaves in Madison Parish, LA. From 1862 on, it was in the center of the Union Army's fierce assault to gain control of the Mississippi River and divide the Confederacy in half. Plantations were commandeered and slaves were encouraged to revolt. The civilian population was helpless before the demands of military control. Madison Parish had a population of approximately 9,000 of whom 7,000 were slaves. After 1861, the Parish was emptied of able-bodied white men, most of whom had been sent to far-off Virginia and Tennessee, leaving none to protect the civilians.

   In 1861, Kate was 20 years old, her immediate future being beaus, courtship, and a gay social life before she settled down to become a proper southern matron. She was unsure whether this route was ideal, as she remarked, "women grew significantly uglier in wedlock and ignored and abandoned their former female friends." This comfortable world was turned upside down, never to reappear again. With great enthusiasm and some trepidation, she watched her three older brothers go off to war. Her widowed mother made it clear that 14-year-old James was now in charge of the running of the plantation and the protection of the rest of the family. I was amazed at the serene assumption that a young teenager was thrust in this role, but it seems that was the custom of the times. If you had to grow up fast, you did. Yellow fever was a constant in the area, and longevity was not a norm. Both Generals Grant and Lee wanted their troops out of these areas during "the seasons of pestilence." This was not to be, and both armies suffered devastating losses to disease. Kate treated the "fever season" as a fact of life, and planned around it with remarkable briskness.

   By 1862, the Stone family was desperate. The Federal leadership demanded that they stay on their property; yet there were serious slave insurrections that threatened the lives of the plantation holders. Those slaves who were not hostile were running off, and there was no labor to farm the crops. Many southerners could not believe that their "loyal" slaves would run away. Kate was not among them, saying, "If I were in their place, I'd do the same." She was by no means sympathetic, just practical.

   The family finally escaped through the bayous in a rickety canoe with nothing, not even underwear, and finally made it across the border into Texas. They were refugees along with many other prominent Louisiana families. Kate was convinced they had arrived at "a dark corner of the Confederacy." Upon noting the barefoot but hoop skirted frontier ladies, she sniffed "there must be something in the air of Texas fatal to beauty."

   Kate agonized over the increasingly bad war news and was devastated by Lee's surrender. Kate is one of the most vivid, perceptive diarists of the Civil War. Her diary is one of social history, a time of calamitous change and invaluable for understanding this crucial time in American history. Kate is a natural writer and observer. A highly enjoyable read.




2. Like Mary Boykin Chesnut, Kate Stone wrote her diary during the Civil War. They were both members of the slaveholding planter class and at the start of the war both were surrounded by servants who met their every need. But twenty year old Kate Stone's life would be more directly affected by the war. Her young uncles and brothers went to join up at the onset and before the war ended several were dead of injuries or disease. Kate Stone's Louisiana home was occupied by the Yankees forcing the family to flee to Texas. Both describe the deprivations of the war years, lack of shoe leather, lack of cloth and the unavailability of new books, and both were at times cheered by false reports of great southern victories. The two diaries complement each other.

5 comments about Patriotic Treason: John Brown and the Soul of America.

1. This is the first book that I've read about John Brown and I'm glad that I waited. Brown's story is a simply amazing one and Carton is the master of every detail. He writes very well, is excellent at telling a story, and, most significantly for me, he is well-versed in the historical period. He has deep knowledge about pre-Civil-War politics, intellectual life and social relations. And he integrates what he knows brilliantly into John Brown's story. Brown emerges as more than the leader of the raid at Harper's Ferry; in this book we come to understand his Christianity, his early life, his family, his values and most particularly his relations with black people, which were perhaps without precedent in America. The book is very moving, though quietly so: Carton doesn't shy away from being critical of John Brown, but eventually his esteem for Brown comes through and it's tough not to be sympathetic. The book was a great pleasure and I felt that I learned a lot from it about race relations past--and present, too.



2. This is an excellent, thoroughly researched and referenced book by Evan Carton which is also a very gripping read. Even though the outcome is known, the book is hard to put down. But while the style is nearly novelistic, it is solidly factual. I read this book because I wanted to understand if the usual myths about Brown were correct - if he was indeed a madman. Carton shows him to be a deeply religious and principled man, and one whose reasoning was consistent with his values and with his understanding of the enormous injustice of slavery in nineteenth century America. Brown was an extremely effective fighter against the murderous "border ruffians" from Missouri who attempted to terrrorize free state settlers in Kansas. These Missourian slaveholders and their agents drove free-soil settlers away, burning and looting their settlements such as Lawrence, Kansas, fixing elections, and occasionally killing free-soil setlers, and bragging to "shoot, burn, and hang" abolitionsts, not believing the abolitionists or the free soil settlers(who often weren't abolitionists) would dare to fight back. Initially, they didn't. Brown did, with a very small force, and the reader may find his actions quite shocking. On some occasions his small force routed or captured gangs of the border ruffians who outnumbered them substantially. Brown's desire to accelerate the end of slavery, which he clearly saw as a odious blotch on the ideals which founded his country, led him eventually to more decisive action. Carton provides a clarification for his thought processes through his letters, meetings with sponsors and other associates, and the recollections of survivors after the raid on Harpers Ferry, and convinces that Brown's reasoning was sound, although it certainly was radical. Both before and after the raid, Carton shows us the Brown was confident of the positive effects of the raid even if it were a military failure. Ultimately, it was the notion of the slaveholders that they could indefinitely extend their profitable institution that proved to be madness.



3. John Brown's attempt to free slaves by sparking a national uprising through the assault on the Harpers Ferry in October 1859 was a complete and utter failure when measured by how quickly they were thwarted, how many of Brown's men died in the attempt or by execution. Yet, his communications during his trial and from prison galvanized the hardest of abolitionists in the north (including the Transcendentalists such as Emerson and Thoreau) and the secessionists in the south. More than a few people believe it was the reaction to this raid that set events in process that led to the ferocious bloodshed of the Civil War less than eighteen months later.
   
   Was Brown a madman acting in a crazed spasm or emotion? That judgment has changed radically in the near century and a half since his execution. Immediately afterward, the largest popular reaction was negative because it was lawless and was an assault on the Federal Government. Some of the most extreme abolitionists did hold him up as a kind of messianic figure. When I was in high school, he was regarded as someone hardly worth mentioning. He was clearly crazed and criminal to boot. In the past decade several books and documentaries have taken another look and come to a much more favorable view of Brown. Some even see him much as the Transcendentalists talked about him right after he was hanged.
   
   Evan Carton focuses more on the life of Brown and only gets into the societal issues in a couple of places. He does a fine job in keeping the life Brown lived front and center rather than letting it stand for whatever his supporters or detractors would have it be. Carton trusts the reader enough to let him decide for himself. This is quite important for the modern reader who likely knows little about Brown because of the issues his life raises for our own time. Is a private choice to violence ever justified? Certainly slavery was a great evil. Was Brown justified? Would or could slavery have been eradicated in the United States as it was elsewhere in the European Empires without war?
   
   If you answer that slavery was so evil that Brown was justified how do you say that someone who is trying to prevent millions of abortions is wrong? Or someone who wants to retain affirmative action? Or whatever else drives their personal conscience to extreme action? If you say that Brown was not justified, how do you avoid the guilt of slavery? Weren't the millions of souls in bondage worth fighting for? Should they have been left as chattel property for another decade or two or another century until things could work themselves out?
   
   I guess my own view is a cheat on the question. I do not condone private violence and believe that those who blow up abortion clinics or violently attack Federal installations actually help their opponents more than their cause. Brown was so fervent and articulate that his passion moved a great many people. If he had stepped forward more as a Frederick Douglass and engaged in demonstrations he would have probably accomplished more. But you can justly come to different conclusions than mine.
   
   Brown was a man of great integrity to the point of rigidity. As a businessman his personal sense of what was right led him to drive customers away. He wouldn't sell leather until it was cured to his level of satisfaction even if the customer wanted it as it was. When he was selling wool, his own classifications mattered more to him than what his customers wanted to buy and what those he was an agent for wanted to sell. When he and his family were caught up in the Kansas War, he was clearly justified in protecting those who opposed letting the Missourian slave advocates run roughshod over the territorial government. The Missourians committed many atrocities and Brown was the man who taught the victims that they could stand up to their oppressors. Still, attacking and murdering people in the homes and hacking them to death with a sword still shocks us.
   
   Brown was not an unfeeling man dispensing justice as if he were God. He was a man of deep passion who also knew pain and personal loss. Many of his children died in infancy or youth. He knew poverty and want. There is a tremendously moving scene when Brown is found flat on his Dianthe's, his first wife, grave crying in agony. And his last visit with his second wife especially when she has to leave him is also quite moving. Brown did what he did because he knew (that personal conviction problem again) that he was on God's work and was doing what God wanted him to do. And this despite the deep personal loss the mission brought him.
   
   I recommend this book because I like the way Carton focuses on the life and leaves most of the commentary to you and because Brown's life raises issues that resonate in our time. The author does get in to the larger national issues in chapter 10 and in the aftermath of the execution in chapter thirteen. In the epilogue he shares a few of his own views that you might or might not accept. I also recommend it because one can never know too much about the Civil War and its origins. It was a cataclysm whose shockwaves still resonate underneath almost everything in our present national life.
   
   There are some very good pictures in the book, but the one flaw I hope they correct in a subsequent edition is to provide a listing of the illustrations and their page numbers. Now you see them mixed in the text as you read, but if you want to find them later it becomes somewhat of a hunting game.



4. And...written by a Texan, too! Every detail of Brown's life is told here, from his humble beginnings to his single-handed start of the Civil War. Worth the 15 hours unabridged.



5. A balanced biography of a complex man, "Patriotic Treason", is both scholarly and involving. A rich, anecdote-laden text, it easily moves between chronicling the life of abolitionist John Brown and describing the larger tapestry of American life in the 1850s.
   
   The book is chockful of dramatic scenes and thematic discussions, including- as pointed out in the other Amazon reviews of this book- the question of whether it's acceptable and perhaps even a moral obligation to sometimes break the law in favor of a greater good. Mr. Carton covers the question well, quoting leading figures of the time who address that very question in response to Mr. Brown's well-publicized actions.
   
   The book is sobering at times, and not just for the expected reasons (like being reminded again of how terribly slaves were treated or how much widespread support there was for slavery in this supposed land of liberty). No, what I found surprising is that among whites who didn't like slavery and even among outright abolitionists, there was very little use or affection for blacks. Most just wanted them deported or resettled somewhere else, where they wouldn't compete for American jobs or mingle with the more "refined" white race.
   
   John Brown, on the other hand, actively befriended blacks all his life, had them over to his house for dinner with his family (unprecedented!), humbly solicited advice from his black friends on a variety of matters, and regularly interacted with blacks in all kinds of other "normal" ways. For John Brown, abolition wasn't just the right answer to an academic question or a detached moral opinion that had little to do with one's daily life. John Brown lived his anti-slavery views because he lived side by side with blacks every day. Whatever excesses Mr. Brown may or may not have undertaken later when he put his anti-slavery views into action, that fact scored points with me.
   
   If you check out my other Amazon reviews, you'll see that I don't read a lot of biographies or memoirs, but every now and then I dive into one. I'm really glad "Patriotic Treason" grabbed my attention. It illuminates a shameful part of U.S. history and again debunks the tired mantra among many that we need to return to the values of our historical past. No, many of those "values" should stay in the past where they belong. It was a dark, evil time in many ways, and John Brown played a huge part in helping this country move beyond it.

5 comments about Generals in Bronze: Interviewing the Commanders of the Civil War.

1. This is the best first-hand account of Civil War action and detail that I have read since "Campaigning with Grant," and likely the greatest collection of its kind in American historic literature. Every page is a gold mine of detail straight from the lips of the Generals themselves, often expressing their true feelings about other officers that they never allowed into their memoirs. It also provides a rare glimpse into their true personalities as aging war heroes, reported objectively by artist and author James Kelly of NYC, while they sat for their sketches. Kelly transcribes their words, appearance, mannerisms, and peccadillos.
   Myths are broken, and the detail provided by the generals is almost unimaginable -- from what style hat they war in a particular battle to where they took a nap will Lee surrendered to Grant at the McLean house.
   Imagine Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock describing how the doctor removed the bullet and saddle-debris from his 8-inch deep wound at Gettysburg...simply an unbelievable treasure of information. The book also contains many of the actual pencil & charcoal portraits of the Generals, which are especially compelling, as you just read the actual conversation they had with the artist while he sketched away at the portrait you now hold in your hand, and the general autographed the sketch attesting that it was drawn from life and approved. If you have questions you always wanted to ask a Civil War general like Grant, Sheridan, Sherman, Hancock, or Doubleday, they answer your questions in this book; like a ghost returning from the grave to sit in your favorite chair. I am grateful that I caught editor William Styple on C-Span. In fact, all history buffs should fall on their knees and thank editor William Styple for finding Kelly's masterstroke memoir and resurrecting it so beautifully, in our lifetime.



2. I saw a rerun of the interview on CSpan with the author and ordered this book immediately. What a pleasure to read the off-hand remarks by the various Generals about the Civil War. MORE PICTURES please but otherwise a detailed, challenging and rewarding read if you can plow through the details.



3. As a young boy in New York City during the Civil War James Kelly fantasized about being a soldier and fighting for the Union. His passion for the heroes of that war continued into his adult life. A noted artist and sculptor, Kelly went on to immortalize a great many of them in ink and bronze.
   
   Kelly was also a unique historian. He could obtain from these men details and circumstances of events that an ordinary reporter could not. As he had them pose for his sketches, he told them that in order to get the picture right he had to know every detail. Then, as he was drawing he would write down their comments in his journal.
   
   In this way he gleaned fascinating insights from them that will change your view of the war. Here are some examples.
   
   We know that several generals turned down command of the Army of the Potomac during the period 1862-1863. Kelly found out in his interviews that one of the conditions of command was the stipulation that the general had to pledge that the war would not end until after the [presidential] election of 1864.
   
   I have always wondered why there were so few casualties during the bombardment of Fort Sumter. Why didn't the big guns of the fort not inflict any damage on the Southern batteries? The answer is that the Secretary of War under outgoing President Buchanan [1856-1860] was a Southern sympathizer. In his last days in office he had ordered that the powerful casement guns in the fort be removed and replaced with old ships' guns.
   
   Kelly obtained intimate details of the battles and why things happened the way they did as well as vivid images of life in combat. One general described having a horse shot out from under him. "He was hit as he reared. He went down over his front legs and blood shot from both nostrils like water from a pump".
   
   This is a "must read" for all afficionados of Civil War history.



4. It is hard to add anything new to what has already been written in the reviews, although I would say that not only does the book have excellent insight into many of the key Federal officers that fought in the war, but it is a window into 19th Century post war culture. James Kelly, the sculptor and artist who is at the center of the book, vividly recounts how he meets these gentlemen. Most of the time he must use calling cards to announce his arrival before he is called in- something wholly archaic in our modern casual society. There are other tidbits that are fascinating. One general whom he calls on uses a fan and a block of ice to keep cool as he answers Kelly's questions.
   Speaking of these questions, we the readers are very fortunate in that Kelly had studied the war and often asked the same questions we would. He was a small boy during the war, and these men were his heroes. We meet these men as real people, not just as names in a book. I do agree with one reviewer who writes that there is too much detail, but there again, it is the details that make the book come alive.
   My only regret (but it is a very small one) is that Kelly was so prejudiced against Southerners that he only recounts his meeting with one of them, and absolutely refused to sculpt any ex-Confederate officers. However, given his time and how he felt about the war, such feelings are understandable. It is instructive that most of the men he talked with did not share his extreme negative views about Confederate veterans.
   I would recommend this book for any seasoned Civil War enthusiast, as they would be familiar with the controversies and issues Kelly recounts. But Styple does a great job as editor and so perhaps even a novice might be able to wade through some of this and get something from it.
   Speaking of Styple, he deserves much credit for bringing this book into print, as he had to wade through all of Kelly's material to publish it. Not only that, but Styple researched Kelly's life and found that Kelly died a pauper with an unmarked grave! Styple was able to remedy that and recently had a grave marker erected for one of the finest sculptors our country ever produced.



5. Outstanding book, get a better feel of what the Generals were thinking during the Civil War.

5 comments about Lee Considered: General Robert E. Lee and Civil War History.

1. If you like politically correct revisionism, then this is for you. I don't mind at all reading well reasoned essays, but when the author concludes that nothing about the historic portrayal of Robert E. Lee is accurate, that's a bit much. According to the book, Lee was not particularly honest or competent.
   When those closest to him throughout his U.S. army career, those who served closely with him during four years of war,and even his military adversaries (including President Licoln) almost universally indicated a high regard for the man, certainly he must have gotten something right. The Army of Northern Virginia held together during one of the coldest winters in the 19th century (1864-65) shivering in the trenches with little clothing or food because thousands still believed in Lee enough to continue to fight. That was certainly well before the myth of the Lost Cause was developed. I guess that those who knew him best were just too stupid to see the great "truths" this book uncovers.
   
   The fact that Lee's soldiers went home after an incredibly bitter war and that America did not turn into Northern Ireland is a tribute to Lee. The fact that Lee quicky applied for a pardon and tried to set an example to reduce sectional hatred and devoted his remaining years to educating the next generation means the poor guy could not be all bad.
   
   But you sure wouldn't know it from reading Lee Considered. I suggest that you considering buying something else.



2. Yep, it is, in my opinion, very bad (I can hardly use the word in connection with it) "history." Knowing that I love to read Civil War history, a relative gave me this book for Christmas, 2007; I read it in a couple of days. Geez. Invalid criteria, misreading of facts and invalid analysis are, in my opinion, the hallmarks of this book. Valuing my bookshelf space, I did the right thing: I wrote my 'Thank You' note, then pitched it.
   
   Its a good thing that trees are a renewable resource.



3. Save your money, Charter assignation is the lawyers trade mark and from Alan Nolan you see his distain for the south and all southern writers; objectivity is not in his vocabulary or writing this book.
   Nolan writes in typical lawyer fashion, he does not let truth or facts get in the way of a good story.
   I am disappointed with the blatant bias of the book by someone who is attempting to write about a general in the confederate army with any degree of fairness. A law degree makes not a soldier or writer.
   Nolan makes many contradictory statements, both military and nonmilitary, which appear to be from not having an original thought and brings into question his expertise in military tactics and his ability to write objectivity as a military historian. His use of tertiary sources is least desirable way to do research and writing; but to say the people who he has scavenged the work from do not know the real Robert E. Lee is the height of conceit. In this book Nolan seems to be trying to prove historians wrong and portray Lee as some sort of war monger, which of course if far from the truth.
   Douglas S. Freeman, Nobel Prize, a Lee historian of the highest caliber, is turning over in his grave, at the attacks on his writing. Freeman's father, served honorably for the war of independence, was a great source of information for Douglas; would be greatly insulted by this book.
   His writing is excerpts form other writers books and he leaves many gaps when quoting for these writers, which leaves me to believe he is selectively taking information out of context for the purpose of demeaning the main charter.
   One would be better served to read other books on the war for southern independence before reading this book.



4. this book shows the flaws of robert E lee. the author disproves many of the myth surrounding Lee about not supporting slavery and being a flawless general -eventhough he was a good general. overall, it is a good read for anyone who wants to learn about Robert E Lee.



5. If a book has substantial references and documentation to specifically document controversial opinions and positions of the author, then it may make a worthwhile read. In this tome, however, Nolan provides little to no rational support for his opinions, making his efforts..., well,....trash. At least the National Inquirer gets sued if it creates defamatory material, and publishes it. Poor Marse Lee isn't with us to give Nolan the same thrashing he would receive were Nolan not too infirm himself and the subject of his scorn alive.
   
   Sadly, I can only hope that McPherson and Gallagher, who thought this book more than a cheap novel, have managed to maintain a higher degree of scholarship in their own works than does Nolan. Honestly, my problem with the book is not that it takes a negative view of Lee, otherwise, I wouldn't have bought it. My disappointment lies in the unmitigated lack of reasonable support in the record to be found in a single negative statement.
   
   Well, at least the pages of my book have found some redeeming usefulness, as what is left of the book sits next to my toilet. Damn expensive toilet paper, though.