3 comments about The Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant, Vol. 2.

1. General Grant wrote this book while dying of throat cancer. He had been swindled by a dishonest Wall Street Broker and his trophies and possessions were stripped from him to satisfy the demands of his debtors. Bankrupt, suffering from a terminal illness and never passing a moment without acute pain, he produced this magnificent monument to his greatness. Those who denigrate Grant as a drunkard, butcher, bumbling President need to read this book in order to correct these errant assumptions. It is impossible to read this book and not realize that Grant was an inordinately intelligent man and one hell of a writer.

   Grant's Memoirs are a deserved classic in American literature and considered the greatest military Memoirs ever penned, exceeding Caesar's Commentaries. Grant wrote as he lived: with clear, concise statements, unembellished with trivialities or frivolities. The only "criticism" the reader might have is that Grant bent over backwards not to wound the feelings of people in the book. He takes swipes at Joe Hooker and Jeff Davis, but what he left unsaid would have been far more interesting. A compelling and logical reason why Grant was so spare in his comments was because he was involved in a race with death. He didn't know how long he could live and therefore, "cut to the chase."

   Grant's assessments of Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan and other military leaders are brilliant and engrossing. His style, like the man himself, was inimitable and couldn't be copied. In everyday life, Grant was a very funny man, who liked to listen to jokes and tell them himself. His sense of the absurd was acute. It's no accident that he loved Mark Twain and the two hitched together very well. Twain and Grant shared a similar sense of humor, and Grant's witicisms in the Memoirs are frequent, unexpected and welcome. There are portions where you will literally laugh out loud.

   Though Grant's Memoirs were written 113 years ago, they remain fresh, vibrant and an intensely good read. I have read them in! their entirity 30 times in my life and I never weary of the style and language that Grant employed. He was a military genius to be sure, but he was also a writer of supreme gifts, and these gifts shine through on every page of this testament to his greatness. All Americans should read this book and realize what we owe to Grant: he preserved the union with his decisive brilliance. In his honor, we should be eternally grateful.




2. General Grant wrote this book while dying of throat cancer. He had been swindled by a dishonest Wall Street Broker and his trophies and possessions were stripped from him to satisfy the demands of his debtors. Bankrupt, suffering from a terminal illness and never passing a moment without acute pain, he produced this magnificent monument to his greatness. Those who denigrate Grant as a drunkard, butcher or bumbling President need to read this book in order to correct these errant assumptions. It is impossible to read this book and not realize that Grant was an inordinately intelligent man and one hell of a writer.

   Grant's Memoirs are a deserved classic in American literature and considered the greatest military Memoirs ever penned, exceeding Caesar's Commentaries. Grant wrote as he lived: with clear, concise statements, unembellished with trivialities or frivolities. The only "criticism" the reader might have is that Grant bent over backwards not to wound the feelings of people in the book. He takes swipes at Joe Hooker and Jeff Davis, but what he left unsaid would have been far more interesting. A compelling and logical reason why Grant was so spare in his comments was because he was involved in a race with death. He didn't know how long he could live and therefore, "cut to the chase."

   Grant's assessments of Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan and other military leaders are brilliant and engrossing. His style, like the man himself, was inimitable and couldn't be copied. In everyday life, Grant was a very funny man, who liked to listen to jokes and tell them himself. His sense of the absurd was acute. It's no accident that he loved Mark Twain and the two hitched together very well. Twain and Grant shared a similar sense of humor, and Grant's witicisms in the Memoirs are frequent, unexpected and welcome. There are portions where you will literally laugh out loud.

   Though Grant's Memoirs were written 119 years ago, they remain fresh, vibrant and an intensely good read. I have read them many times in my life and I never weary of the style and language that Grant employed. He was a military genius to be sure, but he was also a writer of supreme gifts, and these gifts shine through on every page of this testament to his greatness. All Americans should read this book and realize what we owe to Grant: he preserved the union with his decisive brilliance. In his honor, we should be eternally grateful.




3. This book is a good subject for the Civil War buff that delves into the personal accounts of a general from birth to retirement. This a must companion for "Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant, Volume One."

4 comments about Robert E. Lee: Icon for a Nation.

1. At the end of the American Civil War Robert E. Lee had only five years to live. The heart problems that caused him to spend the battle of the North Anna River in an ambulance killed him. ==In the years following his reputation as a battlefield leader was heavily promoted by writers lamenting the lost cause of Southern independence. These included not only Southerners but Northernors as well.
   
   In this book Brian Holden Reid, Professor of American History at King's College London, writes from the vantage point of a disinterested outsider to argue that Lee was one of the great commanders of all time. He does not claim that Lee didn't have faults. Everyone does, but that the overall generalship of General Lee ranks him among the best.
   
   The American Civil War took place at a transition point in military affairs. The war before (Mexico, 1843) and the war that followed (World War I). The author contends that Lee was among the first of the modern generals. If the armies had listened to him during World War I, it probably wouldn't have turned into the mess that it was.



2. It is easy to overlook the many contributions that non-Americans have made to the study of the American Civil War. Brian Holden Reid's outstanding study "Robert E. Lee: Icon for a Nation" brings an informed, fresh and balanced perspective to bear upon the Confederacy's greatest general. Reid is Professor of American History and Military Institutions and Head of the Department of War Studies at Kings College, London. He has taught military strategy and tactics and written extensively about America's Civil War.
   
   Any new study of Lee must work on two levels. First, of course, it must examine Lee himself, his life, his career, and his generalship. Second, any study must come to terms with the extensive writing and radically shifting perspectives about Lee over the years. Following the Civil War, Lee quickly became an icon to Southern partisans in the "Lost Cause" tradition. His character and success, for a time, against long military odds soon elevated Lee into a figure respected and revered by many Americans, north and south. Then, in mid-20th Century a reaction set in against Lee, questioning some of the mythology that had grown around him and challenging his agressive conduct of the War, his focus on the Eastern theater, his alleged lack of broad strategic vision, and the high casualty rate to which he subjected the Army of Northern Virginia, among other things. The reasons underlying the reassessment were complex. They included correcting an overly iconic and uncritical account, the changing perspective with which Americans viewed the Civil War, and a general and, I think, unhappy tendency to debunk and to criticise important historical figures.
   
   In clear, elegant prose, Reid examines Lee and Lee historiography. Although Reid avoids hero worship, he clearly admires greatly Robert E. Lee as a person and as a general. He finds that much, but not all, of the traditional picture of Lee has merit: he was an imaginative, agressive, savvy, and gifted commander who, importantly, inspired the love and the trust of his men. He fought and won many battles against long odds and prolonged the life of the Confederacy, giving it its best chance to achieve independence. Reid is far from uncritical as he points to flaws in, among other things, the command structure of Lee's army, the commander's frequent over-confidence, his tendency to overdelegate to subordinates, his conduct of the Battle of Gettysburg, and the failure to make the most of his opportunites in battles such as Seven Days, Second Manassas, Fredricksburg, and Chancellorsville. For all these faults, Lee emerges in this study as a remarkable, charismatic commander whom Reid believes is properly regarded as one of the greatest in history.
   
   The book opens with a chapter on Lee the icon with a summary of how historians of the "Lost Cause" school have viewed him, under the influence of the writings of Confederate General Jubal Early. The book then discusses Lee's pre-Civil War career, focusing on his service in Mexico, but gathers force in its consideration of Lee's three-year career as the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia. Lee's assumption of command in June, 1862, and the battles for which he is famous -- Seven Days, Second Manassas, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, the Wilderness Campaign, Petersburg, and Appatomatox, are discussed clearly and with sufficient detail. Reid keeps his and the reader's focus on the main themes of his study: showing Lee's greatness as a leader but his shortcomings as well.
   
   In common with most books about Lee, his military exploits are discussed in detail but we see little of his inmost thoughts and feelings. Lee was a highly reserved individual. I would have also liked more emphasis on Lee's pre-Civil War career and, particularly, a fuller discussion of Lee's life and career as President of Washington University following the Civil War. The book includes some basic maps of the key theatres of Lee's operations -- placed at the beginning of the book to avoid cluttering the text -- a good, basic bibliography, and no footnotes.
   
   Reid has written an excellent study of a great commander which argues convincingly that Lee deserves most of the esteem that he has traditionally received. This book will appeal to serious students of the Civil War.
   
   Robin Friedman



3. the author is a good writer, entertaining with an obvious wealth of knowledge of the subject. I couldn't imagine how the author could get a picture of Lee into that small book when it took Freeman four volumes, but it was well worth the purchase, I would highly recommend it.



4. General Lee was a trator to this country and his training, and he would have replaced the Black-American slaves with the Irish serfs of Europe, according to Elizabeth B. Pryor, in her study of Lee, in Reading The Man. Please only recommend historal facts to me, and not some idealized opinion. Lee was a West Point trained soldier, and he selected personal comfort and convience over duty. Am I to believe that Ms. Pryor is incorrect?

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 George B. Mcclellan: The Young Napoleon.

1. I'd like to knock some sense into this little brat General.
   
   Lee rules Dixie! Long Live the South.



2. History and historians have, on the whole, not been very kind to Major General George B. McClellan. Lately a trend, or better, the beginning of a trend, can be discerned in Civil War historiography towards a kinder view of McClellan. I'm referring to books like: "McClellan's War" by professor Ethan S. Rafuse, the book on McClellan by professor Thomas Rowland and to the 3 books on the Army of the Potomac by Russell Beatie.
   All these books are very good and offer many valuable insights.
   
   Yet I remain convinced that the reputation of George B. McClellan is quite beyond saving and that that there is only one man who comes in for the lion's share of blame for this: George B. McClellan.
   
   On the plus side, and this has to be acknowledgded, McClellan never got near enough credit for his greatest achievement: he MADE the Army of the Potomac. He really did, and it was a magnificent job, considering the time he had to do it in.
   So often we read about McClellan: "oh well he was a great organizer, but a very bad general" but that -unfairly- belittles his tremendous skills in that respect. So more kudos to McClellan for that. It is very, very hard to organize, to build, to equip arm, feed and clothe an army, and then to train and drill it in preparation for it's deadly work. Then of course there was another task: he had to select it's leaders, from the senior command level on down. Don't think to lightly about this. McClellan did so superbly. He gave men like John Gibbon, George Meade, Henry Hunt, Rufus Ingalls, John Buford, Winfield Scott Hancock, John Sedgewick, Charles Griffin and Andrew Humphreys their first commands on brigade level.
   
   He should never have led it out to fight himself, though, his beloved Army of the Potomac. He was distinctly unqualified for that. I think that deep down inside of him, he was aware of this, read his correspondance (also compiled in a magnificent book by Stephen Sears, buy it!!!): his letters offer a case-study of a man plagued by insecurities, complexes and paranoia.
   
   mr. Sears comes down hard on McClellan, very hard. But the points he argues are correct: McClellan was singularly unfit to lead an army.
   Yet he was so boastful and arrogant that he put himself first and the Union war effort second, as is witnessed by his behaviour during the interlude in august 1862, when Major General John Pope commanded half of MacClellan's army aginst Lee. McClellan preferred to let Pope (who possessed as annoying a personality and as large an ego as McClellan) be beaten by Lee than come to his aid.
   
   By then Lincoln was don with him: he let McClellan lead the army for the Antietam campaign, in order to drive Lee from Mary land, but when McClellan again started whining and dragging his feet he fired him.
   "Alas, my poor country"McClellan wrote his wife after his removal from command. Alas indeed: the war was to last another two and a half years, while he could have ended it in one day, had he not so utterly mismanaged the battle of Antietam.
   That is McClellan's enduring bequest to his country: two and a half more years of war.
   
   What baffles me is this: why wasn't he brought to account for this in his own time??? Instead he was honoured, admired and even nominated for the Presidency in 1864!!!
   McClellan lost the 1864 election to Lincoln, thank God. Had he won the world would not have been the same: maybe America would still be split in two countries: the USA and the CSA, or the Civil War would have restarted and be contested with even more bitterness and more ruinous consequences for the nations after his presidential term, or even terms.
   Why he was not impeached, tried or court-martialled after his inept campaign in september and october 1862 is a question I ask myself. Surely others must have too?
   
   Lincoln should have made McClellan Quartermaster-General in Chief of the Union army and put him in charge of supply, armament, recruitment, equipment and training. That was what he was good at. He would have been the Union's Lazare Carnot: "the Organizer of Victory" of the French Revolution. There is litle doubt in my mind he would have done a very good job.
   
   A solid biography on this remarkable man. Well done Stephen W. Sears!!! Keep 'em coming.



3. Billed as neither an indictment nor an apologia, Sears makes it pretty plain that George B. McClellan was a failure as a military leader. Overly cautious, slow to act, seeing the worst in every situation, McC was probably his own worst enemy. It's easy to see why so many of the soldiers liked him, though: fighting with McC meant there was a good chance you wouldn't see much action and if you did it was with the utmost planning for the soldiers' safety and well-being. He always thought he was outnumbered by the enemy and let opportunities for victory slip quickly through his fingers. Sears makes the point that McC always planned his campaigns and battles as if facing an overwhelming enemy force, and in that regard they were superb plans. Unfortunately, that wasn't the way it was on the field. Antietam probably should have been McC's best chance to destroy Lee's army and perhaps end the war then and there, but he squandered every opportunity and left a third of his army in reserve. Even worse, and what surely makes the man detestable, was his tremendous ego and feelings of self-importance. Sears' biography covers McC's entire life, though 90% of it deals with the Civil War years. Well written and interesting.



4. Stephen W. Sears proves once again that he is a master of Civil War histories. A must ead for students of America's greatest conflect.



5. Has anyone of so much purported skill and promise failed so spectacularly at such a critical moment in American history as General George B. McClellan? If there is, I can't imagine who it would be. Douglas MacArthur comes to mind as a possible analogue (indeed, Harry Truman turned to Lincoln's dealing with McClellan for inspiration in dealing with MacArthur), but at least MacArthur ultimately prevailed in the Pacific in WWII and can at least point to Inchon as a moment of triumph.
   
   This biography is heralded as scrupulously balanced and fair. If so, few actors on such a large stage have had so few redeeming qualities, the fascist and communist dictators of the twentieth century included. The man that Stephen Sears describes is incorrigible - there is no other word for it. Sears paints a portrait of a fool. Several Union generals matched wits and nerve with Robert E. Lee and suffered humiliating defeat, but such men as Ambrose Burnside were, at least, self-aware. They recognized the enormity of their task, felt inadequate, but pressed ahead to the greatest of their ability to fulfill their duty. McClellan, as Sears portrays him, was delusional. His arrogance and conceit were colossal. As he stumbled from one miscue to the next - and the Lincoln administration fretted over how to prod their field general into action - McClellan was convinced that history would confirm his genius and place him in the pantheon of military greats. Not American military greats, mind you, but alongside the likes of Napoleon, Caesar, and Hannibal.
   
   The only positive things that Sears has to say about McClellan is that he was not disloyal to the Union (he was committed to seeing re-union as a precondition to peace with the South, but disagreed vehemently with the Emancipation Proclamation), he never intentionally contributed to the defeat of another Union general, such as Pope at Second Manassas, and he had a loving and tender relationship with his wife. Beyond that, this biography is essentially an indictment of McClellan's military conduct at the head of the Army of the Potomac and his character as a military officer and human being.
   
   What this biography fails to do is explain why so many people - from the front ranks of business, politics and the military - thought so highly of McClellan, so consistently and for so long. McClellan was one of the highest paid railroad executives in the country while in his early 30s. He received the vigorous patronage, as Sears describes it, of Jefferson Davis when he was secretary of war in the Pierce administration and Salmon Chase when he was secretary of the treasury in the Lincoln administration, but Sears never describes how or why those relationships developed or why those men had such confidence in McClellan. When the Civil War broke out, the governors of the three largest states in the Union - New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio - all turned to McClellan as their first pick to lead their state militias. McClellan clearly had the ability to impress intelligent and experienced men - the type of men one would expect to be good judges of talent and character - yet the reader gets no sense of this from the Sears biography. Moreover, for all of the failure and hardship endured by the Army of the Potomac while under McClellan's command, the rank-and-file largely remained loyal to the general, often enthusiastically so.
   
   Sears emphasizes several themes throughout the biography. First, McClellan had utter disdain for civilian control of the military and the performance of non-regulars in the army, an opinion that emerged during his early days of service in Mexico and that he carried, unaltered, through the Civil War and to his grave. Second, McClellan harbored a personal animus against his superior, Abraham Lincoln. He felt that Lincoln was his social and intellectual inferior (McClellan regularly referred to Lincoln as "the gorilla" in his correspondence with his wife), and resented the commander-in-chief's meddling in military matters. Third, Sears argues that McClellan was paralyzed by the unknown and unexpected. If a maneuver met with unanticipated resistance or a plan seemed to go awry, McClellan's impulse was to freeze and react to enemy movements. Sears frequently contrasts McClellan's timidity with Lee's flexibility in the face of regular surprises and setbacks. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Sears stresses how badly the Army of the Potomac intelligence apparatus, run by Allan Pinkerton, failed to understand the order of battle of the Confederate Army of Virginia. Throughout McClellan's tenure as commander, the general belief was that the Union troops were outnumbered by as much as two-to-one, when the reverse was usually the case. The catastrophic intelligence failure of the Union (and McClellan's eagerness to believe the inflated numbers) raises the question: if McClellan had accurate intelligence on Confederate numbers, would it have changed his behavior and battle plans? Sears never addresses that question directly, but one can anticipate his response: no, it wouldn't have changed anything.
   
   Political scientists Eliot Cohen and John Gooch argue in "Military Misfortunes" that readers should be suspicious of the "man-in-the-dock" explanation to failure on the battlefield. In short, large scale military failure is rarely the result of one man's actions (or inactions). Yet, it seems to me that McClellan has been squarely put in the dock by history for the failures of the Union forces on the Peninsula and for not destroying the Army of Virginia at Antietam after receiving Special Order 191. Is that fair? This biography suggests that the answer is "yes," but I'm not convinced. I'm no fan of McClellan, but there had to be more to this man than Sears conveys here.

5 comments about The Hemingway Women.

1. Bernice Kert has given me my first true understanding of who Hemingway was and why he did the things he did. His choice of women, more so the women he married and the woman who gave birth to him are phsycoanalysis at it best. I now see the "Peter Pan" in Hemingway, not the masculine adventurer,hunter and "man's man". I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this book and recommend it highly.



2. I listened to the audio of this book and I really enjoyed it. Honestly, I am not a fan of Hemingway's books and stories but he sure was a complex man. For some reason, I find fascinating the events of the first half of the 20th Century. Living in Miami and having been to the Key West and the Hemingway House several times, made this book so real. If we ever end the ridiculous travel ban to Cuba, I would love to see his house there. This book flows well and the audio narration works.



3. This is a brilliant biography of a man whose name is, to many, synonymous with all things deeply, simply, brutally mannish. By telling the stories of Hemingway's relationships with women throughout his life- mother, wives, girlfriends, colleagues- Bernice Kert reveals the true smallness of the man with heartbreaking clarity. Yet, make no mistake, this is a thoroughly romantic book, albeit in all the saddest ways possible. Kert is not trying to smash the Hemingway legend,though after reading this book you will never see a Hemingway novel in quite the same way. Some people have commented that the individual stories of these women are insignificant because they did not lead notable lives "of their own", but any fan of Hemingway himself would be fascinated to see how much of these women and their lives were taken by Hemingway and retold in his most famous stories, always casting himself in a favorable light while reducing the woman to a fantasy of sexuality or revenge .... he being the famous author, whose story will we read? Whose myth will we believe? And how tragically familiar is the tale of one who gives up their "own life" to stand by their husband's side, only to see themself 'immortalized' with such coldness and cruelty?



4. This is as much fun to read as a great novel and has all the ingredients of a great read, as they say: love, hate, success, adventure, etc. For the most part, Ernest Hemingway is remembered as a mans's man, an adventurer who loved bullfights, safaris, hunting, shooting, fishing. But at heart he was a man who needed to be taken care of, but resented every woman who tried. All of his wives were from the same basic mold: adverturers and writers (was Hadley a writer?) and all of them wanted nothing more than to be with this exciting man who loved and adored her. That is, until they got married. Then the fun for him was over and he resented being taken care of by a woman who he thought of as a sex object, and he couldn't fathom that they might be able to cohabit the same body. In his letters he pleads for his women to always love him and take care of him, but in reality he resented them for doing just that. He admired Martha Gellhorn, the wife with by far the most spunk, for being a good journalist, until they were married. He wanted her to stay home with him, but she resisted his control. So what does he do? He meets another journalist, Mary Welsh, and immediately, on first sight, falls in love with her and begs for her to take care of him and to always love him. Which she did. And he immediately hated her for it. And it destroyed her.
   
   It is so ironic that the man who professed to hate his father for committing suicide (albeit blaming his mother for it) would in the end take his own life. Of course, by that time he was a shell of the adventurer/writer/lover, and was beset by illness, both psychiatric and otherwise, none of which he would allow treatment for.
   
   Although Hemingway lived and loved in the early to mid 1900s, it seems a long time ago; the world has changed so much! No longer do we see artists and writers living as paupers in France, as expats and proud of it! It was a different time and place, to be sure. But it's fun to read about.
   
   I have not read a lot of Hemingway's novels (The Old Man and the Sea enthralled me when I first read it), but you don't have to be familiar with his writing to love the man and this book. This book, like no other biography I have read, shows the man through the eyes of the women he loved, and resented, and ultimately betrayed, beginning with his mother and continuing on through four wives and several beautiful women who he chased and wooed but for various reasons never made lasting connections with. Please read this book. It is important and entertaining and scholarly all at once.



5. Update after second reading: Author obtained primary material from the subjects themselves; this may be the most important "new" biography of Hemingway to date. Highly recommend it after you've read earlier biographies of Hemingway; this can be read as first bio of Hemingway, but I think you will enjoy it more if you've read others first.
   
   Earlier review: This book will save you the trouble of reading the autobiographies, the biographies, and selected letters of Ernest Hemingway and these five women (his mother and four wives).
   
   But you will enjoy reading the autobiographies and selected letters first, and then coming back to this book to fill in the gaps.
   
   The writing is stilted -- often reads like a PowerPoint presentation -- compared to the writing actually done by its subjects. Specifically, "How It Was" by Mary Welsh Hemingway is a joy to read, and I recommend that before reading "Hemingway Women."
   
   As a reference to fill in the gaps, this is an important book for the Hemingway fan(atic).

1 comments about Faces of Discord: The Civil War Era at the National Portrait Gallery.

1. I found this 300 page volume of portraits and information on many Civil War persons englightening because there are pictures of the Famous and not so famous people who I have read and written about. I will treasure this volume for many years

5 comments about Nothing to Do But Stay.

1. The author is the youngest of six children of hard-working Norwegian-speaking parents, and the account of the struggles her parents went thru is awesome. Sometimes I thought the author indulged in hyperbole, and I would have appreciated a little more exactitude, but it no doubt is true that life during the twenties and thirties in northwestern North Dakota was a hard and demanding one. The first part of this book is the best, as the author relates the fantastic efforts necessary for the kids to be educated. There is a lot of discussion of Norwegian food, and those of you who are of Norwegian descent will gobble that talk up, but for me I could not get too interested in how her mother went to extraordinary lengths to prepare, under primitive conditions, the food she was so good at concocting. There is less talk of the interesting political events during the time than I would have liked. Appam, North Dakota, which was apparently a home town to the family during these years, has, according to my 1958 atlas, a population of 18. I would like to have learned whether it was a bigger place when the author was a child. But the upbeat attitude to her childhood was a real plus for this book--not the dreary catalog of hardship one sometimes gets from depression sagas. I liked this book.



2. I loved this book. Its a compendium of short pieces about the author's mother, who was a frontier woman with a wonderful outlook on life. I also loved the descriptions of her husband, who had to drive the children through snow, to get to their respective schools, and the descriptions about how the kids were settled in the schoolhouse overnight, while wild mustangs banged against the door. I don't know about you, but I'm not sure I would send my children to a schoolhouse way far away, with food for a week. Can you imagine what they did after school let out... all by themselves? I wanted to hear more about this. The descriptions of quilting are wonderful.It is a great book if you are in the mood to feel cold, hungry, and in North Dakota with the snow beating down upon you. Also if you enjoy descriptions of sumptuous meals at holidays, replete with Norwegian recipes!



3. I stumbled on this book in a used book store. It is the amazing story of the author's parents and their life in rural North Dakota. The book has adventures, anecdotes, and gives the reader a real sense of how families existed in the early 20th century. This was a very entertaining story, although perhaps you can't tell from this review. None of us who have read it could put it down, from my 78 year old mom to my sister who is reading it to her 7 year old daughter.



4. There's no plot here and certainly no white knuckle drama. The book is a series of essays, each chapter relating an event or way of life experienced by the author as a child growing up on the North Dakota plains during tbe early 1900s. From education to farm life to holidays, each was covered with love and humor. I felt like I was getting to know my own grandmother as a child. My only wish was that there were more photographs, but considering the time period it was wonderful to have a few.



5. It often happens that our own stories are intimately entwined with someone else's story, and that to understand who we are, we have to tell another person's story first. This is true for Carrie Young, who has written a marvelous memoir of her mother.
   
   This warm, hopeful testament to a woman's courage tells the story of Carrine Gafkjen, who--all alone, and with the single-minded, strong-hearted independence that is often obscured in men's stories about women--homesteaded 160 acres of North Dakota prairie. That was in 1904, and Carrine Gafjken spent the next eight years working for money in the winter and returning to her homestead in the summer. By the time she was thirty, she owned 320 acres of productive land. In 1912 she married Sever Berg. They sold his homestead and took up residence on hers, and over the next decade she bore six healthy children, the last of whom has told us her story in a style that is as strong, clear, and direct as Carrine herself. This is story with no frills or fancy lace, a story of hard work and tough times, but through it all runs hope and love for the land and a firm belief that perseverance will win out in the end.
   
   To my mind, the best books are like this one, valuable in ways too many to count. I not only learned important things about life on the Dakota prairie, but I learned some very good ways to tell a story, to give voice to someone who can no longer speak for herself and who must live--if she continues to live--chiefly in the words of a writer and the heart of a reader. Carrie Young is a fine teacher for any aspiring writer, and her stories about her mother's life are instructive examples of story-telling at its best.
   
   by Susan Wittig Albert
   for Story Circle Book Reviews
   www.storycirclebookreviews.org
   reviewing books by, for, and about women

2 comments about Black Power White Blood.

1. Former Panthers and the academics that write about them are starting to seriously realize that the Panthers were never just about race alone. Biographies by Elaine Brown and Assata Shakur deal with gender and the Panthers. Edmund White's biography of Jean Genet discusses how the Panthers dealt with a gay, white, foreign supporter. Now, in this book about an Afro-European Panther named Johnny Spain, Andrews looks at how a mixed-race individual was affected by the Party. Andrews writes in a simple style that would make this biography accessible to almost any reader. By moving from the stereotyped tragic mulatto to becoming a "bridge person" and cross-racial activist, this book is about redemption. I can imagine it influencing mixed-race men in the same way that Malcolm X's autobiography has influenced monoracial black men (though X was one-quarter white). One major theme of this book is how inhumanely prisoners are treated in American jails. This book should be appreciated by prisoners' rights activists regardless of race and multiracial activists regardless of their views on prisoners. ... Finally, there is a book that works against this tide. I would strongly encourage every mixed man in the US to read this book.



2. I have met Johnny and talked with him at length. It's difficult to reconcile this story with the person that I know. He is the least bitter person I have ever met and he works tirelessly for a common good. He is a very bright spark in our world.

5 comments about The Best Little Boy in the World Grows Up.

1. What a shock! The Best Little Boy in the World was one of those formative books I read when I was coming out in the 70's. I naturally assumed this was going to be a powerful follow-up to that volume. It was anything but that. Mr. Tobias tells us all about the wonderful, glamorous, rich and political un-gay and then gay-gay life he has had. With references to that book. If not for the fact that the book was cheap, I would've been furious. As it was, I just threw it away when I was done with it.



2. I've just read this wonderful book and cannot understand how some of the other reviewers here can call Mr. Tobias self-absorbed. I saw him as merely human and in fact found that he was often self-deprecating--and also it is a book about HIM, so what did the other readers here expect him to write about, his mother? Make no mistake, Andrew Tobias is not a saint, and neither is any of us. His writing reflects his very human experience.
   
   Name dropping? Please. Did some of the other reviewers here expect Andrew Tobias to indulge in navel gazing or something? In any case, I found his experiences to be inspiring. His descriptions of how significant others in his life managed later on in life was to me a great way to vicariously learn some of the lessons of life. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone. I have in fact read this book before I read TBLBITW because I felt that it would be more relevant to present times.



3. pretty much useless. for much better memoirs, i would say go look at paul monette, edmund white, or augusten burroughs, all of which are way superior to this narcissistic and charmless writer whose name i won't even bother mentioning. waste of bucks.



4. I'm not going to reiterate the negative reviews here, mostly because they're right on the mark. This book is boring, unnecessary, grandiose, and lacking in any editorial judgement. I read his first book many years ago, enjoyed it, and thought that its follow-up would be equally entertaining. Boy was I wrong. I bought it back in '98, tried to read it, and gave up. I recently moved and found the book in a box. I thought I'd give it another try, and it was just as insipid as it was eight years ago. If you want a good memoir, go elsewhere.



5. I found "The Best Little Boy in the World Grows Up" well-written, insightful and inspiring. I am a straight female and don't usually read a lot of material about gay men, nor do I read a lot of biographies (boring). So why did I read this in the first place? Actually, because I liked "The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need" so much.
   
   The investment guide was invaluable to me when I inherited some money and had no clue what to do next. That book transformed me rather rapidly from someone who felt like she needed help but was not even sure where to turn, to feeling that I could handle things just fine on my own, and it's working out very well for me. In addition to being useful, I found that book so well-written and just plain entertaining that I have re-read it several times and started looking for other things he had written.
   
   I tried "My Vast Fortune" but it didn't grab me for some reason, and I liked "The Best Little Boy in the World" better. But I felt this follow-up book about his adult life is extraordinary. I have known quite a few gay folks in my life, but I have to admit this book still made me more aware of their issues than I had been. I'm not very political, and if the book were preachy, I would have tossed it. But Tobias makes his points with deft humor and a variety of fascinating anecdotes. It is quite entertaining as well as emotionally gripping. I highly recommend it.

4 comments about American Connections: The Founding Fathers. Networked..

1. I have read several of James Burke's earlier works, and I had hoped that his venture into my own field would illuminate a subject in ways that would not have occurred to conventional historians. Unfortunately, this book is nothing of the kind. On first glance, It is organized in a structure giving one chapter to each Signer of the Declaration of Independence (Mr. Burke seems not to have thought of the framers of the Constitution as belonging in his phrase "founding fathers.") However, each Signer lasts barely one paragraph with Mr. Burke connecting him to someone else, and then to someone else, and then to someone else, and then on and on he goes forming a daisy-chain of references, skittering across the surface of history like a spider sliding across a sheet of ice, until he gets to someone in modern times who shares the same name as that of the Signer [or, in the case of Benjamin Franklin, to a reference back to the original Signer]. The book is slipshod, superficial, and all too often fraught with ominous undocumented claims often introduced or accompanied by such phrases as "Some say" or "according to some." I am sorry that I bought this book; it makes the otherwise-useless book by Richard Brookhiser, WHAT WOULD THE FOUNDERS DO? OUR QUESTIONS, THEIR ANSWERS, read like a marvel of scholarly comprehension.



2. James Burke, well known for pursuing the stranger paths of history, has done just that once more. This time, he follows the signers of the Declaration of Independence, following paths leading away from each one to something within the last fifty years sharing that name. If what you want is a straight history book, try a different author. This is Burke's area of expertise, and he has done a wonderful job. Again.



3. I have read nearly all of James Burke's work, and his Connections started my fascination with History of all kinds; nowadays, that's all I read. I also became a research historian and have co-authored a book; for that, I offer my unending thanks to Mr. Burke. Unfortunately, this book is nothing more than a collection of parlor tricks, one that wears thin after 2 or 3 chapters. There's no history here nor story telling nor insights; only a compendium of extremely poorly documented linkages connecting the signers of the Declaration of Independence to a current person of the same name. Within each chapter is a set of linkages or connections that typically number above 20, not the six degrees of networking that Burke alludes to. With that many degrees of networking, I could even play this game. All this book does is showcase Burke's knowledge of fairly inconsequential people over the past 200+ years and does nothing to stimulate interest in the reader. This is one book I couldn't bear to read or finish. Mr. Burke should be ashamed to have written it; it simply is not up to his previous standards. There is nothing here...nothing at all; how unfortunate.



4. Having greatly enjoyed Mr. Burkes books in the past, I was looking forward to one of his based on my soil. But proving that a name reappears (unrelated) later in history on some nameless board or committee sounds like an exercise best left to the student. The thought that the progeny of significant men in American history would have an effect later was a good idea, but not realized in this book.
   
   Disappointing, but I still look forward to his next novel.