5 comments about Wild Rose: Rose O'Neale Greenhow, Civil War Spy.

1. Perhaps many of you already know about the Southern socialite who passed critical information to Beauregard just before 1st Manassas. I just finished reading this excellent biography, Wild Rose, of the famous Confederate spy and firebrand, written by Ann Blackman, Random House, 2006. The author delves into the social life and politics of pre-bellum Washington, DC. with great care and finesse. Even though Blackman is obviously an abolitionist, nevertheless, she treats respectfully the beliefs and viewpoint of Rose Greenhow. The work is a scholarly labor with dozens of period photographs and hundreds of end notes. The author writes well and I highly recommend this work to anyone who is interested in just how life was in Washington in the 1840's and 1850's. You will be entranced reading about the balls, late night visits, slave antics and agonies, political shenanigans, prisons, and European courts.



2. There were many women in the spy business for the North and for the South. Rose certainly was a very important one for the South. Blackwell gives a very good account of Rose's life before the war and during the war. True stories are always more interesting than the fictional ones. Rose was a very remarkable woman. She clearly was important in the out come of Bull Run. Jefferson Davis felt that she could influence the English to give their support to the South. The author keeps you turning the pages in her story of Rose. By Ruth Thompson author of "The Bluegrass Dream" and "Natchez Above The River"
   
   Writing as a Small BusinessQualifying Laps: A Brewster County NovelSins of the Fathers: A Brewster County NovelTravelersThe Bluegrass Dream: A Wilderness Adventure of Early SettlersNatchez Above The River: A Family's Survival In The Civil War



3. Excellent! Rose O'Neale Greenhow was an extraordinary woman, a master mind as a secret agent. Her life, which was obtaining intelligence from the North for the benefit of the Southern government, was extremely intricate. Great reading, not a dull moment in the book!



4. THIS HAS GOT TO BE THE BEST SPY THRILLER OF THE YEAR BUT THE BEST PART OF THIS BOOK IS ITS ALL TRUE AND IT ALL HAPPENED ITS NOT A NOVEL.I SAW ANN BLACKMAN ON TV AND I WAS SO IMPRESSED BY HER TALK THAT SHE GAVE ON THE LIFE OF THE SPY MASTER ROSE O NEALE GREENHOW THAT I BOUGHT THE BOOK RIGHT AWAY AND COULD NOT PUT IT DOWN ONCE I GOT MY HANDS ON IT.THIS TALENTED WRITER HAS TRACKED DOWN SO MANY NEW AND EXCITING DOCUMENTS AND FACTS THAT PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR GREENHOWS UNDERGROUND ACTIVITYS THINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN OVER SOONER FOR THE SOUTH . THIS REAL PAGE TURNER WOULD MAKE A WONDERFUL GIFT FOR A FAMILY MEMBER, A FRIEND , OR RECAMENDATIONS FOR YOUR CIVAL WAR ROUND TABLE OR CIVAL WAR BUFF OR HISTORY BUFF OR MILITARY BUFF. PLEASE GET THIS BOOK TO A SOLDIER SERVING OVER SEAS.



5. Rose O'Neal Greenhow was "the" Civil War spy. This is a true story of her exploits before and during the Civil War.
   
   In 1857, Rose was described by a jealous Northern woman as "she looked fity or seventy." That's me sometimes. She was on trial in San Francisco where her husband, Robert, was a lawyer. She might have passed for thirty-five. She was asked "How old are you?" She answered with dignified finality -- "Of sufficient age to testify." She was the Ethel Rosenberg of the Civil War on the Southern side, of course.
   
   Her Oriental Hotel on Market Street was a noted gathering place for the Southerners. Among the generals she met there were Johnston of Shiloh fame, Sherman, Scott and McDowell. Some of their graves at at Shiloh in southwest Tennessee. There in San Francisco, there were polka cotillions and the Southerners lived akin to the way they did in Washington, D.C. She made trips back and forth, carrying messages, and became known as a Confederate spy.
   
   Seven years later, in 1864, she looked years younger in looks as she sailed on the 'Condor' from England to the Confederate States. Rose had often said she would glady die for the Confederacy, and she was drown in the ship wreck during a storm.
   
   In Washington, she had been the fashionable hostess to the likes of John C. Calhoun, James Buchanan, and Dolley Madison. She and Robert went to California during the height of the Gold Rush. After his death in a tragic accident, she became notorious for her many love affairs in Washington. D.C.
   
   With the Civil War, things changed rapidly for, overnight Rose became an intrepid spy. She supplied accurate intelligence against the Union forces, written in code, to General Beauregard, reportedly one of her lovers. She made the difference in the outcome of Bull Run with her information, but Allan Pinkerton arrested her as a spy. Indomitable Rose journeyed to Europe during the crisis of the war to plead the Confederate 'cause' to the royal courts of England and France.
   
   No woman in the North or South rivaled this Civil War heroine, who risked everything for the cause she valued more than life itself. She declared, "I am a Southern woman, born with revolutionary blood in my veins (she meant Rebel tendencies)."
   
   This biography is about an astonishing woman, a book which will stand with the finest of Civil War true stories. Wild (Rebel) Rose was one to deal with only if you were a Confederate sympathizer. Ann Blackman wrote THE SPY NEXT DOOR: ROBERT PHILIP HANSSEN and SEASONS OF HER LIFE (about Madeleine Albright). She was a news reporter with 'Time' magazine and the Associated Press covering American politics and social policy.

1 comments about The Inspired Wisdom of Abraham Lincoln: How Faith Shaped an American President -- and Changed the Course of a Nation.

1. I only wish the politicians of today would follow the lead of a man as simple and great as Abraham Lincoln.

5 comments about 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and the War They Failed to See.

1. I will confess straight away that I have not read the book, but I find the title so misleading that I feel compelled to comment. None of these figures 'failed to see' that the Civil War was a great threat and possibly inevitable. See The Impending Crisis by David Potter, The Road to Disunion by Freehing, or Michael Holt's books.



2. 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and The War They Failed to See, Bruce Chadwick , Sourcebooks Inc., 355 pp., notes, bibliography, index, 2008, $24.95
   
   1858 offers clear and concise descriptions of key political and social events that shoved the states into rebellion and resistance. Adventurous and even compelling at times, 1858 moves the reader through twelve months of political and social turmoil. Chadwick explores not the mundane but the exceptional.
   
   Not familiar to most Civil War readers is Jefferson Davis' 1858 visit to Maine in order to recuperate from herpes and build a coalition of Northern Democrats in a bid to establish a presidential candidacy in 1860. The Southern press pilloried him to the point that when he returned he retracted his statements. Ironically, these retractions put him into a position where he would be offered a presidency in 1861, that of the Confederate States of America.
   
   In one six page chapter, Chadwick offers a cogent and balanced description of the Dred Scott Decision, one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court event in U.S. history. His ability to put into place the origins, personalities, issues, and outcomes of this event is exceptional. As a Advance Placement U.S. History test reader, CWL reflected that this chapter would be a fine contribution to student resources.
   
   Though CWL is quite familiar with the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Oberlin Ohio Rescue and John Brown's escape with slaves from Missouri to Canada, Chadwick offers the essentials in a manner that captures the excitement and underscores their place in bringing the states to the brink of rebellion in 1860. After reading 1858, Civil War buffs may have a new appreciation for the events leading to the Secession Winter of 1860-1861. Some readers may need to keep in mind that all soldiers in the ranks had lived through and had argued over the events of 1858.
   
   Though a Pennsylvanian, CWL has not be able to work up any enthusiasm for James Buchanan, 15th president of the United States. Chadwick's 1858 covers the Buchanan presidency in nine chapters that fall between chapters on Davis, Lee, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Oberlin Rescue, Seward's Irrepressible Conflict speech, and John Brown's rescue of slaves from Missouri. Read consecutively the Buchanan White House chapters make the case for this Northern Democrat holding Southern Democrats' interest higher than his own section and possibly allowing the conflict to become truly irrepressible.
   
   Some quibbles: The subtitle is unclear; nine of 17 chapters deal with the Buchanan White House, two deal with Lincoln and Douglas, and single chapters deal with Lee, Davis, Seward, Sherman, The Dred Scott Decision, John Brown's Raid on Missouri and the Slaveholder's raid on Nicaragua. Mysteriously, U.S. Grant is mentioned only on four pages in the book but is in the subtitle. Buchanan has nine chapters but has no mention in the title at all.
   
   CWL suggests that the subtitle be changed for the paperback edition: 1858--The Year the Civil War Became Inevitable for Davis, Lee, Douglas, Lincoln, Seward, Sherman and John Brown. Or 1858--Blood Before The Civil War's Dawn: The Men Who Pulled the Trigger on the War.
   
   Chadwick assumes the reader has no detailed understanding of the period; 1858 is written for the general audience. For the paperback edition, a chronology for the year should be added as well as a brief chronology of the 1846-1860 era. A list of characters would also be helpful for the general audience. Also, the index needs some attention. The entry--Forney, John--lists 6 pages with three subtopics. John Forney has a whole chapter, Number Nine, pages 135-140 but these pages are not listed under the entry--Forney, John--in the index. Some proofreading needs to be done. Notes 159, 160 and 161 are the same font size as the text font; these note number should be the superscript font size, just like the other 744 notes.



3. I have to admit that I can't quite place this book. I would say on the one hand I was disappointed because while it did a good job of portraying the year 1858 it could have just as easily been 1856 or 1860, both of which would have been more interesting. The book spent a lot of time focusing on personal rivalries to the detriment of painting the national picture. Also certain figures who would rise to prominence in the Civil War were given great exposure yet others were barely mentioned. (Like Grant)
   
   So all in all if you like the period, there are worse reads out there but I still think that James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom does a much better job at portraying the period.



4. Reads like a novel, but its pure history and gives a perspective on the Civil War which has been lacking. The war wasn't about slavery in the south, but more so about slavery in the new states of the west....



5. Why 1858? I found myself asking that question repeatedly the entire time I was reading this book. What made 1858 THE year to look at in regards to the coming of the Civil War. Author Bruce Chadwick tries (largely unsuccessfully, in my opinion) to argue that 1858 was the year slavery became THE main issue facing the United States and events which occurred in 1858 played a large role in bringing about the war. In his Foreword, Chadwick tells the reader he will attempt to accomplish this by weaving together seven stories of people and events, linking these disparate stories together with looks into James Buchanan's "spectacular failure" as President.
   
   1858 weaves together seven stories all (loosely) tied together by Buchanan's Presidency. These stories are, in no particular order:
   
   1. Jefferson Davis
   2. Robert E. Lee
   3. William T. Sherman
   4. The Oberlin-Wellington Slave Rescue
   5. William H. Seward
   6. John Brown
   7. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates
   
   At first, I was intrigued by the author's decision to abandon a traditional narrative and use what I thought would be an interesting change of pace. The idea works better in theory than in the pages of 1858, however. Stories are broken up into different chapters with little regard for continuity or chronological order. For readers new to the subject, this may very well be misleading as far as a time line of these events goes.
   
   As I stated in my introduction, my main and overriding question while reading the entire book was "Why 1858? What makes this year so special?" Unfortunately, although the author does claim he chose 1858 because it was THE year slavery became the overriding issue facing the United States, he doesn't give nearly enough reason WHY, and thus doesn't really answer my question. In essence, he argues FOR 1858, but he really gives no arguments AGAINST other years. To me, slavery had been THE issue for quite some time. A post concerning the Compromise of 1850 at Elektratig shows that slavery was very much at the forefront of the country's concerns as the 1850s opened, and that the Civil War may well have started a decade earlier had the Compromise of 1850 not happened. I can agree with the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the Oberlin-Wellington Slave rescue as two MAJOR events involving slavery and an acceleration towards war. However, other events outside of this year, especially John Brown's Harpers Ferry Raid in 1859 and obviously the Presidential Election of 1860 were major events which did much to hasten the Civil War. Chadwick does argue that the seeds were sewn for these events in 1858. He stresses that John Brown's raid into Missouri and successful escape with slaves into Canada in 1858 and the Lincoln-Douglas debates led to these other events. That may be true, but the MAIN events happened in years other than 1858. Without belaboring the point too much, I believe you simply cannot make a strong case that 1858 was any more important than many other years in causing the Civil War or having slavery become THE issue facing the country. Chadwick's failure too largely explain WHY or argue against other years only drives home the point for me.
   
   To me, deciding to include William T. Sherman was an odd choice other than to allow the author/publisher to get Ulysses S. Grant's name into the subtitle of the book. Grant is barely mentioned, and Sherman had hardly anything to do with the author's assertion that 1858 was the year slavery became the most important issue in the country. The only reason I can see to include Sherman is to show an example of a Northerner who had no strong feelings towards slavery, much like Robert E. Lee was personally opposed to slavery as a Southerner. In reading the chapters covering Sherman, I was puzzled as to what purpose his antebellum life story served to the narrative as a whole.
   
   The subtitle of the book is especially puzzling to me. U.S. Grant is listed and he is barely mentioned in the book, pretty much only in relation to the Sherman portion of the story. Putting a famous figure into your title or subtitle only to barely mention them isn't going to win points with this reviewer. Another issue I have with the subtitle is "The War They Failed to See." Huh? Lincoln's "House Divided" speech is mentioned. So is Jefferson Davis' ascension in late 1858 as the leader of the Secession Movement. John Brown not only saw war coming, he was determined to start it himself! And lastly, Seward's "Irrepressible Conflict" speech is also stressed. It seems to me these men at least had an inkling that war was at the very least very possible if not imminent if some drastic steps were not taken with regards to slavery. I don't want to pin this on the author at all. Marketing sells books, and the subtitle screams MARKETING from a tall building. Blame the publisher here folks.
   
   If you have lasted this long, you might believe I hated 1858. This is definitely not so. My policy is to get the bad out of the way first and move on to the good. Let's start with the author's style. Bruce Chadwick is definitely a good storyteller. Despite some continuity issues in his narrative choice as mentioned earlier, I read this 300 page book in only two sittings. I could not put it down.
   
   Chadwick's chapters on the gross ineptitude of James Buchanan's Presidency were my favorite portions of the book. Rather than focus on the slavery issue and try to resolve it in some way, Buchanan instead completely ignored slavery when possible and blinded himself to the enormity of the problem the rest of the time. His "Don Quixote-ish schemes", as Chadwick calls them, to annex portions of Central and South America by any means possible while ignoring slavery was just one issue. In addition, Buchanan chose to fight petty feuds with two powerful men, Senator Stephen Douglas and newspaper editor John Forney, and these feuds were disastrous for the Democratic party in the elections of 1858 and the Presidential election of 1860. More than any other man, Buchanan had the power to slow or even prevent radical developments with regards to the slavery situation. Instead, says Chadwick, he did nothing while radicals on both sides led the nation to the brink of war.
   
   I was also pleasantly surprised with the bibliography and notes. Chadwick uses a nice number of endnotes, including 747 in exactly 300 pages of text. He did use quite a few secondary sources, but for what was obviously to me a "pop history" book aimed more at the masses than to deep readers, Chadwick also looked at the papers of many of those involved in the events of the year 1858 and around 90 newspapers published at the time. A serviceable index rounds out the book.
   
   Bruce Chadwick's 1858 sets out to prove that year was the year slavery became THE issue in the United States, but was rather unsuccessful in this regard. His arguments for 1858 as the year were sparse and his arguments against other years were non-existent. The story's continuity suffered somewhat as a result of some conscious choices on the author's part. Despite these flaws, 1858 is an enjoyable read aimed at the masses which I would be happy to recommend to readers new to the subject. Deep readers will find this material covered elsewhere in much greater detail.

3 comments about Pursuit: The Chase, Capture, Persecution, and Surprising Release of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

1. Another job well done Clint Johnson! As with all of your books you can tell immediately this one was well researched and well written. You are certainly on your way to becoming one of this generations premiere civil war historians. You write with a style that seems as though you have actually lived and experienced the very history you so ably put to type and that is what makes this book so enjoyable. Any student of American history needs this book in their collection.



2. There are different ways to write Civil War history. Some books that are designed for history professors are found filled with footnotes and trivial facts and esoteric comparisons which only another professor of history could enjoy wading through. Then there are others with no notes and no references to sources that tell a rousing good story but one that leaves the reader wondering if he has read a novel or a history book and no way to verify which. Clint Johnson has merged these two types of history into a book which, if you are interested in Jefferson Davis and his capture, is a must read. Johnson focuses on the details of Davis' flight and capture. For those who are looking for something new -- along with the fresh perspective that Johnson brings to the oft-told story of Davis' capture, he has unearthed interesting information, like providing newly discovered details concerning the story that Davis was wearing a dress when he was captured. Many are not aware the Lincoln actively sought to have Davis and his cabinet escape the US or that Davis was never tried for a crime because he never committed one [except in the eyes of the most radical Republicans] and Johnson lets you see the pickle the US government was in as the press and Reconstructors were screaming for Davis to be tried and hung. Johnson seems to have done his legwork. In Johnson's work I did not run across anything which seemed invented, contrived or went against modern Civil War research. Whenever I did want to check the source, I found the cited sources matched Johnson's version. The best part is that the book is well enough written that, once I started, I had to stay up till I finished it. A fascinating book about a fascinating figure in American history. If you are a Civil War history buff, or just want to read a well written account of a very interesting episode from the Civil War, then I recommend you read this book.



3. ...but that doesn't make him guilty of a crime.
   
   When the Confederacy collapsed in April, 1865, President Davis got Lee's message to leave while sitting in pew 63 at St. Paul's Episcopal Church...I have sat in that pew for Church services, and if you think that doesn't give a Southerner the shakes, think again. The civil government left town on a slow train that night..... Danville...Greensboro...Charlotte... One by one his cabinet faded away; Davis still wanted to make it to Texas, and continue the war. By then, that idea bordered on lunacy. Finally, after a month in which he ran, but not hard enough, the President was captured by Union Cavalry near Irwinville, Georgia [NOT IN VARINA'S DRESS--that story is a vile lie]. Davis was transported to Fortress Monroe, Virginia....then the real story started.
   
   Abe Lincoln has wanted a peaceful reunion of the country, and was inclined to let Davis, and the others, escape. Some of Lincoln's own people disagreed; we shall never know what would have happened had Lincoln lived. Abe was a strong leader...Andrew Johnson was not, and therin lay the problem. President Davis was locked up, even kept in chains for a week. The Union had several real difficulties...Democrat controlled newspapers came to Davis' support...good lawyers offered to defend him...the Justice Department couldn't come up with a crime to charge him with. Treason? Well...the Constitutional definition of that is very specific. Secession alone won't do it...secession had always been assumed to be legal. Overthrow of the government in Washington? We NEVER sought to do that, merely to form our own. The Yankees had treated us as a real country during prisoner exchanges; now, they were stuck. And then there was the matter of the Yankees' illegal admission of West Virginia. Does that mean I'm an unperson?
   
   Some Northerners tried to frame Davis for the Lincoln murder, but couldn't even get lying witnesses to tell a straight story. Davis would have NEVER traded Lincoln for Johnson, and Judah Benjamin would have never run such an operation without express orders from Davis. Mr. Johnson touched one interesting point, but did not elaborate: Secretary Stanton refused two different Union officers permission to accompany Lincoln to the theater. Both were strong men, who could have overpowered Booth...stories have circulated for years, hinting at Stanton's involvement, because he wanted a harsher Reconstruction than Lincoln would have allowed. The most that can be speculated is that knowing, somehow, about the plot, he withdrew protection.
   
   Finally, after two years [during which his treatment improved], President Davis was released on bail [paid by Northerners]. The Union had gotten itself in a legal mess by holding a man they dared not bring to trial, and were afraid to just let go. Mr. Chief Justice Chase came to the rescue with a novel approach to the Fourteenth Amendment, and the doctrine of double jeopardy. Davis never got his day in Court....
   
   I am a supporter of Jefferson Davis, but I will certainly not assert that he was without faults; pig-headed might be a nice way to put it. His inability to work with men he disliked led to the underuse of Generals PGT Beauregard and Joe Johnston, and hurt the South. Once he decided on a policy, he would simply not listen to reason. Still, his strength of character helped keep the South going. He gave the South someone to rally around during Reconstruction; to the day he died in 1889, he never backed down. He also committed no crime during the war...Mr. Johnson has written a superb book, part adventure story, part legal treatise, all great history.

5 comments about Lincoln's Sword: The Presidency and the Power of Words.

1. This is an important book for two reasons. One - it explains Lincoln's success as a great communicator. Two - it offers a template for those who wish to influence people and events with their words. The book dissects Lincoln's method of writing, his thorough preparation and his eagerness that the reader obtain the right interpretation of what he has written. A fascinating study.



2. Lincoln's Sword: The Presidency and the Power of Words (Vintage) I enjoyed this book immensely.



3. Author Douglas L. Wilson once again hits the bull's-eye, this time with a painstaking study of Lincoln's rhetoric (the President's personal "sword"). This book should appeal not only to persons interested in the Great Emancipator, but to those interested in the craft of writing. Wilson takes us step-by-step through the process Lincoln used to hone some of his most famous statements, a journey revealing principles of clear writing. Wilson shows that Lincoln's clarity of expression wasn't effortless, but resulted from hard work.



4. Bold in concept and careful in execution, this work is a gem. Lincoln's constant revising, his sense of what was appropriate in given situations, and his surging command of the language over decades impress the reader. Wilson's understanding of the context of Lincoln's deployment of language is impressive. Cautiously revisionist.



5. Lincoln's Sword illuminates the power and clarity of Lincoln's words. Even if the reader is not a Lincoln devotee or scholar, this book's treatment of Lincoln's speeches are clear, concise and pleasureable. This is a book that anyone would enjoy reading.

5 comments about Three Years With Quantrill: A True Story Told by His Scout John McCorkle (Western Frontier Library, Vol 60).

1. This easy-to-read book provides a unique perspective on guerilla battle tactics and how the outlaw rebels of Missouri saw the Civil War conflict. As a former Kansan, it gave me an insight into the slaughter at Lawrence that I was unaware of. Other than John Brown, this subject was rarely discussed in the Kansas history classes I took! And, the viewpoint certainly would have been taboo. The story filled a void in my educational background. Should be required reading for high school students in the Plains States. No wonder the sports rivalry between KU and MU is so bitter! Ironically, published by the University of Oklahoma Press (1992), 232 pp.



2. Quantrill is often maligned as a psychopathic killer and a despotic guerilla. John McCorkle not only refutes this common claim by the writers of the winner's history, but shows that Quantrill was a compassionate and honorable man. He shows a side to the War of Northern Aggression that is rarely told.
   
   The introductions decry the author's side of the story, but they provide no evidence that is substantiated. The factual errors that McCorkle relates can easily be relegated to the fact that he was in his 80's when he told his story to O.S. Barton and the ravages of time on the memory are well noted throughout history.
   
   This book is a rare glimpse into what made the Missouri Bushwhacker, or Partisan Ranger as they were properly known, what they were. What they did, how they fought, for what and whom they fought: it's all in here and with a lively color that brings to life the way life was in those most trying of times.



3. I Highly recommend McCorkles first-hand account. It is not often that we can resolve much of the differing views of history with first-hand accounts by those that were there during most of the events. I would have given this book a five had it not been for the very "out-of-place" commentary at the front of the book by someone named Hattaway (of West Point New York). I taped the aprox 25 pages together with an adivosry to skip this section as it only appeared to be added to censor McCorkles account and done in very poor taste. Why would someone want to take the time to distort someone's personal account of history. The Introduction by Barton is done very well however. Why would the publisher think that a commentary should be added when the work already had an introduction? I think the Commentary might have been added after the book was submitted just to try to promulgate a pre-conceived notion of history. Skip the commentary and its a great short work.



4. I cannot recommend this book highly enough. Any interested individual or serious student of this era must read this book. I am fortunate enough to live in the present day setting where the author's story took place. This is the real thing. I only wish there had been more works of this quality produced and saved. We would have a much better insight to those times.



5. Although I don't like giving a 5 star rating to any book this book deserves 6! This is the real stuff, pre WWII, pre WWI, PRE-TV! It was written at a time before historic brainwashing by movies and television existed. Before people were self conscious about telling the truth. We can see the actual format of the "Civil" War sentiments. He reveals the concepts of dying, of The North, Slavery, and other aspects of the era that we are usually forced to accept from modern day writings, reflecting only current, politically correct viewpoints. The down to earth flow of this book is very enjoyable and is great reading for anyone with interest in this subject matter.

5 comments about Daniel Webster: The Man and His Time.

1. Unlike Remini's three volume biography of Andrew Jackson this work shows a real person not a god idolized by the biographer. Webster was a talented, ambitious and complex man. He played a heroic role as Secretary of state, he defended the Union against the South Carolinian secesssionists, he solicited money from many people including N. Biddle in support of the Bank of the United States. He illustrates the difference in what we consider unethical acts among politicians. He was cursed by the radical abolitionists because he refused to put the Union in jeopardy to stop the spread of slavery.
   
   It could be said that Remini redeemed his reputation as an impartial historian with this work.



2. Daniel Webster was a great man in every meaning of the word. He had great talents and love for his country and its constitution; and he had great flaws that were magnified by his greatness. One thing he didn't have was a great modern and objective biography. He now has one, thanks to Mr. Remini.
   
   Along with Henry Clay, John Calhoun, Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams and other notables, Daniel Webster represented the generation of Americans to whom the Founder Fathers entrusted the nation they had fought for and created.
   
   Webster took that responsibility very seriously and used his intellectual and oratorical powers to help shape the interpretation of our laws and constitution to the needs of our growing and expanding country. He was involved in many important Supreme Court cases, many in front of John Marshall, who is still considered by many to have been our best Chief Justice.
   
   Webster's greatest fame is probably as an orator, mostly in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Remini shows us that he wasn't necessarily a great legislator or floor leader in terms of moving important legislation. Henry Clay was the man to do that. However, Webster's rank as one of the country's top senators of all time is merited by the incredible ability he had to express what this nation stood for, what the constitution stood for and that the Union, above all, was what was most important. Several of his speeches, which he would edit carefully for publication, are still moving and were generally printed fully in the press and memorized by children. His "union" stance many times cost him in popularity as he had to take some stances on specific legislation that may not have been "morally" acceptable to many (like his defense of the Slave Fugitive Law), but that was necessary to uphold the law.
   
   It is little known by many that Webster was a very able Secretary of State for three different presidents (Harrison, Tyler and Fillmore) and that he used his knowledge of the law (maritime law in particular), the constitution and America in general to develop foreign policy designed to continue gaining international rights, commerce and respect for our nation. In particular, he did much to open trade relations in Asia and Latin America.
   
   Unfortunately, Webster's flaws (drinking heavily, money mismanagement, duplicity and abuse of friends) were also great enough to prevent his being elected president. People just did not trust him enough. He was acknowledged as perhaps the best orator of the day and "Defender of the Constitution", but he had trouble relating to the common man. He was essentially an East Coast snob and the people of the south and the expanding west could not really relate well to him, or he to them. His stubborness also caused him to commit some real blunders on the foreign policy side, but I think that on balance he had a very creditable record as Secretary of State. That stubborness probably cost him the presidency at least once (he could have acceded to have been Harrison's VP but refused to; John Tyler accepted and became president when Harrison died just a few weeks into office) and cost the Whig party the presidency in at least another ocassion when he refused to concede during the nominating conventions.
   
   Men like Webster get lost in the popular mind between the greatness of the Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln. Yet, at a very crucial time in America, when the country was expanding at incredible rates, when interpretation of the constitution would define our legal framework to the present day and when the union was threatened to be torn asunder by nullifiers and abolitionists, men like Webster, Clay, Calhoun and Jackson were there to make sure the Union's survival was the primary object. In the intermediate term, they failed because the nation fell into Civil War (after they were all dead), but while they were alive, they compromised, orated and legislated to avoid that awful event. After the War, and even today, many of the things that America stands for and are taken for granted. But they were formulated and imprinted on our national character by men like the "Godlike Daniel".
   
   Remini has written extensively on the Jacksonian period and has detailed and excellent biographies of Jackson and Clay as well. These men did not all necessarily care of each other and Remini doesn't play favorites in his biographies. He deals with Webster very fairly, granting him his well-deserved greatness, but also being very frank and objective about his shortfalls and political failings and blunders.



3. Robert Remini brings us Daniel Webster as no one else can.... In order to paint such a perfect picture of a man that is as complex as Webster requires the knowledge of a true expert.
   
   Remini gives us a very fair and well balanced portait of a man who was a contemporary of Henry Clay, Andrew Jackson, and John Calhoun (all of whom Remini has written authorative biographies on).
   
   Make no mistake, Daniel Webster was a very complex man. One who was capable of pure genious but could also be unbelievably ignorant. His feud with Henry Clay probably cost both men the oppurtunity to be president. His ability to amass ungodly debts and then refuse to pay them is equally bizaar. However, this is the same man who argued many of the ground breaking case before the Supreme Court. He helped to stall the Civil War for 20 years by showing unflinching support to Andrew Jackson (Who was in the opposite political party) handling of the nullification crisis.
   
   Remini shows us all of these sides with the rare ability to help us get into the mind of Webster. Remini understands the age and the politics of this era like no other... therefore, if you are interested in learning about the great Daniel Webster.... look no further!
   
   However, as much as I enjoyed learning about Webster I admit you have to be motivated to read the entire book. While the politics of Webster's time were undoubtley the biggest of the time - it is hard for to finish all 800 pages when living in 2004. Make no mistake this is a great book... but even great books can be a bit dull.



4. Occasionally, nature produces an individual with towering intellect and mesmerizing oratorical abilities, but haunted by deep and seemingly irrepressible moral flaws. Their lives are filled with a mix of remarkable achievement and profound disappointment; monumental success and disgrace both seem inevitable. The late twentieth century had Bill Clinton, and the early nineteenth had Daniel Webster.

   Webster's story - like Clinton's - is at once inspiring and frustrating, laudable and detestable. There is certainly an element of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" in Daniel Webster, and the noted Jacksonian historian Robert Remini uses that split personality as the foundation in building this important biography of one of America's greatest and most unique statesman.

   Webster's genius is undeniable. His many natural gifts, which even his bitterest enemies had to concede, earned him the highly flattering sobriquet "the Godlike Daniel." No private attorney has affected the course of American judicial history as much as Webster. With the ideologically sympathetic John Marshall presiding over the Supreme Court, he successfully argued nearly every landmark case of the early nineteenth century: Dartmouth College, Gibbons vs. Ogden , McCollough vs. Maryland. He also added his considerable talents to the defense of the Union, first during the South Carolina nullification crisis in the celebrated Hayne-Webster debates, and then in the twilight of his life as the debate over slavery mounted toward civil war he delivered an impassioned speech in defense of the Compromise of 1850. His many public addresses lauding the ideals and principles of the American republic - the Plymouth Oration, Bunker Hill Oration, commemoration of the lives of Jefferson and Adams - are legendary and were once memorized by schoolboys. When a Webster speech was anticipated in the Senate, the halls were jammed with attendees eager to hear history in the making. Indeed, as Stephen Benet notes in the classic The Devil and Daniel Webster: "You see, for a while, he [Webster] was the biggest man in the country. He never got to be President, but he was the biggest man."

   But there was also a less admirable, more human side to Daniel Webster; an alter ego to the Godlike Daniel known derisively as "Black Dan." Addictions to alcohol and gambling were the duel crosses Webster had to bear through out life. These afflictions ensured Webster was chronically in debt despite a flourishing law practice. These debts eventually presented conflicts of interests and put him in compromising positions, which undermined his moral authority and ultimately cost him the White House.

   It has been written that most great men are made by the events of their times, but a very select few would have been great regardless of time or place. Remini's splendid biography suggests that Daniel Webster is a strong candidate for the latter category.




5. The unfortunate result of the growing power and focus on the executive branch is that historians tend to focus on presidents as prime movers for american political development. Remini's biography of Daniel Webster proves paradigm deeply flawed, particularly in the early years of our nations history.

   Webster, though never achieving the presidency, deserves great credit for setting the tone of american government and the supremacy of congress that survived through the 19th century. Remini does a tremendous job exploring the early 19th century and the issues this second generation of american leaders faced.

   Recent great interest in the revolutionary generation hopefully will not eclipse the study of those, like Webster, who came next and solidified the nacient insitutions that the founders created. If the founders were the fathers of our government, than men like Webster was that government's teacher in primary school.

   A wonderful read, if you are really interested in the topic.

5 comments about The Portable Abraham Lincoln (Viking Portable Library).

1. There are several anthologies of selections from Abraham Lincoln's writings available. But The Portable Lincoln is my favorite among them. My copy is dog-eared, underlined, and scribbled on to such an extent that it now looks quite shabby. But this is as much a tribute to the wisdom of Lincoln's words and the judicious editorship of Andrew Delbanco as it is a sad monument to my hard treatment of books.
   
   There are two main reasons why I find The Portable Lincoln so pleasing.
   
   First, editor Delbanco (who's best known for his insightful work on American Puritans) prefaces the collection with an elegant and informative intellectual biography of Lincoln that prepares the way for a more informed reading of the selections. He also provides a useful chronology of Lincoln's life, and he introduces each of the book's six sections with prefatory remarks that put the selections in context.
   
   Second, the selections themselves are carefully chosen and genuinely representative of Lincoln's thoughts in each of the six periods of his life from which they're drawn: his early years up to 1850; the pivotal "republican" years of 1854-1859; the presidential campaign, 1860; the early days of the war, 1860-1861; Lincoln the war president, late 1861-1864; and the reflective Lincoln, 1864-1865. Within each section are to be found exactly what one wants in a collection such as this: for example, Lincoln's early Address to the Springfield Young Man's Lyceum; his Handbill Replying to Charges of Infidelity; his House Divided speech; the first (and possibly best) Lincoln-Douglas Debate; the not-so-good Lecture on Discoveries and Inventions; the Cooper Institute speech; the too-neglected great First Inaugural and the justly-praised Second; the July 4 Message to Congress in Special Session; the Final Emancipation Proclamation; and assorted letters, private memoranda, and speeches. Taken together, these selections give the finest overall impression of Lincoln the private man, politician, thinker, and statesman that one's likely to glean from reading his own words.
   
   I might add that even long-time readers of Lincoln are likely to find one or two pleasant surprises in this collection. Let me mention but one. Everbody's familiar with Lincoln's barbed quip, when McClellan failed to pursue Lee after Antietam, that he'd like to borrow the army if McClellan wasn't going to use it. But Delbanco quotes an even more barbed (and delicious!) zinger from Lincoln to McClellan, written on 24 October 1862:
   "I have just read your despatch about sore tongued and fatiegued [sic] horses. Will you pardon me for asking what the horses of your army have done since the battle of Antietam that fatigue anything?" (p. 244) Ouch!!
   
   Highly recommended, not only for its historical interest but because of the fact, which becomes more obvious to me each time I reread Lincoln, that his words are just as timely today as they were 150 years ago.
   ________
   * From Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, p. 203.



2. This book os simply another attempt to perpetuate the Lincoln Myth. He almost certainly did not write the Bixby Letter, John Hay, his secretary almost certainly did. Lincoln in fact wrote very little himself, leaving most of the work to his two secretaries, Nicolay and Hay. As for his writing all his own speeches, this too is untrue, certainly not after he became President. There is not a shadow of a doubt that his Secretary of State, William H. Seward had a hand in most of his speeches and in fact was virtually the power behind the throne throughout Lincoln's presidency. Lincoln was a nice enough man, though a manic depressive, as for a genius and great emancipator, GIVE ME A BREAK!!



3. This is a very good and readable collections of the major writings and speeches of Abraham Lincoln. Unlike many collections of writings and speeches of that era, this is no dull melange of dated issues, but wisdom of the ages.
   
   In one early piece, Lincoln waxes nostalgic by comparing the lethargy of his generation to the generation who fought in the Revolutionary war (talk about the "good old days" is nothing new). In an 1848 letter, he makes some stinging comments against the then-president's "lies" that got America into the Mexican War(sounds similar to modern complaints about you-know-who getting us involed in you-know-where).
   
   Modern revisionists love to take scattered comments by Lincoln about Black people to show that Lincoln was a racist. Aspects of the Douglas debates and his mesage of colonization of 1862 do not deny this, but such people conveniently forget (or omit) Lincoln's evolution of thought as evidenced by the Second Inaugural Address (which also appears in its entirety at the Lincoln Memorial) and his statements about Black soldiers having the right to vote (in the 1860s, mind you). Some racist!
   
   It is also important to remember that Lincoln wrote all of his own speeches and was largely self-educated! When you compare the quality of his speeches and writings to our soundbyte era, it is truly remarkable.
   
   Read this book and become acquainted with greatness.



4. This collection of documents in a sense tells the life- story of Lincoln. It consists primarily of letters but also contains communications of other kinds, including his great speeches. Lincoln's immense power with language, the depth of his feeling and insight, his quiet humor and his great imaginative sympathy are all on display here. Also of course his political wisdom, his detailed knowledge of local and national political affairs, his struggle in conducting the great Civil War.
   There are certain people it simply an honor and uplifting to be in the presence of . Lincoln is such a person, and so these words of his inform and most often, inspire.



5. The Portable Abraham Lincoln is just that, a small book packed with nothing but Lincoln's words and ideas, from the famous debates with Stephen Douglas to his immortal 2nd Inaguaral Address.

   Mixed throughout the speeches are letters, both public and private, which reveal his inner thoughts and animating philosophy. Included is his short and moving letter to Mrs. Lydia Bixby, featured in the movie Saving Private Ryan, which is the most eloquent expression of patriotic grief I have ever read.

   The book is organized in themes, from his emergence of a polictian to his writings as Chief Executive and as Commander-in-Chief, and ending up with Fate.

   This book is for people who want to go beyond the soundbytes featured in documentaries; it places those famous phrases in the context of the entire speech and the commentary is kept to a minimum, showing respect for the reader.

5 comments about My Bondage and My Freedom (Penguin Classics).

1. The item arrived on time and this web site was the ONLY place I could find this book as my daughter needed it for her English class at school!
   Amazon really came through for me when we couldn't find the book anywhere else. Thank you, thank you, thank you.



2. THIS BOOK IS POWERFUL, ITS SHOCKING, AND IT IS ASPIRING. THERE IS NOTHING ON CHANNEL 11 THAT BRINGS THE HONEST, INSIGHTFUL, VERY REAL ACCOUNT THAT MR.DOUGLASS DOES IN HIS BOOK. FROM SLAVE TO FREE-MAN, THIS IS TRUELY AN AMERICAN SUCCESS. SKIP THE INTRO, AND JUMP INTO IT.



3. Douglass's second, and lengthier, narrative fills in many of the gaps left in his first autobiography: we learn about his mother, his siblings, and more details about his psychological transformation from brute to man. It's quite insightful, as Douglass is careful to relate each of his personal experiences to the innate evil of the peculiar instituition, for both the slave and the slave holder.



4. Having read a biography of Douglass many years ago, I thought I knew his story. Hearing through his pen was an entirely different matter. What a master of the language and insighful set of observations on human nature.
   
   I am a man of many words, but words fail me in my endorsement of this book. The letter to his former master in the appendix is worth the price of the book by itself.



5. Standing in line at the Lincoln Memorial, a book beckoned to me that I previously hadn't seen before. The face of Frederick Douglas grabbed my attention; a man that I've respected for many years, encountering him mainly through my study of Abraham Lincoln. On the spur of the moment, I snatched up a copy of "My Bondage and My Freedom", and within a few days, my admiration in Frederick Douglass was transformed from interest to awe.

   Frederick Douglass orginially penned his book as a response to people's accusations that someone as articulate and composed as he couldn't possibly be a former slave. With that goal in mind, Douglass wrote his memoirs, in a straight forward, powerful way. In the book, he painfully and honestly documents the path his early life took; the memories of being owned, how slaves coped during these times, and how he managed to pull himself out of it all.

   While Douglass' life in itself is amazing, (as he describes the amazing process he undertook to learn how to read), what amazed me even more are Douglass' discourses that he sprinkles through the book, discussing relevant issues during the time. In one instance, he addresses the concern about why slaves simply didn't run away from their oppressive situations. It's almost as if you can actually hear the people talking to Douglass and he responding to them.

   This book does not only tell the tale of a truly amazing American, but gives us a unique insight to the times. This book should be required reading in every high school in this country.

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

1. 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.



2. 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.