1 comments about Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings.

1. This book, which is an abridgmment of Basler's larger 8-volume "Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," is ideal for all students of Lincoln as a quick source for finding Lincoln's most well-known speeches, letters, and other documents. While other collections of Lincoln's writings do exist, Basler's is considered the most definitive. This one-volume edition of that collection makes the most popular and important Lincoln documents accessible to a larger group of people.

5 comments about Eye of the Storm: A Civil War Odyssey.

1. I hesitate to rate any book five stars, but will do so when it satisfied all my expectations and gives me far more. Pvt. Sneden's journal does exactly that.
   
   In the context of civil war journals, in my humble opinion, it rises above many others for three reasons. First, Pvt. Sneden is simply an excellant writer. Not surprisingly, the journal is no example of modern grammatical rules, but of course, that would not be expected in this context. Still, I found Pvt. Sneden to be one of those writers with a gift for painting a picture in words. It is one of those books, unlike many historical primary sources, that you do not find yourself rereading parts to try to figure out what the writer is trying to say. Secondly, Pvt. Sneden had an extremely unusual perspective for a private soldier. He acted as a map maker and had been attached to headquarters units for most of the period covered in the book. This allowed him to comment based on many perspectives as he traveled through multiple commands in each campaign. Likewise, he gave some insight to the conduct of the general officers he worked for mapping. Thirdly, Pvt. Sneden Had a hobby of drawing pictures of almost anything he tripped over on the battlefield. The analogy I would draw would are to people these days who always have a camera and will take a picture of anything that strikes them as an interesting shot.
   
   Besides those positive aspects of this book specific to Pvt. Sneden, there are two other aspects of this book that makes it exceptional in my opinion. First, as to primary sources, I would submit that most readers would agree that the most important factor in evaluating them is veracity. In other words, the memoirs of a politician I would guess would never be taken on face value due to the bias of the author. In this book, even describing his time as prisoner, Pvt. Sneden in a very large seemingy presents a vey balenced picture of his experiences. There might be some comments put in after the war for dramatic effect, but the editors flag them. Even flagged as possible exagerations, Pvt. Sneden established his credibility to a sufficient degree with me that I would not so easily disregard such comments.
   
   Secondly, the editors do an excellant job providing the backdrop to Pvt. Sneden's journey through the war.
   
   In my humble opinion, this book should recognized as excellant primary source material writing about the period. Likewise, I believe it well worth the cost of anyone with an interest in the period.



2. The finding of primary source material is of great value in the field of history as it can give us a glimpse into the past through actual eyewitnesses. This book gives us a chance to see the American Civil War through the eyes of Robert Sneden of the 40th New York Regiment. His skills as a cartographer produced some remarkable depictions of some of the battlefields, land features and prison scenes that alone are worth studying. As the compilers of this book stated, his memoirs and drawings were quite substantial.
   
   Sneden's observations offer us a glimpse into camp life (though he was spared most of the front line activity), some of the personalities of the war, the unfolding events of battle and perhaps most descriptive of all, life in the numerous prisons he stayed in, including those in Richmond, Salisbury (though briefly), and Andersonville. Once again it is his remarkable sketches and drawings of these places that capture our attention, though of course his written descriptions can be quite vivid and detailed, especially concerning some of the gruesome features of battle and prison life.
   
   Sneden wasn't so much writing a history as he was detailing his day to day activities and observations during his time of service and captivity during the war. But it is these types of accounts that can offer new insights into historic events that we otherwise may never have known about and in Sneden's case especially his drawings. Of course even these types of sources need to be carefully scrutinized for factual errors as well.



3. Do you ever read book and have trouble putting it down? For Civil War buffs this is it. While RK Snedon rambles on a bit at times, there can be no better insight into the maelstrom that was the Civil War. The drawings are fascinating as is the courage and positive attitude of an individual faced with obscene circumstances.



4. I always look for first hand information in journals. These are the journals by Priv. Sneden. The pictures that he drew are wonderful and his first person accounts of his journey throughout the Civil War are sad & touching. It is worth it all to read a first person account of his stay at Andersonville Prison in Georgia. Both his books, "Eye of the Storm" (his journal) and "Images of the Storm" (drawings of his journey) are prized books to treasure and will be passed on through generations. What a wonderful gift Priv. Sneden left behind.
   My heart aches for this wonderful young man who realized nothing
   from his legacy.



5. Eye of the Storm is a rare opportunity to see a new yet original view of camp and prison life. You will find yourself drawn to Sneden's original illustrations time and time again. The more you study them the more you see. It makes you want to see more and larger versions of his drawings. Brayn and Lankford have done a good job in not tainting Sneden's work while at the same time pointing out some important historical questions. I marked over twenty parts to use in reference and speeches.

5 comments about Burnside.

1. Marvel(the author is aptly named) and greatly wonder, that was what I increasingly did reading this excellent biography of Major-General Ambrose Everett Burnside. I marvelled at the fact that it was possible that soldier's lives were ever entrusted to this man (and he wasn't even the worst one) and wondered how someone who was so insecure, mediocre, naïve and, well, just plain dumb succeeded in reaching such important commands. Oh, let's just say it: the man was a colossal dunderhead.
   
   Fredericksburg, Knoxville, the Wilderness and the Crater are the sad testament to Burnside's military abilities. Why the Lincoln administration continued to employ him is still beyond me. Even in 1864 when they had got rid of most stupidheads in command of Union troops, Grant still let Burnside lead an army corps, knowing fully well that Burnside was not a vigourous and competent leader!
   
   As a person he was very likable: a pleasant, caring and modest fellow, a true gentleman. Everybody liked Burnside, but everybody also knew he was a failure as a general. But the fact that Burnside was a nice bloke, kind and well-meaning, does not excuse his failings as a general.
   
   After the war he was very busy in the Senate, lobbying for veteran's affairs, which is highly laudable, but I can't help thinking that there would have been a lot more veterans alive after the Civil War if Burnside had never been given a command higher than a brigade.
   A very good book, sympathetic to its subject, but not blind to his faults. Recommended.
   
   One thing though: Why does this book have that odd, psychedelic cover? a bad reproduction of Burnsides portrait in front of some weird and freaky serrated plant leaves. What's that all about, huh??? It looks chaep too. For Pete's sake, get a better cover on the next edition, wouldya?



2. Ambrose Burnside is an easy man to come to conclusions about. Describing himself as not competent to lead the Army of the Potomac, he subsequently confirms it with his disastrous performance at Fredericksburg. Again, later in the war, fate taps him to perform miserably at the Crater, a catastrophe that ends his military career. As a result, we are taught by history to hate him and with the benefit of these awful events, we do.
   
   But who was this man and why did people like him so? Why, after the Crater, was he able to become Senator from, and Governor of, Rhode Island subsequent to the Civil War? Who was this man who remained so loyal to George McClelland that he refused to replace him when offered the promotion. Why was he the second highest ranking officer in the Union Army and what were the reasons for his victories along the Carolina Coast in 1862 and at Knoxville against Longstreet in 1863? The answer is simple: He could be trusted.
   
   William Marvel does a wonderful job of explaining Burnside. As a result, we are introduced to a wonderful person, an entrepreneur, a loyal friend and confidant, a combat soldier promoted beyond his capabilities to be sure but one who remained so admired by those around him that even Grant, who relieved him from command after the Crater, sought his friendship and support as President of the United States.



3. Marvel's account is pretty much all you have to turn to if you want to read about the infamous Burnside. The author tries his hardest to present Burnside in a favorable light, going so far as to claim he could have won at Fredericksburg if not for the slowness of General Franklin. Marvel's contentions about Burnside's competency are at best debatable. As noted elsewhere, there is very little here about Burnside's early life (perhaps due to lack of source material), and less understandably, little is included about his post-war political career.
   I feel the book was a bit long, going into great detail about situations where Burnside's subordinates were preforming some maneuver in New Berne or East Tennessee. The book could have been edited down by a hundred pages or so.
   There also a lack of the voice of the subject. Very few letters seem to exist from Burnside, so it is hard to get to know him outside the limits of his official communications.



4. Ambrose Burnside remains famous for his staggering incompetence as a Civil War general and his facial hair. In this solid biography, William Marvel presents a more intriguing character than most Civil War buffs would think.
   
   Marvel takes the reader through the various triumphs and defeats of Burnside's career. While not ignoring the disasters at Fredrciskburg and the Crater, Marvel does show that Burnside had some ability as his operations in North Carolina and, to a lesser extent, east Tennessee show. Marvel also does an excellent job in illuminating a number of the minor assignments that Burnside handled well, including his command in Ohio as well as his efforts at recruiting. Burnside's humanity comes through very clearly. Marvel does an excellent job of showing
   how the Civil War transformed Burnside's thoughts on race. The prewar Jacksonian Democrat became a Republican as the nature of the war changed. Unlike his friend George McClellan, Burnside seemed to understand that the war had become about more than preserving the Union and started drifting along the same tide as others. The conservative who at the start of the war seemed willing to preserve slavery recognized that the institution of human bondage had to be ended with the Confederacy. Burnside, more than most Union generals, also appreciated the use of African-American soldiers. Marvel shows Burnside in a much more complex light than the caricature of an affable incompetent. Marvel also shows that Burnside had his own circle of subordinates and friends who remained loyal to their chief.
   
   But the book has its flaws. While excellent on the war years, Marvel has little to say on Burnside's pre-war career inlcuding his friendship with George McClellan, his 1858 campaign for Congress and his failed attempt to produce rifles for the Army. Even more astonishing, Marvel has almost nothing to say about Burnside's important post-war political career. Burnside served three terms as governor of Rhode Island and was an important senator for seven years. Some of the more interesting stories which help humanize Burnside are burried in the endnotes (such as a funny tale of Burnside playfully whacking an aide over the head with a slipper).
   
   Still, the book remains an excellent one and is of interest to any Civil War scholar. The book is also very readable. While a bit savage to McClellan, the author seems as affable as the subject; high praise indeed since Burnside's charitable nature comes through on almost every page.



5. This is a true honest work of a General who had some excellent ideas but was often too naive with initiating action or from truly evaluating his staff. He was politically inept in being aware of the political cabal of McClellanites that undermined his command of the Army of the Potomac and contributed to his failings at Fredericksburg. Marvel does an excellent job demonstrating Burnsides successes at Roanoke Island with amphibious landings, perhaps the first in American war, and his occupation of coastal N.C. Marvel explains that Burnsides beat Lee to Fredericksburg but was held back by Halleck's failure to organize the pontoon train needed to cross the Rappahannock. The author's most interesting part of the book is his explanation of Burnsides' battle plan at Fredericksburg and his misunderstanding of the terrain features of Marye's Heights. In addition, one of the cabal generals commanding the left wing failed to execute his flanking movement properly yet communicated success causing Burnsides to unleash full scale attacks on Marye's Heights. Another fascinating piece centers on Burnsides' plan of the "crater", blowing up a confederate section of line and exploiting the breach with specially trained African American units. Unfortunately, the plan was severely hindered by Grant's and Meade's last minute disallowance of the black units to execute the plan resulting in untrained units commanded by an intoxicated officer. In between Burnsides does well keeping Longstreet out of Tennessee but inflames Sherman by providing Sherman a feast upon his arrival. Sherman misunderstood the meal as evidence that Burnsides' needed no relief. Burnsides is depicted as a very intelligent man that invented a breech loaded rifle but was politically naive particularly that even his alleged friend, McClellan undermined him for his own purpose without Burnsides being aware of it. Hard to defend Burnsides' limited action on McClellan's left flank at Antietam where any early action could have resulted in defeat of Lee. Regardless that McClellan didn't not ask Burnsides to attack earlier but any initiative by Burnsides would have made for a different outcome. Also, if Burnsides was aware or more personally involved with the crater attack, he should have recognized that the officer in charge of the attack was unfit and when the attack was misdirected, perhaps organized a better follow-up of troops although Meade aborted support. One of the last McCellan's generals of the Army of the Potomac to resign, only Warren lasted longer until his encounter withh Sheridan. The book leaves one thinking that if Burnsides had just a little of Sheridan in him and a little less of Burnsides, he would have been more successful. From a biography standpoint, Burnsides seems to havea lot in common with Confederate Genenral Ewell whose failures were also more pronounced than his victories.

5 comments about The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams.

1. It is a very good book, the reading is really good!!! I loved reading the letters between Jefferson and Adams!!!! The letters are very good!!!!



2. This is a very intersting book. The letters are all preceeded by an introduction that gives the reader historical context as well as a description of the relationship at the time between the writers of the letter.



3. What an incredible feeling reading the words of two of our country's founding fathers. To feel the respect and affection , as well as irritation, of these men is astounding. I am grateful that they have been made available to us to have and hold in our own hands and libraries and to pass on to our children.



4. Have you ever wanted to be a fly on the wall and to be able to share in the thoughts and happenings of important places and people? Well, if your desires in that regard include the office of the Presidency of the United States and the early days following the American Revolution, that is exactly what this book provides.
   
   As was typical of statesmen of that day, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams maintained a lengthy personal and professional correspondance the subjects of which were both mundane and highly intellectual. This book takes that correspondance, chronologically arranges it and then groups it according the characteristics of the time and the themes of their correspondance. As an additional bonus, John's wife Abigail Adams is included as well.
   
   My attraction to this volume was to seek clarity and focus on several questions that are quite relevant to today. What was meant and intended by the concept of Separation of Church and State and what was the philisophic and religious thinking of there two important figures? There's no shortage of resources out there to tell you what these men thought, the context of their society and usually as an added bonus how these matters in one way or another support the agenda or perspective of the one putting the source together.
   
   At some point however, if you really want to grapple with these issues or just understand the times and importance of these two men, there is no substitute for simply reading and allowing them to speak for themselves.
   
   The added benefit of reading it through in its entirity is that you are not subjected to the judgement of another as to what is significant, what isn't and you aren't relying upon snippets and quotes that may or may not be in context and may or may not be representative of all that either man had to say upon a certain matter.
   
   Certainly, this is just a small cross-section of all that these two men wrote and by itself there is much more that should be added. However, more than any other correspondance preserved from that day that these men engaged in, this was an exchange between men who considered the other his equal and for whom, with exceptions in time periods that are noted, mutual respect and a desire to explain themselves to one another motivated a candor and depth of intimacy that is difficult to find in other sectors.
   
   Certainly, any student of American History needs this resource as a reference and as such it affords a ready means to add information and topically flip through the pages to see what each man had to say on a particular subject.
   
   Every such student though, in my opinion, owes it to themselves, at least once, to just sit down and read the entire volume. Do this, and you'll have a handle upon the style of communication of the day, a feeling for many of the issues of the day and how they were viewed by the participants who did not have the advantage of knowing at the time how something would resolve. Idiosyncrasies in language and social custom will become more self-evident and the chances of being mislead by a quote isolated from its context will diminish considerably.
   
   In short, for anyone who loves History, this is an experience not to be missed.
   
   The footnotes and introductory passages to the different sections in my opinion do a remarkably good job of providing the reader with just enough context and outside information so that the letters themselves make sense and are not misunderstood. The reader is not told what to think about the letters per se, but rather equipped to make a better informed evaluation and come to their own conclusions. Those elements make the book valuable as well.
   
   5 stars if ever there was a book worthy of 5 stars; again, this IS history.
   
   Bart Breen



5. Out second and third presidents began their political career as friends, fell out, and then fortunately became friends again. In this wonderful collection of personal letters we see not only the men but the times until their deaths July 4, 1826. One of our most beloved presidents and most mis-understood are brought into reality by this collection. They were after all both remarkable men and human beings.

5 comments about Beyond the River: The Untold Story of the Heroes of the Underground Railroad.

1. Author Ann Hagedorn, who moved "on location" to complete her research and add inspiration to her writing, offers a rarely seen individual account of the underground railroad. Most other books on the topic take a view from 50,000 feet. Hagedorn focuses in on one river (the Ohio), two states (Ohio and Kentucky), and one man (John Rankin). The abolitionist work of this Presbyterian minister (whose letters about abolition are a crucial primary source) serves as the backdrop and foreground for Hagedorn's exposition. Though focused on Rankin, the author does not fail to provide compelling real-life stories of many other "key players" both slave and free. For a compelling, unique read of the courageous men and women conducting the underground railroad, "Beyond the River" is the book to read.
   
   Reviewer: Bob Kellemen, Ph.D., is the author of Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction , Spiritual Friends, and Soul Physicians.



2. Beyond the River was just named one of the American Library Association's Notable Books for 2004. The annual list is highly regarded and identifies 25 very good, very readable and very important books.

   This is a tremendous honor for Beyond the River and one that is richly deserved; this book lovingly weaves together tales of the abolitionist heroes in the town of Ripley, Ohio in the years leading up to the Civil War.




3. Ann Hagedorn offers the reader a captivating perspective on America's struggle with slavery in her work, "Beyond the River." The uniqueness of her work eminates from two particular aspects of her work, both of which begin with the way she takes her subject out of the macro world of politics and economics into the smaller world of the lives of the people effected by the souths 'peculiar institution.' Looking slavery through the eyes of individuals, the reader gains a far greater appreciation of the suffering, torment, and most of all, the fear generated by those who stood in opposition.

   Interesting also is the location the author focuses on, the Ohio River where on one side men are free and on the other live in chains. Most texts present slavery at great distances, like The Carolinas an and New York. Here we see just how intimate the slavery and the abolitionist could be and the blood spilled by both sides.

   Most importantly, Hagedorn writes in a cool clear voice that is enjoyable and informative. She delivers facts and passion in the same sentence without ever becoming melodramatic or shrill. Readers who enjoy this fictional work may also want to look at "Cloudsplitter," Richard Bank's novel on The Brown family's war on slavery.




4. This is a great read, suspenseful and thoughtful, one of the best page-turners I have read in a long while. I strongly recommend the book to anyone, of any race, of any religion, and from any part of the U.S. It has made me reflect on what 'weak' creatures most of us are when it comes to moral risk-taking, and how courageous other Americans in the past have been. This is a book that will make you feel very humble about how 'morally righteous' you really are.

   Unlike one of the other reviewers, I have enjoyed reading the 'large blocks of text'--the original written voice of the people livng at the time, and their [lists of] names make the events very real. These folks were a whole lot more articulate than myself--read this book!




5. So you think you know all about the Underground Railroad, the secret network that fugitive slaves used to escape bondage? Try this quiz:

   1. Once they reached one station of the UGRR, how did fugitives reach the next station?

   2. What role did women and children play in the UGRR?

   3. What religious group do you associate with the UGRR?

   So those questions are easy? Try these:

   4. What connection did Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, have with Ripley?

   5. How many years did the citizens of tiny Ripley, Ohio serve as major players in the Underground Railroad?

   Ann Hagedorn answers all these questions and more in Beyond the River. In her skillful hands, a century and a half fades away and the people of Ripley spring to life. By day, they live a surprisingly civilized life-- none of those rustic log cabins and barefooted trips to the outhouse that you read about in many attempts to bring history alive. By night, the sophisticated network of friends and neighbors bands together for one purpose: "a solemn promise to fight slavery until it is dead or the Lord calls me home."

   As a girl in the 1960's, I traveled through Ripley, Ohio a couple of times a year to visit my grandparents. I knew a little about the Rankin family and the Underground Railroad from reading the historical marker near Rankin House, but until Ann Hagedorn's book, the story of Ripley was lost history. Read Beyond the River the first time for the gripping story, the second time for the historical accuracy, and the third time for the inspiration to make our world a better place.

No comments about Abraham Lincoln Speeches & Letters (Everyman's Library (Paper)).

1 comments about Lincoln and His World: The Early Years, Birth to Illinois Legislature.

1. This book is absolutely captivating. It is one of the best biographies I have ever read--one truly has a feel for what Lincoln's world was like during his childhood and early adulthood. Can't wait for the sequel.

5 comments about The Destructive War: William Tecumseh Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, and the Americans.

1. This book won the Bancroft Prize. I can see why. The prose is inspirational, every paragraph a little jewel. The book is absorbing. It was easy for me to get lost in the prose, too easy. But where was this book going, generally? How did the chapters tie together? How does the concept of the destructive war fit into the intellectual patterns of pre- and anti-bellum history? I can't answer these questions and I would hope that no one would ask me this last question on a Ph.D. prelim. I can draw only one conclusion: there was no connection. This was the first modern war in terms of its destructive power. One out of every five who participated, died on the field or, even more horribly, of his wounds, lilke Stone Wall Jackson. The intellectual origins of American politics became uprooted and found no voice in this war. The Jacksonian themes that built on that tradition were mangled by the war. All that was left was the vicarious war: people of all classes struggling to relate to the war in every day language in any way they could. And once the killing stopped and reconstruction began, the destructive war and the vicarious war ended. No one learned anything. Is that the main message of this book? I wish Royster had written it down in black and white.



2. While focusing on the deeper causes of the civil war and their play-out on battlefields, Royster rips the lid off one of the most cherished American dogmas: the assumed sacrosanct value of the press. Royster's deep and thorough quotation from newspapers north and south, for decades preceding the war, lays bare a legacy of mutual hate encouraged by newspapers as they whipped their respective constituents up to a frenzy. The horror of "total war" and its major military proponents, in that context, is not only quite explicable but even ordinary -- even tame. The generals are, indeed, seen as essentially loyal ministers to a vast malaise primarily spiritual and psychic, which was hardly original to them, and which has been allowed to fester in this nation for a long time, and which to a degree poisoned populations both north and south before the war.
   
   This is therefore one of the few major books on American history either to take up an original thesis, or to forward one so counter to accepted thinking. You can like it or dislike it, curse it or scream "ouch," but the evidence is there, meticulously laid out. The fact is, Royster throws great and uneasy light on our present culture wars which are also now several decades running -- and flamed in a quite similar manner.
   
   In the meantime, Royster's descriptions of the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain and the burning of Columbia are matchless.
   
   This book leaves all James McPhersons, all Ken Burnses, all Stephen Ambroses, and all similar gurus at the post -- mere babes. No, this is not to say he is some sort of Michael Moore hate America nut, either. He's more on the level of a Tacitus, frankly, or an Isaiah weeping at the gates. Read it and weep.



3. This is a brilliantly labyrinthine disquisition on the American Civil War. Royster's premise is the examination of the wars' scale of destruction, and the surprising extent of its violence, developed out of biographical sketches of Sherman and Jackson, who Royster believes best personify the Union and the Confederacy. Further, Royster sees the devastation of the Civil War as incipient in the antebellum period. The Destructive War is interpretive as well as critical, literary as well as historical, dealing as much with the idea of war as the facts themselves. Indeed, the author terms his work " a long essay."

   Royster depicts the Civil War as-primarily-aggresive, anomalous, vicarious, and as the title suggests, destructive. The Confederacy sought aggressive war to achieve quick legitimacy, its viability depending on the ability not only to wage war, but also to take that war north of the Potomac, make the Yankees feel its effects, and thereby convince them that the costs of prolonged combat would be far too dear. Royster argues that the Union pursued aggresive war, ultimately, to bring progress to the South and demonstrate the superiority of free labor over slave labor, by razing the Confederacy to its foundations and then rebuilding it in the North's own image.

   For Royster no one better epitomizes the Confederacy than Thomas Jonathon Jackson, better known by his sobriquet Stonewall, which Royster asserts, reflected a self-created persona. Jackson's Stonewall was an inelegant fusion of plodding resolve, frustrated (if not checked) ambition, and intense piety, smacking of both Calvinism and Arminianism, all funneled into a zealous devotion to duty. His untimely death at Chancellorsville gave birth to the Stonewall myth-patriotic Christian warrior-providing tantalizing 'what if' grist for the counterfactual mill of post hoc Confederate nation building. An advocate of "the tactical offensive in battle" Jackson is certain the Civil War will be "earnest,massed, and lethal."

   The essence of the Union, according to Royster, can be found in William Tecumseh Sherman. Alarmed by Confederate strength and resolve, Sherman presciently observed that tactical defensive warfare would be woefully insufficient in what he believed would be a long and costly war. Egged on by newspapers ravenous for victory on the cheap, and deferring to troops already engaged in wanton mayhem, Sherman embraced, then embodied, that which he originally resisted: total war.

   Royster includes subsidiary characterizations of the war as drastic, Republican, and vigorous. Drastic war knows no limits in the pursuit of emancipation and abolition. Republican war means "Emergency war powers" and "passionate nationalism" which will create "a new republic, purged of antebellum evils and backwardness." Vigorous war is possible because of the "widespread eagerness to be exonerated of the criminality attached to bloodshed." Auxiliary adjectives such as harsh, bitter, ineluctable and causeless are employed to complete the illustration. In the book's chapter on vicarious war the author asks, "How had the naive notions prevalent at the start given way so readily to killing on a scale supposedly unimaginable?" This single question is the essence of Royster's work.




4. The book The Destructive War by Charles Royster, examines the war policies and strategies of the Union and the Confederacy during the civil war. The book talks extensively about Confederate general Jackson and Union General Sherman.

   At the beginning of the war the Union did not attack citizens or their property. The Union did not destroy any property of the citizens of the Confederacy because they anticipated winning the war. They realized that if they won the war it would be their responsibility to help the south rebuild. They also thought of the south and the people of the south as Americans despite labeling them traitors. But despite the reluctance on the part of Union Generals to damage citizen's property it eventually became policy. This change in policy came about because, "northern expressions of support for intensified war-making assumed that the Confederate army was an instrument of the Southern populace and that the populace was a legitimate object of attack," (Royster, 81). Women were also subject to attack. Union soldiers attacked women because "in the conventions of the time, women were supposed to use their power to ennoble and civilize-whereas, Southern women, it seemed, were serving what Elizabeth Cady Stanton called "mere pride of race and class." By promoting war against the union and by showing their hatred of Federal soldiers, they imitated Lady Macbeth and "unsexed themselves to prove their scorn of `the Yankees'." Thus they forfeited their exemption as ladies and noncombatants," (Royster, 87). Confederates did not share this policy. They always were proud that when Lee invaded Pennsylvania in 1863 that he gave an order that soldiers were not to damage citizen's property or plunder it.
   
   The book also talks about General William Tecumseh Sherman. Sherman was a southerner who chose to stay in the Union. "He shared (southern) distaste for abolitionist and for Northern politicians who made hostility to slaveholders a political platform. Still, he told Louisianans that secession was treason and that he would not collaborate with it by remaining in the state," (Royster, 90). He hoped to stay out of the war but eventually he joined the Union army. He participated in the battle of Bull Run and blamed the "defeat on the inexperience and panic of the privates," (Royster, 92). He was the senior commander of central and western Kentucky in 1861, despite his desire not to be in charge. He was dismissed of command of the area and rumors spread that he was insane. He eventually led campaigns down the Mississippi River and captured Atlanta. He became famous for his destructive marches through the south.
   
   General Thomas Jonathan Jackson or Stonewall Jackson was a very famous and effective Confederate General. Everyone even Northerners considered Jackson a "genuine general," (Royster, 42). Jackson on many occasions outmatched many Union Generals on the battlefield. He died on the battlefield on May 2, 1863 from friendly fire. Many Confederate Generals including Lee thought that if Jackson had not died that they would have won the war. After the war Jackson came to symbolize many things after the war. He epitomized the courageous and skilled Confederate soldier. He also represented a model "to all the men especially ambitious and aspiring youths, that the self-control and assiduous application he had become a self-made man," (Royster, 162).
   
   The civil war was "an interior struggle in the (Confederacy and Union), an effort to make the newly forming conceptions of nationality inclusive lasting while they were still controversial and nebulous," (Royster, 145). Both sides believed that the best way to validate their idea of the nation is to destroy the other side's army. The Confederacy thought the best way to establish itself as an independent nation would be to deliver to the north a decisive defeat on their soil. General Stonewall Jackson gave the south many victories against the Union and came to be one of the most famous Generals in the war. The Union thought one of the best ways to bring the Confederacy to its knees would be to attack Confederate citizens. General Sherman was famous for his invasion into the south, wrecking havoc on the Confederate citizens.

   I had to read this book for my Civil War class. I thought that the book was a valuable source of civil war information. However Royster repeated himself several times in the book. The book also jumped alot from subject to subject. The chapters did not flow into each other; they tended to skip from idea to idea. Despite this it was full of very detailed information.




5. Royster's "The Destructive War" is one of the most important works of Civil War Scholarship in the 1990's. He blends a sweeping narrative with extensive analysis to explain the development of "total war" and its effects on Americans. What will really engage the reader is not so much Royster's examinations of General William Sherman's actions and those of his men, but rather the ideas of Stonewall Jackson and the calls for the destruction of Northern cities that they elicit from the Confederacy, a nation that was supposedly only wanted to fight a defensive war. While Royster's argument is not without some structural flaws, it makes some very interesting points about Confederate war aims and the willingness of populations and troops of both sides to destroy the cities of their former bretheren. I've read this book twice for graduate level classes and each time a lively discussion has been generated. An excellent book.

5 comments about Gray Ghost: The Life of Col. John Singleton Mosby.

1. James A. Ramage has written what must be THE definitive book on the life of John Singleton Mosby. I cannot imagine a more thoroughly written book on the topic. Ramage discusses his family history, his childhood and more.
   
   Of course, the largest amount is written about his service in the Civil War as a partisan ranger that terrorized the Union troops arrayed against Robert E. Lee. Ramage is definitely a fan of Mosby, but he refuses to get involved in the hype that Mosby and his contemporaries sometimes engaged in concerning how effective Mosby's men were. Ramage agrees that Mosby was cost-effective, meaning that his small groups of men - usually around 120 or so - would tie down thousands of Union soldiers, but disagrees with Mosby himself that he tied down tens of thousands.
   
   The real strength of this biography is that Ramage covers Mosby's post-Civil War career thoroughly, including his controversial forays into politics and his government posting in Hong Kong. Ramage even includes a chapter on how Mosby has been represented in film and television, including a movie in which Mosby played himself in 1910.
   
   This is not a book for the casual Civil War reader - there is too much specific detail and an assumption that the reader knows and understands the basics of the war. However, this book will continue to serve as the reference for all things Mosby.



2. Ramage is absolutely correct when he speaks about Mosby's effect on his adversaries. By the time the war was over, he was - after Jefferson Davis - the most hated Confederate in the North. Once, late in the war when a troop of Yankee cavalry bringing in prisoners (none of whom were Mosby's men) joked that they had 'caught Mosby', in just a few hours over 10,000 people gathered to see the vaunted guerrilla chief. Mosby's psychological tactics were such that often all he or one of his men had to do was approach a Union picket or vidette and say, "I am Mosby" and the man became paralyzed with fear. Yet, Mosby's treatment of those whom he captured was such that after the war, many of his best friends were former Union officers taken by him and his command.
   
   Unfortunately, however, author Ramage has a tendency to speculate regarding things he cannot prove. His theory of Mosby's 'bipolar' personality - he was kind, gentle and loving at home but fierce, overly aggressive and untrusting out in the world - does not necessarily equate with the testimony of many of Mosby's men who wrote about the man and the 43rd Battalion.
   
   Furthermore, Ramage's account of Mosby's relationship with Fitz Hugh Lee - the two men detested each other - contains a vignette in which Lee supposedly offers a terrible rebuke to then Lt. Mosby when he offered Lee a captured Union newspaper. Lee, according to Ramage said "The ruling passion strong in death" a quote from one of Pope's moral essays on Lord Cobham, a religious dissenter who was hanged and burned for his beliefs. Ramage recounted that as a classical scholor Mosby would understand this statement to mean that he would deserve his fate when the Yankees caught and hanged him as a spy during one of his 'scouts' for JEB Stuart. According to Ramage, Mosby had no suspicion of Fitz Lee's hatred of him until that point. Yet in all other accounts - including Mosby's - nothing much is made of the same incident. I would not mind Ramage's account or his conclusion if only he had given a more detailed account of how he came to know that Lee said what he said and meant it as Ramage posits. Furthermore, I would have liked to know how Ramage knew that Mosby had no idea of his superior officer's feelings for him at the time. However, Ramage simply makes the statement and let's it go at that.
   
   There are certainly many psychological indicators apparent in Mosby's life which can enlighten interested parties regarding his forceful and unique personality but I must confess that I found some of author Ramage's speculations to be lacking in credible verification on such subjective matters. If one is going to speak of 'feelings' and 'passions', it is wise to have at least some documentation to back up one's claims. Otherwise, the matter becomes nothing more than another speculation regarding the individual being studied.



3. This book is about as close to entertainment as history can get. This does not mean that it is fiction however. Ramage writes a sturdy bio of Mosby. And although Mosby is one of the most famous, or infamous if you are a Yankee, Civil War personalities around, there aren't many good reads on him. However, Ramage's bio is terrific from both a historian's and a reader's point of view. Ramage is obviously an admirer of Mosby's, but does not blindly believe all that comes with the "Mosby myth". Instead, Ramage uses both primary and secondary sources to try to find the real Mosby and see what his real exploits were. The descriptions of Mosby's forays are fast-paced and exciting. The chapters on Mosby's post-war career are extremely interesting as we see the hated Mosby become a Republican and friend of U.S. Grant. Mosby also became embroiled in disputes with "Lost Cause" people like Jubal Early due to Mosby's support of J.E.B. Stuart. Interesting all the way around.



4. This book is well written by someone who likes Mosby but this nonsense about "terror" from Union troops about Mosby sounds more like the terror that was felt by the Confederates towards Sheridan or Sherman or John Brown!
   Frankly I have always considered those who hit and run or come out at night and shoot stragglers or people from behing to be somewhat -- well - gutless. Sorry.



5. An excellent book for anyone interested in the Civil War. Ramage has written an exciting, fast-paced biography of one of the South's most mythologized and celebrated Civil War heroes. He draws the reader into the world of Mosby from his early fights with childhood bullies to his final fight for J.E.B. Stuart's memory and legacy. Certainly one of the Confederacy's more popular figures, Mosby ruled an area of Virginia causing Union officers and privates alike to fear capture if separated from the main body. Mosby's able and selfless leadership set an example to his men, and both Stuart and Lee saw that he was no ordinary partisan ranger. Even after the war, Mosby's fight continued as he supported the Republican Grant for president. Ramage aptly delves into the now out-of-favor hero's post-war life and one of the best chapters in the book is his description of Mosby's fight against corruption as U.S. consul in Hong Kong. Ramage has gone through many sources and succeeded in bringing Mosby the man to life. The author even met with Mosby's grandson and received valuable first-hand descriptions of him in his later life. This book is destined to be the definitive work on the "Gray Ghost".

1 comments about The Expatriation of Franklin Pierce: The Story of a President and the Civil War.

1. As a student of the presidency and of 19th century America I was glad to find this book about Franklin Pierce, one of the most obscure of American chief executives. While there's not much coverage of Pierce's four years in office there is a good deal of attention paid to the tumultous times in which he lived, especially the years after his presidency ended in 1857 and during which the Civil War, and then Reconstruction occurred.
   
   What I found most informative about the book were Pierce's relationship to Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President and former U.S. Secretary of War and Senator and Pierce's role as a Peace Democrat during the Civil War and the official and unofficial, but all very public, animosity that role generated. One of the surprises was realizing the extent of Davis' experience and influence; in much of the Civil War history I've read Davis is presented as a kind of compromise flunky, playing second fiddle to the great Southern Civil War Generals. But it appears he was a much more consequential figure than that.
   
   So as a descriptive portrayal of an under-recognized American President and of the civil liberty abuses and social turmoil surrounding an important period in the nation's history, I think the book works well.
   
   In my mind the book's shortcoming is its failure to provide a greater understanding of why Pierce sympathized with the South, particularly in regards to the South's decision to secede, and its decision to fire on Fort Sumpter. The book treats both of these critical developments rather superficially. The election of Lincoln, for example, did not directly threaten slavery in the South, a point Lincoln and the Republican Party took great pains to emphasize in the years leading up to the 1860 election and immediately afterward. So the question of why did the South secede, and why in particular did Pierce believe they were justified in doing so goes unexplained. Further, even if a right to secede is recognized, how did Pierce think the federal government should deal with its installations throughout the South, particularly its military ones? And finally, if Pierce believed the South had the right to secede, and the right to attack federal government military installations in the South, under what terms did Pierce think the North should have negotiated with the South or worked to bring the South back into the Union?
   
   This is to say that the book's shortcoming is a lack of analysis, which is essential to better appreciating and understanding--even if not agreeing with or condoning--the thoughts and actions of those who have contributed to the development of our nation.
   
   But I appreciate the attention of this author to a heretofore neglected person in American history and of the conflict that existed for many people as the nation warred against itself.