5 comments about Honor's Voice: The Transformation of Abraham Lincoln.

1. Honor's Voice is terrific in two respects: both for its insights into Lincoln and for its insights into effective communication. I recommend it to anyone who uses words for a living, and for anyone who wants a fascinating, insightful look into how Lincoln crafted some of the most important speeches in our nation's history.



2. This book staggered me. Its careful research is combined with acute observations by author Wilson, on topics ranging from a fateful wrestling match that made Lincoln's reputation in a frontier village to Lincoln's bewilderment when courting Mary Todd. Wilson here produced one of the finest volumes ever to appear in the crowded field of Lincoln books. For anyone interested in how Lincoln's pre-presidential years shaped his conduct in the White House, Honor's Voice will be rewarding. It is one of the most significant Lincoln biographies I have ever read.



3. This is one of the most astonishing books I have ever read. I love history and yet this portrait of Abraham Lincoln is so much more. Had he been a Blacksmith, he would have been a hero. This was a man, a real man - no the greatest of men...who could not dissemble, lie, cheat, even when it came to marrying a woman that he knew (after they became engaged) would risk ruining his very life. He entered into a promise...and he would not go back on it. Of course, in those times, Breach of Promise (please read Anne Perry's book on this), was a serious offense against a woman's honor. But Lincoln carried this same integrity into everything he did no matter how difficult or huge - like the Civil War. I would hope that any student of American history would not miss out on this very important Masterpiece. As the cliche goes, if we do not learn from our own history, we are doomed (you know the rest....).



4. The reason this shouldn't be the first Lincoln book you read is that the author presupposes that the reader already has a basic command of Lincoln's life story. This book really speaks to those who are familiar with the various bits of Lincoln lore that permeate our culture: his wrestling match with Jack Armstrong, his courtship of Ann Rutledge, his off-and-on-again relationship with Mary Todd, and various accounts of his bookishness, his depression, and his early flirtations with agonisticism, among others.
   
   Having said that, I like this book more than any of the standard Lincoln biographies I own (I have the Thomas, Donald, and Sandburg bios.) The very best thing to read, of course, is Lincoln himself (his collected speeches and writings), but of the biographies written by others, this may be my favorite.
   
   The author dissects several of Lincoln's often-told formative experiences. In one example, he will explore the story of the wrestling match with Jack Armstrong, and ask:
   
   -- When is the earliest surviving account of the story, and what is the source?
   -- How has the story evolved over the years?
   -- How true is it? What does the evidence show?
   -- What is the significance of the story?
   
   For those who don't know the Jack Armstrong story, it is basically as follows: Lincoln was getting harassed by a gang of toughs in his town, and to deal with it, he challenged their leader, Jack Armstrong, to a wrestling match. The match was widely anticipated and witnessed, and Lincoln had the better of Armstrong. Afterwards, Armstrong restrained his allies, saying that Lincoln had won fair and square, and afterwards, he was a loyal friend to Lincoln, as were his associates.
   
   Like so many stories in the Lincoln canon, it's become a parable. It is a lesson about courage and forthrightness and insisting on fair play. In Lincoln's case, it also fills out the legend about his own physical strength, and how he became popular in his home town.
   
   Wilson's book analyzes many such stories. The anecdotes have varying degrees of truth, though on balance, most of the standard Lincoln tales do appear to be based in fact, even if they have become embellished over the years.
   
   You will like this book if you already enjoy the history of Lincoln, and if you like a little skeptical scientific inquiry thrown into your reading material. The reader is asked to travel along with the author as he gets to the bottom of the various issues surrounding Lincoln, and it's an enjoyable journey.
   
   I personally feel that this book is much more pleasant than as a mere exercise in critical history. I found that the dissection of these stories brought Lincoln much more fully to life for me. You get a much more multi-faceted view of the man because you aren't really relying on one author's perspective, as tends to be the case in other Lincoln biographies.
   
   It's an unusual work of history, and not the first Lincoln book to read, but it truly is outstanding. Highly recommended.



5. Teachers in criminal justice classes, I am told, often stage mock crimes in their classrooms. In the middle of a lecture, for example, a bandit will barge in, threaten the students, and make off with the professor's wallet. The students, at first shocked but then relieved when told that it was a staged event, are then asked to describe the event. What did the suspect look like? How tall was he? What color hair did he have? What was he wearing? What did he say? Invariably, there are multiple answers to those questions. People saw different things. No one version of what occurred is totally accurate.

   Wilson's book confronts that perennial problem of human perception. Though his 'transformation of Lincoln' plows familiar ground - how one solitary, unschooled backwoods man transformed himself into a national, albeit polarizing figure, through willpower, endurance, ambition, guts, and brains - his careful forensic method, as judge and jury of a multitude of competing facts and interpretations, makes this book a compelling tale, as much about how history is written as it is about how Lincoln evolved.

   And this is why I disagree with the reviews that describe this book as long-winded, tough-sledding and over-detailed. In Honor's Voice, Wilson provides a valuable glimpse into the historian's bag of tricks. Wilson takes each of the iconic moments of Lincoln's life - his storied wresting match with Jack Armstrong, his self-education, his disastrous romance with Ann Rutledge - and peels apart the layers, examining the historical record as closely as possible, evaluating the claims of eyewitnesses and second-hand sources, and holding each up to scrutiny before making any assertions; and even then, he is admirably cautious. Wilson presents a lot of quotes, exactly as written, from contemporaries who witnessed, or claimed to have witnessed, crucial events in Lincoln's life, and asks: Is this the truth? Who could have benefit from enhancing the truth? Who was really there? What about the quote lends it authenticity, or falsity? Yes, the narrative covers the same event numerous times, but this is the price one pays of exactness. Like the criminal justice students who have competing recollections of a recent event, not one of Lincoln's contemporaries knows the whole truth. But taken together, one gets a more clear picture of what might have happened.

   The risk, of course, is boredom and the frustration of dealing with multiple sources of the same event; but the reward is a new appreciation of Lincoln the man, as well as the historian's challenge of teasing out the facts in an era long since vanished.

5 comments about The Confederacy's Greatest Cavalryman: Nathan Bedford Forrest (Modern War Studies).

1. This is the definative biography of Nathan Bedford Forrest. Although it is clear that the author admires his subject, he provides a fair and balanced account of Forrest's life. The book is well written and thoroughly researched. If you are going to read one book on Forrest, this should be it.



2. What I like about Wills book, besides the bio, is that it addresses why Forrest was often not in the main theater of operations during the crucial times of 1864. Forrest is well defined as a frontier planter whose strong belief in honor combined with an explosive action oriented temperament made him a ferocious opponent yet he was difficult as a subordinate except under the right conditions. In the case of the latter, Forrest literally offers to slap Braxton Bragg for his lack of action after Chickamauga and only fails to do so because in his estimation, Bragg was not a man thus not worthy of the challenge. Wills does an excellent compact bio of Forrest capturing the early life and his rise to success as a slave trader and planter to a private in the Confederate service to the immediate promotion of Colonel and on. All the daring raids are captured, aided by maps but aside from Shiloh and Chickamauga, the only truly large operation Forrest was involved with was Hood's march to Nashville where the inexplicable Spring Hill disaster is laid at Forrest's feet unfairly when Hood had responsibility of creating a sufficient force to stop Schofield's escape. The tremendous work ethic combined with his fearlessness and temper is described throughout the book including Forrest's post war life and business. Forrest does amazingly well defending his Mississippi, Tennessee and Alabama sector with a relative small force culminating in his great victory at Brices Crossroads. Wills includes Forrest's post war career with an example of Forrest's feared temper by describing a railroad meeting where one of Forrest's engineers starts the discussion with a loaded pistol on the table in case the company President, Forrest, intended a violent interruption. Although not captured in gross detail, Forrest's role at the infamous Fort Pillow is described in sufficient detail along with Forrest's post war role in the Ku Klux Klan. The role of the Klan is described as an attempt to maintain a retaliatory police force against over stepping radicals and to force former slaves into roles as cheap labor and as a channeled political force obviously through violence if deemed necessary. The association with Forrest seems quite clear but murky before congress. One thing is very clear in this bio, if Forrest was involved, he had to lead the action, or he otherwise was not interested. A most feared adversary, inventive, unpredictable and incredibly daring leading his men wherever he wanted them to go. As Wills points out, how unfortunate he rarely had a suitable commander to follow in larger campaigns and he was not used effectively during Sherman's initial march to Atlanta. If he was, Sherman would not have got there until at last 1865. The book is approximately 381 pages, maps and pictures and another 100 pages of notes and index. The book is endorsed by the late Emory M. Thomas (The Last cavalier), Dr. James I. Robertson, Jr. (Stonewall Jackson: The Man, the Soldier, the Legend) and William C. Davis (The Lost Cause).



3. Any time a writer fails to use all available sources the end result is always worthless.
   
   The 1871 Congressional hearings of Forrest chaired by William Tecumseh Sherman regarding both Ft. Pillow and the KKK failed to support the author's tired repetition of the 1864 "investigation." Why stick with the wartime 1864 propaganda hearing when the later hearing disputed virtually everything previously assumed?
   
   At Ft. Pillow Forrest took 39 USCT prisoner and turned them over to his commanders. He turned over 14 of the most grievously wounded surviving USCT to the Acting Master of the U.S. Steamer Silver Cloud (Federal Official Records).
   
   Hardly the acts of a "massacre."
   
   Same old tiring retelling of second-hand propaganda when first-hand contemporaneous sources are actually available.
   
   Your Obedient Servant,
   
   Colonel Michael Kelley, (...)
   "I came here as a friend...let us stand together. Although we differ in color, we should not differ in sentiment." - LT Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, CSA, Memphis, Tennessee - July, 1875



4. The Confederacy's Greatest Cavalryman : Nathan Bedford Forrest (Modern War Studies) by Brian Steel Wills is a fine biography of perhaps the most complicated and interesting leader of the Civil War. In describing Forrest it is difficult, if not impossible, to remain neutral. For those that love or hate him there is plenty of ammunition. However, Wills does a better than anticipated job taking the neutral course.

   For those that view Forrest as the reincarnation of the Devil, there is plenty of evidence, and Wills covers most of it. Forrest was a crude, ruffian slave trader who would not think twice of killing a man who he believed showed him disrespect. As Willis writes, he was responsible for the massacre of Union troops at Fort Pillow. As a General he was brilliant when in independent command, but did not do well when working under someone elses command or part of a larger team. This failure limited his ability to have a greater impact on the course of the War. His failure to work with other Generals who he believed were inferior was part of the reason that the Union Army was able to escape destruction at Spring Hill.

   On the other hand, Forrest was a brilliant tactician and a real leader of men. From leading his troops out of the encirclement at Fort Donaldson to his brilliant victory at Bryce Creek, Forrest was a fighter and a leader. Furthermore, if Hood had listened to Forrest after Spring Hill, and allowed Forrest to out flank the Union troops at Franklin, the battle of Franklin may have been a Confederate victory rather than a disaster.

   Willis deftly moves between the several General Forrests. He seems not to have an agenda, giving the good with the bad. At least until the Civil War ends. While Wills does describe Forrest's contribution to the founding and growth of the Ku Klux Klan, he seems to hold his punches. However, that is a slight criticism. Al in all, this is a good book about one of the most interesting personalities in the Civil War.




5. I have read several biographies on Lee, Jackson, and Grant, but this is the first that I have read on N.B. Forrest. I thought the battle details were about right so as to instruct on what went on and to give insight to Forrest's great ability, but not so much as to bog down a reader who has not read much about warfare. I thought Wills was fair concerning the incident at Ft Pillow--he did not place the blame at Forrest's feet, but was sure that Forrest was not in total control of his men. I, personally, would liked to have had more detail about Forrest's deeds after the War Between the States. Some of Wills' comments seem to be a little vague, and at times he seemed to be jumping sides as to Forrest's involvement with the KKK. Overall, I did learn about this interesting man and am glad that I read this book. It was a good starting place for continued reading on General N.B. Forrest.

1 comments about The War the Women Lived: Female Voices from the Confederate South.

1. The Women of the Confederacy speak. Culled from journals, diaries and published memoirs of the most cruel war of all, a Civil War, these women tell of hardships endured and unbelievable savagery on both sides. If this book was fiction it would be a good read. As eyewitness accounts it is a great read. Experience the horrors, the insights, the frame-of-mind of a violent time from our past. This book will enrich you

No comments about Lincoln And His World: Prairie Politician, 1834-1842.

5 comments about The Outlaw Youngers: A Confederate Brotherhood.

1. The book was fun to read; it gave the detail and the background that I like because it sets the historical stage nicely for the well-publicized behavior of the Younger and James brothers. And it's not first out-West book I've read which shows the thin line between heroic gunmen like Wyatt Earp and bad guys. So, that the Youngers and Jameses were tipped onto the side of outlawry after the bitter Civil War period is believable.
   The only trouble I had with the book was that it was a bit sloppily written -- and edited -- which I noted from the number of typographical errors and misspellings. The author referred to Charleton College (not Carleton College), correcting it in the second reference, and Hemline, instead of Hamline University. It made me wonder how many other mistakes there were.
   I also wondered why no major endorsements like from the book clubs of the Washington Post or New York Times or Los Angeles Times were included in the introduction. I suspect they weren't favorable, if they were done at all. I find little value in an endorsement from a TV cowboy.
   But I loved reading about the Youngers and that period. And the writing was fairly well done.



2. This is an extremely engaging account of the less famous half of the James-Younger gang. It is beautifully written and well researched. The author also provides a vivid glimpse into the suffering of the Southern civilian during the Civil War, which is an aspect of this era that seems to be under-reported by most authors dealing with this topic. Brant is aggressive in her writing and fills in the occasional gaps in the Younger's history with plausable theories. Her account of the Northfield raid and the eventual capture of the Youngers is by far the most detailed and informative version of this episode that I have read. This book is written intelligently yet it is never dry and dull. An interesting and exciting read. A real page turner!



3. This book is perhaps the best book about the Youngers to date, in a field that's not crowded with great works. This is her first book and she falls into the trap facing all biographers - objectivity. The book certainly seems to suffer from a pro-Confederate bias in the tone of her work, much as some books suffer from a pro-Northern bias. This book also relies on on the so-called "Maggie" letters for some of its most interesting revelations. Maggie is the alleged mistress of Bob Younger, but we are told in the note on the sources [page 340] that the actual source of these letters can't be revealed as they are in a private collection and can't be examined. Ditto with a number of alleged letters concerning Jim Younger. I would have given this book higher marks but for this. Some of the information may, or may not, be reliable, and this isn't made fully clear in the main text. If one day it becomes possible to examine and confirm the authenticity of these, the book certainly deserves a revised edition. Unless another book appears on the horzon, I'd say this will be the standard biography of the Youngers for some years to come.



4. This was not a good book-it was a GREAT book! Again, Brant has done some quality research. We see the whole picture from the origin of the Youngers since the grandparents on to the father, a wealthy Henry Younger, being murdered by The Union troops, his farm being plundered and burned to the ground, leaving the sons to find a way to survive in western Missouri during the Civil War. This book provides a real window into the era, the motives of The Union as well as the reasons these men had to live the way they did. Anyone interested in this type of material will enjoy this book. We see who they were, why they were like this and especially get a new, documented perspective on the cruelty and barbaric behavior of The Union during this era. It also provides a new, accurate perspective of Southern Culture during this time period that is far removed from Hollywood.



5. The story of the Youngers is very well told in this solid biography. As well as presenting well-researched information, the author writes in an engrossing style. It's good story-telling.
   One area I found as having room for dispute was her use of Cole Younger's autobiography. She quotes from it extensively while at the same time saying that there's hardly a word of truth in it. I wouldn't go that far. People seldom lie outright in autobiographies--they hedge, leave things out, recolor things to make themselves look better. On the other hand, Cole Younger (an admitted felon) wrote an autobiography that is, at best, clintonian to the extreme, but I think there are far more elements of truth than the author gives credit for. As an example, Cole states flatly that Frank and Jesse James were not at Northfield. He says that two men using the aliases Howard and Woods were there, and he refuses to name their real names. Well, Frank and Jesse were living under the names Woodson and Howard at the time, so while Cole's statement isn't openly truthful, it is not entirely untruthful. In 1903, when he wrote, he was still protecting Frank James from a murder charge in Minnesota. I would have liked the author to give a bit more effort to finding the truth's in Cole's writings than the untruths. But that's a minor downcheck to a fine piece of work.

2 comments about Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass An American Slave (Barnes & Noble Classics Series) (Barnes & Noble Classics).

1. It's simply amazing that a man such as Frederick Douglass could rise up from the bowels of slavery and make such an impact on American history. And the fact that he allegedly educated himself and became an outspoken leader/advocate in the abolitionist movement, while becoming one of the leading intellectuals in the 19th century would indeed be miraculous if it didn't seem so fallacious.
   
   But what I'm about to state will disturb many people, and for that I'm deeply sorry. However, I feel Douglass' autobiography and how he managed to educate himself with little or no help then escaping to freedom is unmitigated hyperbole.
   Also, the fact that Douglass downplays Harriet Tubman's Underground Rail Road as something unfeasible and the fact that Douglass doesn't reveal any information on how he escaped made this book seem extremely far-fetched if not fanciful.
   Unfortunately, this narrative seems like a work of fiction that was written by a 19th century white person trying to capture the essence of the black experience. (In other words this narrative would make a pretty good TV movie of the week.)
   
   And Of course, many people will make the accusation that what I'm conveying are racist sentiments, but that simply isn't the case. There were an abundance of capable Blacks in the 19th century that could and did accomplish what Douglass achieved ten-fold.
   So, with that said, I emphatically feel that he should've been professional and intellectually forthright with his tale. It would have been intriguing to envisage his perilous journey to freedom.
   By leaving the readers in utter limbo on how he made his trek to freedom when he simply could have given realistic details of what transpired during his escape without revealing accomplices would have made his story more palatable.
   
   But overall, what I think everyone should ascertain from this autobiography is the iniquitous brutality of slavery and the impact it had on America as a society then and now, and we must all muster enough strength to love and respect one-another so someday we'll overcome adversities in our sacred land.
   So to sum up; even though I found this book far-fetched at times I still consider Frederick Douglass to be one of the greatest Americans of all time.
   A must read for the learning experience insofar as reaching understanding even though this autobiography reads like a work of fiction.



2. Frederick Douglass wrote this while still a relatively young man, recently escaped from slavery. He is extremely articulate; especially for someone self-educated. This is the story of his life as a slave up until the time he escaped and became an abolitionist. He later wrote a couple of other autobiographies, but this is the one that packs the most wallop.
   
   His observations of the degrading effects on slavery, both on the slaves and the owners were very fascinating. His description of the change he saw in one of his mistresses from a kindly new slaveholder to a typical cruel slave owner highlighted what evil an institution slavery is. It made me grateful not only that I'm not a slave, but more so not a slaveholder.
   
   It was also interesting to see how his religious masters were much crueler than the non-religious owners were. It shows how if a "moral" institution justifies an immoral practice, its practitioners lose all sense of guilt and act accordingly.
   
   The methods the owners used to keep the slaves ignorant and debased was another disgusting practice. It seemed to work at keeping them from revolt, but at what cost?
   
   I highly recommend this book for everyone. The lessons it teaches about human nature are things we all need to be reminded of.

3 comments about Finding Jefferson: A Lost Letter, a Remarkable Discovery, and the First Amendment in an Age of Terrorism.

1. ....and that's a hell of a thing for a conservative Republican to say. I've always liked his style, even when I disagree. This short, but profoundly great, book gives his views of the First Amendment, filtered thru the metaphorical lens of a short letter written by Mr. Jefferson in 1801. Despite profound differences, Mr. Dershowitz and I share some things in common: [1] We are both pack-rats [2] We both revere Thomas Jefferson [3] We both love America. But then, he's a Red Sox fan, and I'm a Yankee fan......and, while we agree about the First Amendment, I suspect that we might part company over the Second...
   
   Alan Dershowitz found the letter in question in a rare book store a couple of years ago...it deals with Mr. Jefferson's disagreement with the views of Reverend Stanley Griswold, who advocated limitation on the freedom of speech. Jefferson decried limits, prefering to await "the first overt act". Well and good, but Jefferson did not face weapons of mass destruction [though he did have to deal with Islamic criminals]. The book deals point by point with Mr. Jefferson's arguments, with Dershowitz playing "Devil's Advocate". Dershowitz then branches into specific examples of how Jefferson dealt with problems in his own day. [I may add one slight point of disagreement; Dershowitz states that the Aaron Burr treason case of 1807 brings no credit to Jefferson...well, neither was it John Marshall's shining moment...Burr should probably have been acquitted on the merits, but Marshall still ran it as a rigged trial for political purposes]. He ends with his own views of the First Amendment...no limitation of free speech by the government. Period. I am fairly sure he would support me in the arguments I had with school authorities over my son's right to wear a Confederate flag T-shirt {I won}. But, nobody questions my Confederate flag tie at work...strange.
   
   This is one of the greatest books I have ever read. EVER. It reveals a human side of both Jefferson and Dershowitz that is engaging. Brilliant people are still people. And, this is a good place to give my own theory of what made Jefferson tick, though it's probably way off base...he was a man not bothered by contradictions. Mr. Dershowitz defended the idiots in Skokie; it bothered him [still does], but he made himself do the right thing; [I think] Jefferson would have done the same, and never worried about it a bit. If you want to spend an afternoon really understanding the First Amendment, this book is for you. I can't recommend it highly enough!!!!



2. Alan Dershowitz and Thomas Jefferson were collectors. Dershowitz, inter alia, collects antiquities. He loves objects with aesthetic and historical significance. Dershowitz travels to flea markets and book stores seeking treasure. Much of the focus of his legal activities has centered on the line between speech and act.
   
   The greatest acquisition of the author's career as a collector came from the Argosy Bookstore. It is a Jefferson letter about freedom of religion, (and of speech and ideas). The letter had been passed down through generations of the Boardman family who reside in New Milford, Connecticut. The historian Charles Beard learned of the letter's existence in 1926 and quoted from it. In turn, the sentence appeared in several important legal decisions.
   
   The letter was sold to the Argosy in 2006. Alan Dershowitz's daughter believes he has become obsessed with Jefferson. (He has now bought a number of books and souvenirs pertaining to Jefferson.) Through his letters a person is able to get into Jefferson's head the author asserts. John Adams hoped that Jefferson's letters would be published. Jefferson pardoned persons convicted of violations of the Alien and Sedition Acts when he became President.
   
   This book is of great interest to lawyers and to historians of ideas.



3. Saturday Night:
   I received Finding Jefferson as a gift today from my sister-in-law Linda. Thank you Linda, I loved it. I read the book today, I thought about it today, and I wrote these comments today.
   I have always thought of myself as a Free-Speech Absolutist. I still want to call myself that but here are my thoughts - inspired by Jefferson and Dershowitz.
   1) An anonymous man on a soapbox in the middle of a public park is the perfect symbol of what "free speech" seems to suggest. Why? Because, no matter what he says, people who choose to listen to him are under no obligation to believe him or to be swayed by him. They are as free to listen as he is to speak. In any event, he will most likely be thought a crackpot for speaking in public to a crowd that may or may not form.
   On the other hand, the speech of your military superior, your gang leader, or your boss at work is not JUST speech. The relationship between unequals in a formal hierarchy is not just speech. Coercion is a necessary part of this kind of speech, the result of discourse among unequals. If your CO or your boss tells you what to do, your refusal to obey may have serious consequences. For example, a neo-Nazi speaking in front of a crowd of onlookers who are totally free to listen or not is exercising his right to free-speech, even if he advocates mayhem. On the other hand, the same speaker speaking to his lieutenants and his subordinates and advocating mayhem is conspiring to commit crimes and ought (perhaps) to be accountable even before the commission of any crimes. In sum, speech between unrelated equals is always free and ought always to be protected; speech between members of a group with a pecking order may be coercive and ought not to be entitled to protection as free speech. (vs. Jefferson & Dershowitz)
   2) Not all speech consists of IDEAS. a) Some speech is opinion or taste, which of right ought always to be free. b) Some speech is factual, or not. PERHAPS the propagation of some kinds of untruths among a closed group ought to be actionable: should society allow the teaching of blatant falsehoods? Should the teaching of 2+2=5 be allowed to be taught in a religious school? Should the denial of the Holocaust be permitted under the law? I don't have an answer to this, but it is worth examination. Teaching falsehoods as the truth is not the same as propagating an idea or an opinion or a political preference. c) Some speech is directive: do this! Is the command of your leader merely a case of "self-expression"? I think not. d) And some speech, masquerading as IDEA, is just emotional vomit. Again, the fellow on the soapbox in a park ought to be free to tell lies and to urge insurrection; the leader of a gang or a religious group perhaps ought to be constrained not to tell utter falsehoods or urge insurrection to his ignorant followers. In other words, directive speech from a superior to a subordinate ought not to be protected, because it is not really speech at all.
   3) Religious speech ought always to be free (PERHAPS excepting outright falsehoods); but speech turned into action is no longer speech. The fact that much religious speech is ridiculous is no reason to deny it protection.
   4) Imams directing their obedient flock to kill the infidels are conspiring to incite to murder or treason. When your spiritual leader tells you what to do, you exercise your freedom to refuse to do it on pain of eternal damnation. This is the same as being told what to do by your CO or your boss, but more so. It is not free speech because the speaker's listeners are not free to ignore it; it ought not to be protected, as it is NOT JUST speech. When a speaker thinks his words are law, his speech is not just speech. Many Catholics are pro-choice, despite the Pope and their own priest. When listeners are truly free to disobey, speakers ought to be free to say what they will. (vs. Dershowitz & Jefferson)
   5) The free marketplace of ideas is just as free as the economic marketplace is free. Neither is free! There are areas in this country where all the news is filtered by one corporate owner with a significant political agenda to push. Or many big owners with similar agendas. Not to mention the fact that many Americans are so closed-minded that alternative ideas will not be listened to and cannot be heard. The speech of such monopolistic speakers must be seen not as free as in a market of multiple viewpoints. In other words, some kind of regulation is called for in this case. (vs. Jefferson)
   6) It seems to me that Islam has real cause to be angry with the West. Just as black and red men have real cause to be upset with white European Americans. We should sit down and air our grievances openly. Well, no, we should sit down and listen to them air their grievances with us; WE should just shut up and listen for a change. However, insulting Muhammad is within our most narrow definition of protected speech; the freedom to insult the Prophet is protected, and that freedom is not negotiable. Neither is a new Muslim Empire spread by force negotiable. But we would do well to listen. For a change.

5 comments about The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln.

1. Mr. Burlingame's book takes us where many scholars of Lincoln hesitate to go: into the inner-workings of strained marriage, the grief over the loss of two sons and the heavy load of a presidency at war. I found it a facinating read, but one to be taken in small bites, as the reality of the grief and dispair of Abraham and Mary were etched in every page. I felt their pain and sacrifice of real history as it was being made.



2. A very good read, focusing on Lincoln's depression and how it affected his life and presidency. Being a clinical psychologist who utilizes CBT for the treatment of depression, it was a bit too psychodynamic for my taste, however.



3. One of the finest Lincoln scholars provides an excellent examination of Lincoln's many-faceted personality. Burlingame consulted a wide variety of information sources and used them well. His thoroughly documents his narrative.



4. I have been studying Abraham Lincoln for nearly 40 years. Burlingame is inaccurate in many of his statements about Lincoln and Mary Lincoln in particular and does not present all of the information about both of them. Possibly his most faulty act is using William Herndon's information about Lincoln and Mary Lincoln. Herndon and Mary Lincoln hated each other. After Lincoln passed away, Herndon may have very well said things about Lincoln and her to hurt, degrade and disgrace Mary Lincoln. Herndon is NOT to be trusted to be accurate much of the time. Other very poor Lincoln authors are Weik, Sandburg, Gore Vidal, Lerone Bennett, Jr., Thomas DiLorenzo, Vincent Harding and Barbara Fields. Their accuracy, interpretations and images are usually wrong and at times even bizarre. If you want to read professionally researched, much more accurate material about Lincoln, read books by David Herbert Donald, Stephen Oates, Frank Williams, Mark Neely, Jr., Edward Steers, Jr. and Allen Guelzo.



5. The organization of this book is not presented in a chronological time scale as most books are. Instead, the author breaks up facets of Lincoln's emotions and personality traits, and then takes us through his whole life, examining the influence of each facet. Only thinking in this manner do I clearly imagine myself in his shoes, feeling what he felt, and in awe of the strength required to break the rebellion, and provide a land where each man's hand could feed that own man's face.

2 comments about Rebel Raider: The Life of General John Hunt Morgan.

1. I had searched through a lot of website information for Morgan's Raiders and was looking for a "beginning to end" book on this story. This book surpassed my expectations in getting the historical information along with the overall mood of the time. General Morgan was a very dashing figure and this helps to sort out the truth of many tales of the time. I would recommend this book highly to anyone who wants the whole story.



2. John Hunt Morgan....This name stirred up the passion of both Northerners and Southerners, and in his biography of the General, James Ramage does an excellent job in telling us why. The Morgan in Ramage's biography comes across to us the readers, as not very religious...deeply rooted in the Southern lifestyle of the times, and as a careful soldier. I found two Morgan's in the book...The Morgan who was at his most successful after the period of his first wife's death, and

   the Morgan who seems to lose interest in the war after his second marriage, when failure would always seem to bear its ugly head whenever the General attempted to do anything. Ramage has done a good deal of research, rooting out letters to and from the General, with special emphasis on Morgan's relationship with his second wife. This research helps us to understand the transformation of Morgan as the war went on, and helps the reader to ultimately understand this diverse per! sonality of our great internal conflict. The chapter on the death of Morgan is probably the best in the book, as Ramage tries to put down the various stories and myths that have cropped up over the years. All in all, I found Ramage's work a good read, and I recommend it to all Civil War enthusiasts.

5 comments about Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee (Leaders in Action Series).

1. This book was deceitful and misleading, like most Confederate propaganda. J. Steven Wilkins was cunning in his choice and presentation of facts. If someone with no knowledge of the Civil War read this book, he would be left with an absolutely incorrect perspective of Robert E. Lee, the institution of slavery, and the Civil War in general.
   
   First, there are inconsistencies between "Call of Duty" and... "Call of Duty"! At one point in the book, Wilkins quotes Lee as saying, "If the slaves of the South were mine, I would surrender them all without a struggle, to avert this war." Later, Wilkins claims that Lee was offended and hurt that anyone thought slavery had anything to do with the war. So answer me this...how could freeing slaves avert a war that had nothing to do with slavery?
   
   Another instance where the book contradicts itself is regarding race relations. Wilkins tries to sell the idea that Southern whites and Southern slaves lived in perfect harmony, respecting each other without the slightest presence of racism. Once again, later in the book this changes...Wilkins tells us of a church in Richmond whose attendees were shocked by a Negro who went up to take Communion! None of the churchgoers, except for Lee, as the story goes, wanted to be the first one to participate with a colored man. How is this possible in a society where racism is absent? Wilkins tries to blame this on Reconstruction, but I doubt a society could go from having no racism whatsoever to this degree of racism in such a short period of time.
   
   The book also contradicts history...notably, regarding Robert Lee and slavery. The book says that Lee never seemed to have owned more than six slaves. This is not true. Wesley Norris, one of Lee's slaves, says in an account that almost 70 slaves were inherited by Lee upon the death of Lee's father-in-law.
   
   Following in the said account, Wesley Norris tells the story of him and his sister Mary, who tried to escape the plantation after Lee inherited it. Upon being caught, Lee took it upon himself to "teach them a lesson they would never forget." He had them stripped to the waist, flogged, and thoroughly washed in brine. We see a little glimpse of Christian chivalry peeking out of Lee as he only had Mary receive twenty lashes, whereas Wesley received fifty. This is far from the compassionate Robert Wilkins would have us know! Wesley Norris's account can be found in "Slave Testimony: Two Centuries of Letters, Speeches, and Interviews, and Autobiographies".
   
   The book also implies that Lee opposed slavery. However, the supposed "proof-text" for this actually tells us quite the opposite. In the text of a letter Lee sent to his wife, which is printed in "Call of Duty", Lee actually defends slavery. Lee tries to distort the gross institution of slavery into some kind of mission work. Slavery was Christianizing the Negroes, and preparing them for freedom, and to seek to free Negroes from the clutches of slavery was to shake your fist at God, or so Lee reasons. This is ridiculous, considering how many missionaries of all religions have successfully converted people without enslaving them, and yet it is the rationale used by Lee, Wilkins, and so many other Southern partisans who seek to defend the South by justifying slavery.
   
   "Call of Duty" makes a god of Robert E. Lee, condemns the North, and justifies slavery with no regard for historical, logical, or moral facts. The Southern partisan will love it.



2. 
   A great opportunity is afforded any reader introduced to the Leaders In Action Series, and the refined biography of Robert E. Lee serves as an excellent first choice.
   
   Though written in a non-confrontational style, enough facts contradict the popular notions of Lee, the Civil War, {or the Southern appelation: The War between the States}, slavery, and the northern view of 'slavery and the South' to compel serious examination of the historical facts.
   
   It is no secret in Christian circles that Lee was an ardent disciple of the Lord Jesus, striving his entire life to follow the way of the Lord. That the General was against slavery is not as well known.
   
   Author J. Steven Wilkins' notation that Lincoln emancipated only the slaves in the enemy states held in rebellion, while leaving northern slaves to their chains is a topic that has layed untroubled since that President's proclamation of fame.
   
   Lee's Christian character and military genius are well chronicled in this immaculately manicured biography. Easy reference searches are made a joy by the editor's finely outlined table of contents, chronology of Lee's life and additional study helps.
   
   "Call of Duty," is a historical work of value for academics in many disciplines. This study of integrity unfolds for the reader the path up the Christian walk.
   
   Well done to Pastor Wilkins, though his study undoubtedly made it's own reward. Acknowledgments to those savvy enough to see not only the need for such a series, but wise enough to include enough detail in each volume to demand further consideration.
   
   "The steps of a good man are..." {Psalm 37:23, The New King James Version, Nelson Publishers.}
   
   TL Farley,
   author,
   When Now Becomes Too Late,
   Distant Reaches
   
   When Now Becomes Too Late { Print Edition }
   
   When Now Becomes Too Late { Kindle Edition }
   
   { Prophecy : The Rapture in Brief ! }
   
   
   Distant Reaches { Print Edition }
   
   { True Life Adventure in Ireland, Boston and on the North Atlantic }



3. Any accurate portrayal of Robert E. Lee, certainly one of our country's finest leaders, should definitely move anyone with an ounce of common sense to an enormous appreciation for this most outstanding human being. Lee's inspiring faith in God, his leadership by example, and lifelong message is one of love and honor. His own words and letters best exemplify this fact, and this author's liberal use of them brings it all home in this short, succinct work. However, be forewarned that Wilkins adds his own additional preaching far removed from the Gospels, most sadly detracting from an accurate historical perspective on Lee by adding his own self-serving distortions on slavery. The historical record is clear: Lee found slavery objectionable and looked forward to the day when it would end. None-the-less, Wilkins tries very hard to rationalize slavery as something good, as if his sad excuses are necessary in order to make Lee look acceptable.... so far from the truth! Wilkins does our great man, Lee, along with the rest of America, a dis-service by his disgusting blabberings. Let's hear it for Robert E. Lee, and not taint his image with such dribble. Most other Lee biographies will serve us more fairly and honorably.



4. If ever there was a man who followed Christ's example it was Robert E. Lee. This book illustrates such a man. This book illustrates the sort of gentleman that is lacking in our society today, lacking even in our churches. Truly an example for all to follow. Well done Reverend Wilkins.



5. If ever there was a man who followed Christ's example it was Robert E. Lee. This book illustrates such a man. It illustrates the strength of character that men lack in our society today....lacking even in our churches. This book is a must read for all men who are interested to know what a Christian gentleman is. Well done Reverend Wilkins. May Lee's example, which you have illustrated, set an example for others as it has for me and bring glory to God.