5 comments about Abraham Lincoln and Civil War America: A Biography.

1. The product came in great condition as expected and when the shipping was late, the dealer was able to let me know what was going on. The next few days I received the book with no problems. Also the seller was quick to respond and very easy to work with. Thanks!



2. Bill Gienapp was a brilliant historian, and his work "The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856" is a pillar of American political history. Unfortunately, his final work, "Abraham Lincoln and Civil War America," is a tremendous let-down. It is perhaps one of the worst examinations of Lincoln's life, and has almost nothing to do with "Civil War America." Essentially, it is an unqualified love poem to Lincoln, and strives only to prove his greatness -- there is no critical analysis at all. Lincoln is given credit for every political and military success 1861-1865 and is absolved from blame for all his mistakes. In reality, Lincoln was a complex personality and his public career was much more tumultuous than Gienapp proposes. It is disappointing that Gienapp, a man who dedicated his life to exhaustive, nearly flawless historical research would resort to such frivolous, uncritical "pop history" at the end of his tragically short life. Skip Gienapp's Lincoln and, instead, read Stephen Oates's "With Malice Toward None" or Don Fehrenbacher's "Prelude to Greatness: Lincoln in the 1850s."



3. A short, but very well biography of Lincoln. It counts only 250 pages, but it gives an excellent overwiew and superb analyse of the life of AL. The bibliography is also very interesting. One of the best books about the 16th president. A must for a Lincolnhistorian.



4. A good short, solid political biography. While Lincoln and the Civil War is its focus, by no means is this a battle history: Gettysburg is described in one paragraph.
   
   Professor Gienapp has written a book that will introduce one to, or remind one of, the long and trying path traveled by Abraham Lincoln toward ultimate greatness.



5. William Gienapp's Abraham Lincoln and Civil War America answers a longstanding need for a biography of Lincoln manageable in size, accessible in style, and wise and balanced in content. Lincoln appers on every page of the book and is never lost sight of in the welter of events. He emerges from the text a real believable person, an individual and persuasive assessment of Lincoln's leadership abilities, the finest such appraisal avilable anywhere.

5 comments about The Madness of Mary Lincoln.

1. I could not put this book down! The tragic story of the Lincoln family echos the sadness the seems to follow the Kennedy family: tragedy after tragedy yet still connected by unshakeable bonds of love and duty. Robert Lincoln emerges from the pages as much a tragic hero as his contemporary, Edwin Booth. Masterful story telling at its best, this tale of Mary Lincoln will linger with you long after you've finished the book.



2. Whether you agree or disagree with Mary Todd Lincoln's diagnoses, this book brings to light much of her suffering and pain. She did not have an easy life, and, I can relate to her son Robert's efforts to "do what was right" for his mother, while trying to maintain somewhat of a normal life for himself and his own family. I bought this book after seeing Jason Emerson review it on C-Span. An interesting book.



3. the book is chock full of information about the lady but also about her
   lesser know role as a mother and wife. it is concise and has many unknown
   facts about her personal life and her social life. for people who enjoy
   learning the "off" parts of our countries history and it's players, this
   is a good read.



4. Although I have read a few books on Lincoln, I was unaware that his wife Mary was committed to an insane asylum in 1875 (ten years after her husband's assassination) by her only living child, Robert. In those days, she had to have a trial to be declared insane, and the whole matter was kept relatively private. But once committed, with Robert appointed as her conservator, Mary started agitating to be released and to resume control over her finances--she was a compulsive spender, that being part of her illness. She enlisted the aid of a brilliant couple, the Bradwells, with Mr. being a judge and Mrs. having been trained as a lawyer who was not admitted to the bar because she was a woman. They took up her cause and went to the press, eventually forcing her premature release into the care of her sister in Illinois. But Mary was not a well woman; she made a suicide attempt when her trial was just over and later acquired a pistol and was threatening to kill Robert. By today's standards, she was clearly "a threat to self and others" when she was committed and even after her release.
   
   In the publicity that ensued, there was controversy over whether Robert was a loving son who had done his best to obtain the highest possible care for his mother or an avaricious heir who wanted to seize control over her and her money. Emerson goes to primary sources and does a beautiful job of proving the former, portraying Robert as a Victorian man to whom the idea of "duty" was paramount, despite great personal cost to himself. He returned her finances back to Mary, $8K to the good, which was a huge sum of money in those days. And he permitted her release to appease her, ever knowing that should something catastrophic occur, all responsibility and liability for that would rest on his shoulders.
   
   But, to me as a psychologist, the best part of the book was its effort to put a more formal and modern diagnosis on Mary's "madness." The author did a tremendous job of collecting contemporaneous accounts of her behavior and symptoms, and then in an appendix he asks a psychiatrist to render his opinion. The verdict? Bipolar Disorder with delusions and hallucinations, and personality traits that reflected paranoid, histrionic, narcissistic, and borderline tendencies--with a tinge of Post-Traumatic Stess Disorder (PTSD) as well. While it is always tricky to "retrofit" modern criteria to a person long dead who was not examined with those standards at the time, there is abundant evidence here to support his case. All in all, this was a psychological and historical narrative that was well worth the read.



5. This was an incredibly well researched work. New material gave the feeling that the reader was part of the rollercoaster life of Mary Lincoln.

No comments about Some of It Was Fun: Working with RFK and LBJ.

2 comments about Wade Hampton: Confederate Warrior to Southern Redeemer (Civil War America).

1. After a dearth of many years, four biographies of southern soldier and politician Wade Hampton have recently appeared. I have read three; Rod Andrew's work is easily the best. Many of Hampton's personal papers were lost to fire; there are virtually no letters from him in existence before the war and most of his war papers were also lost, but Andrew has done an excellent job finding sources and scattered letters. Andrew used several letters from Hampton or close acquaintances that Brian Cisco did not include in his recent popular biography of Hampton. Andrew also gives a much fuller portrait of Hampton as a slave-holder than does Cisco, contrasting Wade III's paternal management with the brutality of his grandfather Wade I.
   I was impressed that Andrew detailed Hampton's amazing record as a cavalry commander with such detail, surpassing the treatment of Edward Longacre, who wrote about Hampton's Civil War service. But it is Andrew's analysis of Hampton's character and his commitment to southern ideals that stands out the most. Andrew has done an excellent job of defining Hampton in the era and landscape of his own existence, not forcing him to abide by modern standards of racial justice. Hampton was a racist, and a paternalist, but his legacy to the world was vastly different from men like Ben Tillman, Martin Gary, and James Henry Hammond. Hampton was a man of honor, who came to bitterly hate Yankees, especially William Sherman, and who never regretted or apologized for his role in the war. Although he did earnestly seek black votes and appointed many to office after his disputed gubernatorial election in 1876-77, he was never committed to enforcing civil rights and was an impotent defender of the limited success of his racial policy by the 1890s. Nonetheless, Hampton's record is largely remarkable. He was deeply mourned in passing as one of the finest of his era and section.
   Rod Andrew's biography is a first rate example of research and analysis. William Davis's work on John C. Breckinridge and Andrew's work on Hampton are my favorite biographies of Civil War-era southerners.



2. Wade Hampton III who was born in 1818 and whose life spanned the century (he died in 1902) was an important figure in South Carolina and in the American South. He was born to near-aristocracy, his father having fought in the War of 1812 and his grandfather in the Revolution. He was a wealthy plantation owner, one of the wealthiest in his state. He was also a conservative who opposed the break with the union, but when called upon to do his duty went to war and raised his own regiment known as 'Hampton's legion'. He served in the Stonewall Brigade and then took over JEB Stuart's cavalry units after the battle of Yellow Tavern. He served to the end with Lee. His son died in the war and his house and properties were destroyed by Sherman's union army in its march to the sea. After the war he was drafted to run for Govenor by the Democrats but relented waiting until 1877 to take the helm of his state as a passionate opponent of reconstruction and northern meddling in southern affairs. Later he served as a Senator.
   
   This book is not an fawning biography but rather a more critical one that examines the importance of this influential leader whose life mirrored that of his southern compatriots and that of his class. He was the embodiment of the south and as the title suggests, both a warrior and a redeemer whose efforts and politics hang over the South today.
   
   A very interesting, well written account that will appeal to devotees of Southern history and the Civil War.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman

5 comments about America's Constitution: A Biography.

1. This is a remarkable book. The author's knowledge, insight, analysis and synthesis are amazing. There's too much to praise about it, so I'll just mention one aspect: Amar makes a very compelling case that from the beginning slavery was a disease spreading infection in our society and political system (aided by the 3/5 clause), increasingly corrupting our character and institutions until a terribly bloody breaking point was reached. The evil was partially righted, then amorality returned, allowing a viciousness to fester until another crisis led to new progress. But it remains that slavery and its legacy constitute the central national failure, which we still haven't nearly corrected. Most of the book is quite positive, and slavery's not the principal focus, but Amar's treatment of it is both convincing and unforgettable.



2. For decades I've been wandering about with a mish mash of semi-contradictory ideas about the constitution. Mr. Amar has managed to correct, justify, and reframe most of them into a (_thoroughly_ documented) coherent whole.
   
   Where the constitution is unclear, he quotes the debates and letters of the founders explaining what they meant. Where there is modern debate, he footnotes where to look for different viewpoints. Where there was debate during the writing of the constitution, he tells you who said what and why.
   
   That would probably be enough to earn 5 stars, but he somehow managed to turn an erudite treatise on the history of one government into a page-turner. I don't know how, but there it is...



3. Wow, I learned more about the consitution then I ever could have imagined. I didn't have any idea about many of the themes and debates over the constitution and it's amendments. I'm a novice at political thinking, before the presidential campaign I could've care less about politics. Some of this is a bit over my head since I don't have a background in law or political history. However, Mr. Amar explains it well enough that most should understand. I can't recommend it enough for anyone interested in the constitution.



4. Although there are some tedious places, the book has a number of very valuable and interesting insights - especially the topics of the Second Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, and the "privileges and immunities" clause stood out for me. He does a good job interweaving historical context and the text of the document. There are some unexpected emphases and omissions:for example, it emphasizes slavery more often and more heavily than I expected for an issue that was resolved 140 years ago, and there was a little less on the Bill of Rights and on executive power than I was expecting, although those are more contemporary issues. His chapter on the path, pre-Civil War to the 13th amendment, was terrifically concise but there is very little discussion on the issue of habeas corpus during the war. These aren't complaints, just notifications; overall it was very stimulating. Like most constitutional scholars, he has some outside-the-box interpretations that are obviously developed to accomplish a particular outcome but these are fruitful to reflect on as well.



5. What an absolutely fantastic reference! Much of this book's praise has been sung by previous reviewers, but I'd like to add that I especially appreciate Amar's powerful paradoxes and equally profound "what-ifs." Buy the man's book so he blesses all of our futures with even more jewels of his erudition.

5 comments about The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics.

1. On Douglass, Oakes looks at how he moved from radical to politician throughout his life, including wedding himself so much to the GOP in his last years that he apparently never entertained the idea of a "Free Vote Party" paralleling the Liberty Party of his younger days.
   
   No, it's not a full bio, but it leads to further questions. Was this the "settling" of an old man? Was it an evolving pragmatism? Did getting a patronage job bank his inner fires?
   
   On Lincoln, Oakes takes a careful look at the long-debated issue as to whether or not he had any racist bones, either before election to the presidency or even after.
   
   On 126-29, Oakes tackles the pre-1860 politics of Lincoln re black-white relations beyond slavery with depth. He says Lincoln simply accepted white intransigence was so great that blacks never could have equality and that it was not a case of Lincoln himself rejecting racial equality. Nonetheless, Oakes believes "spineless" is a legitimate charge, as is "cynical."
   
   More serious are some of the themes from a pro-colonization lecture, in essence, Lincoln gave to northern black leaders shortly before announcing the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.
   
   Oakes sees this as a more cynical version of Lincoln's 1850 stance on accepting white racism even though Lincoln didn't hold to it himself. After claiming in the past "racism" and "slavery" were different, Oakes says Lincoln now tried to conflate them with a cheap syllogism.
   
   This level of analysis is what makes the book all of the things I said in my header.
   
   No, again, this is not a complete dual bio. But Oakes' excellent "For Further Reading" appendix points to the best bios on both men, as well as takes on the Civil War militarily and socially, Reconstruction and more.



2. I am reading this book now and am struck by the evolution of Douglass' ideas about politics. At first, he was angry and rejected all compromise, influenced by radical abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison. Later, he began to see the value of politics and compromise and became a Republican in 1856 when John C Fremont was the nominee of the new party. Douglass accepted the necessity of compromise and a strategy of gradual starvation of the institution of slavery. From rejecting the Constitution as a "slaveowners' document", he became an enthusiastic supporter of the American system and sought citizenship for the freed slaves once the South collapsed, by war or economic forces they could not resist. I wish some Black Liberation advocates would read it. Douglass was a wise man and not as radical as the title suggests. An excellent book. Also a new look at Lincoln although I knew most of the story.



3. There is a perennial tension in any democracy between those who insist that there must be scrupulous respect for the law, and those who insist that at times a higher law must be followed. Philosophical and moral disagreements separate the two groups. But so does temperament.
   
   James Oates' The Radical and the Republican masterfully witnesses to the crucial role temperament plays in determining which side of the political and moral divide one lands in the higher law debate. Lincoln (the republican) was by nature a man inclined toward moderation, reason, patience, and unemotional analysis. Although always a loather of slavery, it took the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act to put slavery in the middle of his political radar screen. Even then, he insisted that slavery was implicitly guaranteed in the Constitution, and that, short of a constitutional amendment, the most a President or Congress could do was to geographically contain it. Lincoln, who eventually adopted a policy Oates calls "strategic racism"--refusing to speak against the race-baiting so popular in the U.S. in order to make his eventual decision to emancipate the slaves an easier pill to swallow--thought John Brown a madman.
   
   Douglass (the reformer--or better, perhaps, the rebel) had a much more phlegmatic tempermant: emotional, volatile, black-and-white thinking, quick judgments. Although aligned when young with the pacifist Garrisonians, Douglass was never much of a pacifist. But he imbibed the Garrisonian insistence that the Constitution and the government, through their complicity with slavery, were utterly corrupt, and that a higher moral law not only sanctioned but obliged disregard of them when it came to slavery. Douglass, who adopted a policy of black self-reliance which Oates calls "strategic separatism," thought John Brown a hero.
   
   The Civil War created an extraordinary environment, argues Oates, in which Lincoln the republican and Douglass the reformer began to converge. Lincoln dropped his idea of gradual and compensated emancipation by issuing the Emancipation Declaration and lobbying for the passage of the 13th Amendment. Douglass, under the influence of Gerrit Smith, came to see the Constitution as an anti-slavery document and politics as a legitimate method to reforming society. By the time Lincoln was murdered, Douglass had come to greatly admire the man who he mercilessly criticized through much of the war. And Lincoln went out of his way to refer publicly to "my friend" Douglass. Still, their basic temperaments remained quite different, and it's curious to reflect on what their relationship might've evolved into had Lincoln lived.
   
   Oates' discussion of the two men is fascinating, well-written, and well-documented. Strongly recommended not only for those interested in the Civil War but also for anyone interestd in the higher law debate.



4. One of the easiest things to do, especially on the web, is to take a highly regarded leader of the past, say, Abraham Lincoln, pull a few of his quotes or actions out of their historical context, and supposedly "prove" how horrible that leader actually was. In contrast, author James Oakes explains Lincoln to us postmoderns the way an historian should - by reminding us of Lincoln's circumstances and explaining Lincoln's overarching purposes. Oakes does this without resorting to making Lincoln a saint. According to Oakes' compellingly-supported evidence, Lincoln refused to compromise two essential commitments - to antislavery and to the American political system. Lincoln would not compromise his antislavery position to get more votes, nor would he compromise his oaths to uphold the Constitution to undermine slavery. This dual commitment of Lincoln's goes very far in helping us understand why Lincoln limited his goal to preventing the spread of slavery before he became president, why he didn't just go ahead and free all the slaves when he became president, why he moved slowly towards emancipation during the war, etc. Furthermore, the author's discussion of Lincoln's overwhelming desire to change the hearts and minds of Americans about slavery instead of merely forcing through political change regardless of wider support was especially useful. As the "Republican" in the title, Lincoln wanted a government that represented the will of the people; therefore, the will of the people needed to be converted before the government could make radical change. The fact that Lincoln helped accomplish this more widespread change is quite a testament to his legacy of leadership.
   
   The "Radical" in the title is another great American, Frederick Douglass. Unlike Lincoln's, Douglass' reputation typically is not in dispute. Most of us love Douglass, and for good reason. Oakes doesn't tarnish Douglass' reputation, but he does help us to understand how Douglass' singular commitment to antislavery/antiracism, as compared to Lincoln's dual commitment explained above, often put Douglass at odds with the political process AND caused Douglass to speak out so vehemently against politicians like Lincoln. From Douglass' perspective, only immediate emancipation and egalitarianism would serve justice. Thus, by necessity, Douglass would oppose and criticize Lincoln - that is, until the two men met.
   
   One of the reviewers below critiques Oakes for supposedly overstating the relationship between the two men. I believe this critique is misplaced because Oakes never claimed to be writing primarily about the interpersonal relationship between the two. Instead, he's writing about the interplay of the radical ideology of one, and the antislavery politics of the other. Also, I think that Oakes analyzes the relationship between Brown and Douglass comprehensively, not simplistically, as a reviewer below seems to believe.
   
   As a person who teaches history at the college level, and as a person who enjoys reading history for fun, I would recommend this book. I intend to make it one of my required texts for my survey American history course, alongside Frederick Douglass' autobiography.



5. Author James Oakes tells us this: in 1860 Frederick Douglass wrote of the upcoming presidential election "I cannot support Lincoln." But in 1888, Douglass said he had met no man "possessing a more godlike nature than did Abraham Lincoln." What had happened?
   
   Oakes gives us a quick glance at his hypothesis within the subtitle of his book: the triumph of antislavery politics. As he explains, this doesn't apply to Lincoln. Lincoln was always an anti-slavery politician, although his thinking on how and how fast slavery should be destroyed changed over time. But with regards to the use of politics as the means to abolish slavery, the man whose thinking moved more was Frederick Douglass. And although the two men share the billing in Oakes' title, this is far more a book about Douglass than Lincoln. It is a book about the evolution of the reasoning of Frederick Douglass.
   
   That evolution, as Oakes paints it, began for Douglass from the belief that the issue of slavery transcended politics and the compromises that came with it. Oakes traces how Douglass the reformer began to be drawn into the political arena, alienating the abolitionists who had first supported his career. But still he carried with him that insistence on absolutism. He brooked no delays, no strategic maneuverings. Lincoln and the Republicans were gradualists, and therefore were deemed irresolute and untrustworthy.
   
   After the Civil War began, Douglass found even more reasons for outrage. Lincoln refused to immediately emancipate the slaves. The President even countermanded the Union generals who issued proclamations freeing the slaves in the territories they conquered. Lincoln had not yet issued a retaliation policy against confederates who captured and often executed southern blacks who had joined the Union army. Oakes gives us deft insights into Lincoln's thinking on all these issues. Douglass, who apparently was not himself an acolyte of consistency, bounced back and forth in his electoral attitudes. But he never let up in his pressure on Lincoln nor in his condemnation of the President's lack of strong steps against slave-holding interests.
   
   Then, first in 1863, Lincoln meets with Douglass. About a year later, at Lincoln's request, they meet a second time and Lincoln asks Douglass to draw up a plan to get as many slaves freed under the Emancipation Proclamation as possible. Over that span Douglass' thinking with regards to Lincoln undergoes a dramatic shift. Afterwards, his criticism of Lincoln essentially stops.
   
   Oakes describes these meetings, including a third just after Lincoln's second inaugural address, in as much detail as consistent with the small format of the book. He relies largely on Douglass' own recollections. Oakes also gives us dramatic retellings of other events in Douglass' career that illustrate the development of his thinking, but also the refinement of his skills as a political strategist.
   
   We are still left wondering what exactly was the effect of those meetings with Lincoln. Was Douglass simply overwhelmed, as others were, by the force of Lincoln's understated humaneness and thereby convinced of the President's genuine concern for blacks? Or did Lincoln persuade Douglass that his political methods were the best possible under the evolving circumstances? Or did Lincoln flatter Douglass into acquiescence, especially in enlisting his help during that second meeting?
   
   These possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Oakes in no way downplays the significance of these meetings. But I believe he wants us to see that what happened was entirely consistent with the evolution of Douglass' thinking with regards to politics. As a reformer, he saw it his job to always keep the pressure on. But where and how best to apply that pressure --- that changed in his meetings with Lincoln. And, near the end of Douglass' life, when he raised Lincoln to sainthood, he was still putting the pressure on. But he was using Lincoln's reputation to apply that pressure against the backsliding that the post-Reconstruction era had brought. Douglass had found a way to combine the duties of a reformer with a sophisticated instinct for politics.
   
   "The Radical and the Republican" is not a dramatic retelling of events. It is certainly not a co-biography of its two principals. But it does have drama. That drama comes from taking Douglass' thinking seriously and mapping out its development and growing political sophistication. To do this, it uses comparisons with Lincoln's thinking and the interplay of the two men's principles and actions. But it's not by accident that Douglass comes first in the book's title and its cover. There are many books about Lincoln. This is a book about Frederick Douglass.

5 comments about Stonewall Jackson: The Man, the Soldier, the Legend.

1. That it certainly is, all 762 pages of text buttressed by 188 additional pages of notes and indices. Yet with all this heft and obvious scholarship, "Stonewall Jackson" is a bit much. It's too long! To be concise, there is FAR too much detail here. Whole sections of pages could have been truncated by that proverbial stern editor with a sharp blue pencil. (Most of those guys were laid off long ago). One gets the distinct impression self-indulgence emanating from author Robertson. Even some great battle action is drowned out in details-details-details. The formatting of pages and paragraphs is also difficult here, though perhaps the publisher had few alternatives. This admitted mapophile was satisfied with the mapping in "Stonewall". A nice touch is the placement of a map index, allowing readers to bookmark. An interesting turn here is Professor Robertson's apparent attitude toward Jackson. The General was a difficult, stiff-necked guy. He was secretive and single-minded, a harsh disciplinarian and critical of colleagues. If there was a Stonewall Fan Club, would the good professor join up? This reviewer was reminded of another author of lengthy tomes: Robert Caro. RC has produced 3 bios of President Lyndon Johnson, none of them highly complimentary. The final call here is that "Stonewall Jackson" is not recommended for anyone but the most avid Stonewall or Civil War aficionados. Others may wish to choose another Stonewall offering-or wait for the paperback. Why the 4 stars above? This is a case of "A" for effort. Imagine the effort Professor Robertson put forth here. For that alone, the man should take a bow.



2. If it were possible, I would give this wonderful book twelve stars. Not only is it the best book on the Civil War that I have ever read, but outside of the Holy Scriptures it is the best biography I have ever read period. The work of writing a good biography requires an author of extraordinary gifts. He or she must not only be a painstaking researcher who does not mind wading through the minutia of an endless sea of details, but they must also be able to take those details and weave them into a fluid and interesting story that is vivid while not getting bogged down in the small stuff. To put it another way, the author must give enough detail to be clear and sharp, but he must not lose the forest for the trees. On all of these levels James I. Robertson's landmark work "Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend" triumphs and succeeds marvelously. But what makes this biography so astounding is that Robertson has given us far more than a narrative set of true facts about a heroic man named Thomas Jonathan Jackson, he has given us the man himself. I knew nothing about General Jackson until I saw the film "Gods and Generals", but after viewing that movie I knew I had a new hero (Robertson himself was a historical consultant on that film, by the way). When I read Robertson's biography I realized that, like the queen of Sheba when she met King Solomon, not the half had been told. Robertson hits the nail on the head by recognizing that if you would understand Stonewall Jackson, you must discern that he was first and foremost a soldier of the cross of Jesus Christ. Robertson himself is a professing Christian and so has unique insight into Jackson that many other biographers' lack. I will never have the privilege of meeting Jackson in this present age, but as I read this book I felt that I came as close to knowing Jackson personally as I ever can in this lifetime. I saw in him a kindred spirit. Having lost an infant of my own I could relate to his pain in the loss of two infants and his first wife, but I could also relate to the grace of God and the faith in Christ that sustained him through it all. Jackson and I share the same Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, Stonewall is my brother in the Lord across the sands of time. We share the same Calvinism as well. I found myself relating to his sense of social awkwardness and wanting to emulate his devotion to duty in many ways. Like all of us Jackson was a sinner, a man with large warts and gaping flaws. Forgiveness of others did not come easy to him; he placed loyalty to state above loyalty to family, sometimes not allowing men under his command to go home to bury dead wives and children. You will not find near as much of the noble patience that Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain demonstrated towards his men residing in Jackson. Yet, under his tough and well-disciplined exterior beat the heart of a man who was tender and affectionate towards his wife and baby, who loved to play with children, and whose tender prayers to his God were not soon forgotten. When I came to the chapter that describes Jackson's death following on the heels of his victory at Chancellorsville, I literally began to weep with tears spilling down my cheeks. The image of all those Confederate soldiers pulling off their hats and holding them over their hearts in honor of Jackson's widow when she first stepped away from his death bed is indelibly stamped on my mind. Why did I weep? Because through Robertson's biography, I had found a dear friend and brother in Christ. And when I read of his death, I felt that I was losing a personal friend. Thank you, Professor Robertson, for your eight and a half years of research and for all of your labors. Thank you for introducing me to a friend and hero, Thomas Jonathan Jackson. Our fourth son is named "Thomas Jackson", but we call him "Jackson". And in regards to General Jackson, we have never met, but we shall meet by and by when our Lord and Savior comes again to take His people home. Thomas Jackson, "Bud" Robertson, and myself shall spend eternity side by side with all of God's people throughout all of time worshiping our crucified and risen Savior.



3. This may be the best book I have ever read. It's detailed, thorough, yet very readable. You will know virtually everything there is to know about Stonewall Jackson by the time you finish reading this book.



4. I have several relatives who fought under Jackson and was a bit reluctant to read this book. Robertson is the premier historian of the Army of Northern Virginia and I thought this would be deification of Jackson. I was so wrong. Robertson has written THE definative work on Stonewall Jackson. Going back in his family history had my interest from the start.
   Robertson does a wonderful job of looking at Jackson-warts and all. He brings out all of Jackson and explains so many aspects of him and is certaintly not an apoligist. Without a doubt, Jackson was one of the most complex people to don an American uniform, next to Patton. When he was one his game he was briliant-such as The Valley Campaign, Second Bull Run or Chancellorsville. But When he was cold he was horrible-such was First Kernstown or the Pennicula Campaign. Robertson tells the story as it was, without excuses. If you want to really know the great Stonewall-read Robertsons book.



5. This is a great book that helps its readers understand how a poor orphan from Virginia became arguably the greatest general in American history.

5 comments about Co. Aytch: A Confederate Memoir of the Civil War.

1. First-hand accounts by combatants have always ranked highly in my list of favorite things to read. When I set out to read the highly touted Co. Aytch I was hoping for a gritty, down to earth story like that of another southern memoir writer, Eugene Sledge.
   
   There is no doubting Co. Aytch's value as a window into the daily travails of the Confederate soldier, whether in camp, on the march or in combat. However, with pickets freezing by the dozen, a falling tree crushing a group of mourners, tornadoes and narrow steamboat escapes, it would appear that there is more Guy Sajer than Eugene Sledge about Sam Watkins.



2. This has to be one of the best books written about the civil war. Reading the experiences of this common soldier you realize how close they were to death from day to day. If you have any interest in the civil war, this book is a must read.



3. Interest in this particular Civil War memoir increased due to its being frequently quoted and referred to in the documentary series on "The Civil War" that aired on PBS stations almost twenty years ago. Thankfully, the success of the series caused "Company Aytch, or a Side Show of the Big Show" to be reprinted.
   
   As a narrative device, film maker Ken Burns compared and contrasted the recollections of Samuel R. Watkins, a Confederate soldier who served in the Western theater of operations (principally in Tennessee and Georgia), with the diary entries of Elisha Hunt Rhodes, a Union soldier from Rhode Island. Both men saw significant combat action and both survived the war.
   
   Although Rhodes recorded his immediate observations, Watkins began his memoirs after the war had ended and his book was published seventeen years after the Army of the Tennessee had surrendered. He had the advantage of being able to meditate on his experiences and I found his book to be of greater interest as a result.
   
   I have read both "All for the Union" (Rhodes) and "Company Aytch" (Watkins). While both books have much to recommend them, I am partial to the latter. As a writer, Watkins produced more profound opinions. There seemed to be more color, humor, poetry and reflection in his prose. Rhodes seemed dull and factual in his summaries which often culminated with the slogan "All for the Union." I do not mean to diminish Rhodes or his military service in any manner, but Watkins is simply a better writer.
   
   The conclusion of Watkins book is quite moving. It was memorable when broadcast on television and it is no less memorable when read from the printed page.



4. Mr. Watkins tells a humble and epic story. A confederate private shares his unique perspective. Reveals the grim realities of a glorious cause going from bad to worse and back again. It is truly amazing he survived four years of warfare. Most often death was easier than survival. General Bragg routinely court martialed his troops with a firing squad for deserters. Further punishments like barreling, whippings and deprevations were routine. It got better under General Johnston and worse again under General Hood. The soldiers alternatively cursed and praised the war, its' cause and the Generals. Yet like in all wars, the men fought for each other. So many soldiers met their Maker, whereby Watkins extolls their virtues and praises. Eloquently written and graphically descriptive. Sam's survival is a testimonial to God's protection. Written in the 1880's.
   READ the book and you will find a friend from the ages.



5. Sam Watkins himself describes it best himself,A Side Show to the Big Show. This Book describes the War For Southern Independence, from the eyes of a common Private in the Confederate Army. He was in it from the Start to the End. I've read it 5 times, I enjoy it more each time!! A MUST for anyone studying the WAR!!

No comments about Confederate Colonels: A Biographical Register (Shades of Blue and Gray).

No comments about The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War (Politically Incorrect Guides).