2 comments about Judging Lincoln.

1. This is an outstanding compilation of thoughtful and provocative essays offered by Judge Frank J. Williams. Anyone with an interest in Lincoln should add this volume to their library. Well written and lucid, Williams provides a highly balanced look at the motivations and actions of the 16th President, with a keen eye to historical accuracy, historiography, historical memory, and balance. Williams, like all good authors and historians recognizes that there will never be a definative word on his subject, but is unafraid to weigh in with his own venture into the fray. As a history teacher, with an abiding interest in Lincoln, I grade this effort a solid A!



2. As much as the title of this book states that people may be judging Lincoln it hardly gives that negative feel. Frank Williams has put together a very well written book which explores Lincoln's motivations, desires, thoughts and how he managed people. Williams brings us interesting insight into the man where myth sometimes tells the wrong story. Viewpoints on how Lincoln managed Union commanders, political opponents, slavery issues and people is really what this book covers. Williams treats his subject quite fairly showing both sides of the stories in which controvercy over Lincoln's actions have resided. This book was a quick read although very enjoyable. If you are a Civil War fan, you should consider this book as much is written. How Lincoln handled popular generals such as McClellan, Meade, Hooker, Burnside and others was very interesting!

No comments about Farragut: America's First Admiral (Military Profiles).

4 comments about The Generals Of Gettysburg: the Leaders Of America's Greatest Battle.

1. This is a good concise guide to the line generals (and colonels) that served with the Army of Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia. It gives background information on every commander of units down to brigade, how they got to command their unit, what they did in previous battles, what happened during the Gettysburg campaign and what happened to them afterwords. It is by no means a substitute for a good narrative to the battle or any part of it but it has a place in anyone's library on Gettysburg.



2. This would be a great reference book if not for the same tiring rethoric about Gen. Longstreet. This book was published in 2003 and references the more recent works by historians that show Longstreet was not responsible for failure of the attacks on the second and third day. Makes you wonder if the author suffers from a acute case of Lost Cause tunnel vision.



3. This book is a comprehensive listing of all officers (brigade-level or higher), both Union and Confederate, who fought at Gettysburg. It provides a brief synopsis of their careers prior to the battle, the role they played in the battle itself, and a concluding synopsis of their careers afterwards. Its scope is all-encompassing: no officer of any significance is omitted (to my knowledge). The book is most informative, and I found myslef reading it constantly for weeks after I purchased it (and since each entry is essentially self-contained, one can read brief snippets at a time and still glean valuable information). The author also provides short bibliographies for each figure as well. As the first reviewer has noted, its main shortcoming is organizational: it has a brief table of contents and no index (and given the nature of this book, I cannot understand why this was omitted). The photographs included are also of uneven quality; indeed, some are quite fuzzy. The maps are generally sound, but are relatively few in number (only nine). These factors notwithstanding, I rate the book highly because of the considerable research that went into it and its overall value as a source for all interested in the battle of Gettysburg and the Civil War in general.



4. I bought this book as a reference book. The profiles on each officer were well done and contained much information. However, there is no index in this book and only corp commanders are listed in the table of contents. Unless one knows the corp in which a particular officer served, it makes it very difficult to find any information. It is difficult to use as a reference. The book contains no footnotes, end notes, or a bibliography. The suggested readings at the end of each profile were helpful.

5 comments about Slavemaster President: The Double Career of James Polk.

1. This is a not uninteresting, well written and well researched look at a very narrow aspect of the life and career of James Polk, detailing very thoroughly his role as an owner of a deep-south plantation and his relationships with his slaves. If that interests you, this is an ideal book for you to read. If you're looking for an in-depth full life biography of James Polk, or even a book that gives much insight into his career as a politician and president, or any other facet of his life than that of slaveowner, this is definitely NOT what you're looking for.



2. This book was not written by a fan or supporter of this Tennessee president, but released by a Yankee group who hides behind "Oxford" so we might think Mississippi or England. Not so, William Dusinberre must be fuddies with the university professors who tore apart Nathan Bedford Forrest in the same way. Overlooked completely he status and the part these Tennesseans played in the history of this nation. It's best to consider character assassination with the conflicting thins these writers emphasize while leaving out the real story, the facts of the matter. James K. Polk had been Governor of Tehhessee and Speaker of the House of Representatives before becoming U. S. president. It was not a secret that he owned slaves to work on his cotton plantation in Mississippi. We didn't have such in Tennessee, but I have an old post card of the 11th President's bust which stands in the State Capitol in Nashville. We visited Polk's ancestral home in downtown Columbia, Tennessee. It was not out in the country, though a famous one is in that county owned by a female physician. She did not have slaves. Forrest's family were fine, upstanding natives of Chapel Hill, not so far east from Columbia. It infuriates me when I innocently find weird subverted stuff like thos on the public library shelves. I wish the reference librarians who ordered these fiction pretending to be non-fiction before putting them out for just anybody to read. Polk was duly elected and in the White House from 1845 to 1849, before the Civil War. He was not responsible for that war.
   
   This person from Cape Town used the false writings of professor Wayne Cutler when he came to this Republican town, and thought that what he was reading was truth. Polk was a Southern Democrat. What would he write about Huey B. Long, George Wallace, and other governors who stood tall for what the South stands for. The politics of slavery did not have any substance whatsoever in the war which divided this country. It was states' rights -- the Southern states, which Northerners would not understand. I learned more than I had planned that there is a conspiracy going on to deride Southern leaders and presidents. They were statesmen and war heroes and lived to be a part of the history of America. Modern history-writing is all wrong, when the author makes up "facts" as he is inclined, and not factually.



3. I'm not sure if I would have been better off reading a general bio on Polk first, becuase this book is very biased, as the author admits. The argument is that Polk's policy was stronly influenced by him being a slaveowner. That Polk had conflicting interests because he ran several plantations in Tn and Miss and he was using the money from the plantations to secure himself a post-presidential retirement.

   The book is organized in an interesting way. It begins by describing Polk's plantations and what it was like for the slaves , plus gives details regarding the overseers,a nd Polk's policies regarding purchasing and selling of slaves. Polk endeavored to hide what he was doing from the general public and his reasons for selling and guying were definitley not always patriarchal, but monetary.

   Polk died a few months after leaving office, and none or few of his papers were destroyed, hence we have a record of what ocurred on the plantations.

   the second half of the book covers the main aspects of Polk's presidential career --annexation of Tx and the MX War. The author discusses the events through the lens of slavery and tried to argue Polk's descisions were heavily influenced by Polk being a slaveowner. the author presents many what-ifs, discussing a vairety of other scenarios that could have happened during Polk's presidency had he made other choices. I found these diversions to be a strength of the book instead of an irritant. The book gave me a lot to think about,a nd it was particulary interesting to learn the details of what Polk plantation life was like.




4. For American history buffs in general, and Civil War enthusiasts in particular, William Dusinberre has produced a volume worthy of your attention. Dusinberre argues with great vigor that James Polk helped to plant the seeds of civil war while he was President during the late 1840's. While pursuing the Presidency, Polk presented himself as a moderate on the issue of slavery. All the while, he was quietly engaged in the buying and selling of slaves for his Mississippi plantation. Dusinberre argues that throughout his four years in office, Polk advocated policies designed to perpetuate slavery for the forseable future. He cites in particular the annexation of Texas as a major issue. The book also chronicles the appalling working and living conditions many slaves were forced to live under and the total disregard that most slavemasters (Polk included) for the slaves family lives. In most instances, if it was a profitable transaction, slaves were sold off to the highest bidder and families were torn apart. Polk always portrayed himself as the benevolent master but the facts seem to dispute his claims. The book can be slow moving and at times I wondered if I would have the endurance to finish it. But I am glad I did. This book gives us an entirely new perspective on the events of that period and as such is a welcome addition.



5. James Polk is usually the least familiar president to appear on historians� top 10 lists. But for William Dusinberre, Polk firmly holds a spot near the very bottom. For Dusinberre, Polk and his ideological brethren set the country on a course that unnecessarily led to the Civil War, the violent fall of the South, and the self-destruction of his own class.

   Polk annexed Texas and was the instigator of the Mexican American War, which led to acquisition of most of the southwest for the United States. Polk also took the Oregon territory, which encompassed much of what is now the northwestern United States. Dusinberre suggests that there was a certain inevitability to some of this, but the way it all played out, and the final border results were far from certain. Polk�s overly aggressive expansionism was, to Dusinberre the worst possible way for the country to stretch from sea to shinning sea because it infused militarism and obstinacy into the debate about the future of slavery.

   Dusinberre convincingly argues that Polk�s, and the Southern ruling classes� mores about slavery as a tool of social order, southern honor, and states rights were all subservient to the economic benefits reaped by slave owners such as Polk. This economic incentive was so great, that it blinded Polk to what Dusinberre believes to be the inevitable fall of slavery. A more forward-looking advocate of the Southern ruling class could have promoted a plan for a soft landing and perhaps sought alliances with moderates, rather than painting everyone who had any problems with slavery as extreme �abolitionists.�

   Polk�s military adventurism, intolerance for even discussion of issues related to slavery, and insistence that slave owners� so-called rights should be expanded (or the South would lose its dominance in the Senate) was coupled by his implicit threat of secession in the event of almost any sort of compromise. Dusinberre argues that before Polk and his war, different gradations of opinion existed in the south, but afterward existed only unithought. The Civil War followed.

   SLAVEMASTER PRESIDENT is not really a biography as much as it is a study of how slave ownership may have affected the ideology of pre-Civil War southern Democrats such as and including Polk, and how that ideology in turn contributed to the conditions that led to the Civil War. It is a compelling argument. Dusinberre also achieves a heart-rending description of slave life on the Polk plantation. The book achieves what it set out to do.

   Still, I would have liked the book to be a bit more biographical. Dusinberre expains up front that his book �does not discuss Polk�s role as a congressman in President Andrew Jackson�s war against the Bank of the United States. Nor does it portray President Polk�s part in securing the Tariff of 1846, nor his diplomacy with Britain, which led to the establishment of the northwestern boundary dividing the United States from Canada. These stories,� explains Dusinberre, �have been told elsewhere.� Maybe they have, but there is remarkably little popular literature on this influential, if wrongheaded president. I am satisfied with Dusinberre�s book such that it is, but it also left me wanting to read more about Polk.

2 comments about The Blue and Gray in Black and White: A History of Civil War Photography.

1. I thought this book might just be a nice coffee-table book with some good Civil War photos, but it is so much more. While true, the book is filled with great photos, many I had never seen before, THE BLUE AND GRAY IN BLACK AND WHITE: A HISTORY OF CIVIL WAR PHOTOGRAPHY, by Bob Zeller, is just what the title implies; a photo and written history of Civil War photography.
   
   Zeller, founder and president of the Center of Civil War Photography, has dauntingly researched his subject, and it shows in this book. Of course, Zeller includes the most notable of Civil War photographers, such as Matthew Brady and Alexander Gardner, whose over 1000 images of the war include the first images of war at Antietam and his photos of Gettysburg; however, much of the book chronicles the career of southern photographer, George Smith Cook.
   
   The information on Cook is really a short biography within the pages of the larger work. Although Cook, who was present at Charleston, apparently and sadly missed the opportunity to chronicle the initial engagement with images, many of Cook's accomplishments are highlighted, such as the first photos of prisoners of war taken at Castle Pinkney, his photos of Major Anderson and the destruction at Fort Sumter as well as the ironclads in action.
   
   Not being a photographer, there is a good bit of information here that was foreign to me as far as the early processes of photography. I am sure photographers would gain fruitful knowledge from such information and have a much deeper appreciation for this work, as Zeller's research was obviously painstaking and meticulous.
   
   Monty Rainey
   www.juntosociety.com



2. The Blue and Gray in Black and White A History of Civil War Photography by Civil War author Bob Zeller has added an exciting new dimension to the history of Civil War photography that will appeal to a broad spectrum of American historians, Civil War enthusiasts, and those who study photography as an art form. With newly discovered photographs and primary sources, Bob Zeller's study has captured the Civil War photographer on the edge and sometimes in the midst of the battlefield pointing his wet plate camera into the thick of battle smoke across the Rappahannock River at Fredericksburg, on the sandy beach of Morris Island at Charleston's harbor as the huge Union ironclad, New Ironsides bombarded Confederate forts, and in the shivering cold of Nashville as a General Hood's army met its destruction.
   Bob Zeller, author of his high successful The Civil War in Depth Volumes One and Two and president of The Center for Civil War Photography, "a non-profit organization dedicated to the study, presentation, and preservation of Civil War photography" has "walked the walk" in his thorough and exhaustive research of Civil War photographs. He has traveled the breadth of the country visiting private and public photographic and documentary collections in museums, historical societies, personal interviews, and the new digital collection at the Library of Congress. As a reader, I studied his thoroughly academic note section at the back of his study with great satisfaction.
   The Blue and Gray in Black and White is the key primer how Civil War photographers such as Captain Andrew J Russell, the Union army's only photographer, Timothy O'Sullivan, George Barnard, and southern photographers George S Cook and J.D. Edwards visually captured on delicate wet plates the most bloody war in our Nation's history. The author weaves an engrossing story of photography as an art form and has also chronciled the industry of photography from its beginnings in late 1839 to the eve of war in 1860. In those twenty one years, we read the personal encounters of "daguerreian artist," Platt Babbitt who captured the "doomed" Joseph Avery clinging to life on a shifting log just above the American Falls on the Niagara River, Roger Fenton who traveled to the Crimea outside the Russian city of Sebastopol as he may have photographed the wisps of artillery smoke from Allied siege guns, and how the Cooper Union photograph of Lincoln had a tremendous national impact.
   Bob Zellers story of Civil War Photographers as they applied their craft on the war torn American landscape has set the standard to study the entire history of Civil War photography.
   Civil War photographs will no longer be incidental adornments to the pages of history texts. Publishers will have to ensure that historians have carefully dated and researched their photographic views. The author, moreover, carefully researched newly discovered photographs to illustrate the humorous side of the war. We the readers see General George B McClellan's staff drinking about the time President Abraham Lincoln visited the soon to be fired McClellan in October, 1862. In the chapter, Embedded With The Troops, we witness Union soldiers in a tree looking across the Rappahannock River as the smoke of battle rises behind the captured town of Fredericksburg.
   The story of Civil War photography is not complete without tracing the perilous journey of the photographs "negatives" through nearly 80 years of American history as well as giving us a personal sense of poignancy to the life changing experiences major personalities of photograhic history have had.
   In his first chapter, Bob Zeller tells us how a photographic exhibit in 1840 dramatically changed Edward Anthony's life and how his fascination and love for photography would build the largest photographic supply company in the United States. Bob Zeller completed the circle of life changing experiences how a young boy of nine in 1955, William A.Frassanito, read a Life Magazine article on the Civil War and the article's photograhs ignited all his youthful energies into the study of the photographs of the Civil War. Twenty years later, Frassanito, would write Gettysburg: A Journey in Time that established the academic standard for investigating Civil War photographs as documents of history. The author's tale is not complete until the reader has the opportunity to note the important efforts being made to preserve the images by the digitizing project of the Library of Congress.
   It is a great book and I highly recommend it.
   John R Kelley
   Photographic Historian
   Poughkeepsie, NY

3 comments about Lincoln's Abolitionist General: The Biography of David Hunter.

1. General David Hunter may have achieved more off the field of battle than directly on it. After serving as commander in Kansas, he was appointed Commander of the Department of the South, where, after Ft. Pulaski, Georgia, fell to the Union in April 1862, he freed all the slaves in his department. A gutsy move, but one that Lincoln annulled two weeks later. Undeterred, a short while later he formed the 1st South Carolina Regiment, consisting of former slaves - a move that the Confederacy so detested that it declared Hunter a "felon to be executed if captured." In 1864, after initial successes against Confederate forces in the Shenandoah Valley (especially at Piedmont), he was repulsed by Jubal Early and driven back into West Virginia. After the war he accompanied Lincoln's body to Springfield and headed the commission that tried Lincoln's conspirators in the assassination. He died in 1886 in Washington.
   
   Edward Miller's biography is detailed and scholarly, without being numbingly so. He is an excellent writer, and his account of Hunter's life is straightforward and competent. A good biography of this forward-looking general.



2. Every now and then, the Union high command reminds me of baseball. There are some generals who seem like middle relievers. They come in out of nowhere, pitch an inning or two and then vanish with little glory or fanfare. Or in the case of a general who has been on my mind these days, he commands an army for a week and then vanishes only to pop up a few weeks later leading a courtmartial.
   
   I'm talking about David Hunter. Hunter's odd career is examined by Edward Miller in this solid but somewhat disapointing biography. Hunter is best known for his command in South Carolina in the Summer of 1862 where he issued orders abolishing slavery (without checking with Lincoln first) and his only other major service was leading raids in the Valley between Siegal's and Sheridan's tenures there. Miller, a VMI man, spends considerable time exploring Hunter's raid in the Valley in 1864.
   
   But look closer. Hunter was one of the few Republican officers in the Old Army and he had ties in Virginia, Chicago and New Jersey. He knew Lincoln on a social level and started corresponding with him in 1860 before the nomination. Lincoln took Hunter along with him on the train ride from Springfield to Washington along with Elmer Ellsworth, John Pope (another Republican from Illinois whose dad was close to Lincoln) and that old bull E. Sumner. Hunter led the guards at the White House and got himself wounded at First Bull Run. After recovering, Hunter went out to Missouri where he kept Washington informed on what Fremont was up to and took Fremont's place in command for one whole week before Halleck appeared. After stints in Kansas and South Carolina, Hunter ended up back in Washington, leading the controversial and highly partisan Fitz John Porter Trial. In 1863 Hunter did not hold a command. Instead Hunter seemed to show up out of nowhere, dropping down on Union generals. He serveed as Washington's eyes and ears, meeting with Grant twice, scouting him out for high command. Hunter also showed up to lead courtmartials on Gen. McCook (from a very prominent family in a key border state), Gen. Crittenden (ditto as his father was the most prominent politician in his state save Henry Clay), dropped down on General Banks to see what's up in the Red River (Banks was a former Speaker of the House and a prominent politician from Massachusetts) and of course ended up chairing the military tribunal of the Lincoln assasians.
   
   Now I can't think this is all a coincidence. Hunter, one of the few Republican generals and a Lincoln protoge, kept on leading politically sensative invesigations where things can get swept under the rug or disposed of. He was very much Linclon's troubleshooter in the army high command. The problem is Miller touches on all of this and fails to connect the dots. He looks at Hunter as a battlefield commander and downplays Hunter's role in the bigger picture. That's what proves frustrating about this book though it certainly offers light on a mostly obscure subject. Miller does an excellent job of dispelling a number of myths about Hunter. Still, while Miller provides a basic narrative, he does miss the bigger picture and his writing is a bit dry. Civil War scholars will profit from the book but it really can not be recomended for casual readers.



3. Although General Hunter wasn't an abolitionist in the sense that Frederick Douglass or Garrison were, he may have been the highest ranking military officer to have issued orders freeing southern slaves without authority (before the Emancipation Proclamation) because he believed southerners who seceded were traitors and he needed every soldier INCLUDING BLACK SOLDIERS he could get. Hunter's bland history as a "paymaster" during the Mexican war and the Frontier Indian wars is an added bonus, as the job was much more than it seems. Miller's recounting of how Hunter decided which of the homes of "rebel sympathizers" to burn down is also highly instructive of what it must have been like to conduct a "war" in your own backyard, with family names you know. Hunter was a personal friend of both Jefferson Davis and Abe Lincoln and routinely went around normal military channels to make his points. Miller doesn't try to present Hunter as a hero, but an interesting character in the Civil War who was well in front of his fellow Republicans on the issue of freeing the slaves and enlisting them into the war. (They didn't all want to be free, nor did they all want to fight.) The prose is a little dry, but the story carries it along well. Civil War buffs should particularly like this viewpoint of the Virginia campaign. Recommended.

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

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

5 comments about Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph Over Adversity, 1822-1865.

1. Simpson brings to life a man who should be recognized as one of the greatest men in American history, both in his accomplishments and in his character. As a side note, but Brooks Simpson is an excellent lecturing professor. Take a class from him, and you will be inspired.



2. U.S Grant's life and military career have been explored by any number of historians over the years. Brooks Simpson's well-written biography is noteworthy for providing a nicely synthesized account based on the existing sources and some nuanced insight into Grant's military career.
   
   Simpson passes lightly and quickly over Grant's formative years. The narrative picks up steam when Grant returns to military service at the start of the Civil War. Simpson traces Grant's growth as a military leader as he progresses in rank and responsibility from Belmont to Forts Henry and Donelson to Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, the Wilderness, Petersburg, and ultimately Appomattox
   
   If Simpson's narrative contains relatively few new facts, he deserves credit for not taking older accounts at face value. By careful analysis, he calls into question the longstanding tale of Grant's drunken binge during the Siege of Vicksburg. Simpson also devotes some useful attention to Grant's attitudes about slavery, which were undoubtedly complicated by his marriage and by evolving policy over the course of the Civil War.
   
   Simpson's account of Vicksburg brings out for the reader Grant's constant need to juggle his almost insurmountable military requirements with the daunting challenge of leading a volunteer army officered in part by well-connected politicians who were sometimes less than able commanders. For example, Grant was compelled to make accomodation for the ambitious Illinois politician John McClernand during the Vicksburg campaign and for the uncooperative Ben Butler of Massachusetts during the siege of Petersburg.
   
   Simpson does an especially good job in detailing Grant's struggle to command the whole of Union forces from a field headquarters traveling with the Army of the Potomac from 1864 to 1865. Desirous of staying away from politics in Washington, Grant strove to coordinate the movement of the Union's field forces by corresponding both directly with their commanders and through defacto Army chief of staff Henry Halleck in Washington. At the same time, Grant groped for the proper level of supervision over George Meade's long-suffering Army of the Potomac. The result is a painful but ultimately successful learning curve for Grant, who combined great persistence with great common sense and an often remarkably deft political touch in finally organizing the defeat of the Confederate armed forces.
   
   Simpson provides a useful insight into the last year of the war in describing the deadlock at Petersburg as a result of opportunities missed by an Army of the Potomac exhausted after five months of continuous combat.
   
   Simpson's final chapter attempts to make sense of Grant's stunning leap from store front clerk in 1861 to General of the Union armies and victor of the Civil War by 1865. Complete understanding of Grant as a person continues to elude historians; Grant's success as a leader Simpson puts down to his strengths as a person and to his character. Grant was possessed of an keenly analytical mind whose workings were often hidden by his considerable reserve. At the same time, he was keenly observant, listened well, and had the great gift of being able to simplify problems down to their essence. Grant consistently achieved success by applying practical logic, common sense and determination to his military challenges. Grant's lack of political ambition and willingness to take responsibility earned him the leeway from Lincoln to carry out his military plans.
   
   Simpson does not spare Grant his shortcomings as a leader. Grant was desperately ambitious to redeem his military career, sensitive to criticism, often unwilling to admit mistakes, and sometimes a poor judge of character. Grant seems also to have been emotionally dependent on his wife and family and to have had issues handling alcohol.
   
   This book is highly recommended to fans of the Civil War era looking for a fascinating and nuanced portrait of U.S. Grant.



3. This volume, the first of a planned two-volume biography of Grant, covers Grant's life from birth to the end of the Civil War. It is meticulously researched and well balanced. Prof. Simpson doesn't shirk from examining charges of Grant's drinking and he doesn't hesitate to show where such charges cannot be sustained and where they can be sustained. He also doesn't hesitate to criticize Grant's performance on the battlefield where necessary. This is a necessary antidote to the biased, though beautifully written, biography of Grant by William S. McFeely. Unlike McFeely, Simpson displays an understanding of the military aspects of Grant's life and dispells the myths surrounding Grant--some of them, notably Grant's views toward blacks and slavery, perpetuated by McFeely. Anyone seeking to understand Ulysses S. Grant the man and the general will find this book to be essential. One can only hope the second volume is as good as this one.



4. This is a terrific biography of Grant. It is thoroughly researched, and meticulously documented. Professor Simpson uses his sources with refreshing transparency, and debunks many myths surrounding Grant.



5. Having read numerous books on Grant, I agree with those numerous reviewers, that the author, [Simpson], idolizes Grant. Had Simpson titled the book a "Narrative", or a "Novel", it would rate 5 stars. Attempting to pass this off as FACTUAL, and THE ONLY TRUE SOURCE is disingenuous, to say the Least. Books on Grant by Catton, John Simon or McFeeley are the standard. This book may be a fun book to read, but It lacks credibility. Below is just one example of Simpsons Hyperbole on Grant:
   
   This is from the book, "Triumph Over Adversity". I've captioned the questionable (IMO) words/phrases in parenthesis. I explained those on the bottom. (IMHO), the author [Simpson] spins the history, to create an imaginary Grant. [the footnotes in the 'quote' are mine. I explain the flaws pertaining to this at the bottom]
   [Quote]
   
   -On the morning of June 6, he [Grant] boarded a steamer headed north along the Yazoo for Satartia. With him was Charles Dana.
   
   It was a sick man who left headquarters that morning, although it is unclear exactly what was the problem. Perhaps (1) it was a migraine brought on by stress (2). Others,( 3) looking to offer him some relief, had proffered a glass or two of liquor. It was bad enough that Sherman's doctor had proposed wine as a remedy, but Rawlins exploded when he encountered Grant on the evening of June 5, chatting with several staff officers who were sipping wine and asking him to join them. Rawlins retreated to his tent to prepare yet another temperance lecture in the form of a lengthy letter (4). "The great solicitude I feel for the safety of this army leads me to mention what I had hoped never again to do--the subject of your drinking," he began. Perhaps (5) his suspicions were "unfounded," but when the general, "because of the condition of your health if nothing else, have been in bed." chose instead to chat away while alcohol circulated, it was time to worry. Moreover, the chief of staff believed that "the lack of your usual promptness decision and clearness in expressing yourself in writing tended to confirm my suspicions." Rawlins admitted he might be wrong, but he wanted to make sure that Grant adhered to his March pledge of total abstinence. (6) According to one account, Rawlins gave Grant the letter the next morning, just before Grant's departure; although there is no record of Grant's response, Rawlins must have been reassured, for he did not accompany the general aboard the steamer.
   
   What happened next has become the source of great discussion and even greater mythmaking. In all probability, (7) Grant sought relief from his pain by downing a glass of liquor; when that, far from doing the trick, made him feel worse, even woozy, (8) he retreated to his cabin. As the steamer approached Satartia, two gunboats hailed it, reporting that Union forces had abandoned Satartia and it was no longer secure. Dana notified Grant of this still reeling from his headache, Grant left it up to Dana what to do next. (9) Dana decided to return Hayes' Bluff. The next morning, Grant arose, discovered where they were (10), and ordered a cavalry detachment to ride over to Mechanicsburg to see what was going on. Dana, satisfied that Grant was better, accompanied the detachment; Grant returned to Vicksburg.
   
   In years to come, this was not what people read and repeated. What emerged instead was a story charging that Grant got drunk on a joyride up the river. Dana himself gave credence to this story, writing in 1887 that Grant was merely on an "an excursion" on the Yazoo "during a dull period in the campaign," which allowed him to get "as stupidly drunk as the immortal nature of man would allow." Even richer was the story of newspaperman Sylvanus Cadwallader, who concocted an account featuring his heaving bottles out of the steamer's stateroom before locking the intoxicated general up--followed the next day by yet another Grant spree, capped by a wild horseback ride through the woods in which he was saved from certain disaster by a combination of luck, fate, and Cadwallader. That Dana, who surely would have heard the ruckus on the steamer described by the reporter, denied that Cadwallader was present (11) was only the most serious of several contradictions between the two accounts, which they and James H. Wilson tried to reconcile in 1890 by concluding that there must have been two trips. By that time, both Cadwallader and Wilson agreed that Grant was highly overrated (and their own contribution to his success, as well as that of Rawlins, was underrated); Dana had become disillusioned with the General.
   
   Key components of the tale woven by this trio unravel in the face of careful reading of the evidence; nevertheless, many fine scholars, always on the lookout for a colorful story or two to enliven their narratives, and desperate for a good account of Grant actually drinking, (12) have embraced it without batting an eyelash. They have even cited Rawlin's letter in confirmation of the story (13) although it was prepared before Grant left; they ignore the endorsement appended by Rawlins; "Its admonitions were heeded, and all went well." How could that Rawlins have said that if Cadwallader's report is accurate? (14) To accept this fable, one would have to believe that an ailing Grant, alarmed as he was about the security of his lines, nevertheless decided to board a steamer headed for the threatened area just to get away from Rawlins so he could drink in private (15)--and that he knowingly invited along for the ride a representative from the War Department whose assignment was to report on his private habits and fitness for command. (16) Tucked away in a draft of his biography of Rawlins was Wilson's admission of what really happened--Grant "fell sick, and thinking a drink of spirits would do him good, took one with the usual unhappy results. (17)
   
   Source-"Triumph Over Adversity"-Brooks D. Simpson-copyright-2000-p.206-8
   
   1.) "Perhaps it was a migraine"--(a) the word perhaps is an elusive word, used to create doubt.
   
   (b) Where is the source for this migraine? Since the author used no quotation marks, I assume the author used poetic license.
   
   2.) "Stress"-No quotations on the word "stress"--did Grant have a history of stress related migraines during the war?
   
   3.) "Others"-no quotations here either, where is the source? The author uses quotations for his sources, why none here?
   
   4.) Rawlins seen Grant around officers drinking and went to write a letter. (This point is mentioned in the last paragraph)
   
   5.) "Perhaps-another use of this word to create doubt
   
   6.)"make sure that Grant adhered to his March pledge of total abstinence. "--Grant drank throughout the war, according to several sources.
   
   7.) "In all probability, "--again, no quotations marks, and an elusive word to create doubt.
   
   8.) "made him feel worse, even woozy"-no quotation marks, where is the source for this? How does the author know? Does feeling `woozy' mean `drunk'?
   
   9.) "Grant left it up to Dana what to do next. "-This is what Dana wrote! Grant allowing a Dana to assume command and issue orders seems a bit of a stretch.
   
   10.) "...Grant arose, discovered where they were..."--Why did he just `discover' this? Dana told him immediately!
   
   11.) "denied that Cadwallader was present -Dana does not say this in his `Recollections'. (notice no quotation marks on this allegation by the author).
   
   12.) "desperate for a good account of Grant actually drinking"--Other sources mention Grant drinking at other times. Grant did in fact, `Drink'.
   
   13.) "They have even cited Rawlin's letter in confirmation of the story -See number four; Rawlins wrote `the subject of your drinking...", not the Yazoo trip. (it seems the author is spinning a story)
   
   14.) "How could Rawlins have said that if Cadwallader's report is accurate? "-Rawlins wrote about a different event, not the Yazoo trip.
   
   15.) "To accept this fable, ....so he could drink in private"-The author uses no source that is a fable, no quotation marks, his conclusion is questionable,
   
   16.) "he knowingly invited along for the ride a representative from the War Department whose assignment was to report on his private habits and fitness for command. "--That was Rawlins job. Rawlins was placed in the position for that very thing, by Sec. Of War, Edward M. Stanton. Rawlins was not asked to come along!!!
   
   17.) "Wilson's admission of what really happened--Grant "fell sick, and thinking a drink of spirits would do him good, took one with the usual unhappy results. "--'The usual results when Grant drank, was that he got drunk'.

5 comments about The Whirlwind of War: Voices of the Storm, 1861-1865 (Voices of the Storm).

1. Got to read it for a term paper for a class on the Civil War. It was illuminating and is a treasure trove of references to other books to read and different directions to go in your study of the war. BUT as a reference for an 8-10 page essay...holy mother is it terrible. Please note I'm addressing the organization of the book and not the content/style.
   
   The table of contents is only each year, even though the monologues are numbered. There is absolutely no "outsider" or "narrator" to recap what the heck everyone's talking about or even just alluding to. (Such as the 20-odd pages on Gettysburg/Longstreet; as someone who does not yet understand military jargon or what it even means to "take a hill," this and other instances caused my eyes to glaze over.)
   
   In all fairness, a lot of things are spelled out while completely in keeping with the "voice." Abatis is defined by at least two different "characters," for example.
   
   Perhaps my complaints with the book are simply the wages of my own ignorance--the book is about a war, and political agitations before the war are more my strong suit.
   
   If you have a guy who can watch like, the military channel or understands war jargon and isn't surrounded by Civil War books already, this is an awesomely great book for him. And he'll love Sherman.



2. Oates's treatment of the Civil War through fictionalized statements by major participants is a notable achievement. It really is not a military history of the war, but a history of what these participants thought about the war as it progressed. There are some weaknesses to this approach, mostly that the author must choose one version of some events under debate by historians without being able to outline the debate, as might be done in a conventional history. Also, such fictionalization must remain conjectural, even though in Oates's case it is buttressed by great research, and Oates must necessarily limit himself to relatively few participants. Still, by taking seriously the thoughts and opinions of those involved, Oates gives us a much more "alive" picture of the war as it unfolded. Although it took me a few pages to become accustomed to the method, I was impressed by the overall effect.



3. "The Whirlwind of War" is a very well written book about the American Civil War, with an especially innovative approach. Author Stephen B. Oates interweaves imaginary first-person written accounts of eleven of the war's key figures - among them Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, U.S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, William T. Sherman, Mary Boykin Chesnut and Mary Livermore - to present the story of America's most tragic war a dramatic and compelling way.

   Although the first-person soliloquies are fictional, they are based on obviously extensive and meticulous research, and are filled with historical facts which are detailed and accurate. Actually, Oates adds little in the way of new historical data or interpretation in this book, although the new information on John Wilkes Booth, and the descriptions of the Northern hospital camps by Cornelia Hancock make compelling reading. What I found most fascinating about "The Whirlwind of War" was how effectively Oates was able to bring the characters' personalities so much to life in their soliloquies. Oates doesn't pretend to try to write in the style of Lincoln, Davis, Grant, or the others; still, he allows their personalities to shine through completely. I felt I really got to know the tormented Abraham Lincoln, the laconic U.S. Grant, the profane, manic-depressive William T. Sherman, the reserved and dignified Robert E. Lee, and the bitter Jefferson Davis through their first-person accounts.

   Oates' imaginative writing in "The Whirlwind of War" makes it an especially entertaining book, one which gives readers an accurate and reasonably detailed understanding of the people and events which made up America's bloodiest conflict. Highly recommended!




4. I found this book tiresome compared to part one [Voices of the Storm] and his other biographies [Lincoln and Martin Luther King] which are outstanding and recommended. The vehicle he uses --e.g. 11 voices of historical figures from the War who alternate perspectives from chapter to chapter is contrived, of questionable authenticity in many segments and eventually, to me, distracting. In volume one this technique gave me a sense of political issues --it just was not as effective in this volume which focused mostly on military issues. A military history needs maps and diagrams to give the reader a sense of what was happening, where and when. The absence of such support weakened that aspect of the story. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom is a better source for information on the flow of the Civil War than this volume.



5. A good addition to the corpus of historical literature about America's most horrendous war and tragedy.

   Oates' treatment of Lee, Longstreet, et al, at Gettysburg is solid and well-documented. To consider as a "popular Civil War myth" Longstreet's sulking, insubordinate, and ultimately devastating performance at Gettysburg, as another reviewer does, is an opinion, and an innacurate one at that--and if Glenn Tucker believes as such, he is misguided as well.

   Our day is replete with "historians" who amass selective mountains of facts and figures to arrive at the pre-ordained, and often incorrect, conclusions they desire. Glenn Tucker, Alan Nolan, and Michael Shaara notwithstanding, "Old Pete" Longstreet demonstrated an obstinate lack of cooperation with and support for his commanding officer's orders at Gettysburg, as well as a half-hearted effort at positioning his First Corps for battle on the second day of that engagement--all the while urging Lee on to Longstreet's own course of action that Lee wisely considered and rejected.

   Lee wanted an early morning attack on the second day--not the third. His mistake was in placing similar trust in lesser corps commanders like Longstreet and Ewell as he had in Stonewall Jackson. On the evening of the first day at Gettysburg, Lee said, with Longstreet present, "If the enemy is there in the morning, I mean to attack him." The enemy was there, Longstreet had abundant time to get his men there, and Stonewall Jackson would not have needed a picture drawn for him (Second Bull Run, Chancellorsville, etc.)--nor would he have rebelled against the authority over him.

   The Confederates came within an eyelash of overruning the Federals on the second day at Gettysburg. Without the eight hours or so of additional preparation time provided Meade's army by Longstreet's foot-dragging, what do you think would have been the result?

2 comments about Who Was Who in the Civil War.

1. This is a great resource. At a glance, it looks like (and maybe it is) a coffee table book, but that appearance shouldn't fool you. Nearly every personality from the Civil War is covered in this book, with photographs or paintings of many of them. The biographies are not limited to birth and death dates, but include the individual's participation in the War, and many entries "editorialize" a bit to give some perspective on the person's personality, reputation, and overall impact on the War. I've noticed more than a few typographical errors in the text (misspellings, etc.), but these don't detract from the book's value. As with a good book of Civil War maps (see my other reviews), this resource can both make for good browsing, and be an indispensable supplement to your Civil War reading. When reading a War history, I find that it's easier to keep track of the lesser-known generals and soldiers if I have a face and some background. This book helps greatly.



2. This is a good encyclopedia of all the people involved in the civil war both known and unkown. The book contains civil war phots and paintings. Each indivisual is given a biography that includes their involvemnt in the civil war. This is a good starting refrence for anyone doing research on the civil war and it is a good companion source to Ken Burns' Civil War.