5 comments about The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln (American Presidency Series).

1. When a good friend died his wife gave me his collection of books on the Civil War. Over the years, I have ebayed most of them, but some how, I could not bring myself to auction this book off. During a recent move, as I was packing my library, I toss this book aside to read. Wow! What a good read. Although written ten years ago, this book is strangely appropriate for our times.
   
   Lincoln has taken a hit from the politically correct revisionist historians on two accounts: First because of his early stance on resolving the race issue (colonization), and secondly because of the limited reach of the Emancipation Proclamation (freeing only slaves in the states in active rebellion against the Union). For these reasons, modern revisionist judge Lincoln according to modern liberal standards and find him guilty of racism. Unfortunately, history is not that simple. People, at least intelligent people as Lincoln certainly was, have complex and evolving views of the critical issues of their day. Lincoln certainly did not have the hindsight that today's historians do. He was a man of his time who struggled with the issues and whose changing views on race made him a great man. It is to Paludan's credit that he refuses to give simple answers to explain the life and views of a very complex man. He shows us a complex even contradictory personality.
   
   Especially pertinent to the current news is Paludan's analysis of Lincoln and the Supreme Court. Lincoln believed that ultimate authority in the issues before the nation was the political process, not the Supreme Court (i.e., the Dred Scott decision). Social policy was not the realm of the court, but of the congress. Lincoln saw the court having authority only on parties to the suit and perhaps as a precedent in parallel cases. But "upon vital questions affecting the whole people" American citizens could not "resign their government into the hands of judges." The same issue faces us today. The fundamental question we are facing is the same Lincoln faced: Is the role of the court to adjudicate constitutional issues or to decide social policy?
   
   Vital to Lincoln's perception of the role of the Supreme Court was his view of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. He saw the Declaration as the promise and the Constitution as the incomplete fulfillment of that promise. The inclusion of slavery into the Constitution was a political necessity to form the union (six slave states would not enter the union without it). Thus Dread Scott was the wrong decision, immoral as it were, even if the constitution included slavery. Why? Because the promise was given in the Declaration of Independence that all men were created equal. Hum . . . funny thing, when today's conservatives cite the Declaration of Independence in defense of a theistic basis for our nation, liberals are quick to point out that the Declaration is not a legal document and that the Constitution, as the ultimate authority, does not mention God at all. Just a thought.
   
   
   Ok, I can't help it. I have to talk about the anti-war Democrats of Lincoln's day. Paludan points out again and again that the Democrats of Lincoln's day kept up a constant litany that the war could not be won, that it would bankrupt the county, and that civil liberties were threatened. The peace activist of that day saw nothing but failure and thought that recognizing that failure made better sense than perpetuating it. Um. . . sounds familiar doesn't it. I guess some things never change.
   
   Well, I guess I said enough. This was a great book. I could hardly put it down. Good thing I did not ebay it.



2. Like one of the previous reviewers, I too have been a previous student of Professor Paluden at the University of Kansas. I count him as one of the instructors that have fueled a passion in me to study the civil war period. Unlike the previous reviewer, I have had the benefit of having read this book before offering an opinion. Prof. Paluden offers an extremely well researched account of the civil war presidency of Lincoln. This work includes statistics and facts you simply cannot get from documentaries or other accounts. He correctly paints Lincoln as a master politician and cuts through the mythology of the man. Was Lincoln morally opposed to slavery...yes. Was he willing to run on an abolitionist platform?? Hell no, not and get elected during that time period. Paluden's real gift is painting a picture of the period and making folks realize just how important politics was in the 19th Century to all Americans (80-90% voter turnout). Unlike the previous reviewer, I have never noted the negative side of Prof. Paluden. He does have an ego, but, like has been said of his subject "no great man was ever modest". Thanks for a wonderful book professor. (Jayhawk Class of 1995).



3. As the title indicates, this is not a biography of Abraham Lincoln. It is, instead, a narrow, but detailed and incisive study of Lincoln's exercise of executive power between his election in 1860 and his assassination in 1865. This is important because, as author Philip Shaw Paludan explains: "No president had larger challenges than Abraham Lincoln." And Paludan proceeds to state the obvious, that Lincoln was "responsible for two enormous accomplishments that are part of folk legend as well as fact. He saved the Union and he freed the slaves." No other president did so much in so little time, and Paludan explains why. As a result, within its limited confines, this book is excellent!

   Paludan demonstrates in the chapter entitled "Assembling the Cast: Winter 1860-61," that Lincoln, as president-elect, was a shrewd politician. According to Paludan: "Lincoln could be effective only if he unified the six-year-old Republican party," so one of his first appointments was "his strongest party rival," William Seward, Senator from New York, as secretary of state. As political payback for delivering Pennsylvania to the Republicans in 1860, Lincoln was obliged to appoint the notoriously-corrupt Simon Cameron Secretary of War. To counter that stench, Lincoln named as his secretary of the navy Connecticut newspaper editor Gideon Welles, who "had a glowing reputation for honesty." Within a year, Cameron also proved to be incompetent, and, in 1862, Lincoln replaced him with Edwin Stanton, who proved to be not only a man of great integrity but a very capable manager as well. It proved to be one of the most talented cabinets in American history, although Paludan makes clear that its operations were not always harmonious, most notably during the "cabinet crisis" of December 1862.

   With most of the executive departments in capable hands, Lincoln "involved himself actively in matters of strategy," claiming "`war power' authority to use his office to the limits." Lincoln's focus on military affairs was essential because the Civil War generally went badly for the Union for the first year. Paludan ably demonstrates that even while Lincoln struggled to find generals who had both the talents and temperament to be successful, the Union was "forging the resources of war," which eventually proved decisive. Gen. George McClellan was a brilliant military administrator but proved much too cautious in the field, appalled by the "mangled corpses and the poor suffering wounded. Lincoln eventually lost confidence in McClellan, and he had to be replaced. One of McClellan's eventual successors, Gen. George Meade, won the great victory at Gettysburg in July 1863, but the Union did fully gain the initiative in the field until Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, who won an equally great victory at Vicksburg, Mississippi almost on the same day, was appointed general in chief in March 1864.

   Lincoln's original war aim was merely to restore the Union. But the costs, human and material, of the war's first two years, made eradication of slavery a necessity. Following the battle of Antietam in September 1862, which was a "tactical draw but a strategic victory" for the Union, Lincoln announced the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. The issue then became: What was to be done with the former slaves? In December, Lincoln proposed a constitutional amendment for the federal government to pay to colonize any blacks who wished to emigrate, but blacks "rejected it, abolitionists had condemned it," and this "doubtful solution" was beyond the practical realities of the time. Even while the war continued to rage, the prospective problems of reconstruction never were far from Lincoln's mind, and, according to Paludan, this difficult issue increasingly divided the president from radical Republicans.

   Paludan writes that, while the radicals favored confiscation of land which had prospered from slave labor, Lincoln believed in "peaceful, gradual, compensated emancipation." Lincoln opposed the harsh remedy of confiscation and believed that the Constitution permitted him to free the slaves only "in places where war was being made." The Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 potentially freed 3 million slaves but did not mention colonization or compensated emancipation. Nevertheless, the emancipation issue proved controversial. Solidly Republican New England remained largely committed to the war, but, according to Paludan: "Especially in the regions of the Middle West settled from the South and in cities where job competition existed between the races, people resented the idea of fighting in order to free blacks."

   Equally controversial was the Emancipation Proclamation's "arming of black freedom fighters." According to Paludan, "Lincoln and his party clearly were committed to Union and to emancipation and to the belief that the two were linked indissolubly by the need for black soldiers." Almost 180,000 black troops were serving in Union armies by the end of the war. Lincoln was very conscious of the importance of maintaining the national moral, and, in Paludan's view, northern whites increasingly recognized the benefits of having black soldiers defend the Union.

   According to Paludan, the Union's victory was in large part a result of Lincoln's "devotion to and mastery of the political-constitutional institutions of his time." Some Civil War buffs and many general readers are likely to find this book rather dry because it focuses on the science of politics. But, as Paludan writes, the preservation of the Union "was achieved chiefly through an extraordinary outreach of national authority." This book is an exceptionally thoughtful account of the exercise of executive power during the most serious crisis in American history.




4. This is not a bad book, and in fact offers a solid description and assessment of the Lincoln Administration.

   Paludan describes the working of Lincoln's government well, including the personalities and major policy issues they faced. He does a good job in explaining the manueverings between Salmon P. Chase and Lincoln for dominance of the Administration and later for the 1864 Repbulican Party nomination. Also described thoroughly is Lincoln's Louisianna reconstruction plan, which gives a pretty plausible map to what reconstruction could have looked like had Booth not intervened.

   I found the writing average. While the book explains the subject well enough, the prose is more workmanlike. It didn't reach the level of engrossing style other chronicler's of Lincoln and his government have.

   Overall, not bad.




5. Well, first of all, I must tell everyone that I probably have a negative bias towards this book's author. The best thing I can say of this book is that curling up with it is much more pleasant than being in the same county as the author and his enormous ego. His scholarship in the book is a lot sounder than his verbal musings in the classroom, many of which are non-sensical and poorly thought-out, and his modern political musings which are often inappropiate and non-germane. One of my fondest memories is of him being made a fool of by a freshman student when he lectured for an hour on why a funeral home is called a "home". In typical PS Paludan fashion, he constructed an elaborate 19th century socio-historical explanation for what was easily explained by the student. They are called "funeral homes" because they were in caretaker's houses! Yes, Philly has a way of making the simple hard. This man almost ruined me on the study of history. I obviously would never buy this book, as I wouldn't want to see a penny go to this conceited egotist. I had this guy for a course 2 years ago and the mention of his name still makes my blood boil.

5 comments about The Nature of Sacrifice: A Biography of Charles Russell Lowell, Jr., 1835-64.

1. The Nature of Sacrifice: Charles Russell Lowell's Civil War
   The Nature of Sacrifice: A Biography of Charles Rusell Lowell, Jr. 1835-1864, Carol Bundy, Farrer Strauss and Giroux, 560pp., endnotes, index, 2005, $35.00.
   
   Within the first several chapters, this reader found Charlie Lowell a 'child of the(19)sixties living in the 1850s and not the Brahmin snob that he thought he would encounter.
   
   Born in 1835, immediately before his family slipped from high social standing and wealth and into the 'poor cousins' category, Charlie the grew up in the 'high'culture' of Boston of close-knit kinship relations and opportunities.
   
   With Transcendentalists and Abolitionists as neighbors and relatives, with books and debate as a part of family dinner discourse, and with newspapers and current bestsellers as a part of the table top literature of the household, Charlie grew into an apparently aimless but articulate Harvard student. Slight in build and height, surpassed all, after giving the commencement day address at Harvard in 1856, he took a manual laborers job on the Boston wharfs.
   
   He approached manual labor and business in general with the soul of a philosopher and philanthropist. He was a subversive idealist in the workplace, a worker with a social conscience, and a son who wished to succeed where his father failed. Charlie chose the iron industry as his place in the world. By 1860, after an interlude in Europe recovering from tuberculosis, he was managing an iron foundry, west of Sharpsburg, Maryland. Voting Republican in the presidential election, he watched the secession crisis from western Maryland. The attack on Massachusetts troops by a Baltimore mob in the spring of 1861 brought him into the ranks of the Union army as a cavalry captain.
   
   By 1863, after seeing action on the Peninsula and serving on McClellan's staff during the Sharpsburg campaign, Charlie Lowell commanded the 2nd Massachusetts cavalry in what he considered a 'backwater' assignment, Mosby's Confederacy. It was difficult and distastefull duty for him but one at which he excelled. Lowell collected near missed throughout the war; on the Peninsula he shook out his bedroll from behind his saddle and minie balls dropped out. At Antietam, he discovered his horse to be winded and removed the saddle and found the beast hit several times under it. As a colonel of a brigade during the 1864 Shenandoah campaign, he participated and rationalized the destruction of civilian farmsteads. He finally received a wound from a ball that clipped his elbow, traveled up his sleeve,crossed his shoulder, traveled down and cut a small portion of his spine. He died within 24 hours; he was survived by his wife whom he married in 1863 and was seven months pregnant.
   
   The nature of Charles Russell Lowell's sacrifice was multi-faceted: the happy bachelor who left a wife and child, the workplace manager with a heart for the workers, sleight twenty-somenthing who had become a leader of cavalrymen, and the intellectual who became a anti-guerrilla fighter.
   
   This biography surprises in many ways. Charlie Lowell is put in the context of a family on economic decline, of a social conscience within the environment of the empheral ideas of Transcendentalism, and of a top achieving Harvard student who condemns the college's curriculum of constant mind-numbing rote memorization. In 1861, few would have picked Charlie Lowell become a successful leader of cavalrymen. Appreciated by McClellan, Stanton, and Mosby, Lowell became a hero. The nature of Lowell's sacrifice was the loss of a future earned by a man who believed that there are no problems, only solutions and seized his duty to find a way to succeed.



2. Drawing her story from hundreds of family letters, Carol Bundy describes with vivid detail the life and death of Charles Russell Lowell. She is a fine writer, and this, her first book (amazingly), is a remarkable achievement. I found it totally absorbing. Yes, Bostonian readers especially will discover many familiar names, but Bundy's viewpoint is neither partisan nor provincial. I highly recommend this book as one of the best I've read in a long time. Just one caveat: it is very, very sad.



3. This is a three way review, along the lines of "readers who enjoyed this book also enjoyed....." Each of these books enriches reading of the other two. They are, in order of publication (and the order in which I read them), The Metaphysical Club, by Louis Menand, The Dante Club, by Matthew Pearl, and The Nature of Sacrifice, a biography of Charles Russell Lowell, by Carol Bundy; These three fit together like birds in an Escher sketch. The many other reviews of each of these three explore their focus, their scholarship, their pace, breadth and depth, skillful turn of phrase and weaving of ideas: all of them excel in every way that their respective genre demands. What has intrigued me is how each, from their own genre and viewpoint, contribute to a fuller picture of the ideas and times that the others explore and a more informative and enjoyable total reading experience.
   
   Briefly, The Metaphysical Club is primarily about ideas, and secondarily about their men: Oliver Wendell Holmes; William James; Charles Peirce and John Dewey, but Menand also necessarily explores the milieu from which these men and their eyes emerged. Holmes and James received the lion's share of delving into their history, as I recall from my reading several years ago, principally their lives as sons in their natal families, and their experiences with the Civil War: Holmes' an intimate, lucky survivor's life emerging from the corpses of a great many of his boyhood and college chums, James', a more distant, detached view. Menand explores how these war time experiences, as well as their exposure to zealous causes, such as abolition and the copperhead reaction thereto, shaped their approaches to life, to dealing with ideas, with movements, how Holmes applied these ideas in his jurisprudence and James in his philosophies. The Metaphysical Club is dense, tersely but often breezily written, requiring frequent re-readings of paragraphs and sections. If you let your mind wander for a sentence, you must retreat and reread. Menand also follows their ideas into the twentieth century, and their effects on public and higher education and other important areas in our country. We learn quite a bit about Boston, Cambridge and New England.
   
   The Dante Club is fiction, which takes place within the boundaries, both geographical and temporal, of the Metaphysical Club. The club members tickle but do not overlap with the Metaphysicals: O.W. Holmes' father, the "diminutive doctor," as famous in his day as his son came to be in his; Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, the key figure, then widowered, and bringing forth his English translation of Dante's Inferno, with the help of Holmes Sr., and James Russell Lowell, poet, critic, and a founder of the Atlantic Monthly magazine, among other things, (including the uncle of Charles Russell Lowell, subject of the third book); and Charles Washington Green. The Dante Club is an exciting, interesting, chatty, rather informative and fast moving murder mystery, set mostly in Cambridge in the first few years after the Civil War had ended, partly in Boston, with forays to Boston's north shore, to civil war battle grounds south of the Mason Dixon line, and an occasional mention of Italy. Cameo appearances of Holmes Jr and his friends, his wounds and his ideas give hints of the developments of the Metaphysical Club, which was just then perhaps starting to take form. The Dante Club is a refreshingly easy reading barnstormer, a nice, light dessert after the Metaphysical Club. It inks a palpable picture of Cambridge after the civil war, and is great fun to read while sitting in a park along Brattle Street. J. R. Lowell enjoys a large role in it, and to understand its mystery, and the resolution thereof, it is helpful to know something of the lives, privations and crises of the everyday civil war soldier, and his officers. This then brings us to the missing piece in the puzzle, The Nature of Sacrifice.
   
   The Nature of Sacrifice is Bundy's first published book, as the Dante Club is Pearl's. (Menand has several books to his credit, but he is mostly known for his remarkably wide ranging articles, essays and other short pieces that have established him as one of today's leading public intellectuals.) Bundy's biography of Charles Russell Lowell, J. R. Lowell's nephew and sometimes housemate, uncannily fills in territory left open by both these books about non-existent clubs, almost as if her book were written just for me, so that I could enjoy the other two more. Bundy's book is at once more compact, more potent than both, because her subject died before his 30th year, and also because he was a real live hero. She writes of the sounds, smells and sights of soldiering and battle with such vigor, organization and thrust that images and whole scenes arise in the mind's eye, as well as the mind's ear, and the mind's nostrils. Bundy's prose soars and charges, leaving the reader with no doubt that it tells the story of a flesh and blood man who lived earnestly, and died violently, leaving a family and community eviscerated by his death; and not only his death. Portrayal of His death stands as the synechdoche, the one death, put before us to call forth every single death in every family that lost a son to the Civil War adding up to the over 600,000 civil war deaths, and with just a little imagination, to all deaths, in all wars. Bundy gives us the catalogue of Boston and Cambridge families who sent their treasure to war, and lost that treasure, their individual names, their beautiful faces, the faces of their sisters, their playmates, the lists of places where they died, the lists of names who died in the same battles, or the same years; families with two sons dead (as was the case for the Lowells); She depicts the normal, daily childhood these boys led before they went off as men to kill and be killed. Bundy provides the real raw material for Holmes' pragmatic views, and James' different pragmatic views, for the motivations behind the actions of the main characters in the Dante Club, a picture of Dante's Hell, as well as really helping the reader to understand the insanity of the action in the Dante Club as something other than insanity, rather as a reaction to civil insanity that is beyond sane and insane, beyond good and evil as opposites. Bundy's descriptions also of the social and political background of the Civil War is very helpful to understand that war at at least a casual level. It certainly isn't and doesn't try to be an in depth study of those backgrounds, which studies have been done again and again. But it helped to get a picture of the country before the Civil war on many levels. Bundy's book is also a real counterweight to the other two, because much of the story is gleaned from sources written by or to women: Lowell's mother, his sister, his wife, wives of his comrades. Not to be simplistic, but mothers and sisters do have different views about war, risk and death than do most men.
   
   These 3 books also reinforce each other, because they feel to be pieces of the same cloth. Nothing, or hardly anything in either of them contradicts matters in another, or jars the sense of the places and times established by the others.
   
   So, I heartily recommend all three of these books to anyone interested in any one of them. And, I think that reading in the order of publication, or probably even better, its reverse, is the way to go, keeping Dante in the middle as a quick, driving light weight, between the two much more serious, albeit compelling and exciting non-fictions.



4. I first became interested in the career of Charles Russell Lowell Jr., when earlier this spring I saw the author, Carol Bundy, speak about him and read from her book on TV, on a fourm provided by the Public TV station Boston's WGBH. For this reader Boston visits always include at least a few hours spent curled up in front of a high-definition TV and turning on the public station, for it seems nowhere else in the country do the arts get such play. Nor the humanities, including the utterly humane biography that Bundy has written of a man she says is her great-great-great-great uncle I think. She was amazed when, after her grandmother died, among her trunks and effects out tumbled the clattering sword of Lowell, as well as his dress uniform, preserved through generations who had relished remembering him as their fallen hero.
   
   As though honoring this family mandate, Bundy has done her level best to help preserve his memory for at least another generation. For on the one hand although Lowell was a forgotten soldier, dead before he was thirty, he fought with distinction at a number of pivotal sites in the War Between the States, at one point serving with "Mosby's Marauders." He was a curious chap, as Bundy relates. While his peers and elders were romantic dreamers-transcendentalists, really-who swore by the abolitionist movement and excused the barbarities of some of its activists as examples of ends justfying means, Lowell took the middle ground, sort of turning his nose up at the ideals in question, while cherishing a different set of ideals, by and large culled from a classical education and a tour of Europe on the grand scale. On this extended sojourn, the privilege of young gentlemen of the 19th century, Lowell became haunted by Michelangelo's painting of the three fates. Later on in the annals of art scholarship, ironically enough, it emerged that the painting was not by Michelangelo at all-not even close. But such is its power that it made Lowell sort of an ironist, and a fatalist too.
   
   Bundy brings the War alive as Shelby Foote did, though from the union side of course. The sights and sounds of the battlefield waft over the reader who dares finish this exhsuaring biography all the way through, not only the sounds of glory but the rotting flesh of the dead and the mad faces of the survivors. Like Shakespeare, Lowell begs the question. No wonder his funeral was attended by so many notables, still spooked by him, for none could follow the oddments and the contours of his soul. Today his distinguished descendant has widened the field of inquiry, allowing us to see the lineaments of a brief life with tantalizing hesitance.



5. Ms. Bundy paints an exceptionally fine picture of the Boston cultural and political scene in the pre-war years. She clearly knows the Lowell family's story (she's a descendent) and she also is a good writer.
   
   However, when she gets away from that and into the details of the war, she falls very short. Her information on Ball's Bluff, for example, contains several errors. Capt. Caspar Crowninshield did not command the 20th Massachusetts and was not the only officer from that regiment to make it back from Ball's Bluff.
   
   On three occasions, she describes California governor Leland Stanford as a "copperhead" or a southern sympathizer though Stanford helped found the Republican party in California and was an ardent Unionist.
   
   She notes Sen. Henry Wilson of Massachusetts as Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, though Wilson was not even a member of that committee.
   
   She treats the tactic of fighting cavalry dismounted almost as if it were invented by Col. Lowell instead of being an old and well-known dragoon technique.
   
   There are numerous other small mistakes like that which some fact-checking or a little more research would have let her avoid. I give the book three stars instead of two only because it is very well written and because the mistakes she makes are not central to the story she is trying to tell about Lowell. They are very jarring, however, and the reader should be prepared for them.

2 comments about Lincoln's Quest for Union.

1. Excellent, enjoyable book. Focuses mostly on psychology, but has lots of references if you want more historical detail.



2. This book is a wonder insight into the psyche of Abraham Lincoln. This book focuses on the history of Lincoln, not so much the history of his political terms as president, rather the history behind the morals and personality of the man himself. Charles Strozier does a wonderful job in piecing together the facts and fables in order to tell the tale of Lincoln. There are so many folk tales on Lincoln that it can be hard to figure out what really happened and what didn't. There are myriad sources used in order to give this book the depth needed to paint a lush illustration of such an interesting person.
   
   Abraham Lincoln is easily connected to the American Civil War. However in this book, not much of the war is really mentioned. Nor are detailed aspects of his political policies. The book traces the lifeline of Lincoln as child all the way to his death. Many psychological depictions are utilized in understanding the soul, mind, emotion and motivation behind the spirit of Abe Lincoln. I found it very interesting and satisfying to have such a blend of history and psychology, which is a wonderful way to do a case study on a person.

5 comments about Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power.

1. Willis's book is interesting when he's relating history, but all too often he diverts from that to attack other historians views, or try to defend his against perceived attacks from others. That gets old after the first few times.



2. With Jefferson on the cover and a provocative title like "Negro President" you'd think the book would be all about Jefferson.........but instead, it's mostly about Timothy Pickering's fight with pro-slavery forces during his time in Congress. Not an unimportant topic by a long shot, but I was expecting Wills to tease out the complexities of Jefferson's mind on the subject of slavery.



3. This book suffers from the common Wills characteristic of rambling. You'll learn about Tim Pickering, Aaron Burr, J.Q. Adams, but I thought the book was about Jefferson. Most of the book isn't about Jefferson at all, except the concluding paragraph of some chapters that try to address the central thesis. There's nothing new about Jefferson in this book. Someone could write a great book about Jefferson's blatant hypocrisy on slavery. Wills certainly didn't do it with this big disappointment.



4. I was required to read this book for a graduate history class and came away enlightened. In response to those who say the book is not about Jefferson, it is. Pickering and Adams are used as lenses through which Wills examines Jefferson (I have read other books like this). This style of writing may be over-the-head of novice readers not accustomed to reading material that is geared towards professional historians.
   
   This book is intended to make the reader reconsider what they think about Jefferson and what they have been taught about the early republic. Wills shows Jefferson as a mere man and not the giant that celebratory (and earlier) literature would have him be. This may be disconcerting to readers that have been taught that the founding fathers were the paragon of society and humanity.
   
   In response to reviewers claiming that Wills misses this or that, you are right, but miss the point. Wills did not intend to discuss every aspect of Jefferson's political career. He was interested in examining Jefferson's defense of slavery in-so-far as slavery gave Jefferson and other Southerners an advantage over Northern politicians.
   
   You might not like what Wills has to say, but it is hard to argue with his argument.



5. This book strikes me as a fairly typical Wills effort. Take a gander at his oeuvre. Is there any public intellectual on the American scene at the moment that casts a wider net? Wills has written about Augustine, Chesterton, Reagan, John Wayne, Jefferson before (see his Inventing America- his study of Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence), Madison, Nixon (Nixon Agonistes contains one of the best explanation of American presidential politics that I have ever read), the role of religion in American politics, conservatism, and the American distrust of government to name just a few topics.. He writes like a prodigy- quickly, sometimes a little sloppily but based on a deep reading of Western culture. I have never read one of his books without copying down a passage or two into my commonplace book (a habit I took up long ago on reading Will's Inventing America). I have also not read any of his recent books without feeling that it was unfinished. He writes quickly and it shows. Some of his work is a little sloppy and needs development. Some of his arguments are brilliant and some are forced.
   Consider this volume. Wills is trying to emphasize some of the ways the three-fifths clause of the original Constitution distorted the workings of antebellum politics.
   The three-fifths clause was not about voting. In spite of some of the reviewers below, slave owners did not get three extra votes for every five slaves. It was about representation. Slaves were included in the population data that determined the number of representatives a state received in the House of Representatives. But they only counted as three people for every five slaves. So if a state contained 100,000 slaves, it would add a total of 60,000 onto the figure used to determine the number of representatives. In 1800, over 91 % of the blacks in America, free or slave, were in the southern states (this figure is from The South as a Conscious Minority by Jesse Carpenter, p.14). Obviously, the three/fifths clause worked to boost Southern representation. It had enough effect, according to Wills and many others, to provide the South with the decisive votes needed to elect Jefferson president, to pass the notorious gag rules of the 1830s, and to force through many of the so-called "compromises" that spread slavery throughout the Old Southwest.
   I agree with Wills, William Freehling, Leonard L. Richards and the others who have been writing about this issue of late. But one weakness of Wills' presentation (as opposed to someone like Freehling in The Road to Disunion) is that Wills fails to bring out one very important point. Even with the three/fifths clause, the South was a minority in the House. The 1800 elections brought as large a proportion of Southerners to the House as they enjoyed in any time in our history. In 1800, the South had 65 Representatives to 77 for the Northern States or 46% of the total (Carpenter, p. 22). Even with the completely unfair boost of the three-fifths clause they still needed northern allies. There were always Northerners or Westerners who had to vote along with the South on ALL the issues that Wills mention. This is perhaps the saddest part of the story of all. The Southern Representatives acted with great unity throughout this period and either found collaborators or were able to bully other Representatives to go along with them. My point is simply that the Slave Power was not just a Southern phenomenon. It was an American phenomenon. Wills does get at this sometimes. I cannot find the quote now but at some point in the book he does mention how many national politicians were willing to compromise with the South in order to further their careers. Even one of the heroes of his tale, J. Q. Adams was guilty of this early in his career.
   If you really want to explore thoroughly the Slave Power in early American history then I suggest Freehling's book over this one.
   That does not mean that you shouldn't read Wills. He clarifies some of the confusion I have always felt about Jefferson as a politician. In many ways, Jefferson was a modern politician. He knew how to work others to his ends while staying behind the curtain (this may be the only way we can compare Dick Cheney to Thomas Jefferson). Jefferson was also so sure that he was right that to oppose him was treasonous. He was in many ways a not very likable man. None of which diminishes his greatness except for those who can admire only saints. Personally, I find that if you allow yourself to provisionally admire sinners that there are a lot more people to admire.
   Wills also shows us Burr in a very different light and makes it clear that in regards to Burr (e.g., Burr's behavior during the 1800 election), that history really has been written by the victors. And while the other reviewers express appreciation for Wills' bringing back Timothy Pickering into history's good graces, I appreciate the way that he tells us the story of J.Q. Adams' struggles against the Slave Power in the House during the 1830s. This is one of the best stories in American history and deserves to be told again and again.
   So, yes, read Wills by all means. He may not be a detail guy but he will give you many great insights and will point in the direction of others like Freehling who are great detail guys. Along the way, you get to spend some time with one of the most interesting thinkers currently writing on the American scene.

No comments about The Spirit Divided: Memoirs of Civil War Chaplains-The Union.

1 comments about Loss of the Sultana and Reminiscences of Survivors (Voices Of The Civil War).

1. Dr. David Madden founded the Civil War website at LSU and is a real student of the war. This book gives accounts by the survivors of the largest maritime disaster in our nation's history--more lives lost than on the Titanic. The disaster occurred so close to the Lincoln Assassination and Booth Chase and so near the end of the Civil War that it has been largely lost to history.
   
   Many of the soldiers were former prisoners of war at Andersonville (GA) and Cahaba (AL) and were weakened from near starvation. My ancestor was a private in the 3rd Tennessee Cavalry (USA) that had been captured by Gen. N.B. Forrest at Sulphur Springs Trestle, Alabama (near Athens, AL). He survived the disaster, floated to shore at Memphis (the sinking was eight miles north of Memphis on the Mississippi at the Hens and Chickens Islands), walked home to Monroe County (south of Knoxville) and fathered six children, my grandmother included.
   
   Dr. Madden's introduction to the book is worth the entire cost, as he covers the essentials admirably.
   
   Books by Jerry Potter and Gene Salecker give more details on the disaster, the packet boat itself and the trial attempting to assess the responsibility for vast overcrowding, but these first person accounts are priceless.
   
   The annual reunion of the Sultana Descendents will be held in Athens, Alabama on April 13-14, 2007 with Dr. Madden present and speaking.
   
   J.C. Tumblin, Past-President
   Knoxville Civil War Roundtable

5 comments about Jeb Stuart: The Last Cavalier.

1. Burke Davis gives readers often-overlooked insights into the early life and career of the famous cavalier, including his courtship of his wife (whose father was a Union general) and his motivation to fight for Virginia. The Stuart-Cooke family is an excellent example of the bitter division of loved ones during the War, with Stuart and his brother-in-law choosing to fight for the Confederacy while his father-in-law continued to serve the Union. A fascinating account of the war as well as a great bio and a must-read for serious historians



2. One of the most tedious and enervating reading is a book in which practically every second page is loaded with citations from letters written to, by or about the person who is the subject of the book. Frankly speaking, if I can return the book and get some refund, I would do it gladly. This is not a reaserch but a correspondant's report. In short- minus one star!



3. The book starts out very well, establishing basic background and geographical history in a very easy to read anecdotal style. The remainder of the book essentially details General Stuart's exploits on and off the battlefield.

   You certainly get the impression that he was a dashing figure, but unfortunatley the author does not delve deeper into the man as much as I would have preferred. You get a sense for him as a Confederate soldier who cared very much about his duty, but not why he cared so much.

   I gave it four stars because it is a good read, and for the perspectives provided of many of the eastern battles and the cavalry's part in them.




4. Book rather good written, but as all books of the USA shipped, the printed paper and is of rather poor quality. In Europe we are used to recieve best quality. So also after many years you still can enjoy reading.



5. This is the third civil war book by Burke Davis that I have read, and it is just as good as the others. Davis gives a complete and well researched account of the life of Jeb Stuart, but his main gift is that he can really tell a story. You will be interested from the beginning to the end, and in the process, you will realize that you have learned a thing or two.

2 comments about Light-Horse Harry Lee and the Legacy of the American Revolution.

1. I was hoping for basically a biography of Lee's war time exploits but this book goes a lot further. The author does devote a good portion of the book to Lee's Revolutionary War time but also to his life after the war. Much research and commentary goes into this period of Lee's life to include his flawed business practices, which ultimately lead to his imprisonment for not being able to pay his debts. Overall a good biography of the father of Robert E. Lee but it is slow in some areas. RECOMMENDED.



2. Charles Royster is one of the premier historians on the period of the American Revolution. He has done excellent work on the Continental Army and he knows his business.

   This volume is no different. Lee is one of the celebrated personalities of the Revolution, especially for his excellent service in the southern theater under Nathaniel Greene. Commanding a green-uniformed legion of infantry and cavalry, he performed superbly with the main army and working happily with Francis Marion and his partisans harrying the British and Tories in the South Carolina back country.

   The first part of the book covers this portion of Lee's life. To me it was the most interesting, the Revolution in general and the Continental Army in particular being two of my favorite subjects. however, the rest of the book covers Lee's later life, which steadily went downhill after the Revolution's ending, with bouts of debt, sickness, failure, and an early death. Lee, the father of Robert E., is an interesting, sad figure, egotistical, patriotic, more than competent, and somewhat politically naive.

   Royster presents Lee as a whole person, and deftly intertwines his tale with Revolutionary exploits, first hand accounts, family and financial problems, and brings the legend into line with the man's humanity, frailties, and strengths.

   This book is a must for all interested in the Revolution and one of the most fascinating personalities to grace the American stage in the 18th century.

1 comments about CUSTER: The Man, the Myth, the Movies.

1. I finally got around to reading this work by John Phillip Langellier, who I think Custer historian/author Gregory J. W. Urwin (writer of the worthwhile 1990 book, "Custer Victorious") rather correctly called "the premier biographer of Hollywood's Custer". This well-written and entertaining (but nonetheless serious) "read", which I think originally germinated as an academic thesis, is thoroughly annotated and contains informative/useful bibliographic, filmographic, and videographic appendices, including comprehensive chronologies of Custer films, serials, and television programs with episodic synopses. It's also loaded with pictures, many of which are amusing and even borderline ludicrous.
   
   Those who have not thought much about it (and especially those who have taken some time to investigate actual history) will likely be simultaneously amused and shocked at the incredible, breath-taking ways that various scriptwriters, filmakers, and television show directors/producers have, in the name of "creativity", exploited, falsified, and manipulated Custer historiography and mythology -- as well as historical legends, lore, and images of the Western frontier and the so-called "Indian Wars era" -- over the decades in the pursuit of shallow entertainment objectives, box office/advertising revenues, and rather facile political propaganda goals.
   
   The author also makes it clear how the Custer persona in its many guises has long served as a kind of cultural barometer of the nation's shifting attitudes and sensitivities (for example, consider how Custer is depicted as idealistic hero in the World War II era film, "They Died With Their Boots On" compared to how he is depicted as an evil villain and mad colonialist oppressor/imperialistic hatemonger in the Vietnam era film, "Little Big Man").
   
   Another worthwhile book, somewhat along these lines, which endeavors to trace the neigh near surreal twists and turns of the media and pop culture legends of Custer, the Seventh Cavalry, and the Little Bighorn is the 1976 book entitled, "Custer's Last Stand: The Anatomy of an American Myth" by Brian W. Dippie. Both this book, and the one by Urwin mentioned above, are available from Amazon.

5 comments about The Lincoln Enigma: The Changing Faces of an American Icon.

1. What were Lincoln's views on death, afterlife and religion? Did he really have a loveless marriage? Would things have been different if he and Jeff Davis had swapped places?
   
   Speculative thought, and some answers, are to be found in this new volume, along with a wealth of perspective of Lincoln in artwork.
   
   The reason I only four-starred this book is that the body copy of text, before the artwork appendices, is only about 160 pages. This book could have used at least 50, if not 100, pages of additional meat on his bones.
   
   AND, this is LINCOLN! It's not like that would have been that hard to do.



2. Reread your history, hun. Or at least try thinking about it from a different angle.

   Great book, by the way.




3. The US is so protective of Formosa. Why should China not use the Lincoln example. The solution to an area wanting to secede is to reduce it to rubble cause the death of one million people, civilian and military, declare total war on both the military and civilian population. Once conquered, the cause of the war is to say that Formosa cannot be independent, is that Formosa is no longer a part of China. Install military dictators, take away the vote of most of the citizens and dictate that they must approve certain amendments to the constitution, even though they are not a part of China, before they can re-enter the union. During the conflict shred the constitution, lock up millions without benefit of trial, and close any news outlet that does not agree with the destruction of Formosa. Once the destruction of Formosa is over most certainly the victors write the history and within 100 years or less the current president of China will be considered one of the greatest presidents of China. So it takes Formosa 80 years to recover we will always know how evil they were for wanting to attain self determination.

   Most certainly the Founders of this Republic seceeded from the British Empire. What was the diference?




4. "Look at me and I'll tell you without blinkin' this southerner prefers Abraham Lincoln"

   goes a rap at the start of this book, and it is aimed at those of like mind, southerner or not.

   A warning - half the book consists of illustrations of Lincolniana so that this is one for the specialist. The Lincoln- seeker should read David Donald's excellent biography before opening this book.

   That said, does this book tell us anything new about Lincoln? The answer is yes, without being final or definitive. I liked particularly the article on Lincoln and the Constitution, showing that he was not the 'dictator' of Copperhead legend, nor the conscious revolutionary of Garry Wills' 'Lincoln at Gettysburg'. However, did his actions not have revolutionary results?

   The article on the Lincoln marriage I felt a bit limited, but also a good corrective to the image of Lincoln the hen-pecked husband trapped in a loveless union. 'Mary, Mary, we are elected!" he cried to his wife on arriving home that great day, showing the essential nature of the partnership between them. However, this essay does not use Mariah Vance's remininscences, though written very much later that the 1850s, which show Mary Todd Lincoln as addicted to paregoric (which contained opium) and subject to alternating fits of drugged lassitiude, and withdrawal-induced sickness. However, even the Vance memoirs (she was the Lincoln's servant) are not entirely negative on Mary Lincoln.

   Other essays cover the Lincoln youth, his fascination with death, his status as war leader and finally his image in American art. The enigma is somewhat clarified but somehow the enigma, and the continuing fascination, remains.




5. Attractively produced compilation with highest scholarship.... Boritt directs Lincoln studies at Center,(civil War) Gettysburg site. Has more than 60 pages illustrating portraiture of Lincoln, diverse forms. Mt.Rushmore,& tourist type statues- in NY, Abe greets girl who suggested he grow a beard. An 'abandoned' forlorn 62' statue stands at a closed campground,Charleston,IL. Best source for,trivia/folklore. More of same,short paperback,Gordon Leidner's collection,2001.