3 comments about From First to Last: The Life of William B. Franklin (The North's Civil War, 19).

1. 
   It appears William Buel Franklin, as a battle commander, had all the faults of George B. McClellan (very conservative, overly cautious, slow to action) and not a thread of his one finest quality (self-promotion). Mark Snell's excellent biography explores the man in all his controversy, but also making clear his positive qualities too, especially his role as a surveyor and engineer. Perhaps, as Snell points out, the qualities that Franklin fostered that made him an excellent engineer (studiousness, meticulousness) became liabilities when he was commanding troops on the field in the heat of battle.
   
   Franklin was born in Pennsylvania in 1823. After graduating from West Point in 1843 (first in his class), he was with Kearny as a surveyor during the Mexican War. He was involved with a number of engineering projects around Washington, DC, including being in charge of construction of the Capitol dome. After the war broke out he was appointed brigadier general of volunteers and saw action at First Bull Run and in the Peninsular Campaign. He was promoted to Major General in July 1862. At Fredericksburg in December of that year, Franklin led 50,000 men across the Rappahannock on the Union left, but made little headway against the fierce fighting; later Burnside charged Franklin with disobedience and blamed him (both unfairly) for the Union disaster that resulted there. The charge, later upheld by the Committee on the Conduct of the War, ruined his military reputation. Wounded at Sabine Cross Roads in April 1864, Franklin saw little action for the rest of the war. After the war he became vice-president and general manager of the Colt Firearms Company in Hartford and engineered the building of the Connecticut state capitol. He died in 1903.
   
   It's probably fair to say that Franklin was a mediocre general. Snell believes that he was good at following orders, but not in acting independently when a situation called for it. The disaster at Fredericksburg seems to be an instance when Franklin followed orders TOO closely (Burnside's orders were not very clear to start with). Snell's account of Franklin's life is scholarly (it's based on his doctoral dissertation), but interesting and written with style. There are lots of photos included. Not much has been written about Franklin (I think this might be the only book-length study), and it's a worthy addition to anyone's Civil War library.



2. Before I read this book, the name William Buell Franklin meant little. All I knew was that he was a Union commander at Fredericksburg. The rest of Franklin's war service was a mystery to me. Thank God I read this book.
   
   Franklin's reputation before this book can be compared to other Union generals such as George McClellan. Unfairly criticized for the Union losses in the eastern theater, McClellan has been the focal blame for the Union's lack of success in the early part of the war. In comparison, Franklin's inability to break through Jackson's lines at Fredericksburg has scarred his name until recently. Taking unjustifiable blame for this defeat, the Pennsylvanian never regained full respect for his illustrious war service.
   
   What's even more impressive about this book is its commitment to the truth. Snell's study illustrates Franklin's strengths and failures throughout the war. Surely, the Maryland Campaign was not Franklin's finest hour as a commander, but Snell refuses to put entire blame on the general for his inability to rescue Harpers Ferry, unlike other historians of the campaign.
   
   One can admire the entire life of this Union general. His service to his home and country has finely been noticed. Though still seen as the "scapegoat" of Fredericksburg, Franklin now has a fair biography that will certainly be the best out there for years to come.



3. Franklin's life reads like an action-adventure story! Using previously undiscovered letters and meticulous research of the period, Mark Snell has brought to light a man whose life parallels the development of the United States through the 19th century. As an infant, William B. Franklin had been kissed by Lafayette and given, as were the fledgling United States, the blessing of that great proponent of American independence. Graduating first in his class at West Point, Franklin pursued an Army career in the Corps of Topographical Engineers, deeply involved in building the infrastructure which would support and define America's burgeoning industrial economy . . . mapping western territories and surveying Great Lake shorelines, building innovative coastal lighthouses, and serving as project manager for the DC capitol dome. At the outbreak of the Civil War, Franklin advised the Lincoln administration on how to expand the Regular Army, just the beggining of his interaction with many of the "big dogs" in that political and military struggle. He rose in rank and was a principal player in some of the war's most renown campaigns: First Bull Run, the Peninsula Campaign, Second Bull Run, Fredericksburg, the Red River Campaign. He was even captured by Confederates and made a daring escape!

   Of most interest to Civil War aficionados, Snell disputes Franklin's alleged "failure" at Fredericksburg and presents a solid argument for his true failure during the Maryland Campaign. Had Franklin been more aggressive following his success at Crampton's Gap on September 14, 1862, McClellan might have trounced Lee thoroughly at Sharpsburg, surely shortening the war. New information on Franklin's participation in the Red River Campaign is also fascinating. Following the war, Franklin ventured into a life of public service and business -- such as overseeing The National Home for Disabled Veterans and managing the Colt Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company -- and finally bowed out gracefully with the beginning of the new century.

   This is a fair and objective biography of a truly selfless patriot, whose life teaches us about the century during which America defined itself as a nation, a man whose vigor, enthusiasm, and accomplishment matched that of the dynamic era during which he lived.

No comments about Traitors: The Secession Period November 1860--July 1861.

5 comments about Kill-Cavalry: The Life of Union General Hugh Judson Kilpatrick.

1. The earlier critical comments about "Kill-Cavalry" are generally accurate. Here are some of the main points.
   
   1. Author Samual J. Martin is neither a trained writer nor a trained historian. He is a retired businessman in South Carolina whose post-retirement hobby is doing Civil War research. The lengthy bibliography attests to his detailed research, much of which is semi-original (manuscripts, official documents, correspondence, newspapers, etc.). His writing itself is dreadful, not in the sense of poor grammar or sentence structure but in its straightforward and completely uninvolving style.
   
   2. Although Kilpatrick led an extremely colorful (if brief) life, he is a difficult subject for historical research. His daughter burned his personal papers after his death, his contemporaries are long dead, and his tendency to exaggerate his successes and disguise his mistakes make most surviving accounts suspect. Factor in the difficulty of tracking the activities of any individual cavalry unit during the Civil War and you have a very difficult task making any definitive claims about Kilpatrick.
   
   3. Martin has an obvious ax to grind concerning his subject. While Kilpatrick was a self-promoting scoundrel, an objective examination of most of his contemporaries would reveal that these qualities were almost a prerequisite for ascendancy within either army. Martin's anti-Kilpatrick agenda sidetracks him from the two best biographical styles for a subject such as Kilpatrick. The most entertaining would be a light-hearted examination of his escapades (Kilpatrick was a Civil War version of actor Errol Flynn-both of Irish descent) and a fun look at his exploits would be quite entertaining. Another alternative would have been to draw parallels with contemporaries like Dan Sickles, Phil Sheridan, and George Custer. Unfortunately Martin's pious disapproval does not allow him to explore either avenue.
   
   4. Because of Martin's prejudices about his subject and his lack of good source material he seems compelled to editorialize throughout the book. Bad enough, but his narrative often contradicts his conclusions. For example, Martin is convinced that Kilpatrick was a cowardly soldier and points to many examples of Kilpatrick losing his nerve in combat situations. Yet at the same time he details Kilpatrick's drive for recognition and tendency to recklessly commit his command to action. Like all but the most senior cavalry officers, Kilpatrick was up in a saddle with his troopers on all their raids and maneuvers, and remained this style of cavalryman for almost the entire war. He was not an armchair general but a field officer in a serious pursuit of advancement and fame. There were far easier and safer commands for West Point trained officers. Had he been lazy or cowardly he would have sought a desk job but he believed the cavalry offered him the best prospects for advancement and recognition.
   
   5. Martin is highly critical of both Kilpatrick's command performance and his refusal to expose himself to danger at Brandy Station in 1863. He does not even mention Kilpatrick's saber fight with a hated West Point classmate during that engagement. But Eric Wittenberg goes into detail about this incident in "The Union Cavalry Comes of Age" (2003): Kilpatrick squared off with a Confederate officer he had known and disliked at West Point...the Southerner gave Kilpatrick a slight cut on the arm...receiving a vicious slash the Confederate officer reeled in his saddle. Seeing an opportunity Kilpatrick killed his injured foe with a slashing cut of his saber. The victorious colonel rejoined his brigade, proclaiming, "That rights a wrong. I have wanted to meet him ever since the war commenced".
   
   6. Rather than bring Kilpatrick to life, Martin fills many pages of the book with general Civil War history. For a book of only 268 pages, there is simply too much detail about the battles and movements of the two armies, without regard to whether Kilpatrick himself was involved.
   
   7. Martin sensationalizes the cavalry charge Kilpatrick and Merritt ordered during the 3rd day of Gettysburg. He goes into great detail about a somewhat dubious account of Kilpatrick's interaction with a subordinate commander, yet fails to examine the very real tactical opportunity that he and Merritt had recognized and were trying to exploit. One of Merritt regiments had tied up the two brigades of Confederate cavalry in Fairfield; leaving the right flank of Lee's army open to attack. Had Law's (formerly Hood's) division been positioned to support Longstreet's assault on the Union center, the cavalry charge would most likely have been a significant success.
   
   Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.



2. There are some figures of the Civil War that it is very easy to hate. Even today, very few Civil War buffs have anything good to say about Braxton Bragg or Henry Halleck for example. While not as well known as Bragg or Halleck, there is much to distain in the life of Hugh Judson Kilpatrick, a Union cavalry commander from New Jersey. Samuel J. Martin provides more than enough dirt on Kilpatrick's rather sordid personal life and less than honorable character. Kilpatrick was a selfish and vain man whose ambition for power and glory led him to act rashly and often foolishly while covering his mistakes in the press and reports to his superiors. Furthermore, Kilpatrick was a womanizer who had no qualms about cheating on his wife and discarding mistresses, even those who he impregnated. Martin certainly proves that General Kilpatrick was a scoundrel.
   
   Martin leads the reader through Kilpatrick's rather checkered Civil War career. Graduating from West Point in 1861, Kilpatrick served with the New York volunteers and became known for his rash charges and his willingness to fight. Martin seems to accept this reputation but seems to argue that Kilpatrick was a physical coward, a rather odd statement considering the general's willingness to fight on the battlefield or off (even calling out Southern cadets at West Point to fist fights). Kilpatrick won some fame for driving his men to within 2 miles of Richmond as part of the Stoneman Raid during the Chancelorsville campaign and became a general in the summer of 1863. While part of his division won laurels at Gettysburg (Custer's brigade), the Kilpatrick ordered charge on July 3 proved to be an error, costing the lives of many men of Farnwsorth's brigade including Farnsworth himself. Kilpatrick would lead another raid on Richmond in early 1864, hoping to free a number of Union prisoners, pass out Lincoln's amnesty proclomation and capture and perhaps kill key Confederate leaders including Jefferson Davis and his cabinet. Martin agrees with the Stephen Sears that Kilpatrick was in charge of the raid though a recent article by David Long (which he is turning into a book) argues that Dahlgren planned to kill Davis and that Kilpatrick, a notorious leaker to the press, was out of the loop. After the failure of the raid, Kilpatrick was sent west and led Union cavalry for Sherman's march to the sea and Carolina campaigns.
   
   After the war, Kilpatrick, who in the war expressed presidential ambitions, made two failed efforts to get the Republican gubenatorial nomination in New Jersey, ran unsuccessfully for the House of Represenatives in 1880 and twice served as ambasador to Chile. He passed way in 1881 in Chile at the age of 45. While a Republican, he was recalled from Chile by Grant which led to his supporting Horace Greely in 1872. Kilpatrick returned to the GOP and supported Hayes in 1876 and Garfield in 1880.
   
   Martin certainly reveals Kilpatrick's dismal character and offers a solid, if often overly critical, account of his military career. In all fairness Martin had little to work with as Kilpatrick's papers were destroyed. Still, Kilpatrick's political career could have been examined in greater detail. For all his faults, Kilpatrick had an energy and ambition to him which made him a fairly represenative figure for his times. One is left wondering, after reading Martin's book, why Kilpatrick simply was not shelved. Kilpatrick, again with all his baggage, was a fighter and those were few and far between in the Union ranks. His ambition forced him to the battlefield and took him into politics. While Martin reveals the dark side to this ambition, Kilpatrick rose out of youthful obscurity to win a solid reputation. He could not have been merely the talentless scoundrel that Martin depicts. While Martin seems to rely a great deal on secondary sources, he really had no other choice. Despite that, one suspects that Martin went into writing the book with his thesis already formulated and that is what proves frustrating about this book. Martin should have given the reader a portrait of Kilpatrick in full as opposed to bashing us over the head with how much of a jerk the man was.



3. 
   To say Hugh Kilpatrick was a controversial figure would be an understatement. Small in stature, it's my opinion he suffered from the "little man" complex: he attempted to over-compensate for his slight physical size by his recklessness and bravado. This would explain his rashness regarding his plan to attack Richmond and free the prisoners there, which was repulsed decidedly by the Confederates (though Sheridan attempted the same thing 10 weeks later with the same results). Disparaged by many of his fellow officers (Sherman called him a "damned fool"), it's also reported that his men respected him. Martin is highly critical.
   
   Kilpatrick was born in New Jersey in 1836 and graduated from West Point the year the Civil War broke out. He commanded a number of New York Cavalry brigades during the first two years of the war, receiving a serious wound at Big Bethel and then seeing much action in Virginia. After participating in the largest cavalry engagement of the war at Brandy Station in June 1863, he was promoted to brigadier general. He was conspicuous at Gettysburg, where his orders to E.J. Farnsworth to attack Hood, who was well-positioned behind stone walls, on the third day caused much slaughter to Farnsworth's men and Farnsworth's own death from five separate wounds. In the winter of 1864 he made his ill-fated attack on Richmond which resulted in failure. In the spring of that year he served in the Atlanta campaign and was wounded seriously for the second time at Resaca, GA. Recuperating by August, he performed well as commander of cavalry during the Carolina campaign and was a major factor in the capture of Fayetteville, NC, in March 1865. After the war he was appointed U.S. Minister to Chile, where he died in 1881.
   
   Martin's dislike for his subject is quite clear. In this he joins a long list of historians, most of whom regard Kilpatrick as showing poor judgment and costly wantonness. He finds his failure at Richmond to be his worst mistake. Despite this, however, I thought the book was interesting and well written, and made an honest attempt to capture the life of the man for the reader. The book also contained excellent maps and clear elucidation of military affairs. Not the definitive work on Kilpatrick, but not one for the waste heap, either.



4. This book smacks of a work done by someone who had a thesis and then did everything he could to prove it, rather than letting the research bring him to a conclusion.

   Fortunately, I did get the feeling that the basic history of Killpatrick was decent and reasonably fair-minded. At the end of each chapter, however, Martin adds his commentaty about how the foregoing information shows that Kilpatrick was a horrible leader, womanizer, thief, etc. At one point, Martin suggests that the attempt on Jefferson Davis' life introduced the idea of assination, even to the point of possibly leading to Lincoln's murder. Right.

   Killpatrick's womanizing, thievery, etc comes out, for sure, but were his casualities really highter than comparable commanders? That's not clear. He won some battles and lost others--like most Civil War leaders.




5. This author falls into the same trap that's been laid for researchers for the past 135 years. The most glaring example is the standard portrayal of Kilpatrick at Gettysburg, all of which is based on one source who admitted years later he was never a witness to what actually happened or was said on the field that day. Like researchers before him, the author missed this glaring truth.

   Here are two hints of Kilpatrick's character and performance: (1) His men held him in such high esteem that they petitioned Lincoln to have him promoted to general (a rare occurrence in the CW); and (2) after the battle of Gettysburg his men presented their commander with a Damascus sword in appreciation for his leadership on July 3.

   In short, an author who doesn't dig deeper than his predecessors is dancing to the worn-out tune of incredulity.

2 comments about The Gallant Dead: Union and Confederate Generals Killed in the Civil War.

1. This is an excellant reference volume which reads as a narrative in chronological order of the deaths of Union and Confederate generals. Should be an essential reference work alongside of Welsh- Medical Histories of union/confederate generals and Warners Generals In Blue/Gray.



2. My interest in military history has now moved to the Civil War.
   I have found the book to be exceptional as a cross reference to
   Civil War units and their leaders.
   As a point of reference,I never realized how many Civil War generals were killed and subsequently buried in the north.
   At any rate ,the book is an excellent read.

1 comments about The Historic Oakland Cemetery of Atlanta: Speaking Stones.

1. "The Historic Oakland Cemetery of Atlanta:Speaking Stones", like most of History Press' publications, is content laidened and complimented with photographs. There is so much to learn in this book, it left me wanting more -- which is a good thing! I learned so much about Atlanta history from the author's descriptions of the headstones in Oakland Cemetery.It was easy to put together a historical outline from her narrative. I like the way she turned each tombstone into a story, which ultimately is how we want our lives to be remembered. The Author pays tribute to these lives and makes us care, which is more than most history books accomplish. History Press appears to have a motive to keep local history alive. This book certainly accomplishes that, it keeps these men and woman live who now lie in Oakland Cemetary.
   
   As Administrator of the Georgia Writers Association, many books come across my desk for nomination in the Georgia Author of the Year Awards.When this book came in, I had to take it home to read it. I bring many books home, yet finish very few. I read this book cover to cover. It is a great read. Every historical site in Atlanta should sell this book. It is better than having a real live tour guide. It would be a great book for someone coming to Atlanta and wants to see the real story of Atlanta.

No comments about Lincoln's Veteran Volunteers Win the War: The Hudson Valley's Ross Brothers and the Union's Fight for Emancipation.

3 comments about Hell's Broke Loose In Georgia: Survival In A Civil War Regiment.

1. I first want to say that I have just within the last ten minutes finished this book and I wanted my fresh impressions put to print, here goes...
   
   "Hell's Broke Loose in Georgia Survival in a Civil War Regiment" by Scott Walker, 2005, University of Georgia Press. 310 pages, illustrated, maps and pictures.
   
   I am proud and happy to have a signed hardback copy of this work. It could be best described by the author by how much he felt about the men he was writing about when he wrote on the last page "I promised myself that I would place a copy of this book in a small wooden box and bury it at the foot of Robert Braswell's grave [Private, 57th GA, CSA]. In so doing, I simply want to say that his great-great-grandson has not forgotten the sacifice that he made to help the United States evolve into a great and wonderful nation. And I will wrap the wooden box in an American flag with fifty stars, a symbol of that new nation."
   
   "Interest"
   
   This is a history of the 57th Ga. told through letters and diaries and a detailed and researched history carefully worded and structured to keep the reader very interested. It was slow reading at first until about page 70 with the start of the Battle of Baker's Creek (Champion's Hill). The following is a list of the war's events that impressed me with it's detail and coverage of military actions.
   
   Kentucky Campaign
   Battle of Champion's Hill*
   Battle of Vicksburg
   Atlanta Campaign
   Battle of Peachtree Creek*
   Battle of Atlanta
   Battle of Jonesboro*
   Hood's Tennessee Campaign
   Hood's Retreat from Tennessee*
   Battle of Bentonville*
   
   *These had great interest to me in enlightning me on events new or enhanced information.
   
   "Negatives"
   
   Slow. The book didn't seem to be all that different or exciting than any other Civil War history you would find in magazines or reference material for the first one third of the book. The only real mistake I found was several references to Enterprise, Alabama as the rendevous point for paroled Vicksburg Confederates. My experience has taught me it was Enterprise, Mississippi.
   
   "Positives"
   
   Once you get past the "slow" parts it picks up momentum like Sherman through Georgia. My favorite parts being Chapter #19 Kennesaw Mountain through the last Chapter #30 "Coming Home".
   
   "Impression"
   
   I came away from this book with a great appreciation for these men and what they suffered and a new knowledge of military events. There is a couple of pages in the last Chapter dedicated to a post war court trail of an ex-Confederate Irishman and the jury of his peers, men who served with him in the war. It is really interesting to read the actual court transcripts of his speech. Great book.



2. This was an outstanding book on the brave soldiers from the 57th GA regiment. It was really hard to put it down as I found myself getting a real sense of the challenges, these brave Americans endured. If someone wants to get a real feel for what these men went through, here's your chance!



3. My son's got me this book for my birthday knowing I enjoy reading about the Civil War. I could hardly put it down and had it read in less than a week. The author does an amazing job of combining the history of the war with the letters of members of the 57th Georgia Regiment, of which his great great grandfather was a member. The difficulties this group of soldiers faced were much greater than the bullets from the Union. Disentary, illness, improper clothing, and questionable leadership all contributed to their story. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in the Civil War.

3 comments about A War of the People: Vermont Civil War Letters.

1. I purchased this book as a Christmas gift for hubby! I had no thought of reading it until it arrived at the house! Looks very interesting! After he is done with it I will place it within my reading material. There are pictures through out. Ok, so maybe I will read it BEFORE I give it to him for Christmas! :)



2. I don't think I can improve on the e-mail I sent to friends and family as soon as I finished the book..... 'I just finished a book called "A War of the People" by Jane's good friend Jeff Marshall. It is a collection of letters from (and to) Civil War soldiers from Vermont. I can't say enough about this book. I feel as if I've just read a great novel, and yet it's all true. Jeff has done a brilliant job of choosing the letters, and many of the letter-writers reappear, as you're taken through the course of the war. The most emotionally wrenching aspect is that Jeff includes a brief but pithy biography of each soldier at the back of the book, listed alphabetically, so that after reading a letter, you can look up the soldier to find that he lived until 1915 and was "wounded ... at Savage Station , June 29, 1862. ... Mustered out June 19, 1865. Returned to Concord and became a farmer. Married Eliza E. Hale (to whom some of his letters are addressed) in 1867." Or that he was "Killed in action at Cedar Creek, October 19, 1864." I found myself biting my nails reading the letters, barely able to keep from turning to the bios in mid-letter to see if the soldier survived the war. These soldiers, most of whom were farm boys, were eloquent nonetheless. I guess you can tell I really, really loved this book, and I highly recommend it. (Jane's family: you know Jeff and may have already read the book, so please forgive my literary euphoria. I just finished it and went right to the computer.) Tom'



3. University Press of New England asked me to review Jeff Marshall's new book, "A War of the People: Vermont Civil War Letters." In the words of Private William Daniels, of Barton, one of the letters included in the book, "I will respond simply." WOW!

   Over 140 letters to and from 78 soldiers, from practically every unit Vermont fielded during the course of the war! Letters from all theaters of the war, covering every period of time from the Spring of 1861 to the Spring of 1865! You'll find a governor (or at least his wife), a general or two and some Colonels. But for the most part you'll find common soldiers, their fathers and mothers, their brothers and sisters, their friends. Don't expect these letters to divulge some great heretofore unsolved mystery about the war. These letters aren't about the war; they are about life, about the people, and Jeff has done a great job collecting just the right letters to show the whole gamut of emotions and attitudes the soldiers and their families expressed, and the joy and concerns and pain they endured during the course of the war.

   I usually have a hard time carefully reading the introduction and commentary in a book of letters (I want to get to the letters!), but Jeff does a great job of explaining the rationale behind the soldiers' reasons for writing, and has given accurate and relevant background for each season of the war. Its a great read! I hope this is the first of a number of books like it.

5 comments about Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and the War Years/One-Volume Edition (The Library of the Presidents).

1. Abraham Lincoln comes to life through the words of his devoted and talented biographer, Carl Sandburg. This edition is an excellent compromise between Sandburg's six-volume edition and the shorter, incomplete texts that abound regarding Lincoln. Take your time with this masterpiece and follow Lincoln from youth through the climax of his political career in Washington.



2. Thousands upon thousands of Civil War books are available, as American readers seem to have a limitless appetite for that era. If you are looking for the best, read Sandburg on Lincoln. A major American poet takes on one of the best-known, best-loved, most tragic of American historical figures.

   When I was a freshman in high school, our English teacher offered us a deal: Anyone who read Sandburg's biography (then in six rather daunting volumes) would not have to attend class for a semester. I took him up on that offer, and was blessed to find my way through Sandburg's gift to the American people. Here is the highly detailed, thoroughly researched, and articulately written story of Abe Lincoln's years among us.

   If you have time to read only one of the Civil War books from that burgeoning genre, read this one. You will come to know, from the inside out, this prairie boy who became a towering figure in American history.




3. I believe Sandburg is the only author to win the Pulitzer for both poetry and history. Originally a multi volume history taking decades to complete, this single volume work is an appetizer. I read it in the 1960's and went on with relish to the full multi volume work.

   This single volume is insightful, laser like in it's detail yet painting the times of Lincoln in a broad and beautiful brush. Did you know that in 1860 tools could be honed to within one ten thousandth of an inch of accuracy? That magazines and newspapers said the world would change for-ever because of the new "instant" communication nation wide?

   This is more than biography. It is a woven fabric depicting the times and life of Abraham Lincoln.




4. I collect old and rare books. My mother bought me a copy of Sandburg's one-volume edition published in 1954. Honestly, it was slow to start, but once it got to the 1850's, I couldn't put it down. Lincoln's deeds are so often trivialized in our history books. But Sandburg meticulously builds up the background in a way that forces his reader to appreciate the magnitude of the moment, and the importance of each decision--whether right or wrong--that President Lincoln made. It easily took three full weeks to read, but it was more than worth it. I closed the book thinking, "I can't believe it's over!" My advice: Read this book right away, and make someone else read it too. You'll need someone to talk to when you're through!



5. This biography of lincoln is an unbiased look into the man's life. You'll find everything you would expect and much, much, more. This is not a book for the weak hearted reader. Many of the sections seem to be endless. This is not however a negative, the opposite is true. Sandburg's quest for a truly indepth redering of the Lincoln story creates these long spells and the pay off is just. Much of the humor in the book is dated and therefore will be lost on many readers. Once again, an outstanding book that gets an easy 5 stars.

No comments about The Life, Crime & Capture of John Wilkes Booth.