3 comments about The Monitor Chronicles : One Sailor's Account. Today's Campaign to Recover the Civil War Wreck.

1. The biggest disapointment is that Greer does not write about the most interesting parts of the Monitor's history: the trip down to Hampton roads and the battle with the Virginia. It is about his shipboard life which details his illnesses and money making schemes to augment his pay which was not paid out to him in full causing financial hardship at home. Mostly of interest for its insights into a sailor's life, less so for info on the Monitor. It's a decent book to supplement other info on the Monitor but not the book to get if you get only one.



2. The Mariner's Museum has done a commendable job in putting together such an attractive collection of letters from Monitor sailor George Geer to his wife. Through his eyes, we see a more human perspective on the Civil War and the famous battle between the Monitor and the C.S.S. Virginia than is available through most other sources. However, at times this perspective is altogether too human, as Geer devotes page after page of his letters to more mundane esoterica such as selling merchandise to his fellow crew members. The Mariner's Museum also used the needlessly repetitive and districting format style of putting some of the very same passages from Geer's letters in text, in bold, oversize text, and/or in actual illustrations of Geer's letters -- as a result, the reader constantly finds himself/herself reading duplicate passages. I also felt a little short-changed by the brevity of the discussion on the current state of the Monitor wreck and the plans for its future recovery and conservation. A few more illustrations of the wreck itself, and a few less of Geer's letters, would have been welcome. Other than these quibbles, it was a very enjoyable and informative look at a revolutionary ship through the eyes of someone who was there when history was made at Hampton Roads.



3. An interesting information source for life aboard the Monitor. There aren't alot of books out there about the ship, and I think this book was very interesting and needed. Also George Geer's actual letters are very interesting to read, as he tells everything that happened aboard the ship.

1 comments about Narrative of the War Between the States (Da Capo Paperback).

1. This book was written shortly after the war long before Early became the primary leader of the Lost Cause, a major player in the post death celebration of Lee, and the chief architect of who to blame for Confederate defeat. The book is worthwhile since Early has no negative contrived remarks for Longstreet in this 1866 era autobiography at Gettysburg. In the early 1870s, after Lee's death, he ridiculously subscribes to Pendleton's made up version of Lee's "sunrise attack order" to Longstreet that Pendleton alleged occurred on the second day. Early's book lacks any criticism of Longstreet since it is written before acrimony that started after Lee's passing. There is notable commentary on his valley campaign that is particular of interest as "Old Jube" was pretty critical of his boys at Cedar Creek where, with half the manpower of Sheridan's forces, his army virtually routed the Union Army for the first half of the day then losing steam as a huge counterattack reversed the day. His role in Chancellorsville is interesting as well as he was left with 9,000 men to create a hoax of strength before Sedgwicks 50,000, that was eventually short lived. Not an exciting read but a notable perspective of Early, contrasting his early penmenship and position before he used his pen as a spear later in life, putting his stamp on his version of history and a severe critic of all that disagreed with him.

5 comments about George B. McClellan and Civil War History: In the Shadow of Grant and Sherman.

1. I am in two minds about this book. On the one hand: history has not been kind to "Little Mac", and it was about time somebody stood up for McClellan. Mr. Rowland has picked up the gauntlet. Lately, it seems to me, one can detect a bit of a trend towards that end. Mr. Rowland and other authors have reexamined and reassessed the General's personality and actions. Mr. Ethan S. Rafuse's book on McClellan ("McClellan's War") is another example of a fresh look at McClellan.
   To do so and fly in the face of the "communis opinio" (the widely held view) of McClellan is in itself commendable.
   
   On the other hand: I don't think that there is much purpose to this excercise. As I see it, and I'm pretty sure in that many other ACW scholars, buffs and aficionados, share this point of view, no matter how fresh or objective one tries to look at George Brinton McClellan, one reaches the same conclusions again and again: that the General was a deeply flawed man, to say the least, vain and boastful, and yet (or perhaps even because of this) also extremely cautious, highly insecure and frankly, paranoid. I've read of people, in his own time already, not just smart-mouth Amazon book-reviewers like yours truly, referring to him as a crackpot. I even think it was Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. Well, we know that Secretary Stanton was no great friend of McClellan and that he was quite stern in his opinions about the Generals he had to deal with, but in this case his ususally hot-headed judgement is not necessarily a wrong one.
   
   Is it time for some revisionist history concerning McClellan? Is this necessary? Are the commonly held views of McClellan subject to debate, are these views thought to be untrue, unjust, unfair or even unhistorical by a growing number of ACW scholars, students and buffs? No, of course they are not. Because the general view of McClellan is born out of something "Little Mac" himself so conspicuously lacked: common sense.
   
   Major General George Brinton McClellan had it all when he was called to Washington in 1861. He had a towering reputation (which was undeserved, after his successfull but minor campaign in Western Virginia, but the Union was elated to have a military success at last), he was hailed as the savior of the Union and he was given command of the Union's most important field army. The President and the cabinet trusted him, deferred to his judgement and put themselves at his disposition in stead of the other way round. He soon succeeded in ousting Winfield Scott, the venerable US Army Chief, and became General in Chief of all Union armies. McClellan, catapulted into this position of enormous power, then started to believe the adulation and the flattery of the people, the press and the politicians himself. He seemed to need it more and more, because as his influence and power increased, so did his insecurities, his doubts, his paranoia and his unbalance.
   Well, we don't need to make to much of McClellan's flaws, after all, who of is isn't flawed in some, or even many, ways. Mr. Rowland correctly makes that point. McClellan wasn't more or less flawed than Grant and or Sherman. The thing is, however, that Grant and Sherman overcame their flaws, faced their demons and learned to function adequately if not superbly in command.
   McClellan did not succeed in ridding himself of his fears or in learning to control them, nor in curbing his insecurities and his paranoid tendencies, and as such he was definitely not the right man to command the Army of the Potomac in the field.
   
   Also there is cause to question his moral and indeed even his physical courage: McClellan stayed well away from the field of fight during any action. And there are more instances of behavior which justify this question mark against "Little Mac"'s honor of than the often cited episode of McClellan sailing away on a gunboat just after the beginning of the battle of Malvern Hill. An "unforgivable act of pusillanimity", as was said by some at the time, for which McClellan never offered an adequate explanation. Well, surely he was not prepared to get down to the level of his accusers and react to such slander, mr Rowland says. Yeah, right. That is the way in which people like McClellan usually respond to such considerations. I think, as do many others, that there remains a reasonable doubt as to McClellan's courage, based on his actions.
   
   As to his judgment, well, let's name an aspect of this that puts a different light on the General's fitness for command. I'm talking of course of McClellan's tendency to systematically overestimate the number of enemy troops opposing him. He did this from day one in command and kept it up to right after Antietam, when he was finally relieved, in october 1862.
   
   Why oh why did he do this? How did he come by those incredibly fantastic figures of hundreds of thousands of rebels opposing him and his poor little army? Was it all Pinkerton's fault? The great detective, after all, supplied the figures to McClellan. Pinkerton later said that he and his operatives had always given McClellan true numbers to the best of their knowledge. He also stated that they had not supplied McClellan with data which would support the exaggerated numbers of troops McClellan claimed Johnston and after him Lee had arrayed against him. In other words: McClellan took what Pinkerton gave him and then did some calculating of his own. He tailored the facts to fit his opinions and impressions, a professional hazard for a General, made all the more probable by McClellan's psychological make-up.
   Whatever the psychological reasons; his inability to admit mistakes is one of the least attractive traits of McClellan's character.
   After the war, indeed even during it, it became clear that Johnston and Lee had never commanded anything near the numbers of men that McClellan had claimed in his frantic cries for reinforcements and on which he had based his overcautious strategies.
   After doing some maths it must have dawned on the people of the North that the war, which had gone on for four bloody years, could have ended in 1862. It could have ended with McClellan taking Richmond in june 1862 or with McClellan crushing Lee's badly outnumbered army at Antietam. In those days McClellan had acted too cautiously because he had convinced himself he was outnumbered. Even McClellan must have known, pretty soon after the war, that he had been tricked, by the rebels and by his own mind. But he never made any comment on the question!
   He never apologized (well, that would have been impossible for a man like him) but neither did he ever explain his behavior. He never said on what he had he had based his now manifestly wrong actions in the Peninsula and Antietam campaigns!
   
   What I even less understand, why weren't the people of the Union states furious with him for failing to win the war in 1862? He dawdled, faltered and failed and in doing so wasted the opportunities to end the war out of weakness, lack of resolve, moral cowardice and pig-headedness! He had Lee's battleplans in his possession just prior to Antietam, for Pete's sakes!! Why wasn't there more of an outcry against him? The war lasted two more years thanks to him! Why was he not dragged before congress or before a court-martial? In my view there was every reason to do so.
   
   Now to the plus side. McClellan made the Army of the Potomac. He built it from the masses of raw volunteers that came to Washington in 1861. He trained these men, and selected their commanders, and he made some inspired choices in this regard (men like Gibbon, Hancock, and Hunt, for instance). He drilled the army, organized it and fed, clothed and housed it. He kept the army in good health an kept it supplied.
   The fine performance of the men of the Army of the Potomac, especially that of the infantry and the gunners, owed a very great deal to the rigourous training programme to which McClellan subjected them. The General turned out to possess an enormous talent for organization and training. He honed the skills of the army and prepared it to an excellent degree for it's task. The credit for this is largely due to McClellan. Maybe this was part of the problem: McClellan built the army and knew it's strengths and it's weaknesses. After having made this huge army he was reluctant to commit it to action. They were all so green! There were so few regulars! He could not do what the French had done in 1793 when they fused the professional Royal Army with the new volunteer army, made up of inexperienced national guardsmen. They amalgamated the two types of soldiers in a new army: they put one regular army batallion in a demi-brigade with two batallions of volunteers. In this way the old sweats showed the rookies the ropes of soldiering and infused old-fashioned discipline while in turn the volunteers were an example and an inspiration of revolutionary elan to the old soldiers.
   McClellan could not do this: there were only some 17.000 regular soldiers in the US Army in 1861. He felt he had to use his army very very carefully and cautiously, if he lost it, he would lose the war, and the Union with it. This realization, of which he convinced himself, eventually paralyzed him.
   
   This is book that makes you think, and think again, on McClellan. Four stars for that!!!
   I do not share Mr. Rowland's conclusions, though. In 1862 McClellan was not the best man for the job to command the Army of the Potomac.
   It would have been for him and for his reputation had he continued in an organizing/facilitating capacity. Lincoln should have made him Chief of Staff in Washington, in fact, should have given "Little Mac" the job Henry Halleck got in 1862, or should have made him Quartermaster-General or even Secretary of War.
   It would in all probability have meant that McClellan would have become the Lazare Carnot of the Union: "The Organizer of Victory" The man who supplied the tools that won the war for the Union. He could then have supervised the productions of arms and ammunition, the supplying of the army, it's transportation, the training of it's new recruits, and he would more than probably have done a great job. He was the born military organizer. He was not, alas, a great field commander. McClellan would have lived to great respect and glory and would not have died at 58, of a heart condition which probably stemmed from the stress of supreme command, and which after the war was aggravated by the constant stress of battling to keep his reputation intact. McClellan died a controversial figure, respected and yet partly tragic, partly ridiculous. But he had only himself to blame for this.



2. As an Amazon.com reviewer, I can see that I am going to be in the decided minority in my opinion on this book. Hopefully I can adequately point out my perceived problems with Mr. Rowland's work, and yet maintain the positives other reviewers have posted.

   I have long been fascinated with George B. McClellan as not only a Civil War general, but as a Civil War personality as well. Here we have a man who should have been the one, single, Union military success - a man who had it all: brains, looks, youth, education, and family. And yet, there is no single Union general who managed to accomplish so little in over a year's time, with so much.

   I hoped that Thomas J. Rowland's "George B. McClellan & Civil War History: In the Shadow of Grant and Sherman" would provide some insight into McClellan's flawed character that did not come forth from modern biographers such as Stephen Sears. Yet within Rowland's work, I was sorely disappointed.

   Rowland sets forth to disprove Little Mac's critics by doing the one thing in Civil War writing that I abhor - rather than building up his subject, and letting McClellan's story stand on its own - he sets out to drag everyone else down. For some strange reason, there appears to be more and more of this going on in Civil War historiography of late, much to the detriment of our understanding of history.

   Rowland sets out to outline the perceived problems with McClellan's personality and generalship, and rather than refute the contentions directly, often sets out to discredit others such as Grant, Sherman, and Edwin Stanton. If Rowland's guy cannot stand tall, then no one else will, as well. For example, we have on page 67 a typical statement of Rowland's: "The notion that McClellan was the butt of more embarrassing incidents than anyone else is greatly diminished by any extended review of the war's comical and tragic mistakes." And from there, rather than review Little Mac, Rowland sets out to review other participants on history's stage.

   Rowland attempts to minimize McClellan's flaws by qualifying his admittance of such flaws throughout the book. Thus, we see Rowland admit, cautiously, that McClellan could be petty, vain, and vindictive "on occasion." In other places, his review of other historian's work is tinged with statements like "Unfortunately, that is not entirely true." The reader is left to try to ponder which portions are partially true, and partially not.

   This book is not a comprehensive analysis of the life and times of General George B. McClellan, but a selected bibliography of truth and half-truth that uses only what the author wants the public to see about McClellan - and more importantly, anyone else held in higher esteem than the Young Napoleon that can be drawn down to the perceived level that history holds McClellan.

   All in all, this was a very disappointing work. If you want to come to grips with the enigma that was McClellan, this book will leave you very short of your expectations.




3. The author, Thomas J. Rowland, develops his thesis that General George McClellan has been unfairly characterized by both contemporaries and historians. The first half of the book discusses the common criticisms of McClellan. In Chapter 2 the so called psychological profile on McClellan is reviewed stating that "Of all the reasons why McClellan may have been a gravely flawed commander, the exploitation of the psychological model is the most flawed itself...." He notes that both Grant and Sherman "....trailed a significant baggage of personality deficiencies into the Civil War" observing that "If anyone came close to experiencing a psychic episode during the Civil War it was Sherman in Kentucky."

   In the chapter discussing McClellan's lesser faults, the author notes that both Grant and Sherman had similar faults, but they weren't judged by these faults nor should McClellan's strategic abilities be evaluated by his peccadilloes. Acknowledging that McClellan played a major role in his poor working relations with Lincoln, the author notes that "....the president was not frank about how military goals were to be shaped by the political dimensions of the rebellion." In addition, Stanton's dislike of McClellan did not help in the commander's poor relationship with the president. However, the author does not imply that McClellan was faultless noting "....his failure to delegate authority and his obstinate secrecy" Another fault was his unwillingness to take risks. The greatest question is whether he made the best use of the Army of the Potomac. Rowland concludes that "In any comparison with other Civil War commanders, particularly those to whom he is unfavorably compared, McClellan's personal shortcomings were not that remarkable."

   Chapter 4's discussion of the early months of war provides valuable insight into the ultimate conduct of the war. The widely held Northern belief that most Southerners were not committed secessionists initially led to a limited war strategy. After the First Manassas McClellan recommended that to restore the Union in the shortest time, the North had to "crust the rebellion at one blow...." Rowland notes "McClellan's was....a well reasoned strategic proposal. His conservative views.... reflected....widespread appeal throughout the North at that time...." In support of this strategy, he launched the Peninsula Campaign which was undermined by Washington politics and lack of support. The book states

   "....the half defeat on the Peninsula.... spelled the end of the conciliatory" strategy. For this campaign to succeed, joint operations were mandatory; and the author observes that in the early stages of the war, the inability of Federal armies to cooperate in joint operations contrasted sharply with the military situation Grant inherited in 1864.

   The review of civilian leaders alarm regarding Washington's safety is noteworthy. Extraordinary concerns for the capital's safety contrasted with months of endless nagging McClellan to assume the offensive. However the troops needed for an offensive had to come from those providing the capital's defense. Both McClellan and Grant faced the problem of Washington's safety with McClellan trying to comply and Grant often giving only limited support. The book concludes "McClellan's Peninsula campaign, the first major Federal offensive in East, experienced problems uniquely its own, not the least....was the administration's failure to sustain plans they had.... agreed to support." During the first two war years, many Northerners believed the Confederates would be quickly defeated perhaps in one major campaign. When McClellan assumed command in 1861, he inherited an untrained and disorganized army. The author notes that McClellan implemented schools of instruction and all volunteers were given basic training directed by an experienced officer. In addition, he recognized the deficit in trained officers (several were political hacks) and arranged effective training. The book frequently notes, that the training and organizing of the army was a major contribution. Considering, the sheer folly of his predecessor's taking an unprepared army to defeat at the First Bull Run, McClellan's unwillingness to assume the offensive in 1861 with an untrained army was prudent and not excessive caution. Unfortunately, in 1862, politics and lack of support doomed his Peninsula campaign.

   Rowland writes "....little attention is paid to the context in which McClellan dealt with the difficulties that faced the Federal army in the first fifteen months of the war. ....his early tenure deprived him of the advantage of leading mature and seasoned civilian soldiers, adapted to the demands of a new age of warfare...." As one historian noted, McClellan "suffered the frictions and frustrations of being first." The text notes that Sherman observed that Napoleon took three years to build an army and "....here it is expected in ninety days..." The author notes the irony that McClellan was relieved of command when "He had effectively divided Lee's army into widely separated halves, intending to drive between them. The celerity of those moves alarmed Lee...." This could have been a critical blow.

   The text continues that McClellan might have been forgiven a multiple of failures had he kept his eye on the military objective, the destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia. However, McClellan's strategy to capture Richmond was not without merit as Richmond was a critical manufacturing, transportation and financial center. The Tredegar Iron Works alone justified the capture of Richmond. Richmond's fall during the first two war years would have been devastating to the Confederacy. Regarding Antietam, Rowland correctly notes that regardless of McClellan's shortcomings, Antietam was a Union victory. McClellan had stopped Lee from delivering a demoralizing blow on northern soil.

   The book concludes, "McClellan's strategy, though reflective of the unrealistic war aims of the years 1861-62,was cogent, reasoned, and consistent with conventional military wisdom.... McClellan can scarcely be elevated to the ranks of the great captains of war, but he was hardly the worst that the conflict dragged into the center stage."

   The book is somewhat repetitious and devotes too much space to comparing McClellan's faults with similar faults of Grant and Sherman. However, the book is worth reading for its discussion of Union military and political strategy during the first two years of the Civil War.




4. Thomas J. Rowland set out to prove that, although George McClellan was not a great general, neither was he as bad as so many Civil War historians and writers have depicted him. I believe that he has succeeded. Having read Stephen Sears' classic biography on "Mac", I was certain that the definitive McClellan verdict was a fait accompli. How wrong I was! Historians T. Harry Williams, Kenneth P. Williams, and Bruce Catton were also cited for a less than even-handed assessment of McClellan. Still, one must add that Rowland did not maliciously criticize the intent of these historians. He merely pointed out that they needlessly made Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman--men who remain giants without anyone's help--larger than they should be, at McClellan's expense. After examining their records during the first two years of the war, each of these men showed less than a superlative level of performance, contrary to popular assumption. I think that Rowland's book is one of best buys I have ever made. A more superbly-written, well-argued, and illuminating book on George McClellan and his impact on the Civil War and its interpretation would be hard to find. It's great. Buy it!



5. Thomas J. Rowland set out to prove that, although George McClellan was not a great general, neither was he as bad as so many Civil War historians and writers have depicted him. I believe that he has succeeded. Having read Stephen Sears' classic biography on "Mac", I was certain that the definitive McClellan verdict was a fait accompli. How wrong I was! Historians T. Harry Williams, Kenneth P. Williams, and Bruce Catton were also cited for a less than even-handed assessment of McClellan. Still, one must add that Rowland did not maliciously criticize the intent of these historians. He merely pointed out that they needlessly made Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman--men who remain giants without anyone's help--larger than they should be, at McClellan's expense. After examining their records during the first two years of the war, each of these men showed less than a superlative level of performance, contrary to popular assumption. I think that Rowland's book is one of best buys I have ever made. A more superbly-written, well-argued, and illuminating book on George McClellan and his impact on the Civil War and its interpretation would be hard to find. It's great. Buy it!

5 comments about A METEOR SHINING BRIGHTLY.

1. Perhaps my main objection to this collection is one must enter the undertaking with the assumption that Patrick Cleburne was both infallible and the almighty's gift to the Confederacy. If you are a die hard Cleburnite, you will enjoy the sermons. If you are objective in your approach, or just looking for more background information on the man, the collection will leave you wanting.
   
   Good biographical sketches offer their subject warts and all. This is not done here. Several of the essays are not well researched, casting the entire volume in poor light. In sharp contrast White's work well done. At the same time, as typical for Joslyn's work, the overall tone is so jaundiced against the Federal side, one wonders why the Yankees ever could win a battle, much less the war!



2. A Meteor Shining Brightly is an absorbing read of many aspects of Cleburne's life:

   1. His family background and struggles in 1840s Ireland.
   2. His acceptance by the people in his adopted hometown of Helena, Arkansas.
   3. Early war years and well-earned promotions.
   4. Particular battles: Shiloh, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, Ringgold Gap, Pickett's Mill, Atlanta, and finally, Franklin.
   5. His controversial, yet well-thought out proposal to offer freedom for slaves who offered to fight for the Confederacy (slavery was doomed to fail and the Confederacy, led by Robert E. Lee, sought to include slaves as soldiers towards the end of the war).
   6. His obviously strong moral character.
   7. Proclivity to shyness around women and his intense and successful courtship of Susan Tarleton (too bad he did not survive the war and marry Susan!).
   8. His sensitive nature (yes, men can be strong and sensitive).

   Having been a Cleburne admirer for many years, all I can say is:

   What a read!

   I highly recommend the book for anyone interested in learning more about a very capable and often overlooked Civil War general.




3. A majority of the essays in this book are quite well done, but a few shallow efforts such as Alethea Sayers' quite-clearly poorly researched article leave gaping holes in the text. Cartwright's effort is well-presented and Joselyn's article, while written with readability in mind leaves the reader with more questions than answers. A consistantly written biography of Cleburne would be preferable to this halting, sometimes good, sometimes bad collection.



4. Being a non-historian (this is the only history book I've read cover to cover in 7 years), I was initially dreading reading this book. However, its well-organized format, its to-the-point style (to which almost all of the authors ascribed), and its information were incredible. This is an enjoyable read. FYI, I also sent an e-mail to the author of the book as I was tracking down Cleburne's original work, and she very graciously replied within a day, informing me that his work was at the University of Arkansas. READ THIS BOOK!!!



5. A Meteor Shining Brightly : Essays on the Life and Career of Major General Patrick R. Cleburne by Mauriel Phillips Joslyn is a collection of numerous essays about the life of Confederate Major General Patrick R. Cleburne. It is organized in chronological order so as to depict his entire life. The decision to organize the book in such a manner forms the foundation for the primary weakness of the endeavor. The book is not necessarily the best essays on Cleburne's life and the different authors prevent any continuity from chapter to chapter other than time.

   There are certain parts of Cleburne's life that are appropriate for the essay format. Several areas are the early years in Ireland and it effect on his latter career, Cleburne's proposal that slaves be freed and incorporated into the Confederate Army and his death at the Battle of Franklin. In addition, the issue of how an individual who understood and identified with the downtrodden of Ireland could have been so devoted to the Confederacy which was based on the slavery of human beings is not even mentioned in the essays. Instead of treating these issues in depth, the collection at best treats them as another part of Cleburne's life. This is a shame, for Cleburne's life, and especially his proposal to enlist slaves into the Confederate Army, deserves a more in depth treatment.

   The collection seems to be trapped between its desire to be a biography and a collection of essays exploring different views of Cleburne's life. By trying to do both, it did neither well. The collection does succeed in putting forward the facts of Cleburne's life in a fairly easy to read format. The individual authors are all well qualified and write well. However, if one is looking for a straight forward biography of Cleburne, I would suggest Stonewall of the West : Patrick Cleburne and the Civil War (Modern War Studies) by Craig L. Symonds.

3 comments about Abraham Lincoln's Political Faith.

1. Rarely does a scholoraly book come to market that appeals greatly to me. Especially so in the vast collection of Lincoln books that are so readily available. Many are either dedicated to the proposition that he was a racist fool or a great Emancipator. But this book is outstanding and unique. Carefully argued, Dr. Fornieri illustrates superbly Lincoln's biblical faith and how he mastered using it without sounding like a zealot. Lincoln's masterery of the English language is unparallled and this book shows with solid research this fact. In addition, the book provides a fascinating critique of the southern politic and clergy who argued that slavery was biblically ordained. How Lincoln deftly argued on the contrary is an American miracle and Dr. Fornieri has illuminated this fact expertly. Read this book slowly, because it is worth digesting. Lincoln always wrote for the ear, not the eye so he urged those who read his letters to read them slowly out loud. Try doing this with this book and it will hit home. Outstanding book on our best president - the 16th one. There are never too many good books on any topic and Lincoln remains a great source for the able scholar and history lover.



2. This well-researched and carefully written book is judicious in its approach to Lincoln's thought and insightful in its analysis. Indeed, its author is remarkably--and reliably--conversant with a variety of related disciplines, including theology, political theory, philosophy, and history. The result is one of the best books--of an unusually good crop--that have appeared on Lincoln in the past ten years. I hope that Fornieri's excellent work gains a wide audience, because its sound arguments and clear presentation richly deserve consideration alongside the deservedly well-recognized treatments of Allen Guelzo, William Lee Miller, Ronald White, Mark Noll, Richard Carwardine, and others who have written on Lincoln's faith and politics.

   We will never grow tired of exploring Lincoln's thought. Why? Because it was so profound for his own time and remains so illuminating for our own.




3. Dr. Fornieri's book is a thoroughly-researched, highly-interesting work, discussing how Abraham Lincoln's actions during his Presidency during the Civil War resulted from his combining a sincere Bible-based religious faith with (his interpretation of) the vision of the American Founders, particularly Jefferson.

   Critics of Lincoln's policies (both those of his time and modern ones) have attributed his strengthening of the federal government, his use of Biblical references in speeches and letters, and his Emancipation Proclamation, to cynical reasons (including messianic ambitions on Lincoln's part). Fornieri addresses and convincingly refutes these arguments, using voluminous quotes from throughout Lincoln's life. The author effectively counters the argument that Lincoln's use of Scripture in speeches and letters was merely an affectation for political convenience or just the common mode of speech at the time. Fornieri shows, through the use of Lincoln's letters and speeches (pre-Presidential and later), that Lincoln's religious faith -although non-sectarian- was sincere and heartfelt. The author also defends Lincoln's actions during the war, including the Emancipation Proclamation, as wholly consistent with his long-standing personal and political beliefs, as well as with the intent of men like Jefferson.

   One of the most interesting sections in the book, in my opinion, is the analysis of the theological/Scriptural arguments used by proslavery clergy to not only defend slavery, but to attack antislavery efforts as heretical and "against God's will". Fornieri takes this topic, which is seldom-discussed (particularly by modern-day Confederacy apologists) and shows how Lincoln elegantly and effectively countered the alleged Scriptural defenses for slavery.

   The book, being a work of academic research, is not an easy or casual read by any means, but it is well-written and well-researched, and is accessible and compelling enough to hold the interest of those interested in learning more about Lincoln's personal and political philosophies as well as the use and misuse of Scripture during Lincoln's time.

2 comments about Charles Sumner and the Coming of the Civil War.

1. This book takes up the story of Charles Sumner from the beginnning of his involvement with the anti-slavery cause and up to the beginning of the Civil War. This and the companion book, Charles Sumner and the Rights of Man are landmark books in a way since they served to alter fundamentally the way we see the great anti slavery figures of the abolitionist cause. Sumner's career was set as a brilliant, if at times, tactless representative of the anti-slavery cause.
   
   Sumner began early, studying at the feet of John Quincy Adams and formulating notions of the law and human rights that led to his pre-war prominance. Until the Civil War, Sumner was the most prominent figure for anti-slavery. The senate proved a bully pulpit when most other national figures tried to wish away the controvery of slavery, Sumner gloried in denouncing the practice. It was because of this that he was savagely beaten by Preston Brooks on the Senate floor and returned by the people of Mass. even though he spent two years attempting to recover.
   
   This book captures the man and shows how he was great not in spite of his faults, but because of them.



2. The author focuses his attention on Sumner's pre-Civil War years when his influence on behalf of the Union and the antislavery cause reached its zenith.

   David Donald is renowned for his meticulous research and well written books. He used diaries, manuscripts, scrapbooks, family histories, letters, newspaper files, and valued secondary sources to flesh out his subject. Donald spent ten years on this book and during that time had to absorb the arcane knowledge of the 19th century in such subjects as medicine, law, politics, etc. His scholarship is impeccable. Though forty years have elapsed since the original publication of this book it still satisfies both the casual and serious reader.

   If a theme can be assigned to this very good book, it would be, "Sumner was a man who wouldn't compromise his principles no matter the cost." Sumner believed, "...to sanction the enslaving of a single human being was an act which cannot be called small, unless the whole moral law which it overturns or ignores is small." He was convinced that the appeasement of slave holders was impossible; that the various compromises enacted by the Senate were abdications of Northern principle in order to placate the South and to forestall an inevitable constitutional crisis. Sumner pointed out that supporters of the Compromise of 1850 were in fact extreme sectionalists, while antislavery agitators were the true nationalists.

   The author points out that slavery was the one great issue beginning in the late 1840s and continuing through the Civil War. Sumner battled the "peculiar institution" for years and made the abolition of slavery paramount. He became the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, a post which he made more important than that of any Ambassador and more influential than that of the Secretary of State of the United States. By 1851, Sumner was one of the most powerful men on the North American continent and was known throughout Europe.

   When first viewing slaves Sumner said, "They appear to be nothing more than moving masses of flesh, unendowed with anything of intelligence above the brutes." This book clearly illustrates why his opinion changed and why this complex man fought the lonely fight to remove all legal barriers that sustained racial discrimination. Sumner believed such discrimination fostered racial inferiority and was psychologically harmful to Blacks. He believed the pledge in the Declaration of Independence for universal equality was as much a part of the public law of the land as the Constitution.

   In this regard, Sumner continually excoriated the public to reform slavery and eventually influenced hundreds of thousands of Northern voters. When read today, his fiery speeches seem ponderous and stilted. Further, Sumner often used illogical reasoning and had a tendency to extend a principle to its utmost limits - he could be irritating and obtuse at time. Regardless, he was a powerful spokesman for the antislavery movement and his speeches solidified Northern opinion in the "great crusade."

   In reading this book, its clear Sumner was insensitive to the power of his words. He really didn't care as he had a remarkable power of rationalization and convinced himself that expediency and justice coincided where the abolition of slavery was concerned. The author hasn't overlooked the part that fortuitous circumstances played in the selection of Sumner as one of the most powerful and enduring forces in the pre-Civil War government. (He led the Radical Republicans during the Civil War) While the borderline between myth and history is often blurred, the author proves that the myth in Sumner's life more often than not matched the real Charles Sumner.

   Sumner's involvement in the slavery issue seems compulsive to 21st century readers but it was an outgrowth of his life and times. The humanity of a society can be measured by the quality of its compassion and its ability to feel the anguish of others. In contrast, the inability to feel the lash that strikes another's back is the most destructive trait a society can possess.

   Sumner's moral compassion wouldn't allow him to act otherwise when it came to slavery. Sumner believed the issue was simple: Slavery was evil, stamp it out!

   This is superb Americana.

1 comments about William Lowndes Yancey and the Coming of the Civil War (Civil War America).

1. I got through this study of a hardline Secessionist in just a few days as it is so very interesting and well put together. There's lots of good American history to read and this certainly deserves to go on lists of excellent up-to-date works.
   Chapel Hill produces books that are a pleasure to hold

5 comments about All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery.

1. Bad
   
   A. The narrative pace is just awful. I don't know what it is about this book I almost didn't make it past the first 40 pages because the begining moves so slowly.
   B. The idiotic "conspiracy theory" idea regarding the Texas Revolution. Someday right minded people everywhere will be able to laugh conspiracy nuts right off the street.
   Good
   
   The book has a great deal of information regarding the beginnings of an organized abolitionist movement in this country. Garrison was the focal point for this when the movement started to move beyond isolated groups of idealists and Quakers and started to be taken seriously as a genuine force for social change.
   
   Overall-Once you get into the book it is amazing, but you have to be in the right mood to do so.



2. Now a book that shows two sides of slavery that all white people were not all for slavery .Like Dr.martin luther king was saying that slavery was not about black against white ,but justice againt injustice.Because if all men and women are not free then we are all in chains.Books like this one has giving us a balance look at one of america darkest sides. But men like Garrison showed us that their were men and women that were a light of hope that all men are created equal . And being a black man I must say thank you to all the blackmen and women and white men and women of the past for fighting a fight that many of us still fight for today .And that is for an opportunity to live as we were when God created us in the beginnig as, a human being thank you.



3. William Lloyd Garrison was a man ahead of his time. Not by years or even decades, but centuries. In the 1830s he was an outspoken proponent of not just the abolition of slavery (many advocated various ways to deal with the South's "peculiar institution"), but called for the immediate abolition of slavery with complete and full civil rights for African-Americans. He dreamed of a time when a black woman might succeed a black man as Secretary of State a decade before the Supreme Court ruled that blacks were something less than human in the infamous Dredd Scott decision. He was also an early advocate of women's rights, labor reform, temperance and civil disobedience, as well as an outspoken critic of organized religion (Garrison was what we might today call a fundamentalist "born again Christian" who recognized no formal church other than Christ's teachings).
   
   Given Garrison's role as founding father of the abolitionist movement, his passion for the cause, longevity in leadership and terminal impact on the greatest political issue of the nineteenth century it is puzzling that he has left such an obscure historical legacy. As author Herbert Mayer notes, Martin Luther King Jr. cited Gandhi, Thoreau and the Gospel as his inspiration and motivation in the Civil Rights movement with no reference to the man whose peaceful agitation did more to eradicate bondage than any other -- and who in turn may very well have been Thoreau's inspiration in writing "Civil Disobedience."
   
   So why the obscurity? Mayer's biography does little to address this paradox. In fact, his book makes Garrison's general absence from the mainstream of American history all the more tenebrous. The man that emerges from the pages of "All on Fire" is a moral giant, a crusader in the purest and best sense of the word, who risked -- indeed, welcomed -- verbal and physical abuse, a life of indigence and scorn, all in pursuit of a truly noble cause. Garrison grew up in New England and never traveled further south than Baltimore until after the Civil War, yet he dedicated his life to the abolition of slavery with an intensity and zeal that surpassed dissident southern whites (such as the Grimke sisters) and even some blacks that had escaped from bondage themselves. Because of his central role in establishing and leading the cause, "All on Fire" is, as the full title suggests, as much a history of the entire abolitionist movement as it is a biography of its leading agitator.
   
   However, a close reading of "All on Fire" also reveals a hidden side of William Lloyd Garrison that Mayer, unfortunately, never fully explores: a man of extreme ambition, vanity, and conceit. Garrison fought tenaciously to keep himself at the front-and-center of the moral movement he came to regard as his own. One senses that the fame and notoriety he gained by his agitation came to mean quite a lot to him. In this sense, Garrison reminds one of a contemporary political gadfly increasingly enamored of his high-profile image: Michael Moore. Perhaps Garrison's attraction to celebrity never fully outweighed his commitment to the ultimate prize of freeing three million humans from bondage, but it certainly meant more than the pious Christian in him would have liked to admit -- and certainly more than biographer Mayer is willing to concede. Again and again throughout the narrative Garrison experiences a painful and personal falling out with some of his closest friends and coadjutors: Frederick Douglas, Wendell Phillips, the Tappan brothers, etc. And time after time Mayer attributes the rift to simple misunderstandings or the result of the stress and pressure of the times. That Garrison might have been something less than the Galahad on ante-bellum America is left unexplored.
   
   Nevertheless, for anyone with a desire to know more about America and especially to learn about a man that was once one of the most controversial and well-known figures of his century, only to sink to near anonymity, this National Book Award finalist can be highly recommended.



4. Let's just get the obvious criticisms out of they way. First, the author pretty much flat out states that The Civil War was fought only because of slavery--and in the preface! Yawn. Will I ever be able to find a Northerner who can write a book that examines both sides of the conflict? I mean southern writers do it all the time. The second problem is the assertion that the Texas Revolution was some kind of government conspiracy--from Pres. Jackson on down to Sam Houston--to perpetuate slavery and continue manifest destiny. While I'm sure some men fought for those reasons, this moronic conspiracy theory about secret government shenanigans has no basis whatsoever. In fact, I would recommend the wonderful biography, Sam Houston, by James Haley. It expertly destroys that awful line of thinking that has somehow survived all these years.
   
   But, being from Texas, I tend to be sensitive to such things. For most people it won't matter.
   
   I still highley recommend All On Fire, though. It is very well written and researched. But most of all, it is the only real biography on Garrison worth reading. And say what you want about the author's biases, he can't muddle the fact that Garrison was one of this country's great patriots, willing to stand up to anyone to free his fellow man. He dedicated his entire life to this noble cause--and except for a few references in some Civil War books--is largely forgotten. What a shame.



5. This is the last and probably the best book completed by the late Henry Mayer.

   Mayer admired Garrison, the most important leader of the abolitionist movement. In this book, he succeeds in renovating the reputation of a great reformer and activist who has often been neglected or written off as a crank.

   Garrison and the abolitionists were originally hardly more popular in the North than in the South. They were seen as disrupting the Union and were regarded with suspicion for their pro-black beliefs - public opinion in the North was only marginally less racist than in Dixie. Garrison's courage and consistent refusal to trim his convictions for popular acceptance led to a career with an outsized share of controversy, oppobrium, and in several cases physical danger.

   Some reviewers have felt the book is too long, and it is hefty. But the length is necessary for Mayer to give a full portrait, which shows not only the man, but also the era he lived in. In particular, Mayer writes extensively about abolitionism as a movement. Abolitionists, and Garrison himself, struggled with many problems - whether to compromise by supporting politicians whose platforms called for less than full abolition, evolving from a paternalist movement of mostly privileged whites to a movement in which free blacks and escaped slaves could play a meaningful role, and reconciling the pacifist leanings of many to their role in a war against slaveholders - that will be of interest to contemporary political activists. Mayer also shows how, after abolition was accomplished, former abolitionists seeking new causes worked for other advances, including the first stirrings of the women's suffrage movement.

2 comments about Wearing of the Gray: Being Personal Portraits, Scenes, and Adventures of the War.

1. This book is better used as a narcoleptic, as 10 pages in I was snoring like a buzzsaw. The material is presented in the accounts of Mr. Cooke who served in the Civil War as an aide to one of the great generals of the Confederate army. Mr. Cooke's views are understandably distorted by having served and fought for the South. Therefore, this book should not be considered if you are looking for a good first hand historical account of the Civil War. It's literary value is better described by the beauty of its prose - not it's historical context.
   
   If you enjoy 19th Century writing this book is for you. If you're looking for personal narrative of the Civil War there are better books available.



2. This is a contemporary source, a mixed bag of character sketches, fictionalized real events, and historical bits. Cooke isn't great on exact accuracy of dates and events, but he captures a certain mentality well. If you want the Virginian-plume-wearing-chivalry Thing, you'd better read this book. And he is entertaining, if turgid -- the character sketches of people like Stuart and Farley the Scout are the best parts, I think. A brief chapter on the siege of Petersburg stands out as well. The book does give a good idea of what scouts and detached cavalry units did, which I found useful.

   Thickly styled though much of this is to a modern eye (and perhaps a contemporary one, since Stuart himself apparently considered Cooke "a crashing bore", though he was too tactful to let on), it's still really a classic of the period. It represents a certain facet of Civil War mentality, and people interested in the period should certainly look at it.

1 comments about Hospital Days: Reminiscence of a Civil War Nurse.

1. This must be the best book on the Civil War written by a woman! The layout is incredible. Every one should read this book