4 comments about Blood, Tears, & Glory: How Ohioans Won the Civil War.

1. This is an excellent Civil War book from a narrative standpoint. It is one of the best and most compelling I have read. It digs out great story nuggets about Ohioans in the Civil War, and admirably presents the thesis that the war was first one in the West. Recommended to anyone.



2. I'm not much of a Civil War buff, but I got a copy of this book as a gift right before Thanksgiving and it was a quick, wonderful experience. General Sherman was right . . . WAR IS HELL! The details on how bloody this Civil War was and what led up to this dramatic cross-roads in our nation's history makes it very valuable reading. Ohioans and those from the midwest (called the West then) played the pivotal roles in this war. Being the "smartest" wasn't always the best when it came to picking the right Generals and planning a good strategy. Sounds like some recent history in America! Lincoln had his struggles in this war. There are lots of good details on the personalities and styles to make things very interesting as well as informative. Suggest it highly if you like American history.



3. I have at least four ancestors who fought in Ohio regiments, so I was excited to pick up this book. It provides a wonderful overview of the people (military, civilian, politician) and places that became important before, during, and after the Civil War. The book covers a lot of ground so there are no in-depth descriptions, but I enjoyed it nevertheless. It has many citatations from newspapers, diaries, first-person accounts, and other original sources. I appreciate the Web page references that end chapters. It has lots of illustrations and an easy-reading style. It's 600 pages but the text is large and widely-spaced.
   
   It suffers problems that I'll attribute to lackluster editing from the small publisher. I found some page numbers missing... not the text, just the page numbers (page 90 has no number, and there are no pages marked 91 and 92). An island in the Mississippi is called "Island Number Tenth" and then later "Island Number Ten," and isn't listed in the index at all. The brief phrases used to tag various people are often repeated, sometimes in separate chapters and sometimes on the next page. For example, page 347, "with Meade only nominally in charge..." and page 348, "Meade would remain head--nominally--of the army..."
   
   In spite of these issues, I'm enjoying this book and I'm glad to have it.



4. This is a superb, work -- in league with the best historical writers of our day in both substance and style. Bissland has done his homework in crafting a spell-binding glimpse of Ohio's significant role in the Civil War.
   
   I found his character descriptions to be most insightful and colorful. The depictions of Grant, Steedman, Rosecrans, and John Brown were especially riveting. His short bios of the main players were rich with detail and fresh anecdotes. They were never dry and plain -- always juicy and enticing. I loved the alliterative description of Brown as " an avenging angel on assignment from God. I didn't wanting to stop reading in the midst of any new character description.
   
   The author is almost poetic in his economical painting of snippets, often catching the reader off guard, e.g., "small conflicts flickered on the horizon like heat lightening" and my favorite: depicting Foote's gunboats as "enormous Hostess Twinkies with quills."
   
   The work is well-researched and appropriately documented, using an array of fascinating primary sources, including many diaries and early newpaper accounts. While the book subtitle suggests a narrow geographic view, I highly recommend this book to those beyond the midwest.

2 comments about Abraham Lincoln: The Observations of John G. Nicolay and John Hay.

1. The book was very short and only covered areas of limited interest on Lincoln's Presidency. Beside other titles on Lincoln that I have bought this was a major disappointement. There was no flow of quality prose to create interest in specific story lines which were too sketchy. The book's objectives were too limited from the outset and it's main merits are that it may serve as a useful reference book for later purchases. It will do little to add or detract to the legacy of Lincoln.
   Lorenzo
   Ireland



2. A book for the person with an existing fair understanding of the White House years of Abraham Lincoln.
   
   Professor Burlingame provides a great service to those of us who are keenly interested in this great president, but who do not have the time to read the imposing and very dated ten-volume history produced by his two close aides, Nicolay and Hay. This book fills a specific void; it certainly should not be confused with a full biography.
   
   While it is surprising that so little was directly said by Nicolay and Hay about their chief in their history, I am happy that Professor Burlingame did the hard work of mining its ten volumes for the benefit of lazy readers like me.

5 comments about That Devil Forrest: Life of General Nathan Bedford Forrest.

1. New Yankee Doodle
   
   Yankee Doodle had a mind
   To whip the Southern traitors,
   Because they didn't choose to live
   On codfish and potatoes.
   
   Yankee Doodle, doodle doo,
   Yankee Doodle dandy,
   Aand so to keep his courage up,
   He took a drink of brandy.
   
   He was the best Confederate general of the entire Civil War, according to his superior. Born in Chapel Hill, Tennessee, into a well-to-do family, he was a Southerner born and bred for greatness. After the war, he had ties in Memphis, (a world away from the values and customs of Middle Tennessee) where a park including a statue of him is in existence. There is an unusual statue of him outside Nashville on I65; look for the Confederates flags and you'll marvel at this site created and paid for by a prominent lawyer. This slanderous book (all Myths) was devised by two UTK English professors with false information from Memphis sources.
   
   I can't fanthom why this review was not listed on my site. It is a sore spot for me as I personally told one of the writers that what they had researched is not true. After the book was printed anyway, I told the other one on the phone the same thing. He said the nasty part about Fort Pillow which they based their myth on was in Memphis documentation. That does not make it right or true. None of us at the meeting had heard about what happened at that place, and yet they based a slander about what might not have happened.



2. I'm torn on this review. I'm a new student to the ACW, but new enough to still know that NBF is one of the more intriquing characters of the war. I thought I did my research well and picked the right book to read about him by choosing "That Devil Forrest."

   Well, I'm a little disappointed. Not because the book is bad, but more because it wasn't what I quite expected and mostly because I read it out of place (more later on this). The focus is 95% on the military side, which is not all bad. After all, that's what makes him the wizard of the saddle. But the problem is I found the account very dry at times. Much of it is rehashing Official Records and what others have said in their memoirs. I never got the feeling of being there, in the middle of the battle, with bullets zipping by my ear. The only way I can describe it is a very nuts and bolts reading of what troops went where and what troops did what, with a little bit of prose thrown in. Certain chapters are handled better than others, but from time to time I found myself drifting away from engagement to engagement because there wasn't much to make it unique.

   Now, I realize not every one can write like Catton or Foote, but considering Wyeth did ride in Forrest's cavalry, I was hoping for a little more from that POV.

   As far as the details of the engagements, they are extremely well done. Clearly you will walk away from this book understanding how many casualties he infliced, what companies and who their leaders were who rode on particular missions, etc. It is truly a micro history and if you are unfamiliar with the bigger battles that may have intiated NBF's specific participation (i.e. Shiloh, Murfressboro, etc.) you might get a little lost in the details.

   I think I need to read more of a true biography first, and then follow up with "That Devil Forrest" to fill in the military details. That would make a very good one two punch.

   So, in short, if you're fascinated by Forrest, but know little of him, I wouldn't start with this book. I think you'll get lost in the details. However, if you have a thorough understanding of the ACW and good back ground info on Forrest the man, I think you'll find this book a good compliment if you're after the details. Another high point is the footnotes and references are impecable. Although the author has a very clear biased opinion about his feelings toward Forrest, he does back up the numbers so to speak.




3. I've read the dry memoirs of a few Civil war heroes. Grant, Sherman, Sheridan. They're fine. But if you want the real guts'n'drive factor of this war, this doctor's story of Forrest is what you're after. As another reviewer has mentioned, when you get into other major characters you actually find less good action, more weakness, time-wasting. Forrest has his flaws, but more along the lines of all of ours. Hold a grudge if you like, but give the story its due. This has it all, in spades.

   The doc is a passionate storyteller but doesn't prejudice the tale. He's written to a fine line.

   The other major biographer, Steel, is known as the fairest (and the most recent and "professional"), but with him we get excessive DRYNESS. Who needs that. Moreover, Steel bends over backwards to discredit the hero Forrest, giving more than equal time to every potshot against him. This is called fairness. The shots never hit their mark even with Steel, yet he gives them their due and their due dilutes, taints and distracts the story. ---Even more so than Forrest's own flaws do! (Touche'.)

   Wyeth is a clean historian yet lets the story's vigor come through just right. The adventures of Forrest will keep you riveted from start to finish. There's no other way to put it.

   Forrest's covering of Hood's (?) final retreat was, in that day, declared to be the inevitable future subject of EPIC poems. We haven't seen any such thing, sadly. But that's the scale of this story. It would still be worth the effort, I think. A movie anyone?

   Of course, every angle is worth savoring---including the old partisan Lytle's "Critter Company" bio.

   But enjoy the doc. --JP




4. Nathan Bedford Forrest was one interesting character. A self made millionaire, most definitely an entrepreneur by today's standards, he was a maverick in every facet of his life. Shelby Foote called him the only genius, other than Abraham Lincoln, that the Civil War produced: High praise indeed.

   It is easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to paint him with the brush of evil and dismiss him. Slave trader, first Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan, the Ft. Pillow massacre, these are not the calling cards of sainthood. But if we try to view life as he saw it, if we can empathize with him enough to where we can react to his environment, during his times and with his skill set, then maybe we can come close to understanding Mr. Foot's comment.

   The Southern High Command did not develop senior generals well. They anointed 8 at the start of hostilities. Without exception, those that weren't killed or injured were still in charge of things at the end of the war. Forrest was one of the few who earned the right to fill the ranks of those who fell.

   Independent, devoted to the cause and goal driven he pounds his way to the top. One of his key adversaries, William Tecumseh Sherman, gives him his finest accolade with the words 'that Devil Forrest'. He is a tenacious fighter and good at his job. Judge for yourself, but no one on either side fought under greater hardship, with fewer resources, while amassing a string of truly pivotal victories than he did. No Lost Cause apologia here, Forrest is the genuine article, a true Confederate war hero. You may not wind up liking him but you will wind up respecting him.




5. have nearly every book written on Nathan Bedford Forrest. He was a complex man, a man that should stand out more amongst the 'peacocks'. Who, having had any knowledge about the War Between the States, does not know JEB Stuart? Forrest did not believe in plumbed hats, jackboots or riding around the Union army to prove a point to the Union troops and his Father-in-law. He believed war was fighting and fighting means killing, and his brilliant military tactics demonstrated this. I think by being raised on both sides of the pond, Forrest first fascinated me because I saw much the same 'force' in Forrest I admired in William Wallace. They were common men, men who were willing to give all in a cause they believed, men that were driven by fighting at 110% and never giving quarter. Many of Forrest's tactics of near guerrilla fighting came from Lighthorse Harry Lee's tactics against the British in the Revolutionary War (Robert E. Lee's daddy by the way!!), a character in himself and much in the vein of Mel Gibson's Patriot. The North despised Forrest - why?? Because he was SO EFFECTIVE. One wonders, what the outcome of the War Between the States would have been had Forrest commanded the Army of the Potomac instead of Lee. Grant and Sherman hated him - Grant giving him the label of 'that devil Forrest', while Sherman admired him - grudgingly - considering him "the most remarkable man our civil war produced on either side", and by Lee `the most extraordinary man the Civil War produced'. Historian Shelby Foote called him one of the two great geniuses of the period (Lincoln being the other). Sherman moaned in disgust that Forrest's men could travel 100 miles faster than his troops could 10. Forrest 'liberated' more guns, horses and supplies than any other single Confederate unit. He did not play at war. He rose from the rank of private to a Lieutenant General - the ONLY man to do that in the Confederate army, but he was just as a complex man before and after the war.

   Perhaps, you will not come away liking Forrest, but you cannot doubt his sheer genius, his driven power and his ability to spur men to match his dedication and willingness to give all - just as Wallace did.

   There are many books that give interesting views of Forrest, but I hold a special spot in my respect for this book, for unlike the others that were written with the distance of time and careful study, this was written by John Allan Wyeth - a surgeon who died in 1922. Wyeth served as a private in the Confederate army until his capture two weeks after Chickamauga. This was written by a man who lived through the war, not an arm chair historian. So his view is unique, more vivid than any other writer or biographer on Forrest. The text is base almost solely on accounts of military papers and records and the people who knew Forrest personally.

   So if you have come searching for information on Nathan Bedford Forrest, you collection MUST have a copy of this work.

5 comments about Ulysses S. Grant: The Unlikely Hero (Eminent Lives).

1. Factually deficient. Some errors have been cited in earlier reviews here on Amazon. I will only point out that Korda repeatedly referred to Gen. McClellan as Gen. Mckennen. It gives one no confidence if the author cannot even remember the correct name of such a prominent person. Oddly, Korda seems to remember that Grant once remarked that he often wore a private soldier's jacket with stars on the shoulders so that the army might know who their general is. But then Korda triumphantly points to photos of Grant wearing a full general's frock coat in his meetings with Lincoln. Is this supposed to prove Grant was dishonest? Doesn't it occur to Korda that even Grant might think it appropriate to dress up a bit for a meeting with the President of the United States or for a photo? Some analysis! Korda's commentary on Grant's military decisions is on a par with his remarks on Grant's uniform: not worthy of a high school paper. Finally, it was annoying to see the author dip into academic hippy analysis of major events. Somehow, in a biography of Grant, we are to be dragged into Korda's hatred of President Bush. Aren't we sick of this yet? I couldn't--wouldn't--finish this pathetic book. It's in the garbage can. If the rest of the biographies in this series are this deficient, the publisher would do well to abandon the project.



2. The only books I've previously read about the civil war are All For The Union and Company Aytch. I recommend both if you want to read the memoirs of soldiers. Mr. Grant is a fascinating person and Michael Korda tries to capture his complexity of character. I can't say that I learned much more than I already knew from various Discovery Channel shows or visiting the home of U.S. Grant in Galena. As noted in previous reviews, some of the historical data is questionable. For example, is Mr. Korda correct about the position of forces on a battlefield or the several maps and writings I found on the internet that say otherwise? One thing I could do without is Mr. Kordas need to bring in his obvious dislike of president George Bush and anything whatsoever that has any connection to him. Mr. Korda, if you feel a need to vent your Bush-hatred get a job with the New York Times or Washington Post. I don't know about other folks but when I sit down with a book about U.S. Grant I don't expect to be hammered with the non-too-subtle neo-liberal desire to tie everything to George Bush.



3. These amazon reviews have done their job, in convincing me not to bother reading this book. There are two excellent studies of Grant as a politician and president, both by Brooks Simpson: LET US HAVE PEACE and THE RECONSTRUCTION PRESIDENTS. I highly recommend them.



4. 
   
   
   Military history is often a tragedy the first time around and a farce when it repeats, as this perceptive book makes abundantly clear in outlining and assessing the career of America's greatest general.
   
   Fans of Robert E. Lee may well argue about the "greatest", the blunt fact is that Grant understood Lee better than Lee understood Grant. Korda makes the point again and again that Grant, except on rare occasions, was able to correctly assess battlefield conditions and quickly exploit every indication of weakness.
   
   Grant was bitterly criticized as a butcher, similar to Gen. George "Blood and Guts" Patton in World War II. Veterans of Patton's armies have told me Patton's success was based on "his guts, our blood". But I've yet to meet anyone who regrets having served with Patton. The same is true of Grant; good soldiers always praise a general who wins, dead soldiers don't complain.
   
   Grant understood that victory meant killing enough soldiers to make the Confederate states quit. He understood the war was won at Gettysburg; just as Gen. Dwight Eisenhower knew World War II was won in Normandy. The tragic legacy of Grant is that too many generals since then have copied his "butcher" qualities without understanding his tactical brilliance; thus the appalling slaughter of World War I.
   
   Grant was the perfect American success story; literally a "barefoot" buy who rose to command the armies of the nation and then serve two terms in the White House. He was also the "perfect" American because of his absolute trust in the essential goodness, decency and honesty of others; politicians and business people took cynical and unlimited advantage of these qualities, which left his administration mired in the deep stink of scandal.
   
   In war, Gen. Grant faced one massive task -- victory. Everything was directed to one goal. In peace, President Grant as a politician faced a thousand simultaneous large and petty challenges, something he was never able to handle. His astounding successes were two great single-minded challenges; the war, and writing his autobiography as he was dying of cancer. Facing these two great challenges, he succeeded brilliantly.
   
   The contrast with today's politicians could not be more dramatic. Grant was instinctively drawn to the sound of the guns fired in anger; too many of today's politicians, who blithely send others to war which they cleverly avoid themselves, have never hear a shot fired in anger let alone a voice raised in anger in the White House.
   
   This book, and the story of Grant, is vividly relevant in today's politics. Everyone who reads it will understand at least some of the fundamentals of success, of America's greatest general and the current military incompetence that has led to another quagmire.



5. 
   This is one of two brief biographies of Grant (1822-1885) I recently read, the other written by Josiah Bunting III which is part of Times Books' "The American Presidents" series, with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. serving as general editor. Although both Korda and Bunting cover much of the same material, there are significant differences between their respective approaches to the18th president of the United States.
   
   For example, Bunting clearly disagrees with, indeed resents the fact that Grant is generally remembered "as a general, not a president, [which] explains in part the condescension - there is no better word for it -- from which pundits and historians have tended to write of him." Bunting asserts that if judged by the consequences of Grant's common sense, judgment, and intuition, his presidency, "so far from being one of the nation's worst, may yet be seen as one of the best."
   
   Korda indicates no inclination to view Grant's presidency as "one of the best." He duly acknowledges the problems which awaited Grant after he was elected to his first term in 1869. "What did Grant's reputation as a president in, however, (and continues to do so today whenever journalists and historians are drawing up lists of the best presidents vs. the worst ones), was the depression of 1873, which ushered in a long period of unemployment and distress, made politically more damaging by accusations that the president's wealthy friends were making money out of it." Given that the United States was growing too fast, in too many different directions at once, and the inevitable consequence was corruption and an unstable economy, "it would have taken a more astute man than Grant to slow things down or clean them up."
   
   This last observation by Korda is consistent with a contemporary assessment of Grant by the Edinburgh Review, one which Brooks Simpson quotes in his own study (Let Us Have Peace: Ulysses S. Grant and the Politics of War and Reconstruction 1861-1868), and which Bunting also cites: "To bind up the wounds left by the war, to restore concord to the still distracted Union, to ensure real freedom to the Southern Negro, and full justice to the southern white; these are indeed tasks which might tax the powers of Washington himself or a greater than Washington, if such a man is to be found."
   
   In his Epilogue, Korda explains that he wrote this book because, from time to time, "it is necessary to remind Americans about Grant, first of all because his is a kind of real-life Horatio Alger story, exactly the one that foreigners have always wanted to believe about American life...and that Americans want to believe about themselves." Yes, his presidency was severely flawed but as a general, Grant "defined for all time the American way of winning a war": It must have an essentially moral base to earn and sustain the full support of the American people, it must take full advantage of its great industrial strength and depth of manpower, and it must apply aggressively - without hesitation -- all of its resources to achieve the ultimate military objective, total victory.
   
   However, Korda suggests that any politician contemplating the use of military force should first consider lessons which Grant learned from failed Reconstruction initiatives in the South: "armies of occupation are no substitute for political thought, and that generals are not be necessarily the right people to institute basic political reforms or to reconstruct society."
   
   It remains for others much better qualified than I am to comment on the relevance of that statement to America's current military involvement in various parts of the world. However, I greatly appreciate Korda's attempt to provide a balanced view of Grant in terms of his character, talents, and values...all of which served him so well on the battlefield but which proved insufficient to the political challenges which he encountered later as the 18th president of the United States.
   
   Those who share my high regard for this volume are urged to check out Bunting's biography as well as Grant's Personal Memoirs.

4 comments about Lincoln's Other White House: The Untold Story of the Man and His Presidency.

1. The author has done a wonderful job showing what a real human being that Lincoln was. A friend of mine borrowed my book and liked it so well that
   she went out and immediately bought 5 more to give as Christmas presents. It is just the right size for a gift book and so well written anyone will be proud to own it. I have also bought 6 more copies to give all my family for Christmas. Everyone should read it, everyone will enjoy it. written by Malcolm Kelly, a Kentuckian proud or both Mr and Mrs Lincoln who were born in this state.



2. I especially enjoyed the fresh approach to Lincoln and to his wife Mary Todd, who comes across in this new book as an elegant, urbane, and gracious `Republican Queen.' The account of the Lincolns' marriage and their home life at the White House and the Soldiers' Home, from observers such as the Union Army soldiers who guarded him for three years, is fascinating. The book is based on extensive research and is enriched by fresh anecdotes about Lincoln, by Whitman's and abolitionist Longfellow's poetry, and letters and memoirs of the diverse personalities with whom Lincoln interacted, particularly his generals and cabinet members.



3. I have read a number of books on the Civil War in Washington...Fine as those books are, they do not accomplish two things that are splendid contributions of your book on the weekend home that the Lincolns made of their cottage at the Soldiers' Home.
   
   First, we often forget the huge personal burden that the war place on Lincoln and his belief, strong in the summer of 1864, that he would be defeated in the next election and that the gains in the war would slip back into Southern control. We can see in your book how his days and nights in the cottage helped Lincoln to hold on to and expand what he had until victory in the 1864 election was assured.
   
   The other is the loving relationship of the President with his wife, Mary Lincoln. We often hear of her oddities and running up of debts. What we do not hear of, and what admirably is stressed in your book, is what you describe as "the mutual affection and mutual dependence" that always linked them despite their great differences in character. Respect for Mary Lincoln, and her contributions to the greatness of Abraham Lincoln, is something we could use more of in writing American history.
   
   I will not go on expect to say that I think I have already indicated the greatness of your book, and my hope that librarians and readers everywhere will have an opportunity to benefit from its revelations and the new light it brings on the life of one of our very greatest Presidents.



4. It must be difficult-given the plethora of books on Lincoln-to shed new light on an old subject. However, Elizabeth Brownstein does. Through careful and thorough research, Ms. Brownstein addresses issues hitherto unexplored. Lincoln's summer home...provides a suitable setting to describe Lincoln's activities outside the White House. One learns, for instance, that the first draft of the Emancipation Proclamation was completed here. One also learns that, far from being a retreat from the hustle and bustle of Pennsylvania Avenue, the home facilitated Lincoln's open-mindedness about receiving virtual strangers at virtually any hour of the day or night and resulted in serious sleep deprivation.
   
   However, it was in the other topics addressed in the book that Lincoln's character is at its most illuminating. His fascination with weaponry, his patience in his dealings with his wife, and his ability to establish collegial relationship with people of vastly differing temperaments are all thoughtfully explored...The characters highlighted are dispassionately analyzed in such a way as to enable the reader to be part of the scene at all times. For instance, Lincoln's wife, so often pilloried...is given a fair hearing and is properly depicted as a courageous soul confronted by agonizing choices and exaggerated expectations of the First Lady's performance as a suitable consort of the most admired President in American History...Mrs. Brownstein provides a valuable service for readers interested in the less dramatic, but no less insightful, clues about Lincoln the President, confronted, as he was, by the unprecedented challenges associated with his era.

5 comments about Three Roads to the Alamo: The Lives and Fortunes of David Crockett, James Bowie, and William Barret Travis.

1. This book is a very well conceived idea that tries to understand what happened at the Alamo through the eyes of three people. Each provides a different perspective to life in Texas and life in the United States in the time period leading up to the Alamo. A crook like Bowie has fled from land speculations schemes and is trying to make a name for himself in Texas. Travis has abandoned his family and gone to make an honest life and escape the debt he built up. Finally we have David Corckett the hero of Tennessee who has lost elections and patience with Andrew Jackson heading to Texas. All of these three have led colorful lives with Crockett being the most interesting. This book serves as a biography to all three while describing the importance of the Alamo to Texas. It is very well done and you find yourself going through the book very quickly. I highly recommend this to anyone who is interested in understanding what life looked like in the United States in the years leading up to the Alamo.



2. William Davis, best known for his excellent works on the American War Between the States (oh, alright, "Civil War" if you insist) delves into the Texas Revolution with this work, and presents historians with an excellent glimpse at the three principal figures of the Alamo Siege. This triple biography gives an excellent in-depth look at the careers, motivations, and personal lives of three men on their march to an appointment with destiny.
   
   I highly recommend all of Mr. Davis' works, especially "Deep Waters of the Proud" and "Look Away!"



3. Davis is meticulous in his research, teasing from the legends what we know, what can be deduced, what is probable, improbable, and impossible. So, if you want scholarship, an in-depth understanding of the truth, as near as it can be determined, this book is great.
   
   Davis' sketches of the personalities and characters of Crockett, Bowie and Travis were also impressive.
   
   But, IMO, if you want a wallopping page-turner, look elsewhere.



4. OK, that is a bit of a negative title, so I want to start off saying that I really enjoyed this book. One of the problems with the story of the Alamo is that it all too often is isolated in the time during the battle and not much of the events and lives of the participants are ever explored. This leaves a story disconnected from all that ran up to it, all that caused it.
   
   William C. Davis does an admirable job assembling the lives of three people who are somewhat elusive in the historical record until their "big day" at the Alamo (even Crocket has his blank spots in his history). It is important info that informs us all why these men were "that" Travis, Crocket and Bowie.
   
   He gives them life in a narrative that quickly moves in a conversational style. Further, he does an admirable job not judging these men on today's more "civilized" standards, allowing us to come to know the men as they were, in their day, without being weighed down by modern approbations and regrettable "social" historical analysis so popular with too many historians.
   
   Now the criticism: As my little review title suggests I feel that there was one road, one equally important, not explored that led to the Alamo. It is a road that is just as important as the other roads Davis explores; that of Travis, Crocket, and Bowie.
   
   It is a road without which the Alamo would not have occurred, propelling the three heroes into American mythology. It is the road traveled by Santa Anna.
   
   Of course, at 587 pages, this tome is already a bit larger than the average popular treatment of any particular historical event and it is probable that Davis struggled to keep the story under one thousand! Still, Santa Anna's journey was just as tumultuous, interesting and central to the story as Travis, Crocket, and Bowie's, and just as important.
   
   Davis admits that he started with the idea of a Bowie bio, so it isn't surprising that he dwelled on Bowie more so than the other two. But, given the re-direction he took with his story a little less on Bowie could have sufficed as the story of Santa Anna was included.
   
   After reading the book, I felt a hole in the story. Why, exactly, did the Mexicans do all they did? Not just during the months preceding the Alamo, but for the decade before. How did Santa Anna get to his position? What drove him to lay siege to the Alamo and that small band of Norteamericanos? I know Santa Anna is not the American hero that the other three are, but where is the hero without the villain?
   
   In any case. This book is highly recommended for anyone wanting a well researched story of the actions and personalities that led up to the Alamo. Even with that one small detraction, I say read it!
   
   By Warner Todd Huston



5. "This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.
   
   Author William C. Davis does not follow this advise and gives us the true story of these three icons of Texas. We find that aside from Crockett's three successful congressional campaigns and Travis' legal practice in Texas, these heroes were not very successful nor particularly honorable as that term is defined today. Bowie was an unsuccessful con artist who married his Tejano wife for her money and connections, Travis abandoned his pregnant wife in Alabama to evade a warrant for his arrest for debt, and Crockett was long estranged from his second wife at the time of his death. They were not exactly paragons of virtue but in the manner of their deaths they were and are heroes and that should not be forgotten, and Davis does not forget this. I am reminded of a line from another movie, Casablanca, in which Humphrey Bogart says, "They got a lucky break. Yesterday they were just two German clerks. Today they're the 'Honored Dead'." Bowie, Crockett and Travis are Texas' Honored Dead.

No comments about Memoirs of General William T. Sherman.

3 comments about Witness to the Civil War: First-Hand Accounts from Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper.

1. This book gives a timelessness to the reality of the Civil War by seeing it through the eyes of the people who were living through it at the time. The illustrations are amazing and easily take you 150 into the past. Any history buff will want to have this book!



2. Witness to the Civil War is the Smithsonian's abridged compilation of the 1895 Frank Leslie's Illustrated History of the Civil War. Few have or could do it better. Rivaled only by Harper's Weekly, Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper utilized correspondents (we today refer to as "embedded") to bring news and pictures from "the front" to eager readers, many of whom had husbands, fathers and sons engaged in the conflict. This book gathers the best of this coverage into a single volume, not so much as a comprehensive history but to illustrate and describe the major events.
   
   The book combines contempoary text (in italics) and illustrations with modern observations and color photophrapy, the latter ensuring flow and context. The illustrations appeal both as art and as history, albeit with occasional exageration stemming from the rhetoric of the time and admitted Northern bias. A gallary featuring the likeness and thumbnail biography of forty-two Union officers (pages 104-109) is particulary interesting. The net result is an engrossing collection that adds life to the history as seen through the day's press.
   
   While Frank Leslie and his wife are profiled at the beginning of the book, I was disappointed not to find more detailed information on the specific correspondents and artists who contributed the stories and illustrations in the book. Notwithstanding, the book is nicely presented and would be a great supplement to any Civil War buff's library.



3. The Journalist in every war are underrated because they do not fit the mould of Fighting men. Where would we be without them? Would only the Victors tell the tale of the Battle? History must have the unbiased reports of the Journalist. That is what makes this book valuable to me as a civil war historian.

No comments about Lincoln's White House Secretary: The Adventurous Life of William O.Stoddard.

5 comments about Lincoln and Whitman: Parallel Lives in Civil War Washington.

1. The only problem I had with the book was the author's obsession with Whitman's so-called "personal" life. I can't say the H word since xena keeps deleting my comments, but take it from me, Walt was NOT what Epstein seems to think he was. When Carpenter and Wilde tried to corner him about it, he was absolutely AGHAST that anyone would do that, let alone think HE would ever be so depraved. Whitman was America's only conscious poet. Lincoln was America's only conscious president. You can't get there having a corrupt soul.



2. Daniel Mark Epstein succeeds at what seems simple, but in truth is a daunting task: combining the literary and the historical in a moving, evocative narrative. The book gracefully moves between and across the lives of Lincoln and Whitman, with a cathartic spirit uniting the stories of both men. Epstein makes no claims that the spiritual union was, in reality, anything more than a parallel, largely reliant on the troubled times (and Whitman's obsession...or coincidence). There is a somewhat amplified mysticism surrounding Lincoln and Whitman as "characters" in this historical narrative, but such characterization errs more often on the positive than it does otherwise. The parallels between the lives of both men are compelling, revealing, and informative, and the ending is truly poignant. Civil War Washington also comes alive with a mapmaker's eye and a storyteller's gift for detail. Wonderful!



3. Epstein hits the ground running in this extraordinary blend of dramatic storytelling and lit crit, and he never lets up until the final page. Everyone has always known that Whitman was influenced by Lincoln, but it has been a matter of heated controversy for many years as to whether Lincoln was or was not influenced by "Leaves of Grass." Epstein proves this beyond any reasonable doubt in the first thirty pages, as he introduces us into the gritty atmosphere of Lincoln's law office in the 1850s. He follows the two men to Washington, D.C. during the Civil War, and his capturing of their two characters and their struggles, as their paths cross and shadow one another during that intense period, is a literary and historical tour de force. One of my favorite books about the Civil War.
   
   Bernard Northrop
   Providence, R.I.



4. The PW reviewer might have been a little careless in political characterization, but I think that this book does soften Whitman's views, and muddle Lincoln's, to try to put them both in the same place. The analysis of the poetry might be fine, but the political analysis isn't. The portrait of Chase, and the descriptions of the "radical Republicans", is one-sided. Mary Todd Lincoln is bad and horrible, and somehow that is conflated with her sympathy for the slaves & for a war against slavery. (Whitman only had lovely relationships, apparently). Also, it is true that there are little irritating errors, the "relationship" between Howells & Whitman in 1860 being a clear one.



5. I thought that this book was very moving, and successfully portrays two men who completely embody the Civil War. The title of the book is very appropriate, because the number of instances in which Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln's lives crossed is quite interesting. Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents who was responsible for emancipating those under slavery. Whitman was one of the greatest poets of all time, and had a huge amount of respect towards Abraham Lincoln.
   
   I found it very interesting that Lincoln and Whitman had never officially met, yet they had both listened or read eachother's words at very crucial times in each of their own lives. Both had so much complete and utmost respect for the other person, and that is clearly seen from the moment that Lincoln reads Whitman's famous book of poems, "Leaves of Grass," until Whitman composed the famous elegy after Lincoln was assasinated.
   
   Both of these men had the same vision of democracy,and Epstein did a great job showing the effect that the war had on these two men. I didn't know that Whitman had volunteered at a hospital during the war, and learning what a huge impact the wounded soldiers had on Whitman and his writing was very interesting. The book also showed the huge toll that the Civil War had on Lincoln, especially when families and loved ones were torn apart because of the war.
   
   I loved how Epstein showed the increasing amount of honor that Whitman had for Lincoln after he was assasinated. His poem, "O Captain, My Captain," is a prime example of just how much admiration that Whitman had for the beloved president. In fact, my favorite part of this book came in the last chapter of the book over twenty years after Lincoln had died. Whitman gave a final speech on Lincoln at Madison Square Theater in front of such people as Mark Twain.
   
   Epstein does a great job of showing the incredible amount of passion that both Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln had for life. Both men lived by eachother's words and had an amazing amount of respect for one another, it definitely makes me wish that they would have gotten the chance to know each other personally.