No comments about Behind the Scenes in the Lincoln White House: Memoirs of an African-American Seamstress.

5 comments about The Rebel and the Rose: James A. Semple, Julia Gardiner Tyler, and the Lost Confederate Gold.

1. The Rebel and the Rose is an extraordinary - and true - tale of the final days of the Confederate government, its exit from Richmond, the Confederate treasury money and the relationship between Julia Gardiner Tyler and James A. Semple. For all the books over all the years written of this era, The Rebel and the Rose manages to uncover a little known story full of interesting details and mysteries. The research put into this book is impressive. Highly recommended for those interested in the Civil War and history in general. You wont be disappointed.



2. Explores events which are mentioned in passing elsewhere, uncovering fascinating story. Hated to finish it, because much mystery remains. Presents facts more sympathetic to Jefferson Davis than generally understood, and adds to understanding of turbulent end of war.



3. For any Civil War or history enthusiast, The Rebel and The Rose is by far one of the best novels written to date. The author's writing keeps the reader locked in to each page desperate for more. While historically the whereabouts of the lost Confederate gold remains a mystery, you have to enjoy the detail for which is was written.
   The book is very enjoyable, a fun read with facts and intrigue and lost rebel gold! This book is one of my absolute favorites in my Civil War collection!!



4. I really enjoyed reading this book. The depth of the "detective work" done by the authors is outstanding. The mystery and the relationships amongst all the individuals was developed and explained very well. Thank you for bringing this portion of the Civil War into such outstanding light.



5. In April 1865 the Civil War was over for most - but even after the Confederate government dissolved, one Jefferson Davis felt compelled to carry on the struggle, journeying best entrusted with all the remaining gold in the Confederate treasury: some, $86,000 in coins and bullion. It and its carriers disappeared - and their fate is revealed in THE REBEL AND THE ROSE: JAMES A. SEMPLE, JULIA GARDINER TYLER, AND THE LOST CONFEDERATE GOLD, which follows Davis' journeys and considers what happened to the gold. Both military and general-interest libraries will find it engrossing.

5 comments about Generals in Bronze: Interviewing the Commanders of the Civil War.

1. Outstanding book, get a better feel of what the Generals were thinking during the Civil War.



2. It is hard to add anything new to what has already been written in the reviews, although I would say that not only does the book have excellent insight into many of the key Federal officers that fought in the war, but it is a window into 19th Century post war culture. James Kelly, the sculptor and artist who is at the center of the book, vividly recounts how he meets these gentlemen. Most of the time he must use calling cards to announce his arrival before he is called in- something wholly archaic in our modern casual society. There are other tidbits that are fascinating. One general whom he calls on uses a fan and a block of ice to keep cool as he answers Kelly's questions.
   Speaking of these questions, we the readers are very fortunate in that Kelly had studied the war and often asked the same questions we would. He was a small boy during the war, and these men were his heroes. We meet these men as real people, not just as names in a book. I do agree with one reviewer who writes that there is too much detail, but there again, it is the details that make the book come alive.
   My only regret (but it is a very small one) is that Kelly was so prejudiced against Southerners that he only recounts his meeting with one of them, and absolutely refused to sculpt any ex-Confederate officers. However, given his time and how he felt about the war, such feelings are understandable. It is instructive that most of the men he talked with did not share his extreme negative views about Confederate veterans.
   I would recommend this book for any seasoned Civil War enthusiast, as they would be familiar with the controversies and issues Kelly recounts. But Styple does a great job as editor and so perhaps even a novice might be able to wade through some of this and get something from it.
   Speaking of Styple, he deserves much credit for bringing this book into print, as he had to wade through all of Kelly's material to publish it. Not only that, but Styple researched Kelly's life and found that Kelly died a pauper with an unmarked grave! Styple was able to remedy that and recently had a grave marker erected for one of the finest sculptors our country ever produced.



3. As a young boy in New York City during the Civil War James Kelly fantasized about being a soldier and fighting for the Union. His passion for the heroes of that war continued into his adult life. A noted artist and sculptor, Kelly went on to immortalize a great many of them in ink and bronze.
   
   Kelly was also a unique historian. He could obtain from these men details and circumstances of events that an ordinary reporter could not. As he had them pose for his sketches, he told them that in order to get the picture right he had to know every detail. Then, as he was drawing he would write down their comments in his journal.
   
   In this way he gleaned fascinating insights from them that will change your view of the war. Here are some examples.
   
   We know that several generals turned down command of the Army of the Potomac during the period 1862-1863. Kelly found out in his interviews that one of the conditions of command was the stipulation that the general had to pledge that the war would not end until after the [presidential] election of 1864.
   
   I have always wondered why there were so few casualties during the bombardment of Fort Sumter. Why didn't the big guns of the fort not inflict any damage on the Southern batteries? The answer is that the Secretary of War under outgoing President Buchanan [1856-1860] was a Southern sympathizer. In his last days in office he had ordered that the powerful casement guns in the fort be removed and replaced with old ships' guns.
   
   Kelly obtained intimate details of the battles and why things happened the way they did as well as vivid images of life in combat. One general described having a horse shot out from under him. "He was hit as he reared. He went down over his front legs and blood shot from both nostrils like water from a pump".
   
   This is a "must read" for all afficionados of Civil War history.



4. I saw a rerun of the interview on CSpan with the author and ordered this book immediately. What a pleasure to read the off-hand remarks by the various Generals about the Civil War. MORE PICTURES please but otherwise a detailed, challenging and rewarding read if you can plow through the details.



5. This is the best first-hand account of Civil War action and detail that I have read since "Campaigning with Grant," and likely the greatest collection of its kind in American historic literature. Every page is a gold mine of detail straight from the lips of the Generals themselves, often expressing their true feelings about other officers that they never allowed into their memoirs. It also provides a rare glimpse into their true personalities as aging war heroes, reported objectively by artist and author James Kelly of NYC, while they sat for their sketches. Kelly transcribes their words, appearance, mannerisms, and peccadillos.
   Myths are broken, and the detail provided by the generals is almost unimaginable -- from what style hat they war in a particular battle to where they took a nap will Lee surrendered to Grant at the McLean house.
   Imagine Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock describing how the doctor removed the bullet and saddle-debris from his 8-inch deep wound at Gettysburg...simply an unbelievable treasure of information. The book also contains many of the actual pencil & charcoal portraits of the Generals, which are especially compelling, as you just read the actual conversation they had with the artist while he sketched away at the portrait you now hold in your hand, and the general autographed the sketch attesting that it was drawn from life and approved. If you have questions you always wanted to ask a Civil War general like Grant, Sheridan, Sherman, Hancock, or Doubleday, they answer your questions in this book; like a ghost returning from the grave to sit in your favorite chair. I am grateful that I caught editor William Styple on C-Span. In fact, all history buffs should fall on their knees and thank editor William Styple for finding Kelly's masterstroke memoir and resurrecting it so beautifully, in our lifetime.

1 comments about The Expatriation of Franklin Pierce: The Story of a President and the Civil War.

1. As a student of the presidency and of 19th century America I was glad to find this book about Franklin Pierce, one of the most obscure of American chief executives. While there's not much coverage of Pierce's four years in office there is a good deal of attention paid to the tumultous times in which he lived, especially the years after his presidency ended in 1857 and during which the Civil War, and then Reconstruction occurred.
   
   What I found most informative about the book were Pierce's relationship to Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President and former U.S. Secretary of War and Senator and Pierce's role as a Peace Democrat during the Civil War and the official and unofficial, but all very public, animosity that role generated. One of the surprises was realizing the extent of Davis' experience and influence; in much of the Civil War history I've read Davis is presented as a kind of compromise flunky, playing second fiddle to the great Southern Civil War Generals. But it appears he was a much more consequential figure than that.
   
   So as a descriptive portrayal of an under-recognized American President and of the civil liberty abuses and social turmoil surrounding an important period in the nation's history, I think the book works well.
   
   In my mind the book's shortcoming is its failure to provide a greater understanding of why Pierce sympathized with the South, particularly in regards to the South's decision to secede, and its decision to fire on Fort Sumpter. The book treats both of these critical developments rather superficially. The election of Lincoln, for example, did not directly threaten slavery in the South, a point Lincoln and the Republican Party took great pains to emphasize in the years leading up to the 1860 election and immediately afterward. So the question of why did the South secede, and why in particular did Pierce believe they were justified in doing so goes unexplained. Further, even if a right to secede is recognized, how did Pierce think the federal government should deal with its installations throughout the South, particularly its military ones? And finally, if Pierce believed the South had the right to secede, and the right to attack federal government military installations in the South, under what terms did Pierce think the North should have negotiated with the South or worked to bring the South back into the Union?
   
   This is to say that the book's shortcoming is a lack of analysis, which is essential to better appreciating and understanding--even if not agreeing with or condoning--the thoughts and actions of those who have contributed to the development of our nation.
   
   But I appreciate the attention of this author to a heretofore neglected person in American history and of the conflict that existed for many people as the nation warred against itself.

No comments about Our Lincoln: New Perspectives on Lincoln and His World.

5 comments about The Warrior Generals: Combat Leadership in the Civil War.

1. This is an intriguing book, although not without some controversy. The method is to examine three pairs of generals, one each from the Union and Confederate armies--East and West--at different levels of command. The two top generals at the end of the Civil War, Ulysses Grant and Robert E. Lee are one pair. Two generals of armies in the West--George Thomas with the Union and John Bell Hood with the Confederates--are profiled and compared. Finally, two generals in the East--Francis Barlow and John B. Gordon--are compared, each at Division or Corps command level.
   
   The end result is illuminating. Certainly, Robert E. Lee is not treated kindly. Grant comes in for some hits, as well. Nonetheless the criticisms are handled pretty well and the author does credit each for their strengths.
   
   At the lowest level of command, Barlow and Gordon, we get an interesting tratment of two commanders who may not be as well chronicled as others. Nonetheless, each served with distinction and both were certainly interesting character studies.
   
   Finally, and maybe most controversial, is the juxtaposition of Thomas (Southern born, despised by his family and mistrusted by some in the North) and Hood. The latter is a perfect example of the "Peter Principle," where one gets promoted above one's level of competence. A terrific division commander, Hood was overmatched as an army (and probably even as a corps) commander. Buell's treatment of Thomas is almost over laudatory. To be sure, the record is clear that Thomas was a stalwart, at whatever level of command he held; he excelled from the start of the Civil War, with his crushing of Zellicoffer's army at Mill Springs to his smashing victory over Hood at Nashville. Nonetheless, the treatment of Thomas is perhaps a bit "over the top," despite his genuine accomplishments and the shabby treatment that he received from Grant and Sherman toward the end of the war.
   
   In the end, a very interesting book, marred mainly by the overenthusiastic treatment of Thomas (even though, I would argue, Thomas deserves much more credit as a general than he is often given).



2. I enjoyed Mr. Buell's book. As a number of people have noted, the author provides perspectives on Generals Lee and Grant that may be unfair in some respects but are often thought-provoking. The portions on General Thomas explain his greatness in a way I had not read before.
   
   On the other hand, the book's description of a single incident causes me great concern about how much the reader can rely upon the author's descriptions of other events throughout the book.
   
   That one event concerns the so-called Lost Order. On September 9, 1862, General Lee, then at Frederick, MD, issued seven copies of the order (Special Orders No. 191) to his commanders, including D.H. Hill and Stonewall Jackson, directing them to split up and attack Harper's Ferry, VA from three directions, thus dividing his army into four parts. Jackson, not realizing that Lee issued a copy of the order directly to Hill, also issued a copy of the order to Hill, Jackson's subordinate. Hill received the copy of the order from Jackson, but the copy from Lee was somehow lost. Beginning September 12, the Union army moved into Frederick. Incredibly, on September 13, a Union soldier camped on the outskirts of Frederick by chance found the order lying in a field, wrapped around some cigars. The order was ultimately forwarded to General McClellan, leading ultimately to the Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg) on September 17.
   
   I do not profess to be a Civil War expert, but both books I had read about this incident clearly stated that it was never determined whether Hill received the copy of the order from Lee and therefore should be blamed for its loss. On the one hand, according to those books, Hill always adamantly maintained that he never received the order, and his adjutant supplied an affidavit to that effect. On the other, Lee's adjutant, R.H. Chilton, maintained that, although he did not have a specific recollection or documentary evidence, he was confident that he must have received confirmation that the order was delivered to Hill. Beyond that, no other evidence turned up. No courier confessed carelessness, and the identity of the owner of the cigars was never determined. See, Sears, Landscape Turned Red: The Battle of Antietam, pp. 111-115 and Appendix I; McPherson, Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam, The Battle that Changed the Course of the Civil War, pp. 107-108.
   
   It is certainly fair for an author to suggest that one scenario or the other is the more likely one (in view of the explicit, albeit selfserving, testimony of Hill and his adjutant, I would be inclined to conclude that Hill did not receive the copy of the order, and that in the rush of events [Lee's army was splitting up and moving out] Lee's adjutant did not notice that he did not receive confirmation of receipt). Mr. Buell does not do this, however. Instead, giving no hint of any uncertainty or controversy, he relates one hypothetical scenario as firmly established fact: "Hill . . . received two copies of the special order. . . . Hill snorted at the inept staff work of the high command and tossed away the redundant order. A staff officer retrieved the document and used it to wrap his cigars. When Hill and Lee's army got underway the next morning, September 10, the package was left behind." Buell, pp. 111-112.
   
   Again, I am no expert, but if Messrs. Sears and McPherson are correct in describing the available evidence, Mr. Buell's description is, with all due respect, misleading. He presents the story as gospel, adding vivid details (Hill "snorted" and "tossed away" the order; a "staff officer" retrieved and reused it) that lead the reader to believe that he is relying upon an account by a witness (presumably the messenger or Hill or a member of Hill's staff), when there apparently was none.
   
   This disparity, in turn, causes me to wonder how many other times in the book Mr. Buell may have used similar, apparently misleading techniques to present hypothetical scenarios as fact without alerting the reader that uncertainty exists.
   
   As I have emphasized, I am only a layperson interested in the Civil War. James McPherson apparently did not complain about Mr. Buell's treatment of the Lost Order incident (the book cover includes a blurb by Mr. McPherson praising the book; I have not been able to find his original review), so perhaps I am being unfair. If anyone has other thoughts, I would be delighted to hear them.



3. Great book which analyzes six of the top generals in the civil war. Warrior Generals gives you a glimpse into their heads before, during and after battles. Excellent companion to Foote and McPherson, must read for American Civil War buffs.



4. Buell analyzes three COnfederate and three Union soldiers with six very different leadership styles.
   
   Buell gives a title to each of the six different men and they are:
   
   The Yoeman: Ulysses S. Grant
   The Aristocrat: Rboert E. Lee
   The Knight-Errant: John Bell Hood
   The Roman: George H. Thomas
   The Cavalier: John B . Gordon
   The Puritan: Francis C. Barlow
   
   Buell researched this book heavily, including delving into the National Archives to the point that he actually found boxes of papers from the Civil War that had not even been opened since they were packaged and delivered after the war, a fact that I find amazing given the vast number of books written on the war every year.
   
   Buell is quite clear in his book that Robert E. Lee was vastly overrated and quite possibly incompetent (he never says it outright but he infers it). I agree that Lee has been overrated by some, but his incompetence is refuted, in my mind, by his track record against a much larger, better equipped army over the course of the war. To his credit, Buell does not lay the blame for the vast number of casualties in the Seven Days Battles in the Peninsular Campaign on Lee - which I consider fair consider that he was forced to take charge during the battles due to the wounding of Confederate General Joseph Johnston. Lee can't really take the blame for a situation he did not create.
   
   Buell also is extremely critical of Grant, sometimes in a contradictory manner. At the beginning of the book he is critical of Grant's strategy as unimaginative at the end of the war (press Lee constantly, despite the constant casualties since Lee could not replace his casualites and Grant could easily replace his own - it quickly became a numbers game and denied Lee his famed mobility) and then, towards the end of the book he praises it.
   
   Buell's favorite is obviously Thomas, a brilliant organizer who built the army that literally simultaneously destroyed the Confederate Army of Tennessee (under Thomas) and was the core of Sherman's famous March to the Sea through Georgia. However, he was ultimately relieved of command by Grant for being to deliberate - a conclusion that I share with Grant. Buell, however, believes that it was an unjust firing. (Grant believed that action was often more important than preparation - sometimes true, sometimes not, but Thomas never seemed to be prepared enough...)
   
   Although I disagreed with many of his conclusions, I did enjoy Buell's book. It was informative and well written.



5. First, a caveat: If you say, "War of Northern Aggression", hold dear the Lost Cause, and celebrate Massa Robert Lee's birthday as a high holy day, you should avoid this book altogether rather than read it and go on to write an emotional review raving against it and giving only one star. This book dares depart from the usual hagiographic treatment of Lee, suggesting that some of his actions were less than genius, and that some were brutal mistakes. Trust me, if you consider this sacrilege, please avoid this book.
   As for everyone else, this is an outstanding book - the freshest take on the Civil War that I have read in years. Buell ignores the received wisdom on such giants as Grant, Lee, Sherman, Hood, and Jackson, and goes back to original sources to reconstruct the actual men behind the legends. His take on these generals is sometimes controversial, usually enlightening, and always interesting.
   Buell focuses on three pairs of generals - Grant and Lee, Thomas and Hood, and Barlow and Gordon. This devise works well to allow him to examine each major phase of the war in both the eastern and western theaters. By including the lesser known Barlow and Gordon, Buell is also able to contrast the West Point trained professionals to volunteer generals who made up such a large segment of those who served in the Civil War.
   Grant and Lee, in particular, come in for reassessment in Buell's work, and both suffer somewhat from it. This, however, is not character assassination, but a valid reexamination of undeniably great men, assessing them by their actions rather than the legends that have grown around them. You might not totally agree with all of Buell's conclusions, but they may make you reassess what you think you already know.
   One of the high points of the book is the treatment of General George Thomas. One of the greatest generals of the war, Thomas has been often overlooked for many reasons (including the fact that he was a Southerner mistrusted by the North, he did not get along well with Grant, and he died shortly after the war leaving no memoirs.)What you read here will leave you hungry for more information on the great forgotten man of the Civil War.
   Buell writes well, his prose moves swiftly, and though he covers the general's actions in many battles, he never gets bogged down in the details that are more appropriately left to books that cover a particular campaign.
   Read this book and you will discover something almost as rare as a Burnside victory - fresh ideas about the Civil War.
   
   
   Theo Logos

5 comments about American Scoundrel: The Life of the Notorious Civil War General Dan Sickles.

1. AMERICAN SCOUNDREL is interesting in that it is flawed on so very many different levels.
   
   It fails as psychohistory -- Dan Sickles, a notorious womanizer, shoots down his wife's lover in front of the White House, and is judged NOT GUILTY. This simply begs for psychological introspection, but all we get is "standards were different then."
   
   It fails as the story of Dan Sickles. We never learn how he got the way he was, we never climb the money tree enough to see how he supporter his lavish lifestyle, or even the entire story of his life. We get long chapters on his wife's affair, her lover's murder, Dan's trial, and the second day at Gettysburg, but very little of anything else. The final 60 years of Dan's life are covered in less than 30 pages. The old saying goes, "There are no second acts in American lives," but this is ridiculous.
   
   And when there are horrible historical mistakes in what we already know, the rest of the historical research becomes very suspect. Stonewall Jackson did not die on the battlefield at Chancellorsville; Andrew Johnson was actually impeached.



2. If you are interested in the American Civil War, this is not the book for you. Keneally fails to understand the core audience for this book, Civil War aficionados, and is erroneous in his basic facts surrounding important events. The focus is the scandal surrounding Sickles and his young bride and not the historical events of the day.



3. You might not have heard of Daniel Sickles, but his accomplishments were impressive. A Union general in the Civil War who served at Gettysburg (a Medal of Honor winner who lost his leg there), an intimate of Abe and Mary Lincoln, a congressman, and an ambassador, Sickles was just the sort of hero you ought to know about. Except that he was a scoundrel, too. _In American Scoundrel: The Life of the Notorious Civil War General Dan Sickles_ (Nan A. Talese / Anchor Books), Thomas Keneally has given a full and amusing biography of this American, non-fiction Flashman. His many transgressions were public knowledge, and yet he dressed and spoke well so that he rose to heights of power without any precipitous fall except the natural one provided by old age and death. It is a story often hilarious and sometimes horrifying, and Keneally (who will always be known for _Schindler's List_) has depicted Sickles and the mood and manners of his age in an unforgettable portrait.
   
   Born in 1819, Sickles took to the law, and as a rascal, joined the other rascals of the Tammany political machine. He learned to cut financial corners, and would never be good at balancing the books, especially governmental ones. He eventually was appointed as a secretary to the American Legation in London, and took a favorite prostitute to his post instead of taking his wife; he even arranged for her to be introduced to Queen Victoria. When he was elected to Congress, he and his wife Teresa were a successful power couple, but he neglected her. Filling the void in Teresa's life came Philip Barton Key, who saw Teresa at parties, and in secret trysts in not-so-public places and at a house Key had rented for the purpose. Sickles eventually found Key on Lafayette Square and shot him. His trial was a sensation. The prosecution was poorly performed, and Sickles's hyper-competent lawyers led the jury to find him not guilty due to temporary insanity. It was the first time in American jurisprudence that such a plea resulted in acquittal. What rescued him from infamy was the Civil War. At Gettysburg Sickles made his greatest contribution. He precipitously led his men into battle, creating a controversy at the time that has continued to the present day; there are those who say his unilateral advance almost lost the battle, while others say it saved the Union. Early in the fight, however, his right leg was shattered by a cannonball. He coolly kept his cigar in his mouth (Keneally says it was "a moment of which the right sort of general could make a myth of his easy gallantry") and was carried to a field hospital where his leg was amputated.
   
   He stayed busy. He became an ambassador to Spain and began an affair with the deposed Queen Isabella II. Theresa had died of tuberculosis, and Sickles married a young lady from Isabella's court, but returned to America without her or the two children he had fathered. He had worked earnestly to develop Central Park in New York before he went to Washington, and he contrived to bring it animals for its zoo. He made his fortune on behalf of railroad stockholders by bringing down the notorious Jay Gould who had robbed them of millions. He did everything he could to ensure that his military reputation was brightly presented to posterity, and he got himself appointed as head of his state's Monuments Commission which had the task of erecting on the Gettysburg fields monuments to his own regiment and others from New York. No one should have been surprised when thousands of dollars for the commission went missing, and no one should have been surprised that there was a surge of donations from well-wishers that kept the elder Sickles from winding up in jail. When he died in 1914, he got a full hero's funeral and interment at Arlington National Cemetery. It was just as he would have wished, and this is a tale of a life lived just the way he wished, brash, impetuous, resolute, and irresponsible. There is no hero to match him.



4. Read this biography and decide which still-in-the-news contemporary politician Dan Sickles most reminds you of (hint: like Dan, now a New Yorker). The personal traits they share are amazing.
   
   Here is why you should be fascinated by a biography of Dan Sickles. He was a hard core practitioner of Tammany Hall politics and mastered that machine in the 1850's. He deserves at least some credit for forming New York's Central Park through is expert lobbying and deal making. He was a Congressman and a prime example of the type of northern Democrat who was willing to support the South on slavery for the sake of keeping them in the Democrat Party. He was a notorious woman-izer who traveled with a prostitute to England on a diplomatic mission and presented her to the Queen as his wife. He was a great friend and supporter of President Buchanan. He shot and killed the son of Francis Scott Key (yes, that Francis Scott Key), in front of the White House when he learned that Key's son had been carrying on a torrid affair with his wife. His legal team included Edwin Stanton (later Lincoln's able Sec. of War) and used the first ever argument of temporary insanity to win Sickles an acquittal in the slaying. With secession, Sickles became a relentless advocate for a hard war and supporter of Lincoln. He helped raise a brigade and became a general. At Gettysburg, Sickles defied orders and moved his entire corps out in front of the Union line giving history the Peach Orchard, the Wheatfield and an almost disastrous outcome on Day 2 of the battle. In that battle, Sickles had his leg shot off by a cannonball. He saved the leg, it was sent to the medical military museum in Washington (where you can still visit it today) and used to visit it regularly. He participated in séances with Mary Lincoln. After the war he was a military governor (apparently quite good and fair) of South Carolina and North Carolina. A sometime-diplomat, he married a Spanish woman after carrying on an affair with the deposed queen of Spain. He became great friends with Longstreet as they banded together to defend their miscues at Gettysburg. Head of the New York Monuments Commission, he helped spur the building of grand monuments at Gettysburg Battlefield and arguably helped convince the US Government that it ought to take over and preserve the battlefield as a park. Reelected to Congress for a single term several decades after the Civil War, he found times had changed politically. Still Tammany till the end, he was arrested in his nineties because the accounts of the New York Monuments Commission were some $27,000 short, money which he apparently pocketed.
   
   You can't make this stuff up. Its all true and should be the foundation for a great book (and a couple of great movies). Unfortunately, the killing of Barton Key and his acquittal on temporary insanity overwhelms the book. Or, more correctly, the plight of his wife Teresa overwhelms the book. Every chapter returns to his wife and Sickles' complete boorishness toward her before he found out she was cheating and complete unwillingness to let his still wife share his life at all after the murder. It is a great episode in Sickles life and it stained him for a brief time until the Civil War and Sickles incredibly strong and charming personality removed that stain from his life's adventures.
   
   But the reader is treated to repetitive and numbing descriptions of his suffering wife Teresa's domestic situation and habits throughout the book. She plainly receded in Sickles' life after the Civil War but doesn't recede in this book's telling of those chapters. Instead, she intrudes again and again to repeatedly make the author's point that she was cruelly ignored and wanted back into her husband's world. So much so that this book perhaps should have been titled "The Story of Dan and Teresa Sickles" (or maybe "The Story of Teresa and Dan Sickles"). The author's unwillingness to let go of her long after she has ceased to be a factor in Sickle's life really interferes with this book.
   
   There were also a few historical mistakes, like placing Senator Ira Harris in Lincoln's box at the assassination (it was his daughter, Clara, who was the fiancé of Major Rathbone) and having South Carolina secede in January of 1861 instead of December of 1860. These would probably only be picked up by Civil War buffs (arguably the audience which would read this because of Sickle's infamous Gettysburg excursion) but call into question the author's command of the facts.
   
   Dan Sickles is a very interesting subject for a biography. Disappointingly, the author blows what could have been a fascinating and rollicking bio with a long treatise basically dedicated to rehabilitating Sickles' wife Teresa, a woman who undoubtedly suffered because of the double standards of the time and who unfairly had her life severely constrained because of the actions and attitude of her husband Dan Sickles. But come on, we get the point. For example, I did not know Sickles had been military governor of South Carolina (with North Carolina later added to his administration) after the war. He appears to have been quite fair and just and to have protected the new freedmen from harassment. The book doesn't plumb this enough. We get some of the information but are treated to poor Teresa's lack of an invitation to join Dan Sickles in Charleston where she could reign as the General's wife over Carolinian society. The author really let his evident sympathy for Teresa overwhelm the all too fascinating portrait of a man rightly called "American Scoundrel."
   
   Interesting in parts, but broken-up with digressions on Teresa. A deserved three stars.



5. Dan Sickles, the notorious scoundrel of this book's title, appears to have gotten away with so many of his sins because he was colorful, resourceful, and charming. Unfortunately for the reader, the same cannot be said of Thomas Keneally's writing. Keneally tells us what a colorful character Sickles was, but never really shows us or makes us feel it. One is left with the thought that Sickles must have been a fascinating and complex man, and the hope that someone will someday write a decent biography of him that will truly capture those qualities.
   
   Despite the fact that Sickles is best known as a Civil War general, this is not a book for Civil War buffs. Keneally's writing on the war is superficial at best, and sometimes nakedly erroneous. (He states more than once that Gen. Stonewall Jackson was shot dead at the Battle of Chancellosville, when of course, even a casual student of the war knows that the general only received a wound in the battle and lingered on for some time, dying of pneumonia while recovering from his wound.)
   
   The intended audience of this book, which is reflected in the writing style as well as content, instead appears to be those who loved following the O.J. Simpson trial in the tabloids. The bulk of the book is devoted to Dan's amorous affairs, his young wife's affair, and his murder of his wife's lover and subsequent trail and acquittal. He writes extensively and floridly on these subjects, without managing much real illumination. I must admit that I was only able to make it through the endless trial material by resorting to skimming the text. However, if you are captivated by tabloids coverage of celebrity trials, this book may suit your tastes.
   
   There were germs of interesting facts in this book. Sickles led a fascinating life, from his notorious service in the diplomatic corps, his machinations as a Tammany politician, his work to help create New York City's Central Park, and his controversial service as a Union general. For its outline of the fascinating facts of Dan Sickles' life, I give this book two stars, but because of its sadly disappointing execution, I cannot give it any more, and cannot recommend it.
   
   Theo Logos

5 comments about Richard Taylor: Soldier Prince of Dixie.

1. It is hard to believe that other people have not written about Richard Taylor, but they need not bother now that Parrish has written this book. This book on Taylor is engaging and interesting, but also very scholarly. Although Parrish's writing style can be dry at times, his topic does not allow the book to get mired in details or become boring. Instead, Taylor's life jumps off the pages and Taylor led such a life that we, the reader, get a great overview of pre-Civil War politics, the war in the Trans-Mississippi, and the Reconstruction Era. Normally, I find the pages on the time before and after the war somewhat boring, but this was not the case with this book. The whole book really kept my attention and was very interesting. Thinking back, I really cannot think of any criticisms of this work. Just a good, solid history book.



2. This is the best bio I have read to date of General Taylor, although sometimes one must wonder if Mr. Parrish had much sympathy for his subject, with his sometimes disparaging remarks about Southern patriarchy. Perhaps he was simply trying to be PC on the slavery issue, but this didn't add much to the book for me. Still, serious students of General Taylor's exploits and the Western theater of the war will find this book an excellent resource



3. In my humble opinion, Parrish's is one of the best biographies I have ever read. Admittingly, the book is about a fascinating person: the son of a US President and Mexican War Hero who continues his family's military heritage by becoming a Lieutenant General in the Confederate Army without the benefit of a West Point education and becomes power in pre and post Civil War Louisiana. Writing a book about such a person should result in an interesting read!

   Throughout the book, Parrish maintains an excellent balance in presenting Taylor's life, including: early life and pressures as the son of a famous hero, early indifference to formal education, success as a wealthy plantation owner, relationships with slaves, views of slavery, entrance into Louisiana politics, CSA military service eventually leading to the rank of lieutenant general, post Civil War years, and later years. Parrish does an excellent job of covering each area and as a result, the reader learns the many sides of a fascinating character.

   Particularly interesting to me were the descriptions of Taylor's relationships with several noted Civil War personalities: Lee, Davis, Beauregard, Johnston, Jackson, Grant, Sibley, Smith, Forrest, Bragg, and others. With few exceptions, Taylor was able to get along with most of the people he encountered during the war - a rare accomplishment indeed. Parrish does an excellent job or summarizing Taylor's valuable service to the CSA and the book contains excellent maps of the battles Taylor participated in.

   All in all, an excellent and highly recommended read of one of the Civil War's most fascinating personalities!




4. This is a highly readable yet scholarly treatment of an important nineteenth century Southerner. Dick Taylor, son of President Zachary Taylor, was a Yale-educated aristocrat and Louisiana sugar plantation owner when the Civil War broke out. By war's end he was a Lieutenant General. Although he had no pre-war military training, he became one of the Confederacy's most able commanders. Parrish expertly covers Taylor's entire life, but naturally focuses on the Civil War exploits. In addition to being an excellent strategist and tactician, Taylor was colorful, self-confident, oblivious to what others thought of him, and a lifelong practitioner of noblesse oblige. Parrish is clearly enamored of his subject, but this does not stop him from critically examining the contradictions and hypocrisies inherent in Taylor's worldview. The book is free of the anachronisms and politically correct jargon which mar so much recent American historical scholarship.



5. This is a highly readable yet scholarly treatment of an important nineteenth century Southerner. Dick Taylor, son of President Zachary Taylor, was a Yale-educated aristocrat and Louisiana sugar plantation owner when the Civil War broke out. By war's end he was a Lieutenant General. Although he had no pre-war military training, he became one of the Confederacy's most able commanders. Parrish expertly covers Taylor's entire life, but naturally focuses on the Civil War exploits. In addition to being an excellent strategist and tactician, Taylor was colorful, self-confident, oblivious to what others thought of him, and a lifelong practitioner of noblesse oblige. Parrish is clearly enamored of his subject, but this does not stop him from critically examining the contradictions and hypocrisies inherent in Taylor's worldview. The book is free of the anachronisms and politically correct jargon which mar so much recent American historical scholarship.

5 comments about Medal of Honor: Profiles of America's Military Heroes From the Civil War to the Present.

1. I've spent the last 20+ years in the military and I really enjoy reading about our military heroes. But, it bothers me when someone uses the military to espouse their political ideology. I don't know anything about Allen Mikaelian, but I'd guess he was very unhappy with the presidential election in 2000 and felt he needed to do something. The author selectively picks recipients that provide a positive image of the left wing and a negative image of the right wing. There is nothing wrong with highlighting minority or women recipients. I think that is great and much needed, but the author should have been up front with the title and foreword and should have left out the political propaganda. Instead he covertly gives the impression that these 11 individuals represent your typical CMH recipient, both historically and politically. This book definitely has some value, but unless your polical views are a little far to the left, you may get a bit irritated at the political rhetoric.



2. Short biographies of 10 men and 1 woman who won this famous award and the lives they lived. Mikaelian selected only people who lived through their ordeal, and then reviewed their life stories after their heroic actions. For the most part, these men went back to living undistinguished lives. The author also details other MOH winners, along with these 11 individuals.
   The best story is about a Medal of Honor winner in the Eighth Air Force during WWII. Snuffy was an interesting character to say the list. His advocacy of a medicinal cream called Firmo was a real laugh.
   This was an OK read, and I got some insight into the military award process. I am not sure why Mike Wallace needed to contribute anything to this book. I guess the Publishers wanted a high name person attached to this book to boost sales. Wallace's contribution was little, and his writing should not have appeared in the book.



3. The book is not bad if you can get over the liberal agenda. What would be expected from Mike Wallace? I hate to admit this, I would like to have seen historical pictures of the CMH and its recipients.



4. I read this book when it was first released two years ago. Of the 3,000 + Medal of Honor recipients, the authors did have to cut it down to about two for each war. It is a very informative book. I have read it several times over. I am surprised that only one woman was a recipient though. I figured there would be more. And, just one Coast Guard officer recieved this Medal. It is very informative, but to those who want more out of it, such as the entire biographies of all recipients, that book would be about 8,000 pages. There are some recipients who recieved the Medal of Honor two times. Do they get a second biography?



5. I orginally purchased this book thinking it covered all medal of honors winners. To my disappointment, it details only a very few. This book covers only a select few of the medal of honor winners who's life story could be told. Of the men mentioned in the book, it is interesting. It talks about their childhood, what they did in the service, and what they did once out of the service. If you are looking for a little different angle on a few medal of honor winners, then this is your book. If you desire information on all of the medal of honor winners then look elsewhere.

5 comments about Bedford Forrest: and His Critter Company (Southern Classics Series).

1. Andrew Lytle was the dean of Southern writers, and in this work -- one of his earliest -- he not only brought to life America's greatest military figure, but an age and a people as well. It was Lytle's aim to make the times of Nathan Bedford Forrest come alive for the reader. He devoted himself to intensive research of the Tennessee where Forrest was born and the Mississippi where he lived.
   
   In reading this book we not only learn about the marvellous -- indeed, often incredible -- feats of a military genius, but we learn at the same time about the people, the places, the morals, the values, and the way of life of a people long gone now. (Lytle's subsequent book, A Wake for the Living, deals more pointedly with how much of the good of those days we have lost.)
   
   This book, although a worthy history, reads like a novel. It truly is one that is hard to put down once you get started.



2. In terms of his impact on modern warfare, no general of the Civil War had more than Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest. Not Grant, not Lee, not Longstreet or Sherman. This is the man. No less a general than Erwin Rommel studied Forrest's tactics and implemented them with modern weaponry when his Afrika Korps marched all over Libya and Egypt in World War II.

   The reason I say this book isn't for the "politically correct" is that it was written some 70 years ago, by a man of the old South who obviously idolized Forrest and everything he stood for. As you know already, not everything Forrest stood for was good. He was 100 years ahead of his time as a soldier, but stuck in 1860 in his personal beliefs.

   But...getting into the book. He was a brilliant commander who never had enough men under his command to turn the war in the South's favor. Still, he was a hero to the people of the Tennessee river valley where he won most of his victories, with good reason. When the Union troops overran these areas and placed them under military rule, Forrest made sure they treated the citizens decently. Once he even saved a group of innocent men from a flaming death at the hands of vengeful Union soldiers whom he was defeating in battle. Reading these and other stories makes you understand why he was such a hero to the author, who would have heard first-hand accounts of Forrest's exploits.

   Lytle believes that the South would have won the war if Forrest had been placed in command of the main Confederate army in the west, and he's probably right. Forrest was an extraordinary individual who had more impact on the 20th century than any other Civil War general.




3. I never fully appreciated the intellect of Forrest until I finished this book. It peels away the myths about the man, and tells about what he was really like. I loved it, and often flip around in it from time to time. A must for Civil War buffs!



4. Cunning as the Devil was Nathan Bedford Forrest and this book indicates just how quick and clever this military genius was. Little wonder then that Lee considered this dark knight to be his finest soldier, above even the legendary Stonewall Jackson.



5. Great book and a fast read with lots of information. After reading this book I was left with the feeling that bragg was working for the yanks! If only we had a little extra money a couple thousand more men, supplies and had listened to the likes of Longstreet and Forrest . How things would be different in todays politics. Let's hope that one day movies depicting true southern patriots and the real causes concerning the war for southern independence will light up the screens. END