2 comments about Robert E. Lee: Icon for a Nation.

1. It is easy to overlook the many contributions that non-Americans have made to the study of the American Civil War. Brian Holden Reid's outstanding study "Robert E. Lee: Icon for a Nation" brings an informed, fresh and balanced perspective to bear upon the Confederacy's greatest general. Reid is Professor of American History and Military Institutions and Head of the Department of War Studies at Kings College, London. He has taught military strategy and tactics and written extensively about America's Civil War.
   
   Any new study of Lee must work on two levels. First, of course, it must examine Lee himself, his life, his career, and his generalship. Second, any study must come to terms with the extensive writing and radically shifting perspectives about Lee over the years. Following the Civil War, Lee quickly became an icon to Southern partisans in the "Lost Cause" tradition. His character and success, for a time, against long military odds soon elevated Lee into a figure respected and revered by many Americans, north and south. Then, in mid-20th Century a reaction set in against Lee, questioning some of the mythology that had grown around him and challenging his agressive conduct of the War, his focus on the Eastern theater, his alleged lack of broad strategic vision, and the high casualty rate to which he subjected the Army of Northern Virginia, among other things. The reasons underlying the reassessment were complex. They included correcting an overly iconic and uncritical account, the changing perspective with which Americans viewed the Civil War, and a general and, I think, unhappy tendency to debunk and to criticise important historical figures.
   
   In clear, elegant prose, Reid examines Lee and Lee historiography. Although Reid avoids hero worship, he clearly admires greatly Robert E. Lee as a person and as a general. He finds that much, but not all, of the traditional picture of Lee has merit: he was an imaginative, agressive, savvy, and gifted commander who, importantly, inspired the love and the trust of his men. He fought and won many battles against long odds and prolonged the life of the Confederacy, giving it its best chance to achieve independence. Reid is far from uncritical as he points to flaws in, among other things, the command structure of Lee's army, the commander's frequent over-confidence, his tendency to overdelegate to subordinates, his conduct of the Battle of Gettysburg, and the failure to make the most of his opportunites in battles such as Seven Days, Second Manassas, Fredricksburg, and Chancellorsville. For all these faults, Lee emerges in this study as a remarkable, charismatic commander whom Reid believes is properly regarded as one of the greatest in history.
   
   The book opens with a chapter on Lee the icon with a summary of how historians of the "Lost Cause" school have viewed him, under the influence of the writings of Confederate General Jubal Early. The book then discusses Lee's pre-Civil War career, focusing on his service in Mexico, but gathers force in its consideration of Lee's three-year career as the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia. Lee's assumption of command in June, 1862, and the battles for which he is famous -- Seven Days, Second Manassas, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, the Wilderness Campaign, Petersburg, and Appatomatox, are discussed clearly and with sufficient detail. Reid keeps his and the reader's focus on the main themes of his study: showing Lee's greatness as a leader but his shortcomings as well.
   
   In common with most books about Lee, his military exploits are discussed in detail but we see little of his inmost thoughts and feelings. Lee was a highly reserved individual. I would have also liked more emphasis on Lee's pre-Civil War career and, particularly, a fuller discussion of Lee's life and career as President of Washington University following the Civil War. The book includes some basic maps of the key theatres of Lee's operations -- placed at the beginning of the book to avoid cluttering the text -- a good, basic bibliography, and no footnotes.
   
   Reid has written an excellent study of a great commander which argues convincingly that Lee deserves most of the esteem that he has traditionally received. This book will appeal to serious students of the Civil War.
   
   Robin Friedman



2. At the end of the American Civil War Robert E. Lee had only five years to live. The heart problems that caused him to spend the battle of the North Anna River in an ambulance killed him. ==In the years following his reputation as a battlefield leader was heavily promoted by writers lamenting the lost cause of Southern independence. These included not only Southerners but Northernors as well.
   
   In this book Brian Holden Reid, Professor of American History at King's College London, writes from the vantage point of a disinterested outsider to argue that Lee was one of the great commanders of all time. He does not claim that Lee didn't have faults. Everyone does, but that the overall generalship of General Lee ranks him among the best.
   
   The American Civil War took place at a transition point in military affairs. The war before (Mexico, 1843) and the war that followed (World War I). The author contends that Lee was among the first of the modern generals. If the armies had listened to him during World War I, it probably wouldn't have turned into the mess that it was.

5 comments about Daniel Webster: The Man and His Time.

1. Unlike Remini's three volume biography of Andrew Jackson this work shows a real person not a god idolized by the biographer. Webster was a talented, ambitious and complex man. He played a heroic role as Secretary of state, he defended the Union against the South Carolinian secesssionists, he solicited money from many people including N. Biddle in support of the Bank of the United States. He illustrates the difference in what we consider unethical acts among politicians. He was cursed by the radical abolitionists because he refused to put the Union in jeopardy to stop the spread of slavery.
   
   It could be said that Remini redeemed his reputation as an impartial historian with this work.



2. Daniel Webster was a great man in every meaning of the word. He had great talents and love for his country and its constitution; and he had great flaws that were magnified by his greatness. One thing he didn't have was a great modern and objective biography. He now has one, thanks to Mr. Remini.
   
   Along with Henry Clay, John Calhoun, Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams and other notables, Daniel Webster represented the generation of Americans to whom the Founder Fathers entrusted the nation they had fought for and created.
   
   Webster took that responsibility very seriously and used his intellectual and oratorical powers to help shape the interpretation of our laws and constitution to the needs of our growing and expanding country. He was involved in many important Supreme Court cases, many in front of John Marshall, who is still considered by many to have been our best Chief Justice.
   
   Webster's greatest fame is probably as an orator, mostly in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Remini shows us that he wasn't necessarily a great legislator or floor leader in terms of moving important legislation. Henry Clay was the man to do that. However, Webster's rank as one of the country's top senators of all time is merited by the incredible ability he had to express what this nation stood for, what the constitution stood for and that the Union, above all, was what was most important. Several of his speeches, which he would edit carefully for publication, are still moving and were generally printed fully in the press and memorized by children. His "union" stance many times cost him in popularity as he had to take some stances on specific legislation that may not have been "morally" acceptable to many (like his defense of the Slave Fugitive Law), but that was necessary to uphold the law.
   
   It is little known by many that Webster was a very able Secretary of State for three different presidents (Harrison, Tyler and Fillmore) and that he used his knowledge of the law (maritime law in particular), the constitution and America in general to develop foreign policy designed to continue gaining international rights, commerce and respect for our nation. In particular, he did much to open trade relations in Asia and Latin America.
   
   Unfortunately, Webster's flaws (drinking heavily, money mismanagement, duplicity and abuse of friends) were also great enough to prevent his being elected president. People just did not trust him enough. He was acknowledged as perhaps the best orator of the day and "Defender of the Constitution", but he had trouble relating to the common man. He was essentially an East Coast snob and the people of the south and the expanding west could not really relate well to him, or he to them. His stubborness also caused him to commit some real blunders on the foreign policy side, but I think that on balance he had a very creditable record as Secretary of State. That stubborness probably cost him the presidency at least once (he could have acceded to have been Harrison's VP but refused to; John Tyler accepted and became president when Harrison died just a few weeks into office) and cost the Whig party the presidency in at least another ocassion when he refused to concede during the nominating conventions.
   
   Men like Webster get lost in the popular mind between the greatness of the Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln. Yet, at a very crucial time in America, when the country was expanding at incredible rates, when interpretation of the constitution would define our legal framework to the present day and when the union was threatened to be torn asunder by nullifiers and abolitionists, men like Webster, Clay, Calhoun and Jackson were there to make sure the Union's survival was the primary object. In the intermediate term, they failed because the nation fell into Civil War (after they were all dead), but while they were alive, they compromised, orated and legislated to avoid that awful event. After the War, and even today, many of the things that America stands for and are taken for granted. But they were formulated and imprinted on our national character by men like the "Godlike Daniel".
   
   Remini has written extensively on the Jacksonian period and has detailed and excellent biographies of Jackson and Clay as well. These men did not all necessarily care of each other and Remini doesn't play favorites in his biographies. He deals with Webster very fairly, granting him his well-deserved greatness, but also being very frank and objective about his shortfalls and political failings and blunders.



3. Robert Remini brings us Daniel Webster as no one else can.... In order to paint such a perfect picture of a man that is as complex as Webster requires the knowledge of a true expert.
   
   Remini gives us a very fair and well balanced portait of a man who was a contemporary of Henry Clay, Andrew Jackson, and John Calhoun (all of whom Remini has written authorative biographies on).
   
   Make no mistake, Daniel Webster was a very complex man. One who was capable of pure genious but could also be unbelievably ignorant. His feud with Henry Clay probably cost both men the oppurtunity to be president. His ability to amass ungodly debts and then refuse to pay them is equally bizaar. However, this is the same man who argued many of the ground breaking case before the Supreme Court. He helped to stall the Civil War for 20 years by showing unflinching support to Andrew Jackson (Who was in the opposite political party) handling of the nullification crisis.
   
   Remini shows us all of these sides with the rare ability to help us get into the mind of Webster. Remini understands the age and the politics of this era like no other... therefore, if you are interested in learning about the great Daniel Webster.... look no further!
   
   However, as much as I enjoyed learning about Webster I admit you have to be motivated to read the entire book. While the politics of Webster's time were undoubtley the biggest of the time - it is hard for to finish all 800 pages when living in 2004. Make no mistake this is a great book... but even great books can be a bit dull.



4. Occasionally, nature produces an individual with towering intellect and mesmerizing oratorical abilities, but haunted by deep and seemingly irrepressible moral flaws. Their lives are filled with a mix of remarkable achievement and profound disappointment; monumental success and disgrace both seem inevitable. The late twentieth century had Bill Clinton, and the early nineteenth had Daniel Webster.

   Webster's story - like Clinton's - is at once inspiring and frustrating, laudable and detestable. There is certainly an element of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" in Daniel Webster, and the noted Jacksonian historian Robert Remini uses that split personality as the foundation in building this important biography of one of America's greatest and most unique statesman.

   Webster's genius is undeniable. His many natural gifts, which even his bitterest enemies had to concede, earned him the highly flattering sobriquet "the Godlike Daniel." No private attorney has affected the course of American judicial history as much as Webster. With the ideologically sympathetic John Marshall presiding over the Supreme Court, he successfully argued nearly every landmark case of the early nineteenth century: Dartmouth College, Gibbons vs. Ogden , McCollough vs. Maryland. He also added his considerable talents to the defense of the Union, first during the South Carolina nullification crisis in the celebrated Hayne-Webster debates, and then in the twilight of his life as the debate over slavery mounted toward civil war he delivered an impassioned speech in defense of the Compromise of 1850. His many public addresses lauding the ideals and principles of the American republic - the Plymouth Oration, Bunker Hill Oration, commemoration of the lives of Jefferson and Adams - are legendary and were once memorized by schoolboys. When a Webster speech was anticipated in the Senate, the halls were jammed with attendees eager to hear history in the making. Indeed, as Stephen Benet notes in the classic The Devil and Daniel Webster: "You see, for a while, he [Webster] was the biggest man in the country. He never got to be President, but he was the biggest man."

   But there was also a less admirable, more human side to Daniel Webster; an alter ego to the Godlike Daniel known derisively as "Black Dan." Addictions to alcohol and gambling were the duel crosses Webster had to bear through out life. These afflictions ensured Webster was chronically in debt despite a flourishing law practice. These debts eventually presented conflicts of interests and put him in compromising positions, which undermined his moral authority and ultimately cost him the White House.

   It has been written that most great men are made by the events of their times, but a very select few would have been great regardless of time or place. Remini's splendid biography suggests that Daniel Webster is a strong candidate for the latter category.




5. The unfortunate result of the growing power and focus on the executive branch is that historians tend to focus on presidents as prime movers for american political development. Remini's biography of Daniel Webster proves paradigm deeply flawed, particularly in the early years of our nations history.

   Webster, though never achieving the presidency, deserves great credit for setting the tone of american government and the supremacy of congress that survived through the 19th century. Remini does a tremendous job exploring the early 19th century and the issues this second generation of american leaders faced.

   Recent great interest in the revolutionary generation hopefully will not eclipse the study of those, like Webster, who came next and solidified the nacient insitutions that the founders created. If the founders were the fathers of our government, than men like Webster was that government's teacher in primary school.

   A wonderful read, if you are really interested in the topic.

5 comments about Honor's Voice: The Transformation of Abraham Lincoln.

1. Honor's Voice is terrific in two respects: both for its insights into Lincoln and for its insights into effective communication. I recommend it to anyone who uses words for a living, and for anyone who wants a fascinating, insightful look into how Lincoln crafted some of the most important speeches in our nation's history.



2. This book staggered me. Its careful research is combined with acute observations by author Wilson, on topics ranging from a fateful wrestling match that made Lincoln's reputation in a frontier village to Lincoln's bewilderment when courting Mary Todd. Wilson here produced one of the finest volumes ever to appear in the crowded field of Lincoln books. For anyone interested in how Lincoln's pre-presidential years shaped his conduct in the White House, Honor's Voice will be rewarding. It is one of the most significant Lincoln biographies I have ever read.



3. This is one of the most astonishing books I have ever read. I love history and yet this portrait of Abraham Lincoln is so much more. Had he been a Blacksmith, he would have been a hero. This was a man, a real man - no the greatest of men...who could not dissemble, lie, cheat, even when it came to marrying a woman that he knew (after they became engaged) would risk ruining his very life. He entered into a promise...and he would not go back on it. Of course, in those times, Breach of Promise (please read Anne Perry's book on this), was a serious offense against a woman's honor. But Lincoln carried this same integrity into everything he did no matter how difficult or huge - like the Civil War. I would hope that any student of American history would not miss out on this very important Masterpiece. As the cliche goes, if we do not learn from our own history, we are doomed (you know the rest....).



4. The reason this shouldn't be the first Lincoln book you read is that the author presupposes that the reader already has a basic command of Lincoln's life story. This book really speaks to those who are familiar with the various bits of Lincoln lore that permeate our culture: his wrestling match with Jack Armstrong, his courtship of Ann Rutledge, his off-and-on-again relationship with Mary Todd, and various accounts of his bookishness, his depression, and his early flirtations with agonisticism, among others.
   
   Having said that, I like this book more than any of the standard Lincoln biographies I own (I have the Thomas, Donald, and Sandburg bios.) The very best thing to read, of course, is Lincoln himself (his collected speeches and writings), but of the biographies written by others, this may be my favorite.
   
   The author dissects several of Lincoln's often-told formative experiences. In one example, he will explore the story of the wrestling match with Jack Armstrong, and ask:
   
   -- When is the earliest surviving account of the story, and what is the source?
   -- How has the story evolved over the years?
   -- How true is it? What does the evidence show?
   -- What is the significance of the story?
   
   For those who don't know the Jack Armstrong story, it is basically as follows: Lincoln was getting harassed by a gang of toughs in his town, and to deal with it, he challenged their leader, Jack Armstrong, to a wrestling match. The match was widely anticipated and witnessed, and Lincoln had the better of Armstrong. Afterwards, Armstrong restrained his allies, saying that Lincoln had won fair and square, and afterwards, he was a loyal friend to Lincoln, as were his associates.
   
   Like so many stories in the Lincoln canon, it's become a parable. It is a lesson about courage and forthrightness and insisting on fair play. In Lincoln's case, it also fills out the legend about his own physical strength, and how he became popular in his home town.
   
   Wilson's book analyzes many such stories. The anecdotes have varying degrees of truth, though on balance, most of the standard Lincoln tales do appear to be based in fact, even if they have become embellished over the years.
   
   You will like this book if you already enjoy the history of Lincoln, and if you like a little skeptical scientific inquiry thrown into your reading material. The reader is asked to travel along with the author as he gets to the bottom of the various issues surrounding Lincoln, and it's an enjoyable journey.
   
   I personally feel that this book is much more pleasant than as a mere exercise in critical history. I found that the dissection of these stories brought Lincoln much more fully to life for me. You get a much more multi-faceted view of the man because you aren't really relying on one author's perspective, as tends to be the case in other Lincoln biographies.
   
   It's an unusual work of history, and not the first Lincoln book to read, but it truly is outstanding. Highly recommended.



5. Teachers in criminal justice classes, I am told, often stage mock crimes in their classrooms. In the middle of a lecture, for example, a bandit will barge in, threaten the students, and make off with the professor's wallet. The students, at first shocked but then relieved when told that it was a staged event, are then asked to describe the event. What did the suspect look like? How tall was he? What color hair did he have? What was he wearing? What did he say? Invariably, there are multiple answers to those questions. People saw different things. No one version of what occurred is totally accurate.

   Wilson's book confronts that perennial problem of human perception. Though his 'transformation of Lincoln' plows familiar ground - how one solitary, unschooled backwoods man transformed himself into a national, albeit polarizing figure, through willpower, endurance, ambition, guts, and brains - his careful forensic method, as judge and jury of a multitude of competing facts and interpretations, makes this book a compelling tale, as much about how history is written as it is about how Lincoln evolved.

   And this is why I disagree with the reviews that describe this book as long-winded, tough-sledding and over-detailed. In Honor's Voice, Wilson provides a valuable glimpse into the historian's bag of tricks. Wilson takes each of the iconic moments of Lincoln's life - his storied wresting match with Jack Armstrong, his self-education, his disastrous romance with Ann Rutledge - and peels apart the layers, examining the historical record as closely as possible, evaluating the claims of eyewitnesses and second-hand sources, and holding each up to scrutiny before making any assertions; and even then, he is admirably cautious. Wilson presents a lot of quotes, exactly as written, from contemporaries who witnessed, or claimed to have witnessed, crucial events in Lincoln's life, and asks: Is this the truth? Who could have benefit from enhancing the truth? Who was really there? What about the quote lends it authenticity, or falsity? Yes, the narrative covers the same event numerous times, but this is the price one pays of exactness. Like the criminal justice students who have competing recollections of a recent event, not one of Lincoln's contemporaries knows the whole truth. But taken together, one gets a more clear picture of what might have happened.

   The risk, of course, is boredom and the frustration of dealing with multiple sources of the same event; but the reward is a new appreciation of Lincoln the man, as well as the historian's challenge of teasing out the facts in an era long since vanished.

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.

5 comments about Chechnya Diary: A War Correspondent's Story of Surviving the War in Chechnya.

1. This is the true story about the struggle the people of Chechnya are going through - a region I know little about. It is written through the eyes of a war correspondent - an occupation I know little about. Goltz brings some understanding to the layman with a direct, no-nonsense writing style that will capture your attention and send your senses reeling through sorrow, joy, dispair, hope and more. A must read for anyone who wants to gain some knowledge of the on-going struggle of Chechnya without wading through a dull textbook.



2. I'll state straight away that I count myself a an old and loyal friend of Thomas Goltz, and I'm a journalist too, so my five stars should perhaps seen in that context. But I believe they are well deserved, not least for the personal bravery the author displayed in getting the story. For me, this book's particular value is that for once it strips away the shield that we reporters feel necessary to arm ourselves with to protect ourselves from emotional involvement with the subjects of our reportage. This is the first time I read the account of someone who has faced up to naked realities of this situation. The result is a rare and compelling tale of the relationship between the interviewer and the interviewed, and set against a backdrop that shows how both sides behave and above all feel when trapped in forces outside their control.



3. This book is a sign Goltz has matured since writing "Requiem" and "AZ Diary", and has found his niche. This is to say, maybe he's realized he isn't much for political synthesis or history. He has obviously done a lot of good and original thinking about journalistic ethics in wartime and the "Hawthorne effect"--these are the reasons you want to read this book.
   
   There are a lot of books, historical and journalistic, in several languages, on Chechnya and this is the least exciting and informative of the ten or so of those I've read.
   
   "Allah's Mountains", "Chechnya--Tombstone of Russian Power" and "Chechnya--A Short, Victorious War" are more interesting and written by less self-obsessed authors.



4. Chechnya Diary isn't your typical book about war. For one thing, it reads more like an adventure or a novel than straight history. It's also much more philosophical than I would have expected. The book begins with the quote, "The observer affects the observed," and boy is that statement ever borne out as the story unfolds.

   Author Thomas Goltz sneaks into the country to cover the war, and ends up in a small town called Samashki, where he depends on the hospitality of a man named Hussein. Ostensibly there to record the fighting, Goltz soon becomes intimately involved, raising many tough questions about journalistic ethics and the effects of media war coverage.

   The book really picks up steam in the second half, as Goltz returns to Chechnya to discover the damage his participation has caused, and tries to rectify it.

   It's a thought-provoking book that provides background on the Chechnyan war but also goes far beyond that to dwell on how our shallow media culture affects our understanding of world events (and beyond that, how media coverage actually determines the course of those events as they play out). Goltz is a likable narrator who doesn't shy away from implicating himself when it comes to the sticky moral questions. He brings to life real Chechnyans in such vivid fashion that you'll remember them every time you hear about Chechnya in the news.

   I had tears in my eyes as I finished the book. Highly recommended.




5. Until I read 'Chechnya Diary' I was willing to accept what seemed to be conventional wisdom about the conflict in Chechnya--i.e., just another incidence of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Mr. Goltz provides another view: i.e., an effort (at least initally) to restore to a displaced people the homeland of which they were deprived by the Stalinst regime. I also found it refreshing to read something by a journalist who is willing to acknowledge that his presence may have an impact on the turn of events. All in all, I think this is a most enlightening book and, like Mr. Goltz's 'Azerbaijan Diary', a terrific adventure story.

5 comments about Gray Ghost: The Life of Col. John Singleton Mosby.

1. James A. Ramage has written what must be THE definitive book on the life of John Singleton Mosby. I cannot imagine a more thoroughly written book on the topic. Ramage discusses his family history, his childhood and more.
   
   Of course, the largest amount is written about his service in the Civil War as a partisan ranger that terrorized the Union troops arrayed against Robert E. Lee. Ramage is definitely a fan of Mosby, but he refuses to get involved in the hype that Mosby and his contemporaries sometimes engaged in concerning how effective Mosby's men were. Ramage agrees that Mosby was cost-effective, meaning that his small groups of men - usually around 120 or so - would tie down thousands of Union soldiers, but disagrees with Mosby himself that he tied down tens of thousands.
   
   The real strength of this biography is that Ramage covers Mosby's post-Civil War career thoroughly, including his controversial forays into politics and his government posting in Hong Kong. Ramage even includes a chapter on how Mosby has been represented in film and television, including a movie in which Mosby played himself in 1910.
   
   This is not a book for the casual Civil War reader - there is too much specific detail and an assumption that the reader knows and understands the basics of the war. However, this book will continue to serve as the reference for all things Mosby.



2. Ramage is absolutely correct when he speaks about Mosby's effect on his adversaries. By the time the war was over, he was - after Jefferson Davis - the most hated Confederate in the North. Once, late in the war when a troop of Yankee cavalry bringing in prisoners (none of whom were Mosby's men) joked that they had 'caught Mosby', in just a few hours over 10,000 people gathered to see the vaunted guerrilla chief. Mosby's psychological tactics were such that often all he or one of his men had to do was approach a Union picket or vidette and say, "I am Mosby" and the man became paralyzed with fear. Yet, Mosby's treatment of those whom he captured was such that after the war, many of his best friends were former Union officers taken by him and his command.
   
   Unfortunately, however, author Ramage has a tendency to speculate regarding things he cannot prove. His theory of Mosby's 'bipolar' personality - he was kind, gentle and loving at home but fierce, overly aggressive and untrusting out in the world - does not necessarily equate with the testimony of many of Mosby's men who wrote about the man and the 43rd Battalion.
   
   Furthermore, Ramage's account of Mosby's relationship with Fitz Hugh Lee - the two men detested each other - contains a vignette in which Lee supposedly offers a terrible rebuke to then Lt. Mosby when he offered Lee a captured Union newspaper. Lee, according to Ramage said "The ruling passion strong in death" a quote from one of Pope's moral essays on Lord Cobham, a religious dissenter who was hanged and burned for his beliefs. Ramage recounted that as a classical scholor Mosby would understand this statement to mean that he would deserve his fate when the Yankees caught and hanged him as a spy during one of his 'scouts' for JEB Stuart. According to Ramage, Mosby had no suspicion of Fitz Lee's hatred of him until that point. Yet in all other accounts - including Mosby's - nothing much is made of the same incident. I would not mind Ramage's account or his conclusion if only he had given a more detailed account of how he came to know that Lee said what he said and meant it as Ramage posits. Furthermore, I would have liked to know how Ramage knew that Mosby had no idea of his superior officer's feelings for him at the time. However, Ramage simply makes the statement and let's it go at that.
   
   There are certainly many psychological indicators apparent in Mosby's life which can enlighten interested parties regarding his forceful and unique personality but I must confess that I found some of author Ramage's speculations to be lacking in credible verification on such subjective matters. If one is going to speak of 'feelings' and 'passions', it is wise to have at least some documentation to back up one's claims. Otherwise, the matter becomes nothing more than another speculation regarding the individual being studied.



3. This book is about as close to entertainment as history can get. This does not mean that it is fiction however. Ramage writes a sturdy bio of Mosby. And although Mosby is one of the most famous, or infamous if you are a Yankee, Civil War personalities around, there aren't many good reads on him. However, Ramage's bio is terrific from both a historian's and a reader's point of view. Ramage is obviously an admirer of Mosby's, but does not blindly believe all that comes with the "Mosby myth". Instead, Ramage uses both primary and secondary sources to try to find the real Mosby and see what his real exploits were. The descriptions of Mosby's forays are fast-paced and exciting. The chapters on Mosby's post-war career are extremely interesting as we see the hated Mosby become a Republican and friend of U.S. Grant. Mosby also became embroiled in disputes with "Lost Cause" people like Jubal Early due to Mosby's support of J.E.B. Stuart. Interesting all the way around.



4. This book is well written by someone who likes Mosby but this nonsense about "terror" from Union troops about Mosby sounds more like the terror that was felt by the Confederates towards Sheridan or Sherman or John Brown!
   Frankly I have always considered those who hit and run or come out at night and shoot stragglers or people from behing to be somewhat -- well - gutless. Sorry.



5. An excellent book for anyone interested in the Civil War. Ramage has written an exciting, fast-paced biography of one of the South's most mythologized and celebrated Civil War heroes. He draws the reader into the world of Mosby from his early fights with childhood bullies to his final fight for J.E.B. Stuart's memory and legacy. Certainly one of the Confederacy's more popular figures, Mosby ruled an area of Virginia causing Union officers and privates alike to fear capture if separated from the main body. Mosby's able and selfless leadership set an example to his men, and both Stuart and Lee saw that he was no ordinary partisan ranger. Even after the war, Mosby's fight continued as he supported the Republican Grant for president. Ramage aptly delves into the now out-of-favor hero's post-war life and one of the best chapters in the book is his description of Mosby's fight against corruption as U.S. consul in Hong Kong. Ramage has gone through many sources and succeeded in bringing Mosby the man to life. The author even met with Mosby's grandson and received valuable first-hand descriptions of him in his later life. This book is destined to be the definitive work on the "Gray Ghost".

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

No comments about U.S. Military History For Dummies (For Dummies (History, Biography & Politics)).

2 comments about Mosby's Memoirs (Southern Classics).

1. I read this book in less than 3 weeks! It was great, and for those who don't know the Civil War it's even better because you don't know what's about to happen. I really liked it, and you should check it out.



2. Since I live in what might be called "Mosby's Back Yard" --- the Washington, DC suburbs of Northern Virginia --- I thought I should learn something about this man for whom several local streets, highways, and bridges are named. A friend recommended "Mosby's Rangers" by Jeffrey Wert; my wife suggested a new book, James Ramage's "Gray Ghost." But I opted to begin my study with Mosby's own account of his adventures: his own memoirs.

   I know that old soldiers tend to exaggerate their war stories; and they occasionally ramble. But Mosby's Memoirs are still fascinating, and I think the exaggeration is kept to a minimum. The story does get a bit bogged down in Chapter 12 --- talking about events leading up to Gettysburg. The good colonel, like all soldiers, is also somewhat wordy discussing the merits and failures of various generals and officers in the war.

   Still, all things considered, I found this to be quite interesting. I don't usually read military memoirs, but I enjoyed this. Now on to "Gray Ghost!"

   Oh, another thing that made this book (and, presumably any book on John Mosby's exploits) fun to read: he mentions so many towns, roads, and places already familiar to me. Last weekend I took a drive to Beaverdam, VA just to see what was left of the train station near where the Yankees captured Mosby early in his career (he was shortly released). Couldn't find the station, but the tracks are still there! If you're familiar with Northern VA & the Shenandoah Valley, check out this book!

1 comments about Grant's Lieutenants: From Cairo to Vicksburg (Modern War Studies).

1. Woodworth is a proven, able civil war historian, but this is one of his weakest books. Instead of concentrating on Grant's relationship with his subordinates, he focuses on mini biographhies of people in Grant's orbit, such as Wallace, Baldy Smith, Sherman and Sheridan. The biographies themselves are no better than what you would find in an encyclopedia and contain absolutely no new or novel information. There is very little material on the personal dynamics between the commander and his minions.

   Grant's famous feuds with Rosecrans, Pap Thomas and Smith are poorly presented and glossed over without inciteful comment. A golden opportunity is missed here, because these disagreements highlight the most interesting aspect of Grant's relationships throughout the war. In short, a slim and completely unpenetrating look at a subject that is well suited for a lengthy and interesting examination.