No comments about The Civil War Letters of Joseph Hopkins Twichell: A Chaplain's Story.

5 comments about Robert E. Lee: A Life (Penguin Lives Biographies).

1. Obviously, to get a REALLY good idea of who someone was, one must read more than one biography, but Roy Blount, Jr.'s "Robert E. Lee: A Life" is a pretty good start for anyone who has slight trouble wading through the heavy stuff. It keeps a lighthearted air while still managing to be extremely informative. I learned some little things about Lee, which I hadn't heard anywhere else before, and it was presented in such an enjoyable fashion. I already have two people asking to borrow this book, and I'm confident that they will come out of it with no complaints, just as I have. Enjoy. There's no way you can regret this purchase.



2. This book fails Gen. Robert E. Lee.
   
   It's noble in intent and confused in reality; like the Confederate army, half of which deserted, it greatly misses its full potential; like Lee's ability to overawe Northern generals, the topic seems to have overawed Blount; and like the Confederacy itself, it's a sadly flawed effort in defence of a doomed cause. In other words, it's a fitting portrayal of the Slave-ocracy itself, all smoke and mirrors and little substance. People who live off the labour of others are rarely noble, decent, competent or useful; that is why the Confederacy failed, not due to the shortcomings of General Lee or any of his soldiers.
   
   Again and again, Blount approaches fatal flaws in Lee's character and comes away uninspired; he writes "Lee was a great defensive general but on offense he got away with murder." It's an astute assessment. But he doesn't suggest the outcome had Lee fought a solely defensive war instead of wasting his best troops in futile attacks.
   
   Even his assessment of Lee as a "great defensive general" can be questioned. At the start of his long retreat to Appomattox Courthouse, Lee had 64,000 troops. He inflicted 63,000 casualties on Union forces; but, at Appomattox, his army was less than 10,000. Lee lost 53,000 men, or 83 percent of his army. Had the Germans lost the same proportion in Normandy in 1944, World War II would have ended by Thanksgiving.
   
   Blount touches major issues again and again, then retreats without a single thought. He spends more time psychobabbling about Lee's shoe size, a 4 1/2 C, than discussing Gettysburg. Surely, in a 206-page book about one of the great flawed figures of American history, there is more intellectual depth than to report, "We have no evidence that Lee and his wife, Mary, ever massaged each other's feet."
   
   "No one has ascribed any psychological significance to this socks fixation," Blount writes later about Lee's complaint that his wife sent only 64 pairs of socks, instead of 67 pairs. Although his soldiers often subsisted on mule meat and green corn, Blount can't find any psychobabble to explain Lee's order to have a soldier at Antietam shot for carrying a "stolen" pig. But he explains in great detail Lee's murder of a Canadian "snake" early in his career.
   
   When it comes to pure babble, Blount says Lee's joining the Confederacy "is one of the most famous American decisions." So, he compares it to the purely fictional decision by Huck Finn to help Jim, a runaway slave, to escape. Such insight is surely equivalent to saying Roosevelt's action after Pearl Harbour was inspired by Superman's decision to save Gotham. This is history? Or is it Blount's sense of humour, testing the acumen of readers hoping for anything more serious.
   
   Having wrapped up Lee's life in 163 pages, perhaps the strangest element is three Appendix afterthoughts that fill up the otherwise blank space from page 165 to the end. Maybe those pages should have been left blank for readers to fill in their own notes, observations and ideas. Or he could have psychobabbled about 'General Lee', the Dukes of Hazard car.
   
   Regardless of anyone's opinion of him, Lee deserves better.



3. I came away from this biography of Robert E. Lee feeling that the author didn't like his subject very much. It was almost like he wanted to prove that General Lee was just another man with more than his share of faults. He kept trying to pick Lee's personality apart and gave meaning to every gesture and casual comment that Lee had ever made. I felt that the historic facts in this book seemed accurate as far as I could remember from other things that I had read, but I also felt that there was not enough information given to substantiate some of the negative comments. He painted Lee as somewhat of a flirt, ignoring his wife, and being a cold and indifferent father to his children.
   
   If you want to read about General Lee, there are better biographies available.
   
   



4. In the pantheon of American history, few figures are as elusive and unknowable as Robert E. Lee, the commanding general of the Army of Northern Virginia and the principal Confederate military leader in the Civil War. To try and encapsulate his life into one small, concise little book is pretty much impossible, but Roy Blount Jr. tries his best. And for that, he is to be applauded.
   
   Over the course of less than 200 pages, Blount examines Lee's life from his troubled past (Light-Horse Harry Lee, his Revolutionary War hero of a father, abandons the family and leaves his mother to raise their children), to his early military career (including brave missions for Winfield Scott during the Mexican-American War), up through his Civil War generalship and subsequent retirement to a small college to live out his last years. And Blount does it with the charm and wit that make him one of America's (and the South's) most treasured writers.
   
   Robert E. Lee, more a marble giant than a man in most other biographers' attempts, is fleshed out by Blount as a stoic, almost Calvinist man with some unusual attributes that make him more attractive than before. Blount does not try to apologize for Lee's decision to side with his state over the Federal Government, he also tries to illuminate Lee's human side with interactions with his children and various ladies other than his wife over the course of his life. The Robert E. Lee that emerges is a man who had a hard life, with little hope for more than a passing whiff of happiness, who saw his duty to his state and his class overreaching that of the nation he served so gallantly before. And he paid the price for that in the end.
   
   Blount is at his best when describing Lee's human side (such as his flirtations with other women, his relationships with his children, his care of pupils while in charge of West Point), and also in showing that Lee's military record during the Civil War was less than perfect. Indeed, the book focuses on what Blount calls Lee's "instinctive" generalship and how his inability to communicate with his subordinates cost him victory at Gettysburg. Lee's war is not a success in the end, but his image as a fatherly leader of his men helps to cement the postwar elevation to Godlike status among the defeated Southerners who clung to the ideals of the Confederacy.
   
   Robert E. Lee is too complex a figure to be summed up in the space of 200 pages, but what Blount does is provide a quick survey of his life and infuse it with enough detail to make for a great brief appreciation. In appendices to the main book, Blount also discusses Lee's humor (his fondness for a certain, almost obscene phrase a highlight) and his attitudes to slavery (Lee was sadly a product of his times, no matter how "kind" he may have been to his own slaves). Blount, a southerner himself, takes pains to show Lee in real terms, not as the demigod he has been promoted to in the wake of postwar nostalgia. Robert E. Lee was not an easy man to know, and Blount makes no attempt to act as if his is the "definitive" study. But through clever and interesting sidetracks into Lee's personality, Blount comes as close as anyone yet to getting a handle on the man behind the curtain, the real Robert E. Lee and not the myth.
   
   Roy Blount Jr., through the auspices of Penguin's Brief Lives series, gives us a portrait of Robert E. Lee than transcends the myth and looks at the facts behind the myth. The result is a man that emerges as a troubled and complicated leader of men whose failings had as much to do with his legend as his successes. Blount makes Lee human, something that other more esteemed historians seem to miss. For that, he should be commended. The Marble Giant comes alive, however briefly, and fans and detractors alike can find something to treasure in Roy Blount's honest appraisal of his life and times.



5. I like the Penquin series of short biographies but this one was too much of a strange psychohistory. As other reviewers have pointed out, author Roy Blount seems to have a need to go into details 9at fairly great legnth) such as Lee's small feet and that he liked to play games with his children where they tickled his feet. First of all, I knew this because as a Civil way buff, I have read a lot about Lee so I come across such material. However, someone who knows less about Lee who is reading a very short biography would want to know more substance and less psycho nonsense in those few pages.
   
   There is not a lot of military history but, then again, this is a short book. Still, military history is basic to an initial understanding of Lee, therefore, perhaps Blount should have been more carefully in allocating scarce page space in this short book. In general, I have enjoyed reading short biographies of historical figures I am familiar with. I have read several biographies of Grant, for example, and I found two short biographies to be worthwhile in that in the few pages, they added insights. I suppose this book is OK for someone who knows nothing about Lee but it would be better to include more of the military and political facts. However, I found that it didn't really add much to my personal understanding of Lee.

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.

2 comments about Memoirs of a Dutch Mudsill: The "War Memories" of John Henry Otto, Captain, Company D, 21st Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry.

1. Memoirs of a Dutch Mudsill: The "War Memories" of John Henry Otto, Captain, Company D, 21st Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, edited by David Gould and James B. Kennedy (Kent, Ohio, 2004).
   
   This is my favorite Civil War book. It provides the reader with as vivid a sense a book could afford of what it was like to live the daily life of a foot-soldier during the Civil War, except of course for the absolute horror that attended the battles of that conflict. We experience through the eyes of a seasoned and insightful soldier some of the sights, sounds, smells, and tastes of his world. While John Henry Otto was a well-trained former Prussian soldier, he was above all a civilized and thoughtful man of good-will and humanity. He approached faults and weakness in others with humor , kindness, and realism, and he clearly saw himself as one of the many, rather than as one deserving aggrandisement.
   
   The 21st Wisconsin was a regiment which suffered a high number of casualties during the war. It received a harsh initiation into battle, when, just one month after the regiment was formed, it was thrown into a key position at the battle of Perryville. The regiment lost heavily in that conflict, with the serious wounding of its colonel, Benjamin J. Sweet, and the deaths of many officers and men. Battle was not the only thing with which these soldiers had to contend as part of their introduction to war: they were late in receiving essential equipment such as tents and waterproof blankets, as a result of which many suffered and died from exposure, as well as from the diarrhea and foot ailments which plagued most troops. Many of the regiment, including Surgeon Samuel J. Carolin, died from the impact of these deprivations upon their health in the month following Perryville.
   
   The battles of Stones River (Murfreesboro), Tullahoma, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, Resaca, Atlanta, Savannah, and Bentonville are also depicted and the narrative concludes with the grand parade in Washington which celebrated the end of the war. Otto's memoirs are one the only detailed first-hand accounts of some aspects of these battles and they provide much needed insight into their atmospheres -- how people reacted under crisis, how they interacted, how they sustained one another.
   
   The felicitous collaboration of David Gould, John Henry Otto's great-grandson, and James B. Kennedy, a scholar of the 21st Wisconsin Regiment, has resulted in a readable, personalized classic. They wisely avoid over-editing some of Otto's spelling, grammar, and punctuation idiosyncrasies save where understanding might be compromised, and they permit the intelligent and eloquent soldier to speak for himself. That he was eminently capable of doing so is evident from the following passage in which John Henry Otto describes camping on Lookout Mountain: "We lived now so to speak in another Climate. At such an elevation the air was allways pure and keen and nearly allways, especially at night time, a lively wind blowing." (P. 215.)
   
   This is a unique book, one deserving of several readings and one to share with family.



2. This is the best Civil War account of a midwestern (Wisconsin) soldier and the day to day activities that a common soldier had to endure that I have read. It chronicles the day to day life, as well every battle from Murfreesboro, to Atlanta, to the Savannah. Written from the perspective of a common soldier rather than from the perspective of a General. It reads like a novel. Excellent!

1 comments about Lincoln's Ladies: The Women in the Life of the Sixteenth President.

1. Now in a newly revised and expanded edition, Lincoln's Ladies is the eyebrow-raising true story of Abraham Lincoln's often troubled life and the women who influenced it. From his treasured first love, who unfortunately perished shortly after they became engaged, to his tumultuous relationship with his wife Mary Todd, who is documented as verbally abusing him (and the domestic help) on countless occassions and even chasing him with a broom, to numerous other women, not all of them romantic relationships, who came to speak with and know Lincoln in various ways, Lincoln's Ladies is a fascinating exploration of a great President's little-known private life. Written by an award-winning journalist, Lincoln's Ladies is a must-read for anyone curious about the nuances of history in general and Licoln's life in particular.

5 comments about To Purge This Land With Blood: A Biography of John Brown.

1. Having read this author's biography of Lincoln (Malice Toward None) I was so impressed with his writing style and story telling that I wanted to stick with him.
   
   This book reads well. I recommend it. I enjoyed it. The book reads like a novel and seemed fairly comprehensive, thought it's under 400 pages and moves along at a comfortable pace. It provides plenty of food for thought about Brown. Having always heard that Brown was a mad-man, I was pleased to find that his story is much more than that.
   
   As far as dismissing John Brown as a crazy, consider how many renowned people of his day he befriended and persuaded to back his endeavors! Were they all crazy too?
   
   The book revealed for me the political / social / religious dynamics of those wild times in a meaningful way. If the issue of John Brown comes up for discussion, I now feel confident to participate.



2. There are a lot of books on Brown, for good reason. He is a fascinating figure, a sort of mythical creature. Many books dumb this aspect down through their soggy prose and endless fact-logging, but the prose in this book is not too bad. Oates doesn't relate too much worthless information, which is common in the social sciences. I remember reading one Brown biography that debated whether his cabin was made out of pine or oak. Many historians cannot understand that not all pieces of information were created equal.
   
   Seriously though, the prose here is decent and the history seems fairly accurate. There are some passages that are poetic in their way, and I was affected by many aspects of Brown's personality and U.S. History that Oates managed to describe quite well. Times of revolution can make for excellent reading, especially when the world today seems very difficult to change. Brown tried to change it, and in the minds of many, he did. So, for those unfamiliar with Brown, he makes for a good story.
   
   It is obvious at times that Oates is angling to not "alienate" the Southern reader. He talks about how Southerners "had a right to be scared" and makes the argument that slavery-accepting Southerners were not such bad people, etc. Racism was widespread, only slightly less so in the North, so this is partially reasonable. However, there is hardly any material about how disgusting slavery really was. There are good reasons that John Brown was violently opposed. Basically, Oates is trying to be "balanced." What that means is he is giving both sides of the argument, even when one of them has been proven to be self-evidently stronger. Slavery was wrong, and it died out, and good riddance to the Southerners who accepted and perpetuated it.
   
   If you want to read about how nasty slavery really was, and I recommend that you do if you are open-minded about judging characters such as Brown, then you can start with some of the slave narratives, for example the narratives of Frederick Douglass and Mary Prince.
   
   John Brown was one of the few people who doesn't just stand around and watch while injustices abound. He acts, and that is the reason that many cannot stand him. He is a profoundly moral person, and that is threatening to people who are not. They cannot understand that it is better to kill a thousand men then to let millions rot in slavery.
   
   Highly recommended, just don't get thrown off by the "balance."



3. Please note that the substance of the following review has been used in the review of W.B. Dubois's book on John Brown reviewed elsewhere. Both books offer a good prospective on the life of John Brown and can be profitably read together. Dubois's book is a decent historical narrative of Brown's life from an earlier time and in a more partisan perspective. Oates book reflects more modern academic methods of analysis and research and tackles the weaknesses in other interpretations. In that sense, Oates book is close to the definitive study of John Brown's life. Most importantly, both books reflect a Northern view of Brown exploits previously long absent from the historical record. My review reflects the need to study an important American fighter for justice and for today's generation to learn some lessons from his life.
   
   
   I would like to make a few comments on the role of Captain John Brown and his struggle at Harper's Ferry in 1859 in the history of the black liberation struggle. This is appropriate as I am writing this review during Black History Month of 2006. Unfortunately John Brown continues to remain one of the very few white heroes of the revolutionary struggle for black liberation.
   
   From fairly early in my youth I knew the name John Brown and was swept up by the romance surrounding his exploits at Harpers Ferry. For example, I knew that the great anthem of the Civil War -The Battle Hymn of the Republic had a prior existence as a tribute to John Brown. I, however, was then neither familiar with the import of his exploits for the black liberation struggle nor knew much about the specifics of the politics of the various tendencies in the struggle against slavery. I certainly knew nothing then of Brown's (and his sons) prior military exploits in the Kansas wars against the expansion of slavery. If one understands the ongoing nature of his commitment to struggle one can only conclude that his was indeed a man on a mission. Those exploits also render absurd a very convenient myth about his `madness'. This is a political man and to these eyes a very worthy one. In the context of the turmoil of the times he was only the most courageous and audacious revolutionary in the struggle against the abolition of slavery in America.
   
   Whether or not John Brown knew that his strategy would, in the short term, be defeated is a matter of dispute. Reams of paper have been spent proving the military foolhardiness of his scheme at Harper's Ferry. This misses the essential political point that militant action- not continuing parliamentary maneuvering advocated by other abolitionists- had become necessary. What is not in dispute is that Brown considered himself a true Calvinist avenging angel in the struggle against slavery and more importantly acted on that belief. In short, he was committed to bring justice to the black masses. This is why his exploits and memory stay alive after over 150 years.
   
   Brown and his small integrated band of brothers fought bravely and coolly against great odds. Ten of Brown's men were killed including two of his sons. Five were captured, tried and executed, including Brown. These results are almost inevitable when one takes up a revolutionary struggle against the old order and one is not victorious. One need only think of, for example, the fate of the defenders of the Paris Commune in 1871. One can fault Brown on this or that tactical maneuver. Nevertheless he and the others bore themselves bravely in defeat. As we are all too painfully familiar there are defeats of the oppressed that lead nowhere. One thinks of the defeat of the Chinese Revolution in the 1920's. There other defeats that galvanize others into action. This is how Brown's actions should be measured by history.
   
   Militarily defeated at Harpers Ferry, Brown's political mission to destroy slavery by force of arms nevertheless continued to galvanize important elements in the North at the expense of the pacifistic non-resistant Garrisonian political program for struggle against slavery. Many writers on Brown who reduce his actions to that of a `madman' still cannot believe that his road proved more appropriate to end slavery than either non-resistance or gradualism. That alone makes short shrift of such theories. Historians and others have misinterpreted later events such as the Bolshevik strategy which led to Russian Revolution in October 1917. More recently, we saw this same incomprehension concerning the victory of the Vietnamese against overwhelming military superior forces. Needless to say, all these events continue to be revised by some historians to take the sting out of there proper political implications.



4. In the preface of his book, author Oates states it is not his intention to determine the mental capabilities of his subject, abolitionist John Brown. But, he certainly paints a vivid enough picture so the reader can determine for himself if Brown is a crazy old coot, a cold blooded murderer, or a man on a mighty mission or a combination of all three. I had just read Cloudsplitter by Russell Banks (a fictionalized version of Brown's life; see my review) and it made me want to read a real biography of Brown. If anything, this book made me appreciate Banks' immagination even more. To Purge This Land with Blood is a very detailed account of Brown's life, maybe too detailed. Every character, no matter how inconsequential, is named. And this sea of names and places can be mindboggling. I found much of the book slow going and already knowing the outcome of Brown's life didn't compel me to move on quickly. But, after reading the book, I now believe I now know Brown. And isn't that the purpose of biography?



5. If you were, like I was, taught that John Brown was not much more than a well-meaning madman then you don't know the John Brown of history. Oates does a great job of dispelling that myth as well as presenting for the first time the full picture, thoroughly footnoted, of the man who may have sparked the Civil War. I have small gripes with some of the text, but none worth mentioning here. Read it and be impressed.

5 comments about Custer Victorious: The Civil War Battles of General George Armstrong Custer.

1. this book is valuable as a reference to Custer's Civil War service. At least you will learn in which battles he participated. Whether or not he was the brave hero portrayed is questionable simply because this author is so in love with Custer that everything else is disregarded.
   
   Urwin was only 24 years old when he wrote this book, and it shows. It's almost adolescent in its praise of Custer. He denigrates everyone who criticized Custer during his 7th Cav days. The enlisted men were "trash", the officers "petty and jealous". This is a book written by a young man with a lot to learn.



2. George Armstrong Custer is known to most people today as the general who led his soldiers to slaughter at the hands of the Indians at the Little Bighorn in Montana. But it was the glory and fame earned as a dashing and courageous Civil War cavalry officer that made that defeat so shocking and controversial. Gregory J.W. Urwin focuses on those Civil War years in this study.
   
   Custer graduated last in his class from West Point in 1861 (he may have been expelled if the army wasn't in desperate need of officers at the time). Assigned to a cavalry regiment, he first saw action at First Bull Run. There and later with McClellan on the Peninsular and then with General Alfred Pleasanton, Custer gained a reputation for bravery and bravado. He especially distinguished himself at Gettysburg and in the Shenandoah Valley with Sheridan in 1864. But perhaps his greatest achievement was the constant pressure he and his troops put on Lee as he retreated toward Appomattox Court House; Lee said it was a major factor in his decision to surrender.
   
   Custer was dashing and fearless in battle - and was not shy about having the spotlight on him. This, of course, breeds jealous enemies as well as cheering supporters (and is one reason why the Little Bighorn debacle was, and remains, so controversial). Urwin goes out of his way to make sure his book has no odor of the academic about it (despite the numerous footnotes and extensive bibliography): he writes in a familiar and totally informal style and describes much of the action in a novelistic way. This makes much of the book a page-turner - a fresh thing for historical writing. A most enjoyable read, and probably the definitive account of Custer in the Civil War - before his experiences on the Plains changed him and ultimately led to his downfall.



3. This is a good read and will open up a new opinion of Custer for most people. It was only in the 20th century that the name of George Armstrong Custer became associated with the ultimate bad decision and failure. In the last half of the 19th century, he was still remembered for his daring and SUCCESSFUL civil war exploits. It is nice to see his Civil War record documented in one spot so that future generations can see that there was more to this warrior than the Battle of the Little Big Horn. He employed the same tactics but with much more confidence and obviously greater success.



4. This book tells the fascinating story of George Armstrong Custer's Civil War career. The self-confidence of this man, followed by his real accomplishment, is amazing. Prior to reading this book, I was aware of only Custer's battle with Jeb Stuart at Gettysburg. Now I find that Custer met Stuart on numerous occasions and, in fact, it was his brigade that was responsible for Stuart's death at Yellow Tavern. For the life of me, I can't figure out why this epic rivalry between these two great cavalry leaders is not better known.
   
   The bad news is that the writing is merely adequate. The prose is a tad purple and the last chapter, in which the author summarizes his theory that Custer was truly a great military leader, is superfluous in that the author has done a much more convincing job in merely telling the tale. Finally, I might quibble about the title. I almost didn't buy this book because I thought it was an alternative history of Little Big Horn.
   
   We live in an age with a scarcity of heroes. This book presents us a hero in the classic mold. We could do worse than to emulate this man. It is perhaps telling of our times, however, that rather than to acknowledge Custer's heroism, we defame his memory.



5. Being from Michigan, I knew George Custer was a Civil War hero. After reading this book I realized just how important that man was to the Union cause. Although young, Custer was mature beyond his years, his prowess as a calvaryman is second to none. He was loved by his troops and respected by his enemies, some who he bested many times during the Civil War. He was a true leader in every sense of the word. Fearless and steady, always leading his troops into a charge. Ever concerned for the well being of his men. This book is a wonderful piece on a great man who was lost in history by speculation and heresay. Had he his Michigan Calvary Brigade, his beloved "Wolverines" or men like them at Little Big Horn and not 17 and 18 yr old troops as recently discovered, even though being outgunned I am sure there would have been different results for historians to ponder. Rest in Peace Major General Custer, your name is forever cleared.

5 comments about Jefferson Davis and His Generals: The Failure of Confederate Command in the West (Modern War Studies).

1. For a Confederate examination, Steven Woodworth's book is essential reading in understanding the complex relationships between President Davis and his western theater leaders. Peppered throughout the book are insightful examinations of such generals as Beauregard, Polk, Van Dorn, Albert Sydney Johnston, Joe Johnston, Bragg, and Hood. Woodworth delves into Davis' leadership weaknesses by showing that his health problems and his lack of humility and people-skills (he would have six different War Secretaries) increased his inability to cooperate with others. His unyielding loyalty to promote incompetent friends to high positions routinely injected failure and casualties in campaigns, but Davis refused to bow to the facts and remove them. Woodworth wraps up his analysis with a fair theory that interconnecting these problems was Davis' hesitancy and indecision. The president often submitted suggestions and not orders in correspondence and he falsely believed backbiting and arrogant generals would just cooperate towards the common cause. His inability to provide unifying command authority, especially over the Mississippi River region further fractured what little strategy existed. Woodworth's analysis is a rare addition in the often-neglected study of western command. It is insightful, extremely well-wrttien, and engrossing.



2. Seemingly endless Civil War books are written rehashing every minute move of Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia. There are far fewer that cover the situation of the Confederacy's western armies and generals, despite, or perhaps because of the fact that it was in the west that the Confederacy lost the war. With Jefferson Davis and His Generals: The Failure of Confederate Command in the West, Steven E. Woodworth steps up to fill this gap with a first rate book that every serious student of the Civil War should read. He presents a clear and reasoned argument that the failure of the Confederacy in the west was not due to the quality or quantity of its armies or even of its supplies, but a direct result of a monumental failure in its high command.
   Woodworth writes of Jefferson Davis as a man who seemed to be eminently and uniquely qualified to become commander in chief of the Confederacy. He was a West Point graduate, a Mexican War hero, had served as a particularly effective secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce, and had been a United States senator. He understood politics, and he clearly understood war. His resolve for his cause, like his loyalty to his friends, was unshakable. Contained within these impressive qualifications and traits, however, were flaws and blind spots that would severely hinder Davis' management of the war in the west, where he had no Lee to take charge. Foremost of these faults was a lack of judgement when appointing friends as generals, and unreasonable loyalty to them thereafter. Compounding these problems was a fierce pride in his own military judgement that left him unable to acknowledge and correct mistakes. Finally, his pride led him into bitter personal feuds with key generals that hindered his ability to utilize them to the fullest.
   Woodworth follows Davis' moves in the west, from his initial organization of the Western theater, through the high stakes game played and eventually lost to gain Kentucky for the Confederacy, to the crisis at Shiloh, where with the death of General Albert Sidney Johnston, the Western Confederacy lost its best hope for competent command. The catastrophe of the loss of Vicksburg, the disastrous infighting among the generals under Bragg in the Army of Tennessee, the loss of Tennessee, the Atlanta Campaign, and Hood's final failed campaign are all covered. In each instance, Woodworth notes the command decisions that Davis made, or failed to make, in the crisis. At the end of each chapter, he summarizes and critiques Davis' performance, highlighting areas where Davis was at least partly responsible for the problems, as well as pointing out where he performed as well as could have been expected.
   Woodworth clearly has a strongly opinionated point of view. He is nearly unique among the Civil War historians that I have read in his spirited defense of General Braxton Bragg as a competent commander, and lays all of the blame for the failure of Bragg's campaigns on incompetent and insubordinate generals under his command, chiefly Davis' personal friend General Leonidas Polk. He also repeatedly accused General Joseph Johnston of lacking a will to win, and of never believing that the Confederacy could win the war. While many will disagree with these positions, his boldness in stating them is characteristic of the bold approach that is evident throughout his book.
   Jefferson Davis and His Generals is a bold, original work, that addresses a theme that is too often neglected in Civil War studies. It is consistently engaging, insightful, and controversial. It is clearly written, well researched, and a pleasure to read. I consider it to be among the very best books that I have read on the Civil War, and would recommend it highly, especially to those with a specific interest in the war in the west.
   
   Theo Logos



3. Insightful and thought provoking analysis of what Davis did and did not do to save the West. I feel this is a very important book and one that a serious student of the war should read. Additionally, I feel that this book should be read after Connelly and Horn to preserve a balanced picture. Woodworth presents a more favorable view of Bragg than I have seen from other authors. Some of this is fair and some maybe the author's perceptions of Bragg. It takes getting used to and the more you know about Bragg and his failings the better off you are. He scores many good points and made me modify my view of Bragg and the problems he had with Polk and Hardee.
   
   His treatment of Jefferson Davis is very fair. His points are valid and well supported, showing where Davis did well and where he did poorly. The reasons for the decisions are supported and logical, given Davis' personality. This is the best part of the book and balances the blame the "Eastern Block" that is found in other books.
   
   I am less happy with his treatment of Longstreet, feeling that he has accepted the "Lost Cause Myth" and not explored the situation. Rather than dismiss Longstreet, I would have liked to see an explanation of his relationship with Davis and Lee's influence in this area.
   
   This is a well written, easy to read informative book. Not without faults but a valuable addition to my ACW library.



4. I re-read Woodworth's excellent treatise on Jefferson Davis and his involvement in the Western Theater. The chapters are succinct and focus more on strategy than in specific battle details. My favorite parts are the reviews at the end of each chapter. I have always believed that Lee's strategy to invade the North rather than deploying his forces in the West was a major blunder. If there is one salient point that screams from this book it is that Jeff Davis' personal relationships with his generals (Polk??) definitely was a detriment to his decision making. This book should be required reading for high school and undergraduate students. Indeed any leader could profit from the analysis and history rendered here.



5. This book is a must read to understand the generals, campaigns, strategy, and the thinking of Jefferson Davis in the Western Theater. The book is well-written, informative, and features good analysis of the differing generals, Davis' actions, and some very good mini-biographies of the major players. Although the book does not go into major detail about specific battles, Woodworth does give a good overview of the major campaigns and battles of the West. The book also has some interesting theories on why Davis failed in the West. Although I disagreed with some of Woodworth's conclusions, especially regarding Braxton Bragg's capabilities as a commander, I found his arguments well-reasoned, although I thought he went out of his way to bash James Longstreeet. The major sticking point I had with the book was Woodworth's analysis on Bragg and his theory that J.E. Johnston thought the CSA's cause was doomed so he didn't really try to win. I thought that was utter nonsense, but that was really my only quarrel with the book. Well-written, informative, just an excellent book.

3 comments about General Stand Watie's Confederate Indians.

1. ....one of the worst of which is that the Confederacy was a white, Anglo-Saxon monolith. The truth is that the Confederacy pioneered the idea of giving blacks and women positions of authority [the Matron Law], placed Jews in positions of power, and put General's stars on a Mexican. And, we had the first American Indian General; this wonderful book is his story.
   
   Stand Watie was born in Georgia in 1806, and went west on the Trail of Tears. In Oklahoma, he became a rich, powerful, slave-owning rancher. [Yes, Indians owned slaves; so did Jews, Mexicans, and, surprise, Blacks]. He also gained both friends and enemies; as one of the two rival Principal Chiefs of the Cherokee Nations, he headed the Mixed Blood faction, which some thought got along a little too well with the government. [The other Chief, John Ross, was also a rich slave-owning rancher, living in a mansion, married to a white woman; he had less Indian blood than Watie]. Sort of like the Pure Bloods and the Mud-Bloods in the Harry Potter stories, only this wasn't funny........
   
   When the Civil War came, both sides wanted the Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes in present day Oklahoma; enter another of the few Civil War characters who provide a measure of comic relief, Brigadier General Albert Pike, sent by the Confederacy to recruit the Indians; he did a pretty good job, too, capitalizing on the very real beef that the Indians had with the US. Pike's Civil War career is a minor footnote to a long, productive life. Today, he is best known as the philosopher of Scottish Rite Masonry. Pike resigned in late 1862 [Maybe---another topic], and was replaced by the more conventional, but less colorful, Douglas Cooper. Cooper said that Pike was either disloyal to the Confederacy, or was insane; Masons know which was the case.....
   
   Oklahoma saw action all thru the war; the battles aren't as well known as the eastern ones, but the troops gave just as much, and the dead were just as dead. Stand Watie was a hero of Wilson's Creek, and proved to be an effective leader the whole way. Indeed, this was a theatre of operations where the Confederacy remained viable right to the end. Stand Watie was rewarded with General's stars in 1864, and was the very last Confederate General to stack arms.
   
   This book is a true classic, a well written account of a part of the Civil War that most people don't even know existed.. Many thanks to Mr. Cunningham, and many thanks to the University of Oklahoma Press for making it available.



2. Well written chronicle of one of the South's finest soldiers.
   Too little has been introduced about the struggle between North and South in the Nations. This book is the best I have read on the subject.
   Watie and his gallant band are well represented in their struggle to defend their families and save their homes from ruin during the Yankee invasion.



3. Excellent overview of Native American Confederates. A little looked at fact of the Civil War. Does justice to all men, women of all color, nationalities whom fought for what they beleived in.

5 comments about Grant Takes Command: 1863 - 1865.

1. It is almost amazing that even after nearly 40 years, this book still stand the test of time as one of the best studies of General U.S. Grant's tenure as the military commander of all Federal forces. The book starts off from the Chattanooga campaign in late 1863 and moving on to his promotion as overall commander and his attachment to the Army of the Potomac for the rest of the war. By this move he clearly determined that General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia will be his primary target and a key to overall victory for the Union. Bruce Catton does a wonderful job in narrating each event in a clear and colorful way that make this book a joy to read.
   
   Best part of Catton's writing is the way he make individual characters stand out in a way that most pertaining to the event at hand. We understand how Lincoln and Grant bonded so well, how even Meade and Grant worked well on surface and why Grant kept his eye on the ball when grinding Lee down to earth.
   
   This book is a follow-up to Catton's earlier work, Grant Moves South which was published 7 years prior to this book and captured Grant's military activities from the beginning of the war to end of the Vicksburg campaign in 1863. As part of the two book set, Bruce Catton continued to captured the essence of Grant's military chronicles with clarity and understanding that any reader can appreciate.
   
   For anyone interested in the American Civil War, this book is sure to be part of your mandatory reading material and the best part is that its really is a great reading book.



2. "Grant Takes Command" is the second of two volumes by Bruce Catton on Grant's Civil War service and the third volume of a trilogy on Grant's military career (beginning with Lloyd Lewis's "Captain Sam Grant"). However, this volume can easily be ready by itself. Catton picks up the story in the fall of 1863 with Grant's successful raising of the siege of Chanttanooga, following which President Lincoln picks him for a third star and command of all the Union armies.
   
   Grant is the latest in a long series of Union commanders, most of whom have been badly beaten by General Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia, and none of whom have been able to bring superior Northern resources effectively to bear on a slowly weakening Confederacy. In fact, as Grant takes command, the war has not yet been won and could still be lost.
   
   Grant will be the commander that Lincoln has long sought. Lincoln's telling exchange with an aide, repeated by Catton, lays out why. Grant is the first general to take the supreme command who will work in harness with Lincoln and in full acceptance of Lincoln's constraints as President of a democracy in the midst of a civil war. Grant is prepared to take full responsibility for the conduct of the missions of the armies, and without setting up an alibi in advance for possible failure. And as it becomes apparent in the course of Catton's absolutely superb narrative, Grant understands the terrible math. Lee and his army are too proficient to be easily beaten; great persistance will be called for. Grant grasps the essential truth that Lee's army is the Confederate center of gravity, and the corallary that Lee's requirement to protect Richmond ultimately limits his ability to maneuver. Further, Grant is able to cause the Union armies to work at a common design, denying Lee the ability to reinforce Virginia by drawing on other theaters of war. The result will be a long, grinding, and exceedingly bloody campaign stretching from 1864 into 1865, as Lee's army is slowly bludgeoned to death.
   
   Catton's narrative does not spare Grant his errors; in the 1864 campaign, Grant underestimates both Lee's abilities as a general and the difficulties of conducting campaigns on such a huge scale. Grant has to learn the job of Army commander in chief on the move; the unnecessary casualties of Cold Harbor and the repeated failures to flank Lee out of position in Virginia are proof of the learning curve. But Grant's great gift is his refusal to be deterred from his objective; he pins Lee at Petersburg and uses the Union armies of Sherman and Sheridan, among others, to destroy the Confederacy's means to make war.
   
   "Grant Takes Command" was first published in 1960, and the details of the history of the Civil War have evolved since then. However, Catton's prose has stood the test of time. This is a truly magnificently told story on an epic scale and a highly recommended treat for the Civil War enthusiast and the casual reader alike.



3. In this superb second volume on Grant's war-time service, Bruce Catton shows how Grant devised and executed the grand strategy that ensured we'd be one country.

   Beginning at Chattanooga, Catton chronicles Grant's successful battle to save a beleaguered federal army there and his selection as head of all of the armies of the Union.

   The strategic plan, the overland campaign, the investiture of Petersburg and the finale with Lee at Appomattox are chronicled well.

   What Catton does very well here is focus on Grant the General-in-Chief. We see how Lincoln and Grant are drawn toward each other through a shared and fundamental understanding of what it would take to win the war and the will to do it -- incredibly a trait Lincoln could find in no other General selected to head the Army of the Potomac.

   The actual management of the Union's armies and efforts is given great attention. Even the Civil War devotee who knows a lot about the battles of the war will appreciate this focus on grand strategy, army management and the particular and singular attributes possessed by Grant to manage the affair to a successful conclusion.

   A wonderful book, as is it's predecessor, "Grant Moves South."




4. This is a well-researched account of the last two years of the Civil War (1863-1865). The harsh realities of the battles and living conditions are especially given great detail here. The final days of the war and the surrender of General Lee are extremely poignant as the author examines the tattered remains of the once invincible Army of Northern Virginia. The exchange between the victors and the vanquished at Appomattox is the highlight of the book. The author also takes pains not to overlook any of Grant's military blunders such as Cold Harbor and gives an even-handed viewpoint throughout. I recommend this book for anyone who is interested in the darkest days of our nation's history.



5. A change in Focus--Grant takes the Reins

   Until 1864, the Army of the Potomac had never won a campaign. Each Union attempt to capture Richmond drove south, was repulsed, withdrew to Washington, found a new general, and tried again. After his successes at Vicksburg and Chattanooga, Grant came east to a promotion, to general in charge of all Union Armies.

   Grant brought a different focus, and Catton defines this superbly in this book, drawing on many of Grant's memoranda to other officers, as well as President Lincoln. Catton captures the essence of a Grant campaign: hold on to the enemy, grasp and retain the initiative, and always move your logistics aggresively forward.

   Catton also tries, albeit weakley, to show that Grant was not a "pure" attritionist. He offers examples of Grant's desires to push west and sever Richmond from the Shenandoah. Catton explores the political reality of uncovering Washington to a Confederate thrust, while attacking the logistics that sustained Confederate armies, while Sherman simultaneously attacked Atlanta and its strategic railhead. Catton states that after the battle of Cold Harbor Ggrant's numerical superiority was at its lowest level, but he does not provide the hard math to support this stance. On the other hand, Catton shows well the manuever warfare used by Grant to slip away after Cold Harbor, steal a march, and get across the James River before Lee, stripped of his cavalry, could discover the move and react.

   This book does a very solid job of capturing Grant's determination, his unyielding efforts to impose his will on the leaders and staff of the Army of the Potomac, and to integrate the political realities of volunteers, political appointee generals and a presidential election with the cold hard reality of constant campaigning.

   A good read not just for students of the martial art, but for any leader who must address the Sisyphean task of invigorating old "we've always done it that way" people with a new ethos and drive.