No comments about Wade Hampton III.

2 comments about Lee's Maverick General: Daniel Harvey Hill.

1. Sometimes a person's personality really hurts their career. Lee and many others called D.H. Hill a malcontent etc... because he questioned the ANV's strategy, found many of his fellow officers wanting in even basic military skills and wondered how the south could win with poor arms and ammunition. People always say it was too bad Jackson wasn't at Gettysburg but there was nothing to do about it. DH Hill was in exile at that time when Lee's army was saddled with many incompetent commanders like Pickett and Heth.



2. Daniel Harvey Hill had two key faults. First, he was a very perceptive officer. Second, he always spoke his mind. D.H. Hill was not the only general officer to find himself on the outs with Jefferson Davis during the Civil War but he was one of the very few who was consistently shunned after his fall from grace.

   Hot tempered and unusually outspoken, he stormed his way through the Civil War, fearlessly leading Confederate soldiers at Malvern Hill and Antietam while continuously stepping on the toes of his superiors. Ultimately, he was made the scapegoat for the mutiny of almost all the general officers serving under Braxton Bragg after the confusing victory of the Army of Tennessee at the Battle of Chickamauga. This mutiny was so pervasive that Jeff Davis was required to leave Richmond and visit the battlefield in order to put down the revolt against Bragg, a Davis favorite. Amazingly, Davis retains Bragg against the wishes of almost every general officer who participated in this engagement.

   This is a very interesting book, providing insight into why the Confederacy ultimately lost middle Tennessee, thereby opening the way for the Federal advance on Atlanta.

5 comments about Buffalo Bill's America: William Cody and the Wild West Show.

1. This book is a bore with minimal facts and an author with a wild imagination. Tries to tie many outside events whether real or imaginary to the theme and because of this he has been able to add 200 maybe 300 plus pages of fantasy.
   
   Don't waste your time like I did and try to find something a lot better.
   
   Sorry, I don't like to belittle authors but this was one of the worse books I have read in many years.



2. Great book from a great professor. Reading this was like sitting in Dr. Warren's class again. He can totally make history come alive and this book is no exception.



3. I was quite pleased witht the speed of delivery on this book and it's excellent condtion. It was all I could have hoped for. 5 Stars!
   
   Don Gilmore



4. William Cody was the most famous American of his times, renowned as a Pony Express rider, soldier, buffalo hunter and overall hero - but his creation of the Wild West show, a traveling company of cowboys and Indians which toured North American and Europe for over thirty years, solidified his importance and his name. BUFFALO BILL'S AMERICA: WILLIAM CODY AND THE WILD WEST SHOW provides the most detailed critical biography of Cody to appear in over forty years, considering his showmanship, his achievements, and the controversies which swirled around his life, both during time and into modern times. Chapters use source material references and quotes but maintain a lively style which lends to appeal by leisure audiences as well as students of American history.



5. The Historians of today, especially those who have a different perspective of America instead of the "Good versus Evil" themes that folks like I grew up with like to shatter legends and myths.
   
   Not that a bit of reality is wrong. For example it is good to know what a virulent racist Nathan Bedford Forrest was, or how wrong it was to label the entire Abraham Lincoln Battalion as a bunch of "Commie Rats" (although with the release of much of the Moscow archives, it can be verified that up to almost 90% of them were either Communist Party or Young Communist League members - not the 40-60% as stated in past histories).
   
   It is however suspect when a Davey Crockett, long believed to have died swinging "Old Betsy" at the advancing Mexican soldiers at the Alamo, died, shot down as a captured prisoner, by Santa Anna's orders; or that the gallant Custer was a reckless fool.
   
   Which leads me to Dr. Warren's interesting biography of Buffalo Bill. Having got it as a holiday present I was at first enthralled by the depth and detail of this work which covered practically every aspect of this simple yet complex American hero.
   
   Then Dr. Warren had to spoil it all.
   
   First, he cast doubts on whether or not William Cody ever rode with the Pony Express. He cites available records, but admits Cody did ride for the Express parent company - Russell, Majors and Waddell.
   
   Secondly, he then claims Cody rode with Jennison's Jayhawkers instead of working as a Scout for the Union Army. In other words, Cody was involved in some of the ugliest savagery on the frontier as Unionists retaliated for the depravations of Quantrill, the James-Younger boys, Bloody Bill Anderson, and other Confederates. Yet, if that was the case, and with rosters of the 7th Kansas being available, why haven't Civil War historians made light of this in the past? Warren seems to imply that Cody was one of the 7th Kansas boys who faced down Bedford Forrest at Tupelo and Brice's Crossroads, but where is the evidence? (note: I do stand corrected as I have found another source on Cody's experiences in the 7th, and indeed they did fight Forrest in Tennessee and Mississippi, but were recalled to Missouri in time to help stop Sterling Price in the fall of 1864, a campaign where Cody and Bill Hickok fought practically side by side)
   
   Third, Warren also seems to claim that there was an almost unfriendly rivalry between George Custer and William Cody, and that outside of the celebrated Buffalo hunt with the Grand Duke Alexis of Russia, the two men rarely met or studiously avoided each other. Why? Because Libbie Custer only named Wild Bill Hickok as a Custer intimate, not Buffalo Bill. Furthermore, Warren also describes the Custer marriage as being as troubled as that of the Codys. He has even suggested that Libbie Custer had an affair with another (unnamed) cavalry officer - that's news to me as I'm sure it is to others who have read extensively of the Custers and their marriage. Custer jealous of Bill Cody? Hmmm. And why would Bill Cody present Custer as an all-hero in his future shows if he didn't feel a regard for the late soldier's heroism on the American Frontier?
   
   He then describes Cody as being benevolent and more open-minded towards Native Americans, yet almost a cruel overseer to those Indians who rode and worked with the Wild West Shows - try suggesting that to Sitting Bull. Oops, you can't because he's long dead. But then again, so is Buffalo Bill Cody.
   
   What is even more troublesome is Warren's wanting to put a societal spin to the life and times of Buffalo Bill. He pictures America of the late 19th Century as being a nation split between the "haves and have-nots" with another Civil War looming in the distance. He brings up the Haymarket Square Riots, and calls Albert Parsons, the former Confederate Soldier turned Radical leader the William Cody of the Confederacy, yet offers no evidence to prove this. For me, that was a major disappointment, because I would have liked to have seen where a young Confederate hero, having risked his life for the reactionary South, could change so drastically to push for the violent overthrow of bourgeois America. He also brings in the Johnson County War as if to suggest that Cody could easily play both sides down the middle - lionized by the proletariat Cowboy and loved by the intolerant landowners.
   
   In the end, with little or no commentary about those final, almost destitute years of Cody's life - including that poignant final year when after riding in a Wild West Show he had virtually no say in, with his kidneys shutting down, and being in constant pain, helped by his "son" Johnny Baker, Cody went home to die. Warren surprisingly makes little comment about this sad history, which is even more surprising when one sees how much he placed detail on irrelevances or suggested things that never have been proven before.
   
   Maybe it is because I like my biographies to be straightforward -and my Western History to be not simplistic but not mired down in complex issues either that this once promising work turned me off towards the end. That, and another unfortunate debunking of another real American hero. After all, Mr. Cody isn't around to say whether or not he exaggerated his life and\or career, or to refute or not some of Dr. Warren's more damaging charges.

2 comments about Cole Younger: Last of the Great Outlaws.

1. Homer Croy was the first student of the first school of journalism in the world (University of Missouri). He was born close to Jesse James' farm. Cole Younger came from the most fought-over county in Missouri; fighting began before the Civil War and continues after its end. Cole first killed at 17, was wanted dead or alive at 18, rode with Quantrill at 19. He killed 17 men, was wounded 30 times, but died peacefully in bed with 14 bullets in him. In between he spent over 25 years in prison. If you wonder about strife in countries in countries (like Yugoslavia) just read about the Border War in America circa 1860. I enjoyed the style of writing. This is history written by a journalist. You'll not be bored, since it reads like the newspaper story it was. Most of the great Civil War outlaws were born within 30 miles of Kansas City. Henry Washington Younger was one of the richest and important men of Jackson County, and was elected 3 times to the Missouri legislature, and a mayor in 1859. Thomas Coleman Younger was the 7th son of 14 children. One of Cole's teachers was Stephen B Elkins, later US Senator from West Virginia; Cole saved his life.

   The Border War was conducted by gangs who were mostly interested in plunder first, flag second. Most families were peaceful, but could not avoid the troubled times. An incident at a dance forced Cole to become a hunted man. The holdup and murder of his father by Kansan Red Legs embittered Cole. Cole joined the Confederate Army, and was famed for his ruthlessness in battle, yet was kindly and considerate afterwards. Cole took part in the raid on Lawrence Kansas.

   After the war ended Cole and Frank James invented bank robbery in Liberty Missouri 1866. Since Cole was well known, he quickly left for Texas. They gambled away their loot in Dallas. But they had been recognized, and the Pinkertons put their names on a wanted poster: Cole and Jim Younger, Frank and Jesse James, Jim Cummings, Charlie Pitts. Chapter VIII explains how the James-Younger gang covered their tracks; but they were still pursued. Since their gang was well-known, they decided to strike out for Minnesota. Their attempt in Northfield left four of their group dead, others wounded, without a cent. (The unclaimed bodies were donated to medical science.) The quick-witted Cole created a political reason to rob this bank: General Benjamin F Butler was an owner! Cole would say what it took to escape hanging. By pleading guilty they escaped execution. Cole became a model prisoner to get a pardon.

   After his pardon, Cole was introduced to modern wonders: the telephone, the horseless carriage, the phonograph. For the first time in 25 years Cole saw a sunset. When Cole got an unconditional pardon, he returned to Missouri. After failing as a salesman, Cole joined the "Cole Younger-Frank James Wild West Show" until he retired. There is one interesting item: the Youngers were all Southerners, but their father was a Union sympathizer and did not believe in slavery! Was Cole a victim of circumstances (Chapter XVIII)? "In wartime men are rewarded for doing what will get them hanged in peacetime" said Niccolo Machiavelli.




2. Homer Croy is a first-rate storyteller in a very casual, homey sort of way. He writes this book about Cole Younger's life in such a way that you feel as though you're sitting around the fire with Homer while he tells the tale. It's very entertaining reading with many good touches of humor and wry comments throughout.

   As history...First of all, he doesn't footnote in the traditional way but does include notes about each chapter explaining his sources. It's an informal, rather than scholarly, style. His research was extensive and tended toward finding people who could give him first-hand accounts, or as near to first-hand as possible family stories, along with contemporary newspaper accounts. In this way he hunts down the sources of many of the myths, legends, and rumors surrounding Cole Younger's life and career. Is he right about every particular and conclusion? I don't know. I'd say to read this book hand-in-hand with one of the more recent high-quality works like Marley Brant's "Outlaw Youngers" to compare versions of events.

   Croy is very up-front with his opinions, something I appreciated. The author of such a book is the one who did the research, has a feel for the subject even in areas where hard data may be lacking, and I want to hear their opinion on disputed matters. Some history authors won't go out on that limb but Homer Croy has no such problem. He usually is clear on what is his opinion and what he has some evidence on, but he also recreates some scenes and conversations for which there could not possibly be any witnesses. So bear in mind there is an element of fictional novelization to the story.

   Don't miss the index--most entertaining index I've ever read.

5 comments about Eye Of The Storm: A Civil War Odyssey.

1. I hesitate to rate any book five stars, but will do so when it satisfied all my expectations and gives me far more. Pvt. Sneden's journal does exactly that.
   
   In the context of civil war journals, in my humble opinion, it rises above many others for three reasons. First, Pvt. Sneden is simply an excellant writer. Not surprisingly, the journal is no example of modern grammatical rules, but of course, that would not be expected in this context. Still, I found Pvt. Sneden to be one of those writers with a gift for painting a picture in words. It is one of those books, unlike many historical primary sources, that you do not find yourself rereading parts to try to figure out what the writer is trying to say. Secondly, Pvt. Sneden had an extremely unusual perspective for a private soldier. He acted as a map maker and had been attached to headquarters units for most of the period covered in the book. This allowed him to comment based on many perspectives as he traveled through multiple commands in each campaign. Likewise, he gave some insight to the conduct of the general officers he worked for mapping. Thirdly, Pvt. Sneden Had a hobby of drawing pictures of almost anything he tripped over on the battlefield. The analogy I would draw would are to people these days who always have a camera and will take a picture of anything that strikes them as an interesting shot.
   
   Besides those positive aspects of this book specific to Pvt. Sneden, there are two other aspects of this book that makes it exceptional in my opinion. First, as to primary sources, I would submit that most readers would agree that the most important factor in evaluating them is veracity. In other words, the memoirs of a politician I would guess would never be taken on face value due to the bias of the author. In this book, even describing his time as prisoner, Pvt. Sneden in a very large seemingy presents a vey balenced picture of his experiences. There might be some comments put in after the war for dramatic effect, but the editors flag them. Even flagged as possible exagerations, Pvt. Sneden established his credibility to a sufficient degree with me that I would not so easily disregard such comments.
   
   Secondly, the editors do an excellant job providing the backdrop to Pvt. Sneden's journey through the war.
   
   In my humble opinion, this book should recognized as excellant primary source material writing about the period. Likewise, I believe it well worth the cost of anyone with an interest in the period.



2. The finding of primary source material is of great value in the field of history as it can give us a glimpse into the past through actual eyewitnesses. This book gives us a chance to see the American Civil War through the eyes of Robert Sneden of the 40th New York Regiment. His skills as a cartographer produced some remarkable depictions of some of the battlefields, land features and prison scenes that alone are worth studying. As the compilers of this book stated, his memoirs and drawings were quite substantial.
   
   Sneden's observations offer us a glimpse into camp life (though he was spared most of the front line activity), some of the personalities of the war, the unfolding events of battle and perhaps most descriptive of all, life in the numerous prisons he stayed in, including those in Richmond, Salisbury (though briefly), and Andersonville. Once again it is his remarkable sketches and drawings of these places that capture our attention, though of course his written descriptions can be quite vivid and detailed, especially concerning some of the gruesome features of battle and prison life.
   
   Sneden wasn't so much writing a history as he was detailing his day to day activities and observations during his time of service and captivity during the war. But it is these types of accounts that can offer new insights into historic events that we otherwise may never have known about and in Sneden's case especially his drawings. Of course even these types of sources need to be carefully scrutinized for factual errors as well.



3. Do you ever read book and have trouble putting it down? For Civil War buffs this is it. While RK Snedon rambles on a bit at times, there can be no better insight into the maelstrom that was the Civil War. The drawings are fascinating as is the courage and positive attitude of an individual faced with obscene circumstances.



4. I always look for first hand information in journals. These are the journals by Priv. Sneden. The pictures that he drew are wonderful and his first person accounts of his journey throughout the Civil War are sad & touching. It is worth it all to read a first person account of his stay at Andersonville Prison in Georgia. Both his books, "Eye of the Storm" (his journal) and "Images of the Storm" (drawings of his journey) are prized books to treasure and will be passed on through generations. What a wonderful gift Priv. Sneden left behind.
   My heart aches for this wonderful young man who realized nothing
   from his legacy.



5. Eye of the Storm is a rare opportunity to see a new yet original view of camp and prison life. You will find yourself drawn to Sneden's original illustrations time and time again. The more you study them the more you see. It makes you want to see more and larger versions of his drawings. Brayn and Lankford have done a good job in not tainting Sneden's work while at the same time pointing out some important historical questions. I marked over twenty parts to use in reference and speeches.

5 comments about The Curse of Cain: The Untold Story of John Wilkes Booth.

1. this book is obviously the version of this tragic story that should have remained an inner dialogue for the author. it is a total fabrication of the events from the opening sentence- some examples are: the sobbing parker at the saloon after lincoln was shot- the conversations in mudds house where booth and herald say they gave false names, but the in dialogue with quotation marks, call each other by booth and herold. the ridiculous exchanges between paine and herold outside of sewards house, the fact that he states there was a female nurse who opened the door to paine, when everyone involved testified that it was the black male servant,he states oswell swann was the runaway slave of colonel cox, who was never seen or heard from after he led booth and herold to the sinister cox, with his evil grin. he states that mrs quesenberry and dr stuart had a lookout on the water waiting for booths arrival into virginia and on and on and on. willie jett was supposedly sent to meet booth at port royal and escort him south . the author should be embarrassed that he would try to pass off this vapid drivel as hard researched historical fact. every page is filled with ridiculous lies- i cant believe i read the whole thing. its actually sickening. how stupid does this dude think everyone is?



2. John Wilks Booth had loved the South and that flag since childhood. He and I would have had a lot in common. Carm can get you anywhere, no questions asked. It is thought that John was a conFederate spy able to buy and transport quine across the blockade which the North had imposed. JOhn was a devout upholder of the South's principles and proud of it. He wasn't a pauper, and had earned $20,000 a year by 1864. At the age of seventeen, already a 'pro' on stage in 1855. He witnessed the execution of John Brown on December 2, 1859.
   
   The theater was a world of false reality and, sometimes, actors forget and tend to lead the lives of the characters they protray on stage. Actually, he lived on a farm in Maryland, 25 miles north of Baltimore. He got his start on the stages of Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Richmond (a place dear to his heart). In 1864, he visited Canada. Shortly before the assassination, he stars in the tours of plays in New York, Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis, and Boston. He did have a tumor on the back of his neck, which may have caused him to throw caution to the wind and go "hog wild" which his inclinations led him to do.
   
   John had rescued a wounded Yankee soldier in New York City during the Draft Riots in July, 1863. He'd told his sister who was close to him, "My soul, life and possessions are of the South. My profession, my name, is my passport." He appeared to hve free pass everywhere as he was recognized as a notable figure in Washington, D. C.
   
   In a play there at Ford's Theatre, he had warned President Lincoln with his gestures and sharp demeanor in one of which he was the star, as he made threats toward another character each time pointing toward the president. This did not disconcern or upset Lincoln. He had a good sense of humor, and rather laughed it off. Booth publicly criticized the role represented and once was arrested in St. Louis for making "treasonous remarks." What he'd said is common slang today: he wished the President and the government "would go to Hell." He'd had to pay a large fine.
   
   He held Jefferson Davis and the Southern cause "sacred." That's not saying that he would deal with the devil for his life or do anything risky for the Cause. He really thought that he would get away free and clear and, at long last, be a hero for the South. He shot Abraham Lincoln on the evening of April 14, and the president succumbed at 7:22 a.m. on April 15. It was a dasdardly deed and he paid dearly, as his career on the stage was clearly over. Dr. Samuel A. Mudd was pardoned by Andrew Johnson from the prison sentence for treating John Wilkes Booth four years (January 10, 1869) after the "crime against our country."



3. But be aware that this book, which is supposed to have been carefully researched to follow up the family story, starts out with a description of the cherry trees blooming in DC when Booth sets out on his mission...the famous cherry trees weren't planted until 1912. With that in mind, it's an interesting read, especially if you've read Otto Eisenschiml's work accusing Edwin M. Stanton of being behind Lincoln's assassination.



4. As far as I can see this book has but one fault, and that is that it claims to be a work of historical non-fiction. First of all, the body of John Wilkes Booth was not examined by his family at the old arsenal, it was examined in Baltimore shortly before being buried in the family plot. The story about Booth's escape to Asia is extremely far-fetched, and as a person who has spent a great deal of time reading about this man, it is highly doubtful that he would have brooded at all for killing Lincoln, although he might have brooded a bit for himself after he realized that he was now a hated man throughout the country. Finally, there is the icing on the cake, Booth's death in Enid, Oklahoma in 1903. If anyone has seen photographs of the man who claimed to be John Wilkes Booth shortly before dying, then it is very obvious that this man is not Booth. His forehead is much smaller and his features are much more rugged than Booth's. An interesting sidenote, the last known whereabouts of Boston Corbett, the man who killed Booth at Garrett's farm, was Enid, Oklahoma. My hats off to you Mr. Nottingham, for this book is much more entertaining than the other recent fiction book about John Wilkes Booth.



5. Theodore Nottingham is primarily a writer of religious books and fiction with a religious and/or historical bent. In The Curse of Cain, purportedly a biography of the assassin of Abraham Lincoln, he creates a work that is both a religious parable and a work that is at once history and historical fiction. His rationale for doing so is his desire to put across the torment and the motivation of a man reviled by history as the murderer of both the man Lincoln and of the ultimate well being of the post Civil War South. His reason for doing that is his family connection to the protagonist, for Nottingham is the great, great, great grandson of John Wilkes Booth.

   As I said when I reviewed the biography of the Empress Josephine, I tend to like my history "neat," and this is no exception. That doesn't mean that the book is a total waste, however, for a number of reasons. For those readers who prefer the story behind history, the first half of the book should be quite captivating, for it certainly reads like a Shakespearean drama. Nottingham claims to have received some of his ancestor's propensity for drama and grim intensity, and he certainly reveals that when he throws himself into Booth's tale. The setting, character, and plot, including the implication of important figures pulling strings behind the scenes, are interesting enough to hold the attention. I read the first 142 pages in about 2 hours. To some extent the author's choice of words and phrases was a little trite, or perhaps more fairly, a little adolescent. In fact the book might well appeal to adolescent boys who find history too dull because history books are too "dry," a mere collection of names, dates, and places to be memorized for tests if one is to pass them

   On a more redeeming note, from my perspective at least, is the final few pages of the volume which are mostly historical data drawn in part form family diaries, reminiscences, photos and documents and in part from public documents. The hurried summation of this data in these final pages certainly provided some justification for the more theatrical pages that preceded it. It also provided data that seemed to support the intimation in the earlier pages of collusion in high places. If nothing else it rubbed away the patina of the ages from the events of that era and revealed the solid brass of the time. Like our own world, full of subterfuge and hidden agendas, political posturing and diplomatic positioning, the post Civil War Era was filled with urgency and moment, with people who won big time and those who lost big time. It demonstrates that nothing under the sun is truly new, especially when it comes to human drama, something that both Shakespeare and Booth would have understood.

   I think it's a pity that so little space was given to the documentation and the conclusions to be drawn from it. When I ordered the book, it was that that I expected from it. Given his access to family material, Nottingham could have made it a far more major and serious work of history.

2 comments about Riding With Rosser.

1. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. General Rosser did an excellent job of bringing the civil war to the reader. His descriptions of battles and skirmishes and the strategy behind them were entertaining and educational. Not having a real good knowledge of the civil war battles, the sketches of maps helped me immensely with understanding of what was happening. S. Roger Keller has done General Rosser and students of the civil war a great service. General Rosser also reminds the reader the tragedy of the soldiers that fought in the civil war.



2. As a relative of the General, I have to say that I enjoyed this book completely. The only disturbing aspect was the cover; looks like my brother posed for the photo.

   C. Rosser Oklahoma

5 comments about The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln (American Presidency Series).

1. When a good friend died his wife gave me his collection of books on the Civil War. Over the years, I have ebayed most of them, but some how, I could not bring myself to auction this book off. During a recent move, as I was packing my library, I toss this book aside to read. Wow! What a good read. Although written ten years ago, this book is strangely appropriate for our times.
   
   Lincoln has taken a hit from the politically correct revisionist historians on two accounts: First because of his early stance on resolving the race issue (colonization), and secondly because of the limited reach of the Emancipation Proclamation (freeing only slaves in the states in active rebellion against the Union). For these reasons, modern revisionist judge Lincoln according to modern liberal standards and find him guilty of racism. Unfortunately, history is not that simple. People, at least intelligent people as Lincoln certainly was, have complex and evolving views of the critical issues of their day. Lincoln certainly did not have the hindsight that today's historians do. He was a man of his time who struggled with the issues and whose changing views on race made him a great man. It is to Paludan's credit that he refuses to give simple answers to explain the life and views of a very complex man. He shows us a complex even contradictory personality.
   
   Especially pertinent to the current news is Paludan's analysis of Lincoln and the Supreme Court. Lincoln believed that ultimate authority in the issues before the nation was the political process, not the Supreme Court (i.e., the Dred Scott decision). Social policy was not the realm of the court, but of the congress. Lincoln saw the court having authority only on parties to the suit and perhaps as a precedent in parallel cases. But "upon vital questions affecting the whole people" American citizens could not "resign their government into the hands of judges." The same issue faces us today. The fundamental question we are facing is the same Lincoln faced: Is the role of the court to adjudicate constitutional issues or to decide social policy?
   
   Vital to Lincoln's perception of the role of the Supreme Court was his view of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. He saw the Declaration as the promise and the Constitution as the incomplete fulfillment of that promise. The inclusion of slavery into the Constitution was a political necessity to form the union (six slave states would not enter the union without it). Thus Dread Scott was the wrong decision, immoral as it were, even if the constitution included slavery. Why? Because the promise was given in the Declaration of Independence that all men were created equal. Hum . . . funny thing, when today's conservatives cite the Declaration of Independence in defense of a theistic basis for our nation, liberals are quick to point out that the Declaration is not a legal document and that the Constitution, as the ultimate authority, does not mention God at all. Just a thought.
   
   
   Ok, I can't help it. I have to talk about the anti-war Democrats of Lincoln's day. Paludan points out again and again that the Democrats of Lincoln's day kept up a constant litany that the war could not be won, that it would bankrupt the county, and that civil liberties were threatened. The peace activist of that day saw nothing but failure and thought that recognizing that failure made better sense than perpetuating it. Um. . . sounds familiar doesn't it. I guess some things never change.
   
   Well, I guess I said enough. This was a great book. I could hardly put it down. Good thing I did not ebay it.



2. Like one of the previous reviewers, I too have been a previous student of Professor Paluden at the University of Kansas. I count him as one of the instructors that have fueled a passion in me to study the civil war period. Unlike the previous reviewer, I have had the benefit of having read this book before offering an opinion. Prof. Paluden offers an extremely well researched account of the civil war presidency of Lincoln. This work includes statistics and facts you simply cannot get from documentaries or other accounts. He correctly paints Lincoln as a master politician and cuts through the mythology of the man. Was Lincoln morally opposed to slavery...yes. Was he willing to run on an abolitionist platform?? Hell no, not and get elected during that time period. Paluden's real gift is painting a picture of the period and making folks realize just how important politics was in the 19th Century to all Americans (80-90% voter turnout). Unlike the previous reviewer, I have never noted the negative side of Prof. Paluden. He does have an ego, but, like has been said of his subject "no great man was ever modest". Thanks for a wonderful book professor. (Jayhawk Class of 1995).



3. As the title indicates, this is not a biography of Abraham Lincoln. It is, instead, a narrow, but detailed and incisive study of Lincoln's exercise of executive power between his election in 1860 and his assassination in 1865. This is important because, as author Philip Shaw Paludan explains: "No president had larger challenges than Abraham Lincoln." And Paludan proceeds to state the obvious, that Lincoln was "responsible for two enormous accomplishments that are part of folk legend as well as fact. He saved the Union and he freed the slaves." No other president did so much in so little time, and Paludan explains why. As a result, within its limited confines, this book is excellent!

   Paludan demonstrates in the chapter entitled "Assembling the Cast: Winter 1860-61," that Lincoln, as president-elect, was a shrewd politician. According to Paludan: "Lincoln could be effective only if he unified the six-year-old Republican party," so one of his first appointments was "his strongest party rival," William Seward, Senator from New York, as secretary of state. As political payback for delivering Pennsylvania to the Republicans in 1860, Lincoln was obliged to appoint the notoriously-corrupt Simon Cameron Secretary of War. To counter that stench, Lincoln named as his secretary of the navy Connecticut newspaper editor Gideon Welles, who "had a glowing reputation for honesty." Within a year, Cameron also proved to be incompetent, and, in 1862, Lincoln replaced him with Edwin Stanton, who proved to be not only a man of great integrity but a very capable manager as well. It proved to be one of the most talented cabinets in American history, although Paludan makes clear that its operations were not always harmonious, most notably during the "cabinet crisis" of December 1862.

   With most of the executive departments in capable hands, Lincoln "involved himself actively in matters of strategy," claiming "`war power' authority to use his office to the limits." Lincoln's focus on military affairs was essential because the Civil War generally went badly for the Union for the first year. Paludan ably demonstrates that even while Lincoln struggled to find generals who had both the talents and temperament to be successful, the Union was "forging the resources of war," which eventually proved decisive. Gen. George McClellan was a brilliant military administrator but proved much too cautious in the field, appalled by the "mangled corpses and the poor suffering wounded. Lincoln eventually lost confidence in McClellan, and he had to be replaced. One of McClellan's eventual successors, Gen. George Meade, won the great victory at Gettysburg in July 1863, but the Union did fully gain the initiative in the field until Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, who won an equally great victory at Vicksburg, Mississippi almost on the same day, was appointed general in chief in March 1864.

   Lincoln's original war aim was merely to restore the Union. But the costs, human and material, of the war's first two years, made eradication of slavery a necessity. Following the battle of Antietam in September 1862, which was a "tactical draw but a strategic victory" for the Union, Lincoln announced the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. The issue then became: What was to be done with the former slaves? In December, Lincoln proposed a constitutional amendment for the federal government to pay to colonize any blacks who wished to emigrate, but blacks "rejected it, abolitionists had condemned it," and this "doubtful solution" was beyond the practical realities of the time. Even while the war continued to rage, the prospective problems of reconstruction never were far from Lincoln's mind, and, according to Paludan, this difficult issue increasingly divided the president from radical Republicans.

   Paludan writes that, while the radicals favored confiscation of land which had prospered from slave labor, Lincoln believed in "peaceful, gradual, compensated emancipation." Lincoln opposed the harsh remedy of confiscation and believed that the Constitution permitted him to free the slaves only "in places where war was being made." The Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 potentially freed 3 million slaves but did not mention colonization or compensated emancipation. Nevertheless, the emancipation issue proved controversial. Solidly Republican New England remained largely committed to the war, but, according to Paludan: "Especially in the regions of the Middle West settled from the South and in cities where job competition existed between the races, people resented the idea of fighting in order to free blacks."

   Equally controversial was the Emancipation Proclamation's "arming of black freedom fighters." According to Paludan, "Lincoln and his party clearly were committed to Union and to emancipation and to the belief that the two were linked indissolubly by the need for black soldiers." Almost 180,000 black troops were serving in Union armies by the end of the war. Lincoln was very conscious of the importance of maintaining the national moral, and, in Paludan's view, northern whites increasingly recognized the benefits of having black soldiers defend the Union.

   According to Paludan, the Union's victory was in large part a result of Lincoln's "devotion to and mastery of the political-constitutional institutions of his time." Some Civil War buffs and many general readers are likely to find this book rather dry because it focuses on the science of politics. But, as Paludan writes, the preservation of the Union "was achieved chiefly through an extraordinary outreach of national authority." This book is an exceptionally thoughtful account of the exercise of executive power during the most serious crisis in American history.




4. This is not a bad book, and in fact offers a solid description and assessment of the Lincoln Administration.

   Paludan describes the working of Lincoln's government well, including the personalities and major policy issues they faced. He does a good job in explaining the manueverings between Salmon P. Chase and Lincoln for dominance of the Administration and later for the 1864 Repbulican Party nomination. Also described thoroughly is Lincoln's Louisianna reconstruction plan, which gives a pretty plausible map to what reconstruction could have looked like had Booth not intervened.

   I found the writing average. While the book explains the subject well enough, the prose is more workmanlike. It didn't reach the level of engrossing style other chronicler's of Lincoln and his government have.

   Overall, not bad.




5. Well, first of all, I must tell everyone that I probably have a negative bias towards this book's author. The best thing I can say of this book is that curling up with it is much more pleasant than being in the same county as the author and his enormous ego. His scholarship in the book is a lot sounder than his verbal musings in the classroom, many of which are non-sensical and poorly thought-out, and his modern political musings which are often inappropiate and non-germane. One of my fondest memories is of him being made a fool of by a freshman student when he lectured for an hour on why a funeral home is called a "home". In typical PS Paludan fashion, he constructed an elaborate 19th century socio-historical explanation for what was easily explained by the student. They are called "funeral homes" because they were in caretaker's houses! Yes, Philly has a way of making the simple hard. This man almost ruined me on the study of history. I obviously would never buy this book, as I wouldn't want to see a penny go to this conceited egotist. I had this guy for a course 2 years ago and the mention of his name still makes my blood boil.

5 comments about Generals in Gray: Lives of the Confederate Commanders.

1. Like its companion volume Generals in Blue, Generals in Gray is an important resource for both the Civil War buff and the serious historian (which is not to say that the two can't be one and the same!). In this volume, which was actually written before Generals in Blue, author Ezra Warner has written the biographies and rustled up the photos of all the general officers confirmed by the Confederate Congress, and a handful of those who weren't for one reason or another.
   
   There were 425 men who served as Confederate generals. Nearly one-fourth of them died in the war. Boy generals, men promoted before they reached the age of 30, were plentiful, and nearly half of them were killed on the battlefield. Looking at their photographs, one can scarcely fathom the experiences they endured at such young ages. They look like college lads.
   
   Several of the generals profiled by Warner especially stand out for me. There's William Flank Perry, for example, the philosopher-general, who enlisted as a private in 1862 and was commissioned a brigadier in the war's final months. After the war, he taught philosophy at Ogden College in Kentucky until the turn of the century. There's Alexander Reynolds, who at war's end entered the service of the Khedive of Egypt, and so must've known the tragic Federal General Charles Pomeroy Stone, of Ball's Bluff infamy, who did so as well. There's General John McCausland, who with his huge handlebar moustache and heavy eyebrows looks for all the world like Yosemite Sam of cartoon fame. And there's the boy general Thomas Benton Smith, a youngster whose fate breaks my heart. After he and most of his brigade surrendered during the Battle of Nashville, a Federal colonel tried literally to beat Smith's brains out. His brain exposed, in a coma, Smith was expected to die. But he somehow survived, only to spend the rest of his life, some 48 years, in an insane asylum.



2. .....but this one sure is. The Civil War is still a current event for many of us. For four long years, both sides were carried by their armies, and led by their Generals. Now, lots of us know about Lee and Jackson, but there were a total of 425 Confederate Generals over the course of the war, and some even I've never heard of. Of these, 299 were serving as General Officers at the end. A total of 77 were killed in battle; the rest died of natural causes, resigned, got fired, etc., etc.
   
   They're ALL here, at least the ones that we can't argue about whether they were really a General. [There are others about whom we can argue, for various reasons--a separate book has come out in recent years...see "More Generals in Gray"]. While Lee has has more biographies than I can count, and many have at least one, for most of these guys, this is all we've got. Here we get pictures, pre and, where appropriate, post war careers, grave sites, and a study of just what the man accomplished [or didn't]. Robert E. Lee gets three and a half pages, but all get a good write-up.
   
   They were a varied lot: six General Lees, six Jacksons, eight each of Smith and Walker. Professional soldiers, lawyers, politicians, even three preachers [Polk and Pendleton, you know; read this and find the third]. Some were heroic, some were drunks, a few were both. Some brilliant, some inept, one or two both. The post war lots of the survivors were as various as the men; poverty and wealth, glory and apostasy, and all points in between. Trivia: Who was the ONLY Confederate General born in Texas? Who was the last living Conferderate General? ONE man answers BOTH questions. [OK, I'll give it to you...Judge Felix Huston Robertson of Waco died April 20, 1928]. The very first American Indian to wear General's stars AND the last General to surrender...he's here, in all his glory.
   
   I can go on all day. The late Ezra Warner, Illinois native and California investment counsellor, published this in 1959...it needs to stay in print forever. While I've had this, and the companion "Generals in Blue", for years, only recently has a trade paperback made it readily available, and affordable. A "thank you" to the publisher, and a huge, everlasting, "THANK YOU" to Mr. Warner.



3. This book is a must for any Civil War buff. Learn the good, bad and the ugly about all general officers of the army of the CSA. I keep this book, and its companion, Generals in Blue, handy when I am reading historical accounts of battles of the Civil War. How often, while you are reading, have you yearned to get additional information on a particular general? These books are perfect to provide more information, when you want it.



4. I remember first reading Generals in Gray as a teenager and have often referred back to the book over the years.

   Warner gives a synopsis of each general , usually containing the following information:

   1. Birthplace and birthdate.
   2. Pre-Civil War life.
   3. Battles served in, promotions, woundings, death (if applicable).
   4. Postwar career (if he survived the war).
   5. Death and place burial.
   6. Brief mention of the general's competency (or lack thereof).
   7. Relationships with other generals (superior, subordinate).

   I have often found the book to be extremely helpful when reading a book on a particular Civil War battle. Doing so helps me to better understand the general when studying a particular battle.

   Whether you have a serious interest in the Civil War or a novice, I highly recommend the book as an excellent reference!




5. Warner does an excellent job in giving short biographies on all 425 Confederate generals, including a picture of each general. An excellent reference guide and a must have for your Civil War library.

5 comments about The Saga of Tom Horn: The Story of a Cattlemen's War.

1. I was a resident of Boulder Colorado for 40 years. Tom Horn is buried in the old Columbia cemetery there. I have seen the pink granite stone with the simple inscription In Loving Memory Of Tom Horn. Everything I have read about the man never disclosed why Tom was buried in Boulder until I read Dean Krakel's book, The Saga of Tom Horn, A Vindication written by Himself. Tom was born in Missouri, not Texas. He left home after his Dad gave him a severe beating for skipping school and chores to go scouting for varmints. Tom had a natural talent to speak other languages. On his way to the Southwest he learned Spanish and later Apache after he was assigned to live with the Apache at San Carlos and Cibecue to keep an eye and an open ear on the Indians. After the Indian wars he became a Pinkerton detective, a miner, and a cattleman's detective. It was in this last capacity that got him into trouble. Tom had a brother, Charles, who operated a freighting business in Boulder. After Tom was hanged his body was sent to Boulder where Charles received him and was buried in the family's cemetery. This was his only connection to Boulder.
   I have read microfilmed letters that were sent to Tom by nieces while he waited in jail.The Boulder library has these microfilms,
   In 1993, Sept.16th and 17th a new trial was ordered for Horn in the Laramie, Wyoming courthouse. Charles O'Neal was the oldest living descendant of Tom Horn at that time and was gratified that the modern day retrial won Horn a posthumous acquittal.
   However the descendant of Willie Nickel, a niece named Viola Nickell Bixler, then 70 years old stated that she didn't think it was wise or reasonable to change history so many years after the fact. This information was taken from an article written by Kevin McCullen and published in Rocky Mountain News.
   Another article about Tom Horn and written by William Hafford and published in the May 1996 issue of Arizona Highways is also interesting reading along with a few great photos.



2. I have read more western history than many and while the book is good as far as it goes, it overlooks most of who and what Tom Horn was. He hailed from Texas of German stock and had a very Wild West life - mining, Indian Scout, spoke the Apache language, worked with the legendary Al Sieber and was in on at least one capture of Geronimo. The Apache Chief in whose camp he learned their language called him Talking Boy, his Apache Name (used to describe one's character or most salient trait), and the one that proved his undoing. I believe Tom Horn was a great frontiersman and, like so many, used by the government, discarded without so much as a by-your-leave to either discard all the government had set his life to, or else be brought down. I believe many a Viet Nam Veteran will know whereof I speak on this. What is missing from this book is Horn's early experience, which is nowhere documented properly in print. He, Mickey Free, Al Sieber and a handful of other white and Apache scouts won the Apache Wars. And they were all dropped like hot rocks so soon as the war was over, with lesser men garnering glory and acclaim for what others in fact did. Tom Horn's story, here, shows what happens when a man out-lives his time, when a soldier used to truly vicious conditions plies his trade for his own purpose, and in service of the way of life he thought he was defending. I rate this at 3 stars only because I wanted to more know about Tom Horn from this book, and less about the penny-ante locals. The book's evidence shows pretty clearly, to my mind, that Tom Horn was railroaded to top it all off.



3. This is a 'must read', for anyone interested in the 'Old West' and 'cattle country'. Mr. Krakel, dis-spells rumor and conjecture about Tom Horn. Through newspaper articles and interviews with the people who were 'around' at the time, Mr. Krakel, unfolds a story of mystery surrounding the killing of a 14-yr. old boy. With actual court transcripts, he relates the trial of a Wyoming 'Stock Detective'and his eventual hanging. This is about as close to the truth as we may ever get on the subject of Tom Horn. This review is in regard to the 'un-expurgated' edition.



4. The Saga of Tom Horn is a very good book on the trial of Tom Horn.It recreates the trial that found Tom guilty,and hanged him for the death of a 14 year old boy. A crime a lot of people including me belives he did not do. The book is very detailed on the trial, and about Tom Horn himself. A must read for all western history buffs.



5. Tom Horn devotees will be enthralled with this book as it uses historical evidence and trial documentation to tell the truth. It is the most comprehensive book on the Wyoming years of Tom Horn.