2 comments about Seasons of War: The Ordeal of the Confederate Community, 1861-1865.

1. I live in Culpeper County, Virginia and am extremely familiar with local history. I live a half mile from Amissville and 1 mile from Waterloo, two communities that are mentioned in the book.

   This book is well documented and right on the money in virtually all aspects; historical content, accuracy and sequencing. This book is highly recommended for those wishing to get an unvarnished perspective of the impact of the Civil War on a typical community caught in the crossfire of the Lost Cause.

   Excellent reading.




2. This book is a great find for anyone desiring to get the southern civilian's perspective on the Civil War. Professor Sutherland deserves praise for his efforts in finding an incredible depth of resources to tell the story of a Confederate community, which, by virtue of its strategic location, found itself in the heart of this enormous conflict. The perspective Professor Sutherland brings to his subject gives this book a "readability" that easily separates it from many other civil war histories. The book really shines in its depiction of the affect the war had on the civilian population. In addition, this book details the beginnings of the concept of "total war" as created and put in force by the Union General, Pope (a new book is due soon from Sutherland on just this subject). This book shares the side of the conflict that is not normally exposed. Tales of unionists, free blacks and slaves in the area during the war are depicted along side the narrative of a proud Southern community as it anticipates victory only to see the inevitable conclusion. Located close to many battlefields, as well as being home to significant battles at Cedar Mountain and Brandy Station, Professor Sutherland points out that Culpeper was, perhaps, the community most affected by the war. A great book - easy to read and informative. When you are finished, you will have learned a bit more about this nation and the forces that have made us what we are today.

No comments about The Legacy of Andrew Jackson: Essays on Democracy, Indian Removal and Slavery (Walter Lynwood Fleming Lectures in Southern History).

No comments about The Young Eagle: The Rise of Abraham Lincoln.

3 comments about Gettysburg Requiem: The Life and Lost Causes of Confederate Colonel William C. Oates.

1. On July 2, 1863, the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg, Confederate Lieutenant Colonel William C. Oates let his troops, the 15th Alabama, in the fateful and unsuccessful charge against Joshua Chamberlain and the 20th Maine on the far left of the Union line at Little Round Top. Chamberlain and the 20th Maine have become American heroes, but far less attention is given to Oates. In "Gettysburg Requiem" (2006) Glenn Lafantasie offers the first full-scale biography of Oates (1833 -- 1910). It is an intruiguing picture of a man and his times and of the changing South after the Civil War. LaFantasie is a professor of Civil War history and Director fo the Center for the Civil War in the West at Western Kentucky University. He is the author of "Twilight at Little Round Top", a book which focuses on the stuggle for this famous hill on the second day of Gettysburg.
   
   Oates lived a long and eventful life. He was raised in poverty. In his mid-teens, he fled Alabama to avoid prosecution for incidents resulting from what would become his lifelong propensity to violence. For several years, he lived the life of a wanderer in Texas and Louisiana. Oates returned to Alabama, disciplined himself, and became a successful attorney. An ardent Confederate, he raised a company, served with Stonewall Jackson, and with Lee, and participated in many important battles of the Civil War. He was wounded six times and ultimately lost his right arm. After the Civil War, Oates returned to Abbeyville, Alabama where he became wealthy through his law practice and land speculations. He served seven terms in the United States House of Representatives and one term as the Governor of Alabama. Oates was named a Brigadier General in the Spanish-American War, but he never saw combat in that conflict. In 1905, Oates published a book on which he had worked for years, "The War between the Union and the Confederacy and its Lost Opportunities."
   
   Lafantasie gives a full picture of Oates's career, and he describes Oates's character as well. Throughout his life, Oates was courageous, but he remained prone to violence. After losing his right arm late in the war, Oates fathered a child with a young African American woman who was his servant and was nursing him back to health. Later, Oates fathered another illigitimate child with an adolescent 14 years of age. At the age of 48, Oates married a young woman, "T" who was 19. The marriage was lasting (over 28 years) and Oates loved his family and supported the education of his children, including the two illigitimate sons, through college, graduate school, and successful careers. According to LaFantasie, Oates' life was driven by a desire to have power over others. He describes Oates as racist, sexist, and xenophobic. Yet he recognizes many fine qualities in his subject. In 1901, Oates acted courageously at the Alabama Constitutional Convention where he was in a distinct minority in opposing changes which led to the disenfranchismement of Alabama's black citizens.
   
   The best parts of this book are those which describe Oates's early rootless days of wandering in Texas and those which describe Oates's career in the Confederate Army. Lafantasie has a close, detailed knowledge of the fighting for Little Round Top. By focusing on Oates' role in the struggle, Lafantasie made the battle, and the combat between the 15th Alabama and the 20th Maine clearer to me than many accounts which try to discuss the totality of the action. Lafantasie convincingly shows that the Battle for Little Round Top was the pivotal event of Oates's life. Oates's younger brother, John, was fatally wounded in the fight for Little Round Top. John had been ill, and Oates tried to keep him out of the combat, but John insisted on moving forward. Oates never forgave himself. Many soldiers close to Oates died on the hill. Oates relived his brother's death, the terrible combat, and the failure to take Little Round Top many times during the ensuing 46 years of his life. He tried, unsuccessfully, to get a monument to the 15th Alabama at the point of their closest penetration of the Union position and he corresponded with his one-time foe, Joshua Chamberlain.
   
   Lafantasie also gives a good picture of the changes in the South following the Civil War as mirrored in Oates's long life and in his career as Congressman and governor. Oates became a proponent of the "Lost Cause" school of the Civil War, which romanticized the Old South and blamed the defeat of the Confederacy solely on the Union's superiority in numbers and material. Much in Oates life suggests he remained an unreconstructed Confederate to the end. But he did have moments, especially at the 1901 convention, that show he was finding his way to a different, broader view.
   
   It is good to have a biography of Oates. Lafantasie's study is thorough and well-documented. In places it is also polemical, insufficiently historical, and psychologistic, as Lafantasie criticizes sexist attitudes in the South, in particular, and is overly harsh in his speculations on the reasons underlying Oates' attraction to young women. Lafantasie also at times adopts the tone of a historical novel more than that of a history as he tries to read Oates's thoughts and mind in the absence of hard evidence. With these qualifications, I enjoyed and learned something about Oates, the Civil War and the post-Civil War South from reading this book. Readers with a deep interest in the Battle of Gettysburg or in the South after the Civil War will benefit from Lafantasie's study.
   
   Robin Friedman



2. Two men who have had a very significant impact on the Civil War as we know it today lived a century after it ended. Neither was a soldier; neither was a professional historian. Michael Shaara was a novelist. Ken Burns is a documentary filmmaker. As evidence of their influence, just take a look at that standard reference, Mark M. Boatner's Civil War Dictionary, first published in 1959. Look there to see what you can find out about William C. Oates, the colonel of the 15th Alabama who led the attack against the 20th Maine on Little Round Top. What will you find? Nothing. Oates isn't in the book. Now, however, nearly fifty years after Boatner compiled his dictionary, Oates is a very well known character to anyone who has read Shaara's book or seen Burns's Civil War series.
   This past summer the first full-length biography of Oates appeared, more than 400 pages about a man who never actually attained the rank of colonel, a man who was replaced as commander of the 15th Alabama after leading it for nearly two years, a man who fifty years ago did not warrant a footnote in one of the Civil War's standard reference works. So, does he warrant being the subject of a full-blown biography?
   You bet. Glenn W. Fantasie has done a terrific job of telling Oates's tale, and of using him as a tool to delve into the greater issues that filled Oates's own life and times. Oates's path through life was one that easily lends itself to the telling of a great story. He began as a hot-tempered brawler who frequented the small towns of pre-war Texas. He ended as a Southern politician who could actually entertain, and fight for, the idea of giving black men the vote. In between he raised a company to fight for the Confederacy, was brave to a fault (or so his men thought), lost an arm at Petersburg, served seven terms in Congress fighting against railroad land grants and for free silver, and one term as the governor of Alabama.
   As the title suggests, the cause of the Confederacy was not his only "lost cause," and it is by laying those others before us that Professor LaFantasie makes this biography so much more than just another biography about a Civil War soldier whose main attraction to an author is that he has not been written about before. Oates was a fascinating character. His constant desire to lead from the front made him a prominent figure throughout the times in which he lived. This fine biography does him the justice denied him in times past.



3. William C. Oates, the subject of Glenn LaFantassie's "Gettysburg Requiem" is a bundle of contradictions: born poor, died wealthy; apparently racist, secretly intimate with his black servant; a respected attorney and newspaper publisher but shot and killed a man; wounded six times in battle but rose no higher in rank than lieutenant colonel; saw Lincoln's election as a danger to the South, lamented Lincoln's assassination.
   
   LaFantasie's research reveals a Confederate hero whose life was characterized by anger, violence, guilt,inconsistencies, weaknesses, and relentless struggle for success. Oates may well be described as one of those souls who can resist anything but temptation.
   
   The book's bibliography is a compendium of excellent Civil War
   sources, the research seems to be as complete as anyone could compile, and the presentation is as clear and easy to follow as the subject matter will allow.
   
   Those who have climbed Little Round Top at Gettysburg, who are fascinated with the battle between the 20th Maine and the 15th Alabama, who want to know more about the post-war conflicts between General Joshua Chamberlain and "Colonel" Oates over the placement of monuments on the battlefield will find "Gettysburg Requiem" required reading.

5 comments about The Unwanted: A Memoir.

1. To learn about the hell (which is an understatement!) Kien Nguyen and his family had to live through after the fall of Saigon was stomach turning, heartbreaking and at times beyond my comprehension. While reading this book, I learned the true meaning of sacrifice, loyalty, promise, and hope.
   Kien Nguyen did a terrific job of capturing my attention from cover to cover. This is definitely a 5-star book; what courage it took for the author to share this story with the world!



2. I realize there are tons of people out there who will disagree or not get what I am trying to say here: Of all the memoirs I have ever read the TONE and FLOW of this book is perfection. If you want to read something that has a great story, but in my humble opinion is a masterpiece, pick it up. This book is the reason why most of us read, to cry, to laugh, to get angry and to know joy.



3. I've been interested in this book for two years, and it didn't disappoint me. I started reading it a four o'clock P.M., and I finished it by eleven o'clock P.M. There are many stories about Vietnam from the perspective of the military members who served there, but there aren't many stories from the Vietnamese perspective. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book.



4. This book is fantastic! kien is setting a great path for other Amerasian who want to write about this topic. It's also a very touching topic for Vietnamese because we can't face this painful past.
   
   His writing is simple. It's easy to read without all the fancy words and ideologies. It's a difficult task but he did it! For Amerasian, not only you have to proof yourself of worthy in words play but also you gotta have an education to back you up. Kien is one of those "lucky" people. Not only he can write, but he also earned a graduate degree. For most Vietnamese, they wouldn't give you a second look, nor read your book unless you're a college material.
   
   It's sad but true that most Vietnamese still have a very negative view on Amerasian. They often think that all the mothers of these children are prostitute. The true is that most of these women, like Kien's mother, are true heroes. They survived a great deal of racism, especially among the Vietnamese. They endured such hardship due to circumstance beyond their control. The mother is my favorite character in this book. Not only did she accept the pain of being labled as "traitor" but she also endured the hardship of raising her own Amerasian children. Most of the women like her would give the child to the orphanage or to other family members to raise. Abandonment is often the case in this situation. As a result, these children grow up with a double rejection, one from their flesh and blood, the other from society. Kien's mother didn't abandon him instead she endured a great deal of pain physically and mentally to protect her kids. That's a rare quality for mothers who walked in her shoes.
   
   There are so many different topics in this book that Kien was able to craft into one story. I think he is talented. It's so easy for other people to point out all the negative writing aspect of his story. I think there is a fundamental sense here that pain is universal and how one came out of it. Also, he's a dentist for Godsake!
   
   If you want to learn about the Amerasian experience, this is a great book. Kien portrayed such a vivid story of a robbed childhood due to war, racism, and just plain human experience. Suffering is universal but there are hope and triumph, kien writes it clearly in his story.
   
   This Amerasian subject is so underlook. Most people don't know how it fells like to stop your car at an intersection and seeing a man holding a sign saying: "Vietnam Vet. please help". For an Amerasian, we often drove away with the thought 'could he be my dad?'



5. I found I kept putting this book down and having a hard time picking it up again. I am an avid memoir reader and this one wasn't much good. I only read less than 25% of it--but I just couldn't pick it up again. As my title reads much of it was too political for me. The cover picture of the author is quite cute--I noted he is wearing a Mickey Mouse watch. :) This book just plods on and on.

4 comments about Detailed Minutiae of Soldier Life in the Army of Northern Virginia, 1861-1865.

1. I found the book an easy read. It was informative to find out the day to day life of an average soldier in the Confederacy during the last part of the Civil War. In many ways though I wish the author would have been more specific with details, but I had to remember of the time (1882) in which he wrote. He was really a product of the time, the flowery language shows and I accept this. Still some of the descriptions seemed intentionally vague, as if he was scared at offending some one, or worse yet stirring up old emotions. I would however, recommend it to a person studying the day to day life of a soldier in the Army of Northern Virginia.



2. Nicely paced, reader-friendly account of the "minutiae" involved in the life of a Confederate soldier - more specifically, as a member of the Army of Northern Virginia. Along with Billings' Northern perspective as seen in Hardtack and Coffee, these two books tell just about all the "ins and outs" of the tedium and horror of war.



3. A quick, really great read on the everyday life of the Confederate soldier in the War for Southern Independence. The Whats, Whens, Hows, and Whys of the survival of the common man in the Army of Northern Virginia told in a very readable manner. Anyone interested in "the War" shouldn't go without reading this one! Too bad there isn't a hardback!



4. Worth the time and the money (affordable price) to read about some of the everyday life of a regular Confederate soldier. It's a fairly quick read, and quite interesting.

1 comments about Lincoln and Freedom: Slavery, Emancipation, and the Thirteenth Amendment.

1. Great new interpretations on slavery, emancipation, and the pivotal role they played in nineteenth century history. A very insightful, enlightening, and interesting read.

5 comments about Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph Over Adversity, 1822-1865.

1. Simpson brings to life a man who should be recognized as one of the greatest men in American history, both in his accomplishments and in his character. As a side note, but Brooks Simpson is an excellent lecturing professor. Take a class from him, and you will be inspired.



2. U.S Grant's life and military career have been explored by any number of historians over the years. Brooks Simpson's well-written biography is noteworthy for providing a nicely synthesized account based on the existing sources and some nuanced insight into Grant's military career.
   
   Simpson passes lightly and quickly over Grant's formative years. The narrative picks up steam when Grant returns to military service at the start of the Civil War. Simpson traces Grant's growth as a military leader as he progresses in rank and responsibility from Belmont to Forts Henry and Donelson to Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, the Wilderness, Petersburg, and ultimately Appomattox
   
   If Simpson's narrative contains relatively few new facts, he deserves credit for not taking older accounts at face value. By careful analysis, he calls into question the longstanding tale of Grant's drunken binge during the Siege of Vicksburg. Simpson also devotes some useful attention to Grant's attitudes about slavery, which were undoubtedly complicated by his marriage and by evolving policy over the course of the Civil War.
   
   Simpson's account of Vicksburg brings out for the reader Grant's constant need to juggle his almost insurmountable military requirements with the daunting challenge of leading a volunteer army officered in part by well-connected politicians who were sometimes less than able commanders. For example, Grant was compelled to make accomodation for the ambitious Illinois politician John McClernand during the Vicksburg campaign and for the uncooperative Ben Butler of Massachusetts during the siege of Petersburg.
   
   Simpson does an especially good job in detailing Grant's struggle to command the whole of Union forces from a field headquarters traveling with the Army of the Potomac from 1864 to 1865. Desirous of staying away from politics in Washington, Grant strove to coordinate the movement of the Union's field forces by corresponding both directly with their commanders and through defacto Army chief of staff Henry Halleck in Washington. At the same time, Grant groped for the proper level of supervision over George Meade's long-suffering Army of the Potomac. The result is a painful but ultimately successful learning curve for Grant, who combined great persistence with great common sense and an often remarkably deft political touch in finally organizing the defeat of the Confederate armed forces.
   
   Simpson provides a useful insight into the last year of the war in describing the deadlock at Petersburg as a result of opportunities missed by an Army of the Potomac exhausted after five months of continuous combat.
   
   Simpson's final chapter attempts to make sense of Grant's stunning leap from store front clerk in 1861 to General of the Union armies and victor of the Civil War by 1865. Complete understanding of Grant as a person continues to elude historians; Grant's success as a leader Simpson puts down to his strengths as a person and to his character. Grant was possessed of an keenly analytical mind whose workings were often hidden by his considerable reserve. At the same time, he was keenly observant, listened well, and had the great gift of being able to simplify problems down to their essence. Grant consistently achieved success by applying practical logic, common sense and determination to his military challenges. Grant's lack of political ambition and willingness to take responsibility earned him the leeway from Lincoln to carry out his military plans.
   
   Simpson does not spare Grant his shortcomings as a leader. Grant was desperately ambitious to redeem his military career, sensitive to criticism, often unwilling to admit mistakes, and sometimes a poor judge of character. Grant seems also to have been emotionally dependent on his wife and family and to have had issues handling alcohol.
   
   This book is highly recommended to fans of the Civil War era looking for a fascinating and nuanced portrait of U.S. Grant.



3. This volume, the first of a planned two-volume biography of Grant, covers Grant's life from birth to the end of the Civil War. It is meticulously researched and well balanced. Prof. Simpson doesn't shirk from examining charges of Grant's drinking and he doesn't hesitate to show where such charges cannot be sustained and where they can be sustained. He also doesn't hesitate to criticize Grant's performance on the battlefield where necessary. This is a necessary antidote to the biased, though beautifully written, biography of Grant by William S. McFeely. Unlike McFeely, Simpson displays an understanding of the military aspects of Grant's life and dispells the myths surrounding Grant--some of them, notably Grant's views toward blacks and slavery, perpetuated by McFeely. Anyone seeking to understand Ulysses S. Grant the man and the general will find this book to be essential. One can only hope the second volume is as good as this one.



4. This is a terrific biography of Grant. It is thoroughly researched, and meticulously documented. Professor Simpson uses his sources with refreshing transparency, and debunks many myths surrounding Grant.



5. Having read numerous books on Grant, I agree with those numerous reviewers, that the author, [Simpson], idolizes Grant. Had Simpson titled the book a "Narrative", or a "Novel", it would rate 5 stars. Attempting to pass this off as FACTUAL, and THE ONLY TRUE SOURCE is disingenuous, to say the Least. Books on Grant by Catton, John Simon or McFeeley are the standard. This book may be a fun book to read, but It lacks credibility. Below is just one example of Simpsons Hyperbole on Grant:
   
   This is from the book, "Triumph Over Adversity". I've captioned the questionable (IMO) words/phrases in parenthesis. I explained those on the bottom. (IMHO), the author [Simpson] spins the history, to create an imaginary Grant. [the footnotes in the 'quote' are mine. I explain the flaws pertaining to this at the bottom]
   [Quote]
   
   -On the morning of June 6, he [Grant] boarded a steamer headed north along the Yazoo for Satartia. With him was Charles Dana.
   
   It was a sick man who left headquarters that morning, although it is unclear exactly what was the problem. Perhaps (1) it was a migraine brought on by stress (2). Others,( 3) looking to offer him some relief, had proffered a glass or two of liquor. It was bad enough that Sherman's doctor had proposed wine as a remedy, but Rawlins exploded when he encountered Grant on the evening of June 5, chatting with several staff officers who were sipping wine and asking him to join them. Rawlins retreated to his tent to prepare yet another temperance lecture in the form of a lengthy letter (4). "The great solicitude I feel for the safety of this army leads me to mention what I had hoped never again to do--the subject of your drinking," he began. Perhaps (5) his suspicions were "unfounded," but when the general, "because of the condition of your health if nothing else, have been in bed." chose instead to chat away while alcohol circulated, it was time to worry. Moreover, the chief of staff believed that "the lack of your usual promptness decision and clearness in expressing yourself in writing tended to confirm my suspicions." Rawlins admitted he might be wrong, but he wanted to make sure that Grant adhered to his March pledge of total abstinence. (6) According to one account, Rawlins gave Grant the letter the next morning, just before Grant's departure; although there is no record of Grant's response, Rawlins must have been reassured, for he did not accompany the general aboard the steamer.
   
   What happened next has become the source of great discussion and even greater mythmaking. In all probability, (7) Grant sought relief from his pain by downing a glass of liquor; when that, far from doing the trick, made him feel worse, even woozy, (8) he retreated to his cabin. As the steamer approached Satartia, two gunboats hailed it, reporting that Union forces had abandoned Satartia and it was no longer secure. Dana notified Grant of this still reeling from his headache, Grant left it up to Dana what to do next. (9) Dana decided to return Hayes' Bluff. The next morning, Grant arose, discovered where they were (10), and ordered a cavalry detachment to ride over to Mechanicsburg to see what was going on. Dana, satisfied that Grant was better, accompanied the detachment; Grant returned to Vicksburg.
   
   In years to come, this was not what people read and repeated. What emerged instead was a story charging that Grant got drunk on a joyride up the river. Dana himself gave credence to this story, writing in 1887 that Grant was merely on an "an excursion" on the Yazoo "during a dull period in the campaign," which allowed him to get "as stupidly drunk as the immortal nature of man would allow." Even richer was the story of newspaperman Sylvanus Cadwallader, who concocted an account featuring his heaving bottles out of the steamer's stateroom before locking the intoxicated general up--followed the next day by yet another Grant spree, capped by a wild horseback ride through the woods in which he was saved from certain disaster by a combination of luck, fate, and Cadwallader. That Dana, who surely would have heard the ruckus on the steamer described by the reporter, denied that Cadwallader was present (11) was only the most serious of several contradictions between the two accounts, which they and James H. Wilson tried to reconcile in 1890 by concluding that there must have been two trips. By that time, both Cadwallader and Wilson agreed that Grant was highly overrated (and their own contribution to his success, as well as that of Rawlins, was underrated); Dana had become disillusioned with the General.
   
   Key components of the tale woven by this trio unravel in the face of careful reading of the evidence; nevertheless, many fine scholars, always on the lookout for a colorful story or two to enliven their narratives, and desperate for a good account of Grant actually drinking, (12) have embraced it without batting an eyelash. They have even cited Rawlin's letter in confirmation of the story (13) although it was prepared before Grant left; they ignore the endorsement appended by Rawlins; "Its admonitions were heeded, and all went well." How could that Rawlins have said that if Cadwallader's report is accurate? (14) To accept this fable, one would have to believe that an ailing Grant, alarmed as he was about the security of his lines, nevertheless decided to board a steamer headed for the threatened area just to get away from Rawlins so he could drink in private (15)--and that he knowingly invited along for the ride a representative from the War Department whose assignment was to report on his private habits and fitness for command. (16) Tucked away in a draft of his biography of Rawlins was Wilson's admission of what really happened--Grant "fell sick, and thinking a drink of spirits would do him good, took one with the usual unhappy results. (17)
   
   Source-"Triumph Over Adversity"-Brooks D. Simpson-copyright-2000-p.206-8
   
   1.) "Perhaps it was a migraine"--(a) the word perhaps is an elusive word, used to create doubt.
   
   (b) Where is the source for this migraine? Since the author used no quotation marks, I assume the author used poetic license.
   
   2.) "Stress"-No quotations on the word "stress"--did Grant have a history of stress related migraines during the war?
   
   3.) "Others"-no quotations here either, where is the source? The author uses quotations for his sources, why none here?
   
   4.) Rawlins seen Grant around officers drinking and went to write a letter. (This point is mentioned in the last paragraph)
   
   5.) "Perhaps-another use of this word to create doubt
   
   6.)"make sure that Grant adhered to his March pledge of total abstinence. "--Grant drank throughout the war, according to several sources.
   
   7.) "In all probability, "--again, no quotations marks, and an elusive word to create doubt.
   
   8.) "made him feel worse, even woozy"-no quotation marks, where is the source for this? How does the author know? Does feeling `woozy' mean `drunk'?
   
   9.) "Grant left it up to Dana what to do next. "-This is what Dana wrote! Grant allowing a Dana to assume command and issue orders seems a bit of a stretch.
   
   10.) "...Grant arose, discovered where they were..."--Why did he just `discover' this? Dana told him immediately!
   
   11.) "denied that Cadwallader was present -Dana does not say this in his `Recollections'. (notice no quotation marks on this allegation by the author).
   
   12.) "desperate for a good account of Grant actually drinking"--Other sources mention Grant drinking at other times. Grant did in fact, `Drink'.
   
   13.) "They have even cited Rawlin's letter in confirmation of the story -See number four; Rawlins wrote `the subject of your drinking...", not the Yazoo trip. (it seems the author is spinning a story)
   
   14.) "How could Rawlins have said that if Cadwallader's report is accurate? "-Rawlins wrote about a different event, not the Yazoo trip.
   
   15.) "To accept this fable, ....so he could drink in private"-The author uses no source that is a fable, no quotation marks, his conclusion is questionable,
   
   16.) "he knowingly invited along for the ride a representative from the War Department whose assignment was to report on his private habits and fitness for command. "--That was Rawlins job. Rawlins was placed in the position for that very thing, by Sec. Of War, Edward M. Stanton. Rawlins was not asked to come along!!!
   
   17.) "Wilson's admission of what really happened--Grant "fell sick, and thinking a drink of spirits would do him good, took one with the usual unhappy results. "--'The usual results when Grant drank, was that he got drunk'.

No comments about Jefferson Davis and the Civil War Era.

5 comments about Slavemaster President: The Double Career of James Polk.

1. This is a not uninteresting, well written and well researched look at a very narrow aspect of the life and career of James Polk, detailing very thoroughly his role as an owner of a deep-south plantation and his relationships with his slaves. If that interests you, this is an ideal book for you to read. If you're looking for an in-depth full life biography of James Polk, or even a book that gives much insight into his career as a politician and president, or any other facet of his life than that of slaveowner, this is definitely NOT what you're looking for.



2. This book was not written by a fan or supporter of this Tennessee president, but released by a Yankee group who hides behind "Oxford" so we might think Mississippi or England. Not so, William Dusinberre must be fuddies with the university professors who tore apart Nathan Bedford Forrest in the same way. Overlooked completely he status and the part these Tennesseans played in the history of this nation. It's best to consider character assassination with the conflicting thins these writers emphasize while leaving out the real story, the facts of the matter. James K. Polk had been Governor of Tehhessee and Speaker of the House of Representatives before becoming U. S. president. It was not a secret that he owned slaves to work on his cotton plantation in Mississippi. We didn't have such in Tennessee, but I have an old post card of the 11th President's bust which stands in the State Capitol in Nashville. We visited Polk's ancestral home in downtown Columbia, Tennessee. It was not out in the country, though a famous one is in that county owned by a female physician. She did not have slaves. Forrest's family were fine, upstanding natives of Chapel Hill, not so far east from Columbia. It infuriates me when I innocently find weird subverted stuff like thos on the public library shelves. I wish the reference librarians who ordered these fiction pretending to be non-fiction before putting them out for just anybody to read. Polk was duly elected and in the White House from 1845 to 1849, before the Civil War. He was not responsible for that war.
   
   This person from Cape Town used the false writings of professor Wayne Cutler when he came to this Republican town, and thought that what he was reading was truth. Polk was a Southern Democrat. What would he write about Huey B. Long, George Wallace, and other governors who stood tall for what the South stands for. The politics of slavery did not have any substance whatsoever in the war which divided this country. It was states' rights -- the Southern states, which Northerners would not understand. I learned more than I had planned that there is a conspiracy going on to deride Southern leaders and presidents. They were statesmen and war heroes and lived to be a part of the history of America. Modern history-writing is all wrong, when the author makes up "facts" as he is inclined, and not factually.



3. I'm not sure if I would have been better off reading a general bio on Polk first, becuase this book is very biased, as the author admits. The argument is that Polk's policy was stronly influenced by him being a slaveowner. That Polk had conflicting interests because he ran several plantations in Tn and Miss and he was using the money from the plantations to secure himself a post-presidential retirement.

   The book is organized in an interesting way. It begins by describing Polk's plantations and what it was like for the slaves , plus gives details regarding the overseers,a nd Polk's policies regarding purchasing and selling of slaves. Polk endeavored to hide what he was doing from the general public and his reasons for selling and guying were definitley not always patriarchal, but monetary.

   Polk died a few months after leaving office, and none or few of his papers were destroyed, hence we have a record of what ocurred on the plantations.

   the second half of the book covers the main aspects of Polk's presidential career --annexation of Tx and the MX War. The author discusses the events through the lens of slavery and tried to argue Polk's descisions were heavily influenced by Polk being a slaveowner. the author presents many what-ifs, discussing a vairety of other scenarios that could have happened during Polk's presidency had he made other choices. I found these diversions to be a strength of the book instead of an irritant. The book gave me a lot to think about,a nd it was particulary interesting to learn the details of what Polk plantation life was like.




4. For American history buffs in general, and Civil War enthusiasts in particular, William Dusinberre has produced a volume worthy of your attention. Dusinberre argues with great vigor that James Polk helped to plant the seeds of civil war while he was President during the late 1840's. While pursuing the Presidency, Polk presented himself as a moderate on the issue of slavery. All the while, he was quietly engaged in the buying and selling of slaves for his Mississippi plantation. Dusinberre argues that throughout his four years in office, Polk advocated policies designed to perpetuate slavery for the forseable future. He cites in particular the annexation of Texas as a major issue. The book also chronicles the appalling working and living conditions many slaves were forced to live under and the total disregard that most slavemasters (Polk included) for the slaves family lives. In most instances, if it was a profitable transaction, slaves were sold off to the highest bidder and families were torn apart. Polk always portrayed himself as the benevolent master but the facts seem to dispute his claims. The book can be slow moving and at times I wondered if I would have the endurance to finish it. But I am glad I did. This book gives us an entirely new perspective on the events of that period and as such is a welcome addition.



5. James Polk is usually the least familiar president to appear on historiansý top 10 lists. But for William Dusinberre, Polk firmly holds a spot near the very bottom. For Dusinberre, Polk and his ideological brethren set the country on a course that unnecessarily led to the Civil War, the violent fall of the South, and the self-destruction of his own class.

   Polk annexed Texas and was the instigator of the Mexican American War, which led to acquisition of most of the southwest for the United States. Polk also took the Oregon territory, which encompassed much of what is now the northwestern United States. Dusinberre suggests that there was a certain inevitability to some of this, but the way it all played out, and the final border results were far from certain. Polkýs overly aggressive expansionism was, to Dusinberre the worst possible way for the country to stretch from sea to shinning sea because it infused militarism and obstinacy into the debate about the future of slavery.

   Dusinberre convincingly argues that Polkýs, and the Southern ruling classesý mores about slavery as a tool of social order, southern honor, and states rights were all subservient to the economic benefits reaped by slave owners such as Polk. This economic incentive was so great, that it blinded Polk to what Dusinberre believes to be the inevitable fall of slavery. A more forward-looking advocate of the Southern ruling class could have promoted a plan for a soft landing and perhaps sought alliances with moderates, rather than painting everyone who had any problems with slavery as extreme ýabolitionists.ý

   Polkýs military adventurism, intolerance for even discussion of issues related to slavery, and insistence that slave ownersý so-called rights should be expanded (or the South would lose its dominance in the Senate) was coupled by his implicit threat of secession in the event of almost any sort of compromise. Dusinberre argues that before Polk and his war, different gradations of opinion existed in the south, but afterward existed only unithought. The Civil War followed.

   SLAVEMASTER PRESIDENT is not really a biography as much as it is a study of how slave ownership may have affected the ideology of pre-Civil War southern Democrats such as and including Polk, and how that ideology in turn contributed to the conditions that led to the Civil War. It is a compelling argument. Dusinberre also achieves a heart-rending description of slave life on the Polk plantation. The book achieves what it set out to do.

   Still, I would have liked the book to be a bit more biographical. Dusinberre expains up front that his book ýdoes not discuss Polkýs role as a congressman in President Andrew Jacksonýs war against the Bank of the United States. Nor does it portray President Polkýs part in securing the Tariff of 1846, nor his diplomacy with Britain, which led to the establishment of the northwestern boundary dividing the United States from Canada. These stories,ý explains Dusinberre, ýhave been told elsewhere.ý Maybe they have, but there is remarkably little popular literature on this influential, if wrongheaded president. I am satisfied with Dusinberreýs book such that it is, but it also left me wanting to read more about Polk.