5 comments about Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography.

1. Nathan Bedford Forrest was one of the most interesting figures from the mid-19th Century. He was also one of the most controversial -- given his role as Confederate cavalryman, Fort Pillow, and the rise of the first KKK. Thus a n account of his life that shows no bias is an exceptional work, and that's what Jack Hurst brought to the table with his book.
   
   For the most part, Hurst delivers the goods on Forrest. The man's life, as slavetrader, soldier, and Klansman, is detailed, down to the semi-literate letters written in a rough hand as Forrest had. A little-too-detailed -- I think some of the battle scenes, as exciting as they can get, could've been described in less words. Still a good, balanced biography on Forrest that should satisfy anybody looking for such a book.



2. I gave it a 4 because the military campain analysis is not the best, but there are other, better books for this. This book gives insight into Forrest as the person, including his action after the war. It does a superb job of adressing the issues of the Klan and racism, and I gained a newfound respect for General Forrest.

   After reading this there is no doubt in my mind that this man is almost completely misunderstood. The details included and Hurst's own conclusions from these are logical and insightful, and bring out Forrest's true colors: As perhaps the first true civil rights leader and racial equality advocate.

   This book is must for anyone wishing for a full understanding of this incredible man.




3. He was a born military genius. A man born on the margins of survival in the rural South, who supported his family after his father's early death.
   He did what had to be done to save his Mother and siblings from abject
   poverty.

   He was a successful businessman in the pre war American South and yes he did sell slaves. You must remember that this was a perfectly legal
   business. PC whining about yesterday's values miss the point. He was
   a millionaire before the war, when a million dollars was probably worth
   50 million or more in today's dollars.

   As Alexis de Toqueville said, (I'm paraphrasing) the slaves of the South were treated better and all in all lived better than blacks in the North. They were raised from infancy through old age and many of their years were unproductive to the slave owner, but still they were supported.

   Back to the book.

   This book lays out the commitment of Forrest to the "cause", when he
   raises and arms a large group of fighting men at his own expense. He
   was the only man to rise from a private to a General in either army.

   The book shows Forrest at his heroic best when defeating vastly superior forces with double envelopment tactics, which he invented on the spot out of necessity. He also employed psychological tactics against the enemy and once he had them retreating he would run them down for days and nights without sleep, food or rest, until they had been
   killed or surrendered.

   He labored under the incompetent General Bragg, until he forces a re-assignment to another superior. His many talents were frequently wasted making up for Bragg's mistakes, but he attacks them with tremendous focus and determination.

   Forrest was a dominating personality and foe. Slow to anger, but once aroused his physical appearance would change and this alone
   was frequently enough to put down any personal challenge to his person.

   He personally killed something like 28 of the enemy and had 30 horses
   shot out from under him. He was the most hands on leader and fighter
   I've found in either army. He personally led most of the cavalry charges
   and once when finding himself all alone in the middle of the enemy
   cavalry, he swung his horse around and picked up a short Union soldier
   and held him across his back as a shield to prevent the enemy from
   shooting him. He dropped the short Union shield when safely away from
   enemy.

   Oh, and Fort Pillow, I'm not sure what really happened there, but incomparison to what Grant's understudy, Sherman did on his trip of total devastation through Georgia, it pales in comparison for these war crimes. West Point taught it's soldier's what was a war crime and Sherman knew what he was doing to civilian's and their property was a great war crime. A war crime rarely mentioned.

   Once the war was over he did work to re-integrate the Southern Soldier
   back into life in the Union. He could have been an unstoppable Guerilla
   leader has he chosen this path. But ultimately he recognized the need
   for peace to prevail.

   Hurst paints a vivid picture of a man who lived on the edge of extinction
   and put all of his energy into winning every confrontation, but was not
   used by Jefferson Davis for maximum effect because he wasn't a West Pointer. This was a big loss to the CSA.

   In the end, he died a man at peace with his God, but lived a life that
   is well worth examining and admiring. Nature produces few specimens
   like Forrest. When Lee was asked who was his best fighter in his Army,
   he said, "Forrest, a man I've never met".

   I found this book throughly entertaining and suggest that all who have
   an open mind will read and have a hard time putting down this book.
   There are also other excellent books on Forrest, an object of endless
   fascination.




4. The generals of the Civil War are remembered in contrasts. Sherman, Sheridan and Grant, were...well, common. They were hard drinking men, willing to sacrifice any number - thousands of men - believing the ends justified the means. They were not tall, handsome or dashing, so maybe that is why the Generals of the confederacy live so vividly in our imaginations. A lot of the Southerns were gentlemen, they were the epitome of the genteel South - or at least how we often see it in our imaginations, when we can divorce the spectre of Slavery from that vision. They were men in grey, who rode off to fight for what they believed, and no one more so than Nathan Bedford Forrest.

   Only Forrest does not fit that stereotypical Southern Gentleman. He was born in a log-cabin (as was Lincoln and Jefferson Davis); he was a failed businessman same as Grant. He was hard living, coarse like Sherman and Sheridan. And quite possibly one of the most complex figures to come out of the period. He did not fight in the Army of Northern Virginia under Lee, which keeps him out of the general attention of those learning about the Civil War. His first notable occurrence in the Civil War was the Fort Pillow Incident, where - still today we do not understand what happened - how black and white men supposedly surrendering were put to death by Forrest's command. Jefferson David never understood Forrest's guerrilla-like methods of fighting - but one could not dispute the results. He believed calvary men were not as JEB Stuart, dashing figures leading gallant charges, but were fighting men who used horses to get from point A to point B, "the firstest with the mostest" as he is often misquoted saying. As such, military tactics are still questioned and studied today. He did not enter the war as one of the 'nobility' but came in as a private to rise to the ranks of Lieutenant General. A superb tactician, a ferocious fighter unequalled - he killed 30 men and had his horse shot out from under him 29 times! After the war, he was one of the founders of the Ku Klux Klan, it's first Grand Wizard, only to turn around and repudiate it and tried disband it for his racial hatred.

   Forrest has been called 'that devil forrest', the 'wizard of the saddle', Historian Shelby Foote called him one of the two great geniuses of the period (Lincoln being the other) and by Lee `the most extraordinary man the Civil War produced'. He was a slaver trader and owner, yet upon his death in 1877, it is well noted that his funeral was attended by hundreds of ex-slaves.

   Jack Hurst gives a very balance view of this highly controversial figure and complex figure, showing his prowess, his faults and how he influences fighting of the period. Tries not to excuse or explain away Fort Pillow, but place it in proper perspective.

   His work is wonderful look at the man often ignored or overlooked by general history.




5. Nathan Bedford Forrest is in my opinion the most interesting soldier from the Civil War. A cavalryman who rose from private to lieutenant general, Forrest was a very dedicated soldier who fought with valor and honor, even though his education would be described as minimal at best. Jack Hurst's biography presents Forrest in a seemingly unbiased manner and focuses on all of his attributes. After reading the book I feel I know a lot more about the man, as well as hold a great deal more respect for him. However, Hurst's portrait of Forrest is extremely long winded and often repeats itself. Many pages of the book take a lot of time to read because the reader must re-read some of the sentences to understand what was said. All in all the book was very informative and should be read by die-hard fans of the Civil War generals, but the book could have been about 100 pages shorter and worded much better.

5 comments about Jeb Stuart: The Last Cavalier.

1. Burke Davis gives readers often-overlooked insights into the early life and career of the famous cavalier, including his courtship of his wife (whose father was a Union general) and his motivation to fight for Virginia. The Stuart-Cooke family is an excellent example of the bitter division of loved ones during the War, with Stuart and his brother-in-law choosing to fight for the Confederacy while his father-in-law continued to serve the Union. A fascinating account of the war as well as a great bio and a must-read for serious historians



2. One of the most tedious and enervating reading is a book in which practically every second page is loaded with citations from letters written to, by or about the person who is the subject of the book. Frankly speaking, if I can return the book and get some refund, I would do it gladly. This is not a reaserch but a correspondant's report. In short- minus one star!



3. The book starts out very well, establishing basic background and geographical history in a very easy to read anecdotal style. The remainder of the book essentially details General Stuart's exploits on and off the battlefield.

   You certainly get the impression that he was a dashing figure, but unfortunatley the author does not delve deeper into the man as much as I would have preferred. You get a sense for him as a Confederate soldier who cared very much about his duty, but not why he cared so much.

   I gave it four stars because it is a good read, and for the perspectives provided of many of the eastern battles and the cavalry's part in them.




4. Book rather good written, but as all books of the USA shipped, the printed paper and is of rather poor quality. In Europe we are used to recieve best quality. So also after many years you still can enjoy reading.



5. This is the third civil war book by Burke Davis that I have read, and it is just as good as the others. Davis gives a complete and well researched account of the life of Jeb Stuart, but his main gift is that he can really tell a story. You will be interested from the beginning to the end, and in the process, you will realize that you have learned a thing or two.

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.

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.

3 comments about Worthy Opponents: William T. Sherman and Joseph E. Johnston: Antagonists in War-Friends in Peace.

1. Good read. I'm partial to good U S Civil War Historical books. Longacre certainly did his homework. The research was very in-depth. The details and story telling were excellent. I enjoyed the book and would definitely recommend it.



2. This book is an interesting dual biography picking two generals from the American Civil War that were not the most famous, but well known enough to make interesting biographical subjects.
   
   The two generals had much in common. Both were professional soldiers that understood the advantages the defense had over the offense during the war. They understood that it was better to out flank, out guess, and approach indirectly than bloody attacks against dug in defenders. The two generals seemed to admire each other, even while they were enemies.
   
   This book gives an excellent history of the battles where the two generals were involved as well as the 'on again, off again' nature of Johnston's relationship with Jefferson Davis. This is a well written and easy reading book, although it covers little new ground.



3. Once again, Mr. Longacre has done a magnificent job of profiling two important leaders of the American Civil War. In his highly readable style, he follows the parallel careers of these two military leaders focusing on the periods where their paths converge. I highly recommend this book for even the casual reader of military history or biographies of important American leaders.

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

2 comments about Terry Texas Ranger Trilogy: Terry's Texas Rangers, Reminiscences of the Terry Rangers, the Diary of Ephraim Shelby Dodd.

1. I have been interested in Civil War history and wanted to read about Terry's Rangers since they came from the part of Texas I live in. This trilogy further reinforces how poorly equipped many of the Southern troops were and how much of their time was foraging the land for food, water, and horses. This was a good book.



2. This book is a must have for anyone interested in Terry's Texas Rangers (8th Texas Cavalry). It contains three rare first person accounts of the Ranger's activities during the Civil War including the diary of Ephraim Dodd who was unjustly hung as a spy by Federal troops. There are also several photos and an excellent introduction by Thomas Cutrer. I highly recommend it.

No comments about Well Satisfied with My Position: The Civil War Journal of Spencer Bonsall.

1 comments about American Civil War Commanders (2): Confederate Leaders in the East (Elite).

1. This title was somewhat above my expectations. While many Osprey books run toward the shallow side, Philip Katcher is one of their better writers with a wealth of knowledge about the Army of the Potomac. The biographies of well-known generals like McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, and Meade are competently done but with little that is new. Where this book stands out is its biographies of lesser generals like William French, Darius Couch, and Philip Kearny, about whom serious information is harder to find. I was pleased to learn that Couch was something of an intellectual with an interest in nature, and that William French tried to manipulate a New York Herald reporter to cover his mistakes after Mine Run. Katcher makes fine use of eyewitness personal accounts to depict people by those who knew them. All in all a small but useful work of research by an interesting writer.