5 comments about Jefferson's Vendetta: The Pursuit of Aaron Burr and the Judiciary.

1. I've often come upon Burr's escapade in reading U.S. history, but I was never able to get a clear picture of what happened. This book is well researched and gives the details of what went on and the trial that resulted from Burr's adventure.
   
   The one question that "Vendetta" doesn't answer is why did Jefferson and Hamilton hate Burr with such a passion? Burr's character comes off as complex and not as crazy as history has made him out to be. Wheelan is obviously in Burr's corner and wants to present a more positive picture of him than historians have previously given him.
   
   If you want to dig deeper into American history then "Vendetta" is an excellent choice for you. Wheelan gives the reader more "color" of the day and keen insight into the way that our society thought at the time.



2. This is a part of history I had not studied before, and the same story is told in the earlier "The Jefferson Conspiracies" which continues on with the death of Meriwether Lewis and the rest of the career of General Wilkinson the really corrupt and treasonous person in both books. Both books are very readable, I found some of the points more clear in the other book. Both books feel Wilkinson betrayed Burr to hide his own involvement and would have killed him rather than see him go to trial. The second book speculates the same may have happened to Lewis as he was traveling East because he felt he was being framed in the same manner as Burr (thou in this case apparently competely innocent), and Wilkinson may have thought he was also going to provide evidence of his corrupt land deals.
   
   This book tries to portray Burr as an innocent, which is hard to believe. While it is clear with just 50 men on there way to live on land owned by Burr , no treasous armed uprising against the US or Spain had yet occurred, (rather than the thousands of armed men approaching New Orleans that Wilkinson claimed). But it seemed that both Wilkinson and Burr solicited British and others for help with attacking Spain with Burr to be King (not President) and perhaps to divide the western territory from the US so at least in todays standards treason had occurred. Back then the Federalist were considering withdrawing New England from the union as well and before it was made illegal (but only a high misdameanor) there were US forays into Spainish terrority Jefferson at least wanted Spain to worry about a rogue attack from the US,such thoughts were not unusual in those days.
   
   It is clear that Wilkinson was in Spain's payroll, and was traitous. Both books argue Jefferson shielded him by letting him have a phoney Court Marshall rather than an investigation by Congress. The one book claims it is to protect himself and his support of his star witness against Burr. The other for the national interest, from New England threatening to leave the Union and Britain invasion from Canada , the country could not stand for the distraction, plus Wilkinson's contacts with Spain made him useful with negotian about Florida and Mexico. He escaped conviction again in 1815, which even President Madison found troubling.



3. Every society has a moment in time where a decision affecting civil liberties has enormous repercussions. For example, laws giving the government power to curtail political assassinations were abused by Stalin and Hitler to consolidate their dictatorships. This book covers the issues and personalities involved in the courtroom battle over whether the United States would adopt the British doctrine of constructive treason in which merely thinking that it would be desirable to have the King killed would be sufficient grounds for capital punishment. Jefferson, who intensely disliked his former vice-president Burr, sought to press treason charges for an alleged plan to cause the western regions to sucede from the United States. Faced with shaky evidence, the prosecutors urged that the Constitution be interpreted to enable them to convict Burr on the basis of constructive treason. The book cogently describes the societal and personal issues at stake, and how Chief Justice Marshall navigated the intense political and judicial issues involved in the grand jury proceeding and trial. The author does an excellent job of setting the matter in its historical context and does so in a very readable style.



4. I don't know why Mr. Wheelan has such a sore spot about Jefferson. I would just warn readers that if you read this book, make sure you read many other historical books about these same characters. If you happen to read this book, and have not read other material about these characters, you will come away with a slanted view about Thomas Jefferson, and the other historical characters in this book. There are so many writers who, for reasons of profit or ideology, have taken upon themselves the job of rewriting history to their own liking, or that of their publisher. This book has several historical mistakes, but the overall tone reminds me of some of our current extremists who take a one sided view about many issues. Jefferson was a flawed human being, that is clear to anyone who reads history. But to paint him in this light is unfair. Burr, on the other hand, was not a nice guy. He was the kind of man Bush would have been if he had lived during that time. Power hungry, instigating failed military missions, and willing to kill to get his way. Yes, that is harsh, but painfully true. Be wary of revisionist history. I give this book four stars for its inventiveness; it does have some entertainment value. Wheelan writes well, but perhaps he should switch to fiction and stop trying to turn Jefferson into someone he was not. Thomas Jefferson was a man who would not tolerate tyrants and insisted on civil liberty. Not perfect, but not the character created in Mr. Wheelan's book.



5. In the early nineteenth century, former Vice-President Aaron Burr -- the recent killer of Alexander Hamilton in a duel -- was up to something. Maybe it was an attempt to conquer Spanish Mexico and set up an American empire. Perhaps it was a plot to separate the western territories (and Kentucky) from the rest of the Union. Maybe it was both. Maybe it was neither, Historians still debate the matter. But whatever it was, it ended up with Burr on trial for treason, with Chief Justice John Marshall presiding over the trial (and President Thomas Jefferson a behind-the-scenes prosecutor). Burr was eventually acqutted (probably more for lack of specific evidence and creditable witnesses -- Burr's co-conspirators did not inspire confidence in their own integrity) but it was an extraordinarily dramatic event in the early American Republic. Wheelan tells it story well, although he is clearly not sympathetic to Jefferson. I regret to say that Wheelan's accuracy is made suspect by errors he makes: in the space of four pages Wheelan writes that James Wilkinson (the comanding general of the US Army and secretly a paid Spanish agent and the chief Government witness against Aaron Burr) had in 1775 accompanied Benedict Arnold in his famous march across the Maine wilderness to attack Canada (Wilkinson had actually been among the reinforcements reaching Arnold the next year) and also that Westchester County is in Connecticut (a statement that would amaze thousands of New York State taxpayers). But, overall I found Wheelan's account to be a gripping narrative about both conspiracy and trial.

No comments about Master of War: The Life of General George H. Thomas.

2 comments about Thomas Jefferson: Passionate Pilgrim (The Presidency, the Founding of the University, and the Private Battle).

1. I'd give this 4.5 stars, but I'm rounding up to 5 because Jefferson is a hard bio subject, if not one of the hardest, he nailed him, and my minor beefs are with writing style.
   
   Two book series. Prefer single book, but better than Malone encyclopedia set, which is too long for average person to read.
   
   The good: Mapp gets Jefferson right, a staggering achievement one can only appreciate if you've read Jefferson's writings AND the appalling number of books that get him wrong. He isn't nearly as paradoxical (though still very much so) as historians like to pretend, and Mapp shows why, using logic that you would think other historians would have embraced. I think Mapp stepped out of a box filled with academics that overcomplicate things unintentionally, and just applied some good old fashioned horse sense & human nature to understanding TJ. The result is conclusions that you read and say, it makes sense, and seems obvious--why aren't most other historians coming to similar conclusions. The answer, bias, is enunciated below. Mapp isn't a documented liar, like Ellis, doesn't appear to have an agenda or predisposition, either to kick the Jefferson pedestal over or make excuses for obvious hypocrisies, like most historians. No obvious liberal bias(big government had to happen Jefferson a Utopian idealist), or anti-slavery bias (he owned slaves so everything else good he stood for must be denigrated), or libertarian bias (he stood for individual freedom, so every failing must be masked or obfuscated). As obvious as this sounds, it is rare to read books that aren't axe grinding these days. Jefferson takes his lumps where he deserves them, but still emerges as great, in ways that are highly relevant today.
   
   The bad: Too longwinded, some big words (no problem here, but others complained), often times uses too many metaphors and flowery phrases instead of writing in direct style. But at least he doesn't use the same 4-6 pet words every third page like Ellis. Long-winded is all relative in history & non-fiction, this is still readable, but some serious editing that reduced length 10% or so would have allowed all the points in a much more readable book. Another part of me wishes he had pruned down to a modest single book, hitting only most fundamental points, but Jefferson did too much to write a small, single book w/out omitting and writing something not comprehensive enough.
   
   Not sure which Jefferson series is the greatest, but this deserves a hallowed place with Malone, Peterson, etc. I think this will age well, as it updates scholarship not present in older Malone & Peterson books, but has avoided the Jefferson bashing. Jefferson bashing is trendy now, but will seem extreme over time when the pendulum has returned back to center, and this will ultimately diminish many works now thought of highly.
   
   It is a shame lesser books by bigger names crowd the market, leaving less room for a book like this that should be a household fixture.



2. This book is the second of two of a series written by Alf Mapp involving Thomas Jefferson, now older and it starts with Jefferson's Presidency through his death. From 1801 to 1826 the United States was just beginning to form as a nation...grown to twice its size and the ensuing troubles with all factions wanting something...how was Jefferson to choose?

   Meriweather Lewis and William Clark reporting back about this expansionism of the Louisana Purchase and the marvels that it brought the country. Excellent writing about how these and other issues that plagued Jefferson. Abhorred or adored Jefferson was a dichotomy personified.

   This book reveals to us better than others how Jefferson struggled to keep his ideas and ideals, his personal and public persona, his view of the United States and the World, for the betterment of mankind as a whole, in line with the events of the day.

   Reading this book gave me an insight into a world of Jefferson and the interaction of some of the others as James Madison, James Monroe and John Marshall. As I read these...I wished I had a teacher who made reading U.S. History as alive as the author. It makes a difference to a subject such as this to keep ones interest...not disappointed here.

   Capitvation and fasination as we read on about the troubling times of Jefferson in the last years of his life. How he founded the University of Virginia and fought his final battle with his health.

   Alf J. Mapp, Jr. makes Jefferson alive and that makes history fun not to mention educational.

   Enlightening, informative, and alive are good traits brought to us by the author that are hard to come by when reading history.
   I recommed reading this book if you really want to get to know Jefferson from his Presidency to his death.

   Read it and enjoy good writing.

5 comments about Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President.

1. This is fine biography traces Lincoln's philosphical and theological development and in so doing helps us understand the secret to Lincoln's greatness, which was his ability to make sense of the Civil War. If you ever wondered where the Gettysburg Address and Lincoln's Second Innaugral came from, this book will show you. This remains one the most interesting and compelling biographies I have ever read.
   
   Raymond R. Roberts Ph.D.



2. A breath-taking account of the life of one of America's greatest leaders. Lincoln's though and personality are an inspiration and a challenge to any thoughtful person. This book inspired me to a greater study of American history.



3. Biographies of Abraham Lincoln have tended to fall into two broad categories. The first category consists of biographies of the "subjective" Lincoln. These biographies are based largely on the many anecdotes and stories people told about Lincoln's life, typically during the early years in Illinois and concentrate on trying to explore Lincoln as a man (He remains an enigma.)The second category of Lincoln biography is the political. This biography focuses on Lincoln's public actions, typically during or shortly before his Presidency and draws on the lengthy public record available during the Civil War years. This type of biographical approach tends to give short shrift to the personal approach.

   In his "Abraham Lincoln, Redeemer President" Allen Guelzo points out these two approaches to Lincoln studies (p.472) and says that his book is an attempt to combine the personal and public approaches to Lincoln. Professor Guelzo, Dean of Templeton Honors Colledge and Professor of History at Eastern Universtiy, writes a primarily intellectual biography; but he tries to explore the degree to which Lincoln's thought formed his political actions.

   Professor Guelzo devotes a great deal of attention to establishing Lincoln's political identity as a whig -- an admirer of both Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. From his early days in public life, Lincoln was interested in promoting economic opportunity by encouraging the free market. He supported ambitious programs of public works and public education, to develop transportation infrastructure, (canals, roads, and railroads) and to promote the growth of industry and of a middle class. The whig approach emphasized public virtue, public morality, the value of hard work, and a unified United States. Guelzo effectively contrasts Lincoln's Whiggish beliefs with the agrarian beliefs of the Jefferson-Jacksonian democrats with their commitment to a nation of agrarian, self-sufficient yeomen and farmers. (Lincoln's father was such a yeoman, and Lincoln wanted none of it for himself.)

   Professor Guelzo traces the beginnings of Lincoln's opposition to the expansion of slavery, in the early 1850's. to his desire to promote the development of upwardly mobile capitalist workers. He tended to see agrarianism as slavery slightly disguised. Lincoln never lost his whig commitments, according to Professor Guelzo, even after the party disbanded and Lincoln became a leader of the Republican party.

   Professor Guelzo also studies the nature of Lincoln's religious beliefs and the importance Lincoln gave to religous questions. As is the case with Lincoln's economic rebellion against his father, Professor Guelzo finds the beginnings of Lincoln's religious thought in a youthful rebellion against the Calvinism and predestinarian beliefs of his father. Lincoln found he could not believe in the revealed God of the Bible, although he knew the Bible well. He could not accept the doctrine of predestination, but he came close to it in a secular way. During most of his life, Lincoln was a determinist who believed that people had little independent choice in what they did but acted in response to outside factors which they did not control.

   According to Professor Guelzo, Lincoln also tended towards the englightenment of John Locke and towards the utilitarianism of Mill and Bentham. His politics and Presidency, of course, have distincly pragmatic characters. Throughout his life, Lincoln remained outside the fold of organized religion.

   According to Professor Guelzo, Lincoln's thought developed as Lincoln confronted at deepening levels the difficulty of the Civil War. The beginning of this development was the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates where Lincoln vigourously attacked the morality of holding slaves. Lincoln's thoughts on providence, for Professor Guelzo, were instrumental in Lincoln's decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln told his cabinet he had made a promise "to his maker" to issue the Proclamation and that he could not do otherwise. (pp 341-42.) Guelzo continues his treatment of providential themes in Lincoln with his discussion of the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural Address.

   There is also a great deal in the book that discusses Lincoln's handling of the War, the border states, his generals, and the Army. Professor Guelzo's intellectual and religous themes sometimes get lost in these discussions, and we are reminded that Lincoln was a pragmatist, a leader and a consummate politician.

   The picture of Lincoln's religiosity that emerges from Professor Guelzo's study has a distinctly modern flavor. (Professor Guelzo sees it as high Victorian.) Lincoln was a person who sought religous belief but could not find his way to an organized religion of his day. He was not, in his mid and late life, content simply with materialism and skepticism but rather developed his own religious thought based upon a rather loosely defined notion of providence and redemption. As personal as his thought was, it helped shape our nation. Lincoln's life, as Professor Guelzo presents it, seems to be a paradigm of many people today who reject organized religion in favor of a search for what many call spirituality.

   On a political level, Guelzo's account of Lincoln stresses that the United States is and has become a unified Nation and that Americans should see themselves, for all their diversity and differences as part of a unified people. I also see the book as a reminder of the value of hard work and economic effort.

   Professor Guelzo has written a thoughtful, provocative study of Lincoln the man, the thinker, and the President.




4. Like a typical biography, Redeemer President goes through its subject's life. But unlike most biographies, Redeemer President centers on the maturation of its subject's thinking. Guelzo shows how some of Lincoln's most famous ideas, such as his reliance on "the proposition that all men are created equal," was part of Whig orthodoxy. To trace Lincoln's development takes nothing away from his genius, of course.

   This was one of the most enjoyable biographies I have read on Lincoln. One might begin with Oates' With Malice Toward None for Lincoln's life as a great story. Then go to Donald's Lincoln for a more modern biography -- lots and lots of facts, but with little attempt to see Lincoln as a product of his own time. Both are very well written, but I prefer Guelzo's over either of them.

   If you like Guelzo's book on Lincoln's thought, you'll like A New Birth of Freedom by Harry V. Jaffa, which Guelzo calls "the greatest book on Lincoln's politics for another generation."




5. Eerdmans should stick to theological tomes, rather than embarassing themselves with yet another propaganda piece for the Yankee cause. Guelzo fails to mention how Lincoln trampled upon the Constitution (Illegal arrests, Intimidation of duly elected leaders (e.g. Maryland State Legislature), and making war upon peaceful states which legally withdrew from the voluntary Union). A Government for the people, by the people vanished [Jeffersonian Constitutional Republic replaced with Consolidated Absolutism] with Lincoln's insistence that the Federal government existed before the States. The right of secession in America, beginning with the Declaration of Independence, was taught for decades until Sen. Sumner thundered from the Senate floor that this was a perpetual Union (Lincoln decided to carry this torch at the expense of 600,000 innocents). Lincoln's Emancipation proclamation was none other than a war measure (slaves were being used to build the capital and slaves were only declared free in Confederate held territory)encouraging slaves to revolt: this did not happen. Guelzo also fails to mention that slavery in the South was dying out and that roughly 10% of her people ever owned slaves. Guelzo failed to point out that the Emancipation Proclamation was illegal since it would have to take a Constitutional amendment to change the Constitution. Furthermore, his book fails to point out that the Emancipation had no jurisdiction in the Confederate States of America since the Southern states were no longer a member of the Union. I'm amazed at how people continue to admire a man who waged war on people who decided to follow in the footsteps of their fathers: Revolutionary War Heroes. The South was right, and the Northern propaganda machine is still filling the public mind with lies. If Abraham Lincoln embodies what a Christian is, then I'm not one, and evangelicals fascination with a man who was not converted until after Gettyburg is dangerous. Furthermore, I have no respect for a man who waged war on my native state: North Carolina.

No comments about Abraham Lincoln Speeches & Letters (Everyman's Library (Paper)).

4 comments about Blood, Tears, & Glory: How Ohioans Won the Civil War.

1. This is an excellent Civil War book from a narrative standpoint. It is one of the best and most compelling I have read. It digs out great story nuggets about Ohioans in the Civil War, and admirably presents the thesis that the war was first one in the West. Recommended to anyone.



2. I'm not much of a Civil War buff, but I got a copy of this book as a gift right before Thanksgiving and it was a quick, wonderful experience. General Sherman was right . . . WAR IS HELL! The details on how bloody this Civil War was and what led up to this dramatic cross-roads in our nation's history makes it very valuable reading. Ohioans and those from the midwest (called the West then) played the pivotal roles in this war. Being the "smartest" wasn't always the best when it came to picking the right Generals and planning a good strategy. Sounds like some recent history in America! Lincoln had his struggles in this war. There are lots of good details on the personalities and styles to make things very interesting as well as informative. Suggest it highly if you like American history.



3. I have at least four ancestors who fought in Ohio regiments, so I was excited to pick up this book. It provides a wonderful overview of the people (military, civilian, politician) and places that became important before, during, and after the Civil War. The book covers a lot of ground so there are no in-depth descriptions, but I enjoyed it nevertheless. It has many citatations from newspapers, diaries, first-person accounts, and other original sources. I appreciate the Web page references that end chapters. It has lots of illustrations and an easy-reading style. It's 600 pages but the text is large and widely-spaced.
   
   It suffers problems that I'll attribute to lackluster editing from the small publisher. I found some page numbers missing... not the text, just the page numbers (page 90 has no number, and there are no pages marked 91 and 92). An island in the Mississippi is called "Island Number Tenth" and then later "Island Number Ten," and isn't listed in the index at all. The brief phrases used to tag various people are often repeated, sometimes in separate chapters and sometimes on the next page. For example, page 347, "with Meade only nominally in charge..." and page 348, "Meade would remain head--nominally--of the army..."
   
   In spite of these issues, I'm enjoying this book and I'm glad to have it.



4. This is a superb, work -- in league with the best historical writers of our day in both substance and style. Bissland has done his homework in crafting a spell-binding glimpse of Ohio's significant role in the Civil War.
   
   I found his character descriptions to be most insightful and colorful. The depictions of Grant, Steedman, Rosecrans, and John Brown were especially riveting. His short bios of the main players were rich with detail and fresh anecdotes. They were never dry and plain -- always juicy and enticing. I loved the alliterative description of Brown as " an avenging angel on assignment from God. I didn't wanting to stop reading in the midst of any new character description.
   
   The author is almost poetic in his economical painting of snippets, often catching the reader off guard, e.g., "small conflicts flickered on the horizon like heat lightening" and my favorite: depicting Foote's gunboats as "enormous Hostess Twinkies with quills."
   
   The work is well-researched and appropriately documented, using an array of fascinating primary sources, including many diaries and early newpaper accounts. While the book subtitle suggests a narrow geographic view, I highly recommend this book to those beyond the midwest.

No comments about The Reminiscences of Major General Zenas R. Bliss, 1854-1876: From the Texas Frontier to the Civil War and Back Again.

2 comments about A Southern Boy in Blue: The Memoir of Marcus Woodcock, 9th Kentucky Infantry (U.S.A.) (Voices of the Civil War).

1. What most people don't realize is that of the more than 100,000 Southerners who fought on the side of the Union in the American Civil War, some 40,000 were Tennesseans, coming principally from the Appalachian counties of East Tennessee. A Southern Boy In Blue: The Memoir Of Marcus Woodcock, 9th Kentucky Infantry (U.S.A.) is the candid, intimate, and vividly related autobiographical story of one of them who was not yet nineteen when the war broke out. Marcus joined the 9th Kentucky Infantry. A bout of measles kept him from the battle of Shiloh, but then he went on to see action at Stones River, Chickamuagua, Missionary Ridge, and more. Marcus wrote his memoir in 1865, and his descriptions of battles, camp life, and the politics of the time open up an authoritative and informative "window in time" that will be read with interest by academia as well as the non-specialist Civil War military buff.



2. It's not general known, but of the approximately 100,000 Southerners who joined the Union forces and fought against the Confederacy in the American Civil War, more than 40,000 were Tennessee, especially the Appalachian counties of East Tennessee. A Southern Boy In Blue is the personal memoir of Marcus Woodcock, a young man from Middle Tennessee who at the age of 19, donned a Federal uniform and fought as part of the 9th Kentucky Infantry. Deftly edited by Kenneth Noe, A Southern Boy In Blue is a first hand account of participation at the battles of Stone River, Chicamauga, Missionary Ridge, the Atlanta campaign, the siege of Corinth, and the Battle of Perryville. In three years Marcus rose from the rank of private to first lieutenant. He wrote his memoir in 1865 and vividly described the battles, camp life, and the politics of the times. A Southern Boy In Blue is a welcome and invaluable addition to the growing body of eye-witness Civil War literature.

1 comments about A Very Violent Rebel: The Civil War Diary of Ellen Renshaw House (Voices of the Civil War).

1. Two g-grand nieces of Ellen House discovered these diaries in her trunk upon the death of an aunt. What a find! Ellen House had strong opinions and voiced them. The Siege of Knoxville (November 1863) is covered and Sutherland's footnotes make for GOOD history. Don't think, you WWII GIs out there, that "scuttlebutt" started in "our" war. There was plenty during the Civil War, some preposterous. Sutherland provides good interpretive notes. Highly recommended! Four stars only because there are a few gaps in Ellen's coverage of the War in Knoxville, but who can blame her. Deprivation was the order of the day.

5 comments about Was Jefferson Davis Right?.

1. History has not been kind to Jefferson Davis. This is especially true now with the current wave of politically correct motivated attacks on him. The Kennedy brothers seek to rectify this by placing him under a mock trial charged with treason against the United States government. Incidentally, Davis repeatly asked for this trial which the U.S. government refused based on recommendation of their legal counsel.
   Most Davis critics know very little about him. An excellent biography introduces him to the reader. The Kennedy's present the questioning and motives of his federal accusers and offer a stalwart defense in his behalf. Decide for yourself if he was guilty or innocent of treason.
   Also, included in addendum are informative documents relative to the period and subject.
   When Jefferson Davis died in 1889 the South mourned. Thousands upon thousands of people of all races and walks of life attended his funeral and processions. The South still loved and respected their president.



2. This book provides a defense of the southern cause. Slavery was a sympton of the civil war, but not it's direct cause. Although the book's intention is to defend Jefferson Davis and the CSA, it does provide some very thought provoking information concerning Abraham Lincoln, the origins of today's Republican party and an authorative central government. It is a worthwhile read for anyone looking to find the second edge to the sword. There is much more to America's bloodiest war, and most of it are skeleton's buried deep in the closet of Abraham Lincoln and the heroism associated with his deeds.



3. I found this book interesting. I'm an amateur historian with great interest on the Civil War and the leaders from both sides. I originally bought this book looking for more information on the Biographay and beliefs of Jefferson Davis. It does provide some insight into who he was but REMEMBER WHEN READING the authors' state that it is a defense of Jefferson Davis and what he stood for. Therefore this book definately has a slant toward defending and sugar coating who Jefferson Davis was.

   The book is a defense of State Rights (and decentralized government) as opposed to a strong centralized government. Wether you support one idea or the other this book is definately worth reading to get a different point of view.

   For historical reading on Jefferson Davis read his own writings and speeches from his life and service to the United States and then the Confederate States.




4. This book is: 1. A book that opens up bringing Jeff Davis to life telling us of his lifes joys and sorrows. His adventures and his sufferings. His victories and his defeats. 2. It vindicates Davis's character and faith shrugging off the lies told about him as well as John Edsmoe vindicates the Founding Fathers in "Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of our Founding Fathers" 3. It provides some solid Constitutional points Davis and his countrymen made about states rights and secession. Davis was definatly NOT a traitor. 4. It shows the reader that the issue of slavery was not as cut and dry as television and movies would have us believe. Not everyone who owned slaves was a cruel barbaric beast. And just because the Abolitionists were called abolitionists does not mean they were interested in the well being of black people. In fact they, like the Environmentalists and Anti-Smoking crowd today, were just using the issue as a vehicle to gain control wealth and power. A great book



5. "Some of the statements seem particularly misguided, for example, the assertion the the Bill or Rights applies only to Federal actions, not state actions!" (I know what you are thinking, this is not my typo, it belongs to Mr. Connelly.) Mr. Connelly, I am writing to inform you "the the Bill or Rights" did originally apply to Federal actions only. It was not until the previous century and the latter part of the one before it did this change. The blame for this can be placed on an activist U.S. Supreme Court of the time.

   Now that this is out of the way, I can say that this is an excellent book for anyone who is Pro-South. I myself found it very pleasing to read and I feel that others will to. It is full of interesting facts that you just can not find in other books. The Kennedy brothers have, as they have done before, written a great book.