5 comments about Co. Aytch: A Confederate Memoir of the Civil War.

1. Interest in this particular Civil War memoir increased due to its being frequently quoted and referred to in the documentary series on "The Civil War" that aired on PBS stations almost twenty years ago. Thankfully, the success of the series caused "Company Aytch, or a Side Show of the Big Show" to be reprinted.
   
   As a narrative device, film maker Ken Burns compared and contrasted the recollections of Samuel R. Watkins, a Confederate soldier who served in the Western theater of operations (principally in Tennessee and Georgia), with the diary entries of Elisha Hunt Rhodes, a Union soldier from Rhode Island. Both men saw significant combat action and both survived the war.
   
   Although Rhodes recorded his immediate observations, Watkins began his memoirs after the war had ended and his book was published seventeen years after the Army of the Tennessee had surrendered. He had the advantage of being able to meditate on his experiences and I found his book to be of greater interest as a result.
   
   I have read both "All for the Union" (Rhodes) and "Company Aytch" (Watkins). While both books have much to recommend them, I am partial to the latter. As a writer, Watkins produced more profound opinions. There seemed to be more color, humor, poetry and reflection in his prose. Rhodes seemed dull and factual in his summaries which often culminated with the slogan "All for the Union." I do not mean to diminish Rhodes or his military service in any manner, but Watkins is simply a better writer.
   
   The conclusion of Watkins book is quite moving. It was memorable when broadcast on television and it is no less memorable when read from the printed page.



2. Mr. Watkins tells a humble and epic story. A confederate private shares his unique perspective. Reveals the grim realities of a glorious cause going from bad to worse and back again. It is truly amazing he survived four years of warfare. Most often death was easier than survival. General Bragg routinely court martialed his troops with a firing squad for deserters. Further punishments like barreling, whippings and deprevations were routine. It got better under General Johnston and worse again under General Hood. The soldiers alternatively cursed and praised the war, its' cause and the Generals. Yet like in all wars, the men fought for each other. So many soldiers met their Maker, whereby Watkins extolls their virtues and praises. Eloquently written and graphically descriptive. Sam's survival is a testimonial to God's protection. Written in the 1880's.
   READ the book and you will find a friend from the ages.



3. Sam Watkins himself describes it best himself,A Side Show to the Big Show. This Book describes the War For Southern Independence, from the eyes of a common Private in the Confederate Army. He was in it from the Start to the End. I've read it 5 times, I enjoy it more each time!! A MUST for anyone studying the WAR!!



4. Surely themost informing view of the pasr is the personal diary or even memoir. Often in the military genre we find that what is written in a diary after the battle offers a ver different view than the mrmoir written some time later. Sam Watkins's memoir is the exception. I doubt a diary wou read substantially different from this book. Sam is a mature man who sees through the gloss and temporary glory of the moment both on the field and from his armchair. If you forget the name on the cover, you can believe the person responsible for it goes by the nom de plume of Mark Twain. This is not a book for the military library, it bellongs in every library.



5. There are seveal diary books which are like Co. Aytch however for some reason I could relate to Sam Watkins. When I'm asked about the Civil War/War of Nothern Aggression, I tell them to start their study of that time with two books: Co. Aytch and Testament:A Soldier's Story of the CIvil War by Bobrick. Both books are a 5 star in my humble opinion. After reading those two then go on and read whatever you want.

No comments about Harry S. Truman: The American Presidents Series: The 33rd President, 1945-1953 (The American Presidents Series:).

5 comments about Eleni.

1. There are few books on the Greek Civil war that erupted after 1945 between Communists and the rest of Greece. During the war some 158,000 or more people died, many at the hands of the Communists. Yet most books on the subject in English are still sympathetic to the Communists (seeRed Acropolis, Black Terror: The Greek Civil War And The Origins Of The Soviet-american Rivalry,1943-1949) and refuse to condemn the red terror and the mass killings. This book goes a slight way towards setting the record strait if only because it shows the story of one peasant woman in a small village known as Lia in the mountans of northern Greece. But the story of how the vilagers were used as slave labourers by the COmmunists, starved and finally tortured and murdered is a story of what befel all northern Greeks during the Communist insurgency. Westerners present this insurgency as 'romantic' as only westerners can present genocide as 'romantic'. But this sad and disgusting train of thought is finally shattered by this excellent and daring book that tells the story not only of Lia but of the peasants who lived there and Eleni and of course her son who survived and who has lived to return to Greece to tell the story.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman



2. I have owned this book for over 10 years. Every time I read it I thought of my maternal grandmother (that was her generation) and all the other brave Greek mothers before her and cried like a baby. I passed it onto my second husband who is not of Greek descent. He loved it and really liked the name Eleni. That was about 5 years ago (we've been together over 6).
   Our second daughter was just baptised Eleni in the Greek Orthodox church. It was the only name we could agree upon. My aunt & uncle came from Greece and told me a story of when my uncle was a little boy. He was injured by an unexploded bomb and was taken to a hospital in Athens. His grandmother went to visit him. She had been born and raised in Athens, although now living about an hour outside of the city, so she knew the short-cuts to the hospital. On her way to see her beloved grandson she was shot dead, mistaken for a man in disguise. This was at the beginning of the civil war. I had not heard this story before, and had no idea who my paternal grandmother was. Apparently, her name was Eleni. I wonder if this is why I was steered to this book and so moved by it? Ain't life funny?



3. Author Nicholas Gage tells the story of the Greek civil war and how it personally affected him and his family. Most notably this book describes how politics, fear, greed, and desperation combined to culminate in the brutal torture and execution of his mother, Eleni, for the crime of merely saving her children from starvation or forced separation.
   
   My brother highly recommended this book to me. I was a little put off by its length and the obscurity of its subject (I had never even heard about the Greek civil war), but as the story unfolded I found myself completely engrossed in it. The first 100 or so pages were just a little difficult absorb because of the necessary build-up of the scenario and the characters. I also struggled throughout the book to get a grasp of the numerous greek names of people and places. However, these were minor inconveniences to pay for the huge reward of learning about this incredible and disturbing experience.
   
   Nicholas Gage very eloquently describes the cruelty and injustice that war tends to inflict on so many innocent victims. Everyone could benefit from learning about this story that he has so vividly portrayed in Eleni.



4. This is a very good book written by the son of a woman murdered while trying to escape to freedom with her children from a corrupt government. He wrote about it as an adult investigating what happened and including his memories. He is forgiving as his mother was desiring to do as she would have wished with no retaliating to those who had part in persecuting her.



5. This book is written well, but it is a hard read. I didn't think it really grabbed me until about 244 pages in. It is worth it in the end, but you have to want to finish it (or in my case, be required to) in order to enjoy.

5 comments about Memoirs (Penguin Classics).

1. Sherman is (perhaps arguably) the most articulate and intelligent autobiographer (and biographer) of the Civil War period. Yes, he was controversial, but that, in great part, came from the times, and the period politics, and later from the political agendas of modern politically correct historians/writers. The overriding elements in Sherman's autobiography are the matter-of-factness and the fairness with which he describes events and people in his life. With much the same exquisite Dignity as U. S. Grant in his memoiors, Sherman speaks to the reader with a clarity and honesty no decent person can help but admire. He is painstaking in relating military associations - sometimes wearily so. But his thorough and candid descriptions of events, people and places still present themselves in an entertaining manner time and time again. For the reader mature enough to accept those times without tainted sanctimonious judgement, Sherman's memoirs will be a fascinating and enlightening glimpse of the people and the soul of our country during one of our most trying eras.



2. INTERESTING TO READ "SHERMANS" SIDE OF THE STORY !! GOOD READ IN CONJUCTION WITH "CITIZEN SHERMAN" BY MICHAEL FELLMAN !!!



3. General William T. Sherman's memoirs, first published in 1875, are primarily an account of his service in uniform during the Civil War. Sherman rallied to the Union colors early in the conflict, but had indifferent success until the searing crucible of the Battle of Shiloh, where he fought under the command of the stalwart U.S. Grant. Shiloh was a turning point. With increasing confidence as a leader, Sherman played key roles in the siege of Vicksburg and in the relief of beseiged Union forces at Chattanooga. When Grant was called east to head up all Union forces, he hand-picked Sherman as his successor in the West. Sherman would go on to take Atlanta, march to the sea at Savannah, and pillage his way through the Carolinas to hasten the end of the war.
   
   Sherman the man, and his memoirs, stand in vivid contrast to his contemporary and close friend U.S. Grant. Where Grant was modest and reserved, Sherman comes across as all nervous energy, talking up a storm and hardly able to sit still doing it. His memoirs are reflective of his personality, passionate and argumentative in between inserted copies of key correspondence. While less polished than Grant's, they are in many ways more entertaining and certainly more revealing of Sherman's feelings and personality.
   
   Sherman expresses an opinion on practically everything. His battles with newspaper reporters, whom he despised, date from an alleged nervious breakdown in the first year of the war. His exchange of correspondence with Confederate General John Hood over the forced evacuation of Atlanta, are a malstrom in miniature of the passions behind the war itself. Sherman is more than frank about the politics within the Union Army, and its sometimes troubled relations with civilian authority. Above all, Sherman recognized the cruelty of the war, and was unwilling to sugarcoat that reality for anyone. Sherman and Grant each understood the grim arithmetic that the Confederate Armies must be bled to death in order for the Confederacy to be defeated and were prepared to carry out that strategy.
   
   This book is highly recommended to students of the Civil War, who will find Sherman to be an instructive and even at times entertaining guide through those portions that he personally experienced.



4. Clearly historians and civil war buffs will acknowledge the brilliance of this memoir for its obvious window into the mind of this most important figure of his time.
   I didn't come to this as either one of the former,but as a reader interested in understanding how this man accomplished the most decisive strokes in the war with such skill.
   The greatness of book lies not so much in its explanation of military strategy(which it is) but the powerful definition of the principles of freedom as expressed through a common foot soldier.
   Sherman understood that no elitist and patrician society could stand however strong there reputation ,against a soldier who fought for this principle.
   I found it inciteful that Shermans experience in the prewar south,and his views of its imbalanced society, became more valuable in breaking it than his geographical knowledge.
   That Lincoln approved Shermans plan to march through the heart of the confedreacy at the disapproval of all his advisors shows his wisdom to Shermans argument that the south was a shell,and hollow inside.
   Grants reluctance to this plan,which he approved only out of his loyalty to Sherman, is poignant to read.Grant thought he'd never see his best friend again.
   The genius of Sherman was his utter conviction in the goodness of men to destroy that which was evil,knowing that when his men saw not the soldiery of the south,but its hideous society,he needn't do more to motivate them.
   The miserable condition of slavery was known,but the site of 90 percent of a white population virtually no better off provided Sherman with a civilian population unable and unwilling to resist.Noone but Sherman thought this important,and that his diary records this as a current fact and not analysis years later is powerful reading.
   Defeating the confedracy on this march with no major battles and losing but 100 men of his 62,000, told the south, as well as the north the myth of southern military advantage.
   Sherman became so feared ,Southern commanders as well as thier soldiers fled before him,offering almost no opposition.
   Shermans Army of the West,recruited and trained by him,became the most feared army in the world,for it fought under the true belief of a free people against real evil.
   His own words to that effect are awe inspiring.



5. I just finished reading this book (from the library, a 19th century edition) and came to search for other books. There are modern histories, but reading the original memoirs is very satisfying. The book by Julius Ceasar of the Gallic wars comes to mind. Sherman is a clear and satisfying writer. He does remind me of Ceasar in his matter of fact recollections.
   
   I enjoyed the section on the taking of California during the Mexican war. Talking about hundreds of ships abandoned in Yerba Buena (to become San Francisco) due to the desertion of all the crews was interesting.
   
   The period between California and Louisiana and secession is less interesting, but he was preparing a memoir of his life.
   
   The war is what everyone will be looking for, and specifically the March to the Sea. The advance down from Tennessee to Atlanta is more militarily interesting. After the fall of Atlanta the battle was all logistics. Could such a large army separate from it's supply lines? According to W.T. Sherman this was all his idea and he documents it exhaustively. Presumeably this was due to disparagements of his leadership in the decades after the war and the presidency of Johnson.
   
   The extensive documentation of lines of battle and effective strength and copies of tremendous amounts of coorespondence can be tedious, but are easily scanned for what is of interest or skipped altogether.
   
   Great read, interesting book. Tecumseh Sherman is one of my heroes.

5 comments about Andrew Jackson.

1. I have read several of this author's works, and have never been disappointed. It is easy to see why he has become an acknowledged expert on the "Age of Jackson." His writing is always very easy to digest, and his insights are illuminating. I highly recommend this book, and the audio version is equally enjoyable.



2. We had to read this book in my AP U.S. History class. It is good. My theory on the reason why Remini wrote this book was to explain why Jackson did the things he did like the duels and make up for them. I never realized how interesting the presidents were espically Jackson. Good book to read.



3. Few Americans have won the mythical status enjoyed by Andrew Jackson. Often portrayed, in his day and since, as the champion of the common man, Jackson came to Washington as an outsider, the first President born outside the thirteen original states, indeed the first president born neither in Virginia nor Massachusetts. Throughout Jackson historiography, Jackson via his policy of `rotation' in office has been accused of instituting the spoils system in American politics. This criticism highlights how Whig myths have come to permeate the historical writing on this subject.
   
   Starting with James Parton in 1860, anti-Jackson historians have followed this criticism, blaming Jackson for replacing a supposed merit system with a partisanship that corrupted the civil service for generations. Despite further research since Jackson's time, many historians have uncritically repeated these accusations without examining the actual record of appointments during the presidency unhappily described by some as "The Reign of Andrew Jackson".
   
   There have been essentially four cycles of studies into the life and Presidency of Andrew Jackson. The first cycle began soon after the death of Jackson with the "liberal patrician" or "Whig" school, who were generally unfavourable towards the policy of rotation. Most familiar is James Parton's classic The "Life of Andrew Jackson". So critical of rotation was Parton that he stated "this single feature of his administration would suffice to render it deplorable rather than admirable." Other members of the "Whig" school include Sumner, Schouler and Von Holst, all very critical of Jackson's policy of rotation. Parton's biography was the standard source on the Jacksonian era, until the second cycle represented by the Progressive Historians, such as John Spencer Bassett's "The Life of Andrew Jackson (1911), which cast Jackson in somewhat of a different light. Bassett reduces the amount of blame put on Jackson for rotation by suggesting that his democratic views made him oblivious to unintentional dangers from partisan appointments. However, the Progressives shared with the Whigs the view that Jackson had brought a spoils system to national politics and that its effects were negative.
   
   Historians in the third cycle of Jacksonian studies, of which Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s "The Age of Jackson" (1945) served as a pivotal work, shifted attention away from Jackson himself towards larger forces in his era. Historians of the third cycle, such as Hofstadter and Hammond, debated the effects of class and culture in determining party differences while showing little interest in evaluating Jackson's rotation policy, though tending to criticise it briefly. No biographies of Jackson discussed the policy of rotation in depth during the next thirty years.
   
   The appearance of Robert V. Remini's three-volume biography of Jackson marked the start of the fourth cycle of interpretation. Based on modern scholarship, Remini covers all aspects of Jackson's life and career, demonstrating his contribution to the great developments of nineteenth century America, particularly empire, freedom and democracy. By returning to first hand sources, Remini shows that the policy of rotation in office has been exaggerated and misunderstood. However, having set himself the remarkable task of producing a thorough study of the life and Presidency of Jackson, Remini did not have the scope for a detailed re-interpretation and re-evaluation of rotation. Since Remini's work there have been many scholarly works on Jackson, but none offer an in-depth reassessment of rotation as touched upon by Remini.
   
   Remini states that Jackson has received a disproportionate share of the blame for the spoils system and that there is a need to disprove the Whig myths, which have come to permeate the historical writings of historians over the generations. Remini was not the first to stress the need for such a revision; in fact a similar plea was expressed by J.R. Poinsett in the "Oration on the life and character of Andrew Jackson, delivered July 4, 1845" when he stated about Jackson, "His instinctive love of justice... gave a high tone to his government and exalted the honor of his country. His hatred of corruption rendered his administration pure.... I will content myself with expressing my belief that in future time the impartial historian will justify both his motives and his conduct on this trying occasion.
   
   Remini offers the reader a great insight into the pioneering mind of one of America's greatest Presidents.
   
   
   [The above Review is taken in part from 'Andrew Jackson's policy of 'Rotation in Office' by Alexander Rayden. © Copyright 2005 Alexander Rayden, All Rights Reserved].



4. Few American presidents could be said to have left such a distinctive mark on the office and the nation as Andrew Jackson. Even as Jackson's legend fades into the mists of the past, we owe it to ourselves to reach back and draw it up into the light of honor accorded such giants as Washington, Lincoln and FDR, because Jackson was a figure of equal stature. One way to accomplish this is to read Robert V. Remini's concise history entitled simply Andrew Jackson, a quick, yet surprisingly thorough chronicling of Jackson's many achievements as president, politician, general and pivotal figure in the establishment and settlement of the state of Tennessee.
   
   What makes Jackson so interesting is the way his checkered past shaped the trajectory of his Presidency. Decades before Lincoln, he was the first president to be born into rustic circumstances and rise above them to achieve greatness, but unlike Lincoln, his story is not that of a paragon of virtue overcoming adversity with folksy charm and wit. Jackson was a bully, an adulterer, a blowhard and a holder of grudges, character flaws that he eventually reshaped to his advantage, and to that of the nation's.
   
   Humiliated and wounded as a boy during the Revolution, Jackson carried a lethal grudge against the British that eventually got its airing during the War of 1812 when he commanded US forces in the Battle of New Orleans and won a lopsided victory that sent a stinging message to the rest of the world about the folly of underestimating America's determination to defend its sovereignty.
   
   It made him a hero and launched his political career, an enterprise that might have been merely interesting were it not for Jackson's staunch determination to take the smug creatures of privilege in Washington by the scruff of their collective neck and teach them a stern lesson about whose country it really was. By 1828 the nation was already in danger of being sold out to the highest bidder and Jackson rose to power on the promise of snatching Democracy from the jaws of Oligarchy. Remini's speculates that, in some measure, this came from Jackson's early experience after having been ripped off in a land deal by moneyed interests.
   
   In any case, Jackson was as good as his word, going after the all powerful National Bank with a vengeance, staring down the threat of secession on the part of South Carolina over a question of tariffs, and defeating formidable political foes with equal helpings of restraint and ferocity. Jackson helped found the state of Tennessee, was instrumental in the establishment of the Democratic Party, virtually invented modern campaigning, was the first president to wield the veto with brio, and elevated the office of the Presidency to its present formidable role. But Jackson's most lasting contribution was his faith in and reliance on the people, even after he'd been elected, a true Democrat of a type almost entirely missing today and one not likely to be resurrected any time soon.
   
   Remini is a comprehensive Jackson scholar, one whose works on the Hero of New Orleans number eleven. This book is more or less an abridged version of his longer work and represents a cherry picking of facts and reflections. Regrettably, the book favors facts over reflections which is unfortunate, because one would like to know more about Remini's interpretations of events. But if you want to pick up a basic understanding of Andrew Jackson and his importance to American history this book is a wonderful start.
   
   Jackson's parting words on leaving office were, "Remember, my fellow citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing." What politician would ever say that today?
   
   That Jackson is increasingly forgotten when discussing the great Presidents of our history says something, too, about our ability to retain the blessing for future generations.



5. On a recent of list of great presidents in American history, Andrew Jackson was ranked near the top. Yet there is no Andrew Jackson Day. Most people would be hard pressed to name a single fact about "Old Hickory". Yet if he lived in the age of the cable news network, he may have been the most scandalous president ever. In this short but very well written biography, Robert Remini does a comendable job documenting the life of General Andrew Jackson.
   
   Jackson was raised in far from ideal conditions. When his parents died when he was young, he lived with several different relatives at varying times. After growing up in the Carolinas, he moved west to Tennesse where opportunity was available. In Tennesse, he became a very accomplished attorney which allowed him to accumulate wealth. It was in Tennesse that he met his wife Rachel who was in a failing marriage. For a time, Jackson actually lived under the same roof as Rachel and her then husband. When Rachel's first marriage became irreconcilable, she immediately married Jackson. Unfortunately, it was not until three years later that Rachel's first husband officially filed the divorce papers. This forced Andrew and Rachel to marry again to make the union legal.
   
   Jackson's early political career was not remarkable. He had less than fulfilling stints in the House and Senate before he achieved real glory in the military. Jackson is most noted for his conquests in the War of 1812 and battles with American Indians. Riding the wave of his military glory, he was elected president. In doing this he also helped to found the Democratic party. Jackson's accomplishemnts as president include his elimination of the National Bank, forcing the French to pay war reparations, and ending the spoils system that plagued the government. He was championed as a common man's president because of this Tennesse background and military service.
   
   The whole life of Andrew Jackson is not disclosed in this review, but this book is an excellent source to discover his life. Remini's writing is not bogged down in political lingo, but tells the story for those interested in reading about a great life. While a short read, it is thorough and highly enjoyable.

5 comments about The Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant.

1. Amazon and its various sub-concerns obviate customer inconvenience- and any reasonable complaints! First-class people of merchandising withal.



2. To start off, I am usually relectant to read autobiographies, as many should be considered works of fiction. I have read countless book on the Civil War and several on Grant, but I had shamefully neglected reading his Memoirs-my mistake. Several years ago I got a copy on sale and thought I would give it a read-I was a born again Grant fan!
   As many know, after leaving the presidency he lent his name and money to a failed business venture in New York and was near bankrupt. He had been approached by many to write his memoirs, but always resisted. The prospect of his beloved Julia not being provided for plagued him and so he consented to write them. He intially had a fairly good contract to write a subscription book, but his friend Mark Twain interviened and got him a deal that was substantially better. For an excellent overview of this, see Mark Perry's, "Grant and Twain".
   After reading this, I came away with a completly different view of Grant. The only job he suceeded at was the one he disliked the most-a soldier. He served with distinction in Mexico, but was opposed to the war. All he wanted to do was to teach math at West Point.
   The real heart of the memoir is, of course, the Civil War and here a masterpiece was made. He writes in a simply, though not an uneducated style. He is quite defferential and praising to his subordinates and clear describes where he made errors in judgement, not the usual justifications seens by so many. He cannot say enough good about Sherman and tactfully puts down Henry Hallecks meddling. The book ends with the end of the war and his last words were written only a week or so before he died.
   In my opinion this is a classic in history and needs to be read by anyone interested in knowing how the North really won the war. The copies of the original maps leave a lot to be desired, but this is trivial. My only regret is I cannot give it a higher rating than 5 stars!



3. Much to my surprise and delight "The Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant" are surprisingly readable and full of a dry understated sense of humor. U.S. Grant's memoirs give a very down to earth approach to his personal history starting in Ohio and continuing through his education at West Point and his involvement in the Mexican-American War. I highly recommend this book to anybody who enjoys Antebellum U.S. and Civil War history, or just history in general. Personal memoirs are an excellent medium for getting into the shoes of some of histories greatest figures and seeing the world as they saw it. U.S. Grant's memoirs do all that and more. You will not be disappointed.



4. General Grant wrote this book while dying of throat cancer. He had been swindled by a dishonest Wall Street Broker and his trophies and possessions were stripped from him to satisfy the demands of his debtors. Bankrupt, suffering from a terminal illness and never passing a moment without acute pain, he produced this magnificent monument to his greatness. Those who denigrate Grant as a drunkard, butcher, bumbling President need to read this book in order to correct these errant assumptions. It is impossible to read this book and not realize that Grant was an inordinately intelligent man and one hell of a writer.

   Grant's Memoirs are a deserved classic in American literature and considered the greatest military Memoirs ever penned, exceeding Caesar's Commentaries. Grant wrote as he lived: with clear, concise statements, unembellished with trivialities or frivolities. The only "criticism" the reader might have is that Grant bent over backwards not to wound the feelings of people in the book. He takes swipes at Joe Hooker and Jeff Davis, but what he left unsaid would have been far more interesting. A compelling and logical reason why Grant was so spare in his comments was because he was involved in a race with death. He didn't know how long he could live and therefore, "cut to the chase."

   Grant's assessments of Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan and other military leaders are brilliant and engrossing. His style, like the man himself, was inimitable and couldn't be copied. In everyday life, Grant was a very funny man, who liked to listen to jokes and tell them himself. His sense of the absurd was acute. It's no accident that he loved Mark Twain and the two hitched together very well. Twain and Grant shared a similar sense of humor, and Grant's witicisms in the Memoirs are frequent, unexpected and welcome. There are portions where you will literally laugh out loud.

   Though Grant's Memoirs were written 113 years ago, they remain fresh, vibrant and an intensely good read. I have read them in! their entirity 30 times in my life and I never weary of the style and language that Grant employed. He was a military genius to be sure, but he was also a writer of supreme gifts, and these gifts shine through on every page of this testament to his greatness. All Americans should read this book and realize what we owe to Grant: he preserved the union with his decisive brilliance. In his honor, we should be eternally grateful.




5. General Grant wrote this book while dying of throat cancer. He had been swindled by a dishonest Wall Street Broker and his trophies and possessions were stripped from him to satisfy the demands of his debtors. Bankrupt, suffering from a terminal illness and never passing a moment without acute pain, he produced this magnificent monument to his greatness. Those who denigrate Grant as a drunkard, butcher, bumbling President need to read this book in order to correct these errant assumptions. It is impossible to read this book and not realize that Grant was an inordinately intelligent man and one hell of a writer.

   Grant's Memoirs are a deserved classic in American literature and considered the greatest military Memoirs ever penned, exceeding Caesar's Commentaries. Grant wrote as he lived: with clear, concise statements, unembellished with trivialities or frivolities. The only "criticism" the reader might have is that Grant bent over backwards not to wound the feelings of people in the book. He takes swipes at Joe Hooker and Jeff Davis, but what he left unsaid would have been far more interesting. A compelling and logical reason why Grant was so spare in his comments was because he was involved in a race with death. He didn't know how long he could live and therefore, "cut to the chase."

   Grant's assessments of Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan and other military leaders are brilliant and engrossing. His style, like the man himself, was inimitable and couldn't be copied. In everyday life, Grant was a very funny man, who liked to listen to jokes and tell them himself. His sense of the absurd was acute. It's no accident that he loved Mark Twain and the two hitched together very well. Twain and Grant shared a similar sense of humor, and Grant's witicisms in the Memoirs are frequent, unexpected and welcome. There are portions where you will literally laugh out loud.

   Though Grant's Memoirs were written 113 years ago, they remain fresh, vibrant and an intensely good read. I have read them in! their entirity 30 times in my life and I never weary of the style and language that Grant employed. He was a military genius to be sure, but he was also a writer of supreme gifts, and these gifts shine through on every page of this testament to his greatness. All Americans should read this book and realize what we owe to Grant: he preserved the union with his decisive brilliance. In his honor, we should be eternally grateful.

3 comments about Pursuit: The Chase, Capture, Persecution, and Surprising Release of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

1. Another job well done Clint Johnson! As with all of your books you can tell immediately this one was well researched and well written. You are certainly on your way to becoming one of this generations premiere civil war historians. You write with a style that seems as though you have actually lived and experienced the very history you so ably put to type and that is what makes this book so enjoyable. Any student of American history needs this book in their collection.



2. There are different ways to write Civil War history. Some books that are designed for history professors are found filled with footnotes and trivial facts and esoteric comparisons which only another professor of history could enjoy wading through. Then there are others with no notes and no references to sources that tell a rousing good story but one that leaves the reader wondering if he has read a novel or a history book and no way to verify which. Clint Johnson has merged these two types of history into a book which, if you are interested in Jefferson Davis and his capture, is a must read. Johnson focuses on the details of Davis' flight and capture. For those who are looking for something new -- along with the fresh perspective that Johnson brings to the oft-told story of Davis' capture, he has unearthed interesting information, like providing newly discovered details concerning the story that Davis was wearing a dress when he was captured. Many are not aware the Lincoln actively sought to have Davis and his cabinet escape the US or that Davis was never tried for a crime because he never committed one [except in the eyes of the most radical Republicans] and Johnson lets you see the pickle the US government was in as the press and Reconstructors were screaming for Davis to be tried and hung. Johnson seems to have done his legwork. In Johnson's work I did not run across anything which seemed invented, contrived or went against modern Civil War research. Whenever I did want to check the source, I found the cited sources matched Johnson's version. The best part is that the book is well enough written that, once I started, I had to stay up till I finished it. A fascinating book about a fascinating figure in American history. If you are a Civil War history buff, or just want to read a well written account of a very interesting episode from the Civil War, then I recommend you read this book.



3. ...but that doesn't make him guilty of a crime.
   
   When the Confederacy collapsed in April, 1865, President Davis got Lee's message to leave while sitting in pew 63 at St. Paul's Episcopal Church...I have sat in that pew for Church services, and if you think that doesn't give a Southerner the shakes, think again. The civil government left town on a slow train that night..... Danville...Greensboro...Charlotte... One by one his cabinet faded away; Davis still wanted to make it to Texas, and continue the war. By then, that idea bordered on lunacy. Finally, after a month in which he ran, but not hard enough, the President was captured by Union Cavalry near Irwinville, Georgia [NOT IN VARINA'S DRESS--that story is a vile lie]. Davis was transported to Fortress Monroe, Virginia....then the real story started.
   
   Abe Lincoln has wanted a peaceful reunion of the country, and was inclined to let Davis, and the others, escape. Some of Lincoln's own people disagreed; we shall never know what would have happened had Lincoln lived. Abe was a strong leader...Andrew Johnson was not, and therin lay the problem. President Davis was locked up, even kept in chains for a week. The Union had several real difficulties...Democrat controlled newspapers came to Davis' support...good lawyers offered to defend him...the Justice Department couldn't come up with a crime to charge him with. Treason? Well...the Constitutional definition of that is very specific. Secession alone won't do it...secession had always been assumed to be legal. Overthrow of the government in Washington? We NEVER sought to do that, merely to form our own. The Yankees had treated us as a real country during prisoner exchanges; now, they were stuck. And then there was the matter of the Yankees' illegal admission of West Virginia. Does that mean I'm an unperson?
   
   Some Northerners tried to frame Davis for the Lincoln murder, but couldn't even get lying witnesses to tell a straight story. Davis would have NEVER traded Lincoln for Johnson, and Judah Benjamin would have never run such an operation without express orders from Davis. Mr. Johnson touched one interesting point, but did not elaborate: Secretary Stanton refused two different Union officers permission to accompany Lincoln to the theater. Both were strong men, who could have overpowered Booth...stories have circulated for years, hinting at Stanton's involvement, because he wanted a harsher Reconstruction than Lincoln would have allowed. The most that can be speculated is that knowing, somehow, about the plot, he withdrew protection.
   
   Finally, after two years [during which his treatment improved], President Davis was released on bail [paid by Northerners]. The Union had gotten itself in a legal mess by holding a man they dared not bring to trial, and were afraid to just let go. Mr. Chief Justice Chase came to the rescue with a novel approach to the Fourteenth Amendment, and the doctrine of double jeopardy. Davis never got his day in Court....
   
   I am a supporter of Jefferson Davis, but I will certainly not assert that he was without faults; pig-headed might be a nice way to put it. His inability to work with men he disliked led to the underuse of Generals PGT Beauregard and Joe Johnston, and hurt the South. Once he decided on a policy, he would simply not listen to reason. Still, his strength of character helped keep the South going. He gave the South someone to rally around during Reconstruction; to the day he died in 1889, he never backed down. He also committed no crime during the war...Mr. Johnson has written a superb book, part adventure story, part legal treatise, all great history.

5 comments about Grant.

1. Jean Edward Smith has written an outstanding biography of Ulysses S. Grant, one of the more complex heroes of American history. Grant's complexity does not stem from his own actions, but from the fact that his career as a general is considered such a success while his presidency has always been looked at as an abject failure. Henry Adams had even written that denunciation of Grant, saying, "The Progress of evolution from President Washington to President Grant was enough to upset Darwin." Mr. Smith had the good sense to compare what Adams wrote to the earlier thoughts of his brother Charles Francis Adams Jr. who admired the general and called him "an extraordinary man."
   Sometimes history needs to unfold over a longer period of time before a figure can be properly judged. With Grant the fact was that for over 100-years he came out on the losing end of history because he was for Reconstruction and the civil rights of the freed blacks. When Rutherford B. Hayes came into power in 1877 the freedoms of blacks had become a dead issue and Grant was destined to appear a failure in the eyes of history. It has only been with the success of the Civil Rights movement throughout the 1960s that Grant was in a large way vindicated. Finally southern biographers were unable to point to him as a man who picked the losing side of history, and a man who sympathized with blacks and therefore was wrong.
   It is always difficult to attempt to judge anyone or any act of the past by the standards of today. That is why it is hard to condemn George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves because it was common-place at the time. They don't deserve any positive press for owning slaves, BUT if they had turned over their slaves while they lived and fought for the freedom of all then they would have been so far ahead of their time to almost not have been real. There was no-such-thing as Virginia planters of the 18th and 19th centuries who refused to embrace the benefits of free slave labor. At least, I do not recall anything of such people.
   Grant is different because while he was President he WAS popular and DID protect the freedoms of people (which is correct even though it was judged as wrong in the south from 1877 to the 1960s). Mr. Smith is actually righting a historic wrong by trying to view Grant as the people of his time viewed him rather than those who came after and detested him for taking what was for 100-years the losing side of history. For instance, if George W. Bush has many biographies written by his supporters (now less than 28% of the population) that help to shape how he is looked at in the future, it would require a writer like Mr. Smith to come in and show that DURING the vast majority of his term, he was not exactly what one would call "popular."
   Re-writing history is a dangerous game and it takes writers like Mr. Smith to set the story straight after it has gone too far astray. In the south for instance, it was around a century or more before there started to be seen positive views of Abraham Lincoln. It is said that history is written by the winner, but really history is written by whoever happens to be holding the pen, and it isn't always the winner. How else could one explain the "Lost Cause" mythology that turned Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman into villains? It is only after carefully dissecting what actually took place that the story can be set straight.
   In "Grant" Mr. Smith has written a biography of the 18th President and first four-star general in the nation's history that is more accurate than a great majority of those that have come before. His biography is free from the anti-Grant bias that flooded the view for so long. However he also does not gloss over faults of Grant. Grant was a man who sometimes drank too much, and Mr. Smith doesn't hide it. But neither does he extrapolate and assume (as many anti-Grant biographers have done) that Grant was a hopeless drunk who stumbled around at all-times and was hardly ever sober. That such views have been accepted by many historians as fact is absolutely ridiculous, and Mr. Smith finally sets things to right.
   In closing, what we get from Mr. Smith is not a biography that overlooks all Grant's faults and pretends that he was a man heaven-sent who never made a wrong turn in his life. Instead we are given the portrait of a man who sometimes trusted the wrong kinds of people too much and who would other times have been better off as President had he sounded his views out amongst the public (especially the Cabinet and Congress). We see a man who as general came close to defeat more than a few times, but who had the nerves and calm to stand his ground. We get an accurate view of a man whose best traits as a general (indeed the fact that he was not easily perturbed in the most trying moments) are what got him into such trouble with historians for over a century. Not only did Grant wind up on the losing side by supporting the rights of black Americans, he showed no remorse for having done so (nor should he have, though it hurt his legacy).
   Time has vindicated Grant in the end and given Mr. Smith the clarity to write a definitive biography of the man from Galena, IL. Finally Grant can be reassessed and while he may never crack the top ten or even top twenty on the list of the greatest presidents of all-time, he at least can leave the likes of Buchanan, Harding, Pierce, and (something tells me) George W. Bush behind at the bottom forever.



2. I really loved this book. What a great General he was. Very underrated President. Should be ranked right up there. His battlefield skills saved the country.



3. After reading Professor Smith's Grant biography, two apparent things come to mind: the same cult of ignorance that has removed George Washington and Eisenhower from the lips of children and TV ditto-heads was responsible for the "overlooking" of this great leader; and, they, the racist, largely-white Establishment is on the march as we wage unnecessary war today with clue-less leaders in charge. This southern biography in one volume does great justice to that 19th Century and our 21st Century that stands on a precipice,serving as a trumpet call-to-arms. From the middle of Grant's memoirs at Vicksburg, I went headlong into this thrilling read, moved many times by its revelations,riveting insertions of quotes that dramatize the action with tremendous clarity. Insightful, balanced and engrossing from beginning to end. Clearly, U.S. Grant was forgotten by those whose sensibilities were offended that one man could be charged with being a Negro-lover, Indian-lover and a unifier. And for once, Jean Edward Smith got it right: the man who masters the battlefield challenges can deftly handle the administrative ones as well, without the meddling of professional politicians and slicksters. Until reading this biography, I was led to believe that the Confederacy was more noble defending the genteel plantation ways and pleasantries against the crudities of Northern pride. Like, how dare they attack Miss Scarlett! The Civil War was much larger than Margaret Mitchell, and Jean Smith builds this biography to a deeper understanding about the war and its cost. Not only does Grant rise in dimension, but he levels off and enjoys a special relationship with Lincoln that is unique and illuminating, before moving into his White House years and retirement.If one needs to know why leadership is empty in the Executive Branch since Eisenhower, you need not look beyond the enemies of Grant's legacy. The standards of conduct,on and off the battlefield, by all participants, their levels of understanding of the cause, especially their civility was so moving and numerous that one is shocked to return to 21st century conduct. There is much to admire about those times and the great man, U.S. Grant. Read this, keep it and learn plenty.



4. This is an excellent and highly readable biography of Grant. However if you are considering the Kindle edition, note that there are some transcription problems:
   
   * Footnotes have been transcribed as inline paragraphs within the main text flow. They are normally included closely after the relevant paragraph, but they sometimes lag by a screen (or even two) and in one place surfaced in a prior screen.
   
   * The maps have been omitted.
   
   * The full original index is included. But since it includes neither hyperlinks to the text, nor Kindle locations, nor even paper page numbers, it is essentially useless.
   
   * The paper version uses indented paragraphs to indicate extended quotes. Unfortunately these show up as normal undistinguished paragraphs in the Kindle version, so I was sometimes surprised to discover I was in a quote, or that I had left one.
   
   * There are also occasional minor transcription glitches such as words being erroneously joined together or erroneously split apart; or sentences erroneously broken into separate paragraphs. But these are relatively minor.
   
   Note that most of these issues aren't due to the Kindle itself: for example it handle footnotes and textual links just fine. The issues are mostly with how this particular book has been converted.
   
   I don't want to overstate the issues: the book is still quite readable in the Kindle edition, and suitable for (say) travel reading. However the various glitches are sufficiently annoying (and the book sufficiently good!) that I have ended up also buying a hardcover version, for browsing and reference.
   
   For the biography itself 5 stars. For the Kindle transcription, only two.



5. This is one of the most fascinating books i've read in a while. Smith has a clear grasp of Grant's life. Both his virtues and flaws are given equal attention. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in either the Civil War or the Presidency.

5 comments about All for the Union: The Civil War Diary & Letters of Elisha Hunt Rhodes.

1. We have works on the Civil War written by generals (e.g., the memoirs of Ulysses Grant and James Longstreet) and other officers (E. P. Alexander, Moxley Sorrell). However, equally valuable is the view from the bottom, by the foot soldiers. From the Confederate side, the paradigm example is Sam Watkins, "Company Aytch". From the Union side, Elisha Hunt Rhodes fills the bill. He rose through the ranks, and his diaries and letters provide a first-hand, ground-level view of the war in the east. As the Introduction by one of his descendants notes (Page xv): "He participated in every campaign of the Army of the Potomac from Bull Run to Appomattox with rapid promotions up to the rank of colonel in 1865."
   
   Incidents are described plainly and with an eye from the front. On pages 15 and following, he describes the march to Bull Run, the state of the troops, the weariness experienced on that march. Then, the battle itself and aftermath are described in an economical manner. Here and after, his observations of fellow soldiers and officers is most useful, giving the reader a sense of what he was perceiving.
   
   On pages 106 and following is his description of his regiment's (2nd Rhode Island) and his corps' (VI Corps under General John Sedgwick) march to and role at Gettysburg. While the corps arrived late, its uniting with the rest of the Army of the Potomac was a great morale boost for the Union forces, as this Corps was the largest in the northern army, bringing it to full strength at this bloody conflict.
   
   Then, his description of the bloody battle at the Wilderness, where he took the measure of Grant, after vicious fighting. In his diary on May 7th, 1864, he noted (page 138): "If we were under any other General except Grant I should expect a retreat, but Grant is not that kind of soldier, and we feel that we can trust him." In that phrase, he captures nicely the bulldog tenacity of Grant as a General, and identifying what was different from him compared with other commanders of the Army of the Potomac.
   
   His rendering the campaign in the Shenandoah Valley, where General Phil Sheridan jousted with Jubal Early's forces is is insightful. He speaks of the classic surprise assault on the Union position while Sheridan was off consulting with Washington. The surprise attack rolled up the Union lines for a time, although the VI Corps held pretty well. His description of Sheridan's role is interesting, as his simple coda for this indicates (page 185): "Hurrah for Sheridan!"
   
   And, finally, these lines (page 221): "Glory to God in the highest. Peace on earth, good will to men! Thank God Lee has surrendered and the war will end soon." Thus, his response at Appomattox Court House.
   
   As with Sam Watkins' observations, so, too, with Rhodes'. These observers provide a valuable and insightful perspective on the war from the ground level. Well recommended for those interested in the soldier's view of the Civil War.



2. Whie the Army of the Potomac suffered the usual soldier hardships we also have to realize these soldiers suffered some very bad generals in comparison to the Army of the Tennessee. We see the participants sense of this in the memoir. It is best placed in the heirarchy of the Civil War memoirs it must be placed beside Sam Watkins's "Co. Aytch." High praoise indeed.



3. Anyone who is interested in the Civil War has to read this book. All for the Union is the diary of Elisha Hunt Rhodes and covers the four years that he spent in the Union army. Entry by entry, the reader can watch Rhodes go from an enthusiastic young man, to hard, weary soldier. Appalled by the death and destruction early in the book, by the end, laying down to sleep between the dead and dying barely justifies a comment. A wonderful read.



4. If you are interested in more than big names and big battles this book is well worth reading. Elisha Hunt Rhodes shares his experiences from his enlistment as a boy having never been away from home until his mustering out as a man having earned the rank of Col. He writes in an honest straight forward manner about every aspect of daily life. His strong belief in duty, sense of right and wrong and his ever important sense of humor show in everything he writes. He's an optimist that made it through the war with all these attributes intact. Thankfully for us he kept this diary so that we can understand a little more about life during the Civil War.



5. It isn't easy to find quality diaries written so well from the Civil War sometimes; although this book will rank with in the top 10. Popularized and quoted often in Ken Burn's Civil War series on PBS, Rhodes' book about his life as a soldier come to life. Rhodes brings the excitement and patriotic fervor of being a new recruit in the 2nd Rhode Island Infantry early in the war. This patriotic spirit never dies through out his writing. Many times he writes about the daily hardships such as bad weather, sickness and death while always falling back on the duty to ones country and the saving of the union. Rhodes' duty carries him many engagements where death lingers around every corner. Battles such as Bull Run, Antietam, Fredericksburg and Gettysburg are just a few that this man witnessed and wrote about firsthand. Rhodes' was really an ideal soldier and loved the life. He started the war as a private and by the end of it was a colonel. Many people would benefit from reading this book be it a historian or beginner looking to further understand soldier life in the Civil War.

2 comments about The Garden and Farm Books of Thomas Jefferson.

1. If there were a ten star rating, I would give it to this book! If only all of our Presidents were so committed to the values of home and garden.

   This is a wonderful book, both for Jefferson fans and gardeners. Since I'm both, it is doubly wonderful. You can read Jefferson's records of what he planted when, his observations about all sorts of garden topics, his letters to friends and family about gardening, and see the voluminous records he kept about all things horticultural.




2. Forget About Other Organic Gardening Books! This collection of books and writings by Thomas Jefferson includes decades of his farm records and gardening notes from back when they didn't even have chemical fertilizers, herbiscides, and insecticides yet. He experimented with a huge variety of fruits, vegetables, and fiber plants (including hemp) that he imported from all over the world. He also kept complete ledgers of his slaves, chronicling their births and deaths. He kept records of their production and consumption of linen, wool, blankets, clothing, etcetera. This book is a gold mine of history, gardening tips, livestock records, diary tidbits, photos, diagrams and more.