5 comments about General James Longstreet: The Confederacy's Most Controversial Soldier.

1. From Bull Run to Appomattox: He saw it all
   Simply the best biography on the South's most controversial General: James Longsteet. Jeffry Wert does an outstanding job of analyzing both the complex nature of General Longstreet and his interesting interpersonal relationships with his family, subordinates, and fellow Confederate leaders. General Longstreet had several petty character flaws and engaged at times in questionable quarrelsome conduct, but he was also a brilliant military tactician and strategist, and loyal subordinate. Always seeking advancement, he was an outstanding brigade, division, and corps commander. A defensive tactician by nature, General Longstreet would not hesitate to attack and destroy the enemy if conditions warranted it: As he displayed at the Second battle of Manassas, Chickamauga, and The Wilderness. His sense of the battlefield, and the ebb and flow of the battle was superb and resulted in General Lee seeking out his counsel throughout the War. Unfortunately, his attempt at command at the army level was less than satisfactory as graphically demonstrated during the Knoxville Campaign. Unlike Lee or Grant, Longstreet became too bogged down in the minutiae of command and failed to understand the broader picture of leadership at the army command level. His petty nature and partiality of certain subordinates led to bickering and dissention within his corps and army level commands. His handling of these problems were at times too simplistic and harsh highlighting his only major leadership flaw.
   Despite that trait, General Longstreet was an outstanding general who Lee depended on for advice and combat leadership. Overall his men loved him and his commanders admired him.
   Of particular note was Mr. Wert's historical analysis of the ill fated Knoxville Campaign of late 1864, and General Longstreet's controversial life after the Civil War. Also noteworthy was Longstreet's early military career before the Civil War and his interesting and sometimes sad family life.
   I heartily recommend this in depth biography of the South's best corps commander and most controversial soldier. Mr. Wert does an outstanding job of analyzing Longstreet the complex man as well as superb military leader. He pulls no punches in describing a man wrapped in glory warts and all. A must read for anyone interested in more than a superficial examination of America's most terrible war.
   Note: I have had the distinct privilege of attending several of Mr. Wert's highly informative Civil War tours. He is an extremely knowledgeable historian and a very personable tour guide who brings the battlefield alive. I highly recommend participating in one of his informative tours.



2. This is a very readable, informative, and balanced biography of one of the ten or so most important generals of the Civil War and the one who perhaps was in the thick of battle more often than any other. Longstreet also is of particular interest because for so long he was the principal scapegoat for many Southern adherents to the Lost Cause mythology. Indeed, this book represents a major step in the historical reassessment of Longstreet.
   
   The book is a true biography, covering Longstreet's life from cradle to grave. For such a general biography of a military figure, the descriptions of battles and tactics are handled adroitly, being detailed and readily comprehensible to the general reader (as opposed to the military specialist). The author and/or publisher are to be commended and thanked for including a dozen maps or diagrams of battles, which are extremely helpful in understanding the narrative. Also of particular interest are the discussions of the relationship between Longstreet and Robert E. Lee and their at times radically differing approaches to waging war.
   
   I rather doubt that this book will be on the shopping list of anyone who is not already a Civil War buff or those looking for a responsible biography of Longstreet. But it can easily be recommended to either of those groups, and if someone else should pick it up for whatever reason, they will, I think, be rewarded and discover in James Longstreet a great general and a fascinating American, flawed (like us all) but nonetheless admirable.



3. ....but not much else. General Braxton Bragg was, and is, the South's most controversial soldier. With that out of the way....
   
   .....to the subject. This is an absolutely superb study of a man who was a genius far ahead of his time. Another author once wrote an article speculating as to which Civil War General, were he to rise from the dead and get a shave, would have the shortest "learning curve" to become a General in the modern Army; his answer was James Longstreet, and he may very well be right [my own answer was Bragg...there I go again]. Both men were 20th century Generals trying to fight the last 18th. century war; naturally, there were some problems.
   
   James Longstreet was born in South Carolina of a Georgia family, but he was certainly not of the old Southern aristocracy in the way Lee, Johnston, Polk, and others were. The original family name was Langestraet, and they were Dutch from New Jersey who moved to Georgia. Longstreet went to West Point and then commenced a career of one boring assignment after another, in an Army where promotion only came when somebody died. The war in Mexico proved he was a real soldier, but afterwards he was a lowly paymaster in Texas.
   
   When the war came, he went South just because his state did. Had his family stayed in New Jersey, Lee would have had a very tough opponent, instead of his "Old War Horse". Longstreet commanded the First Corps thru the whole war, except for his detached service in Suffolk that kept him out of Chancellorsville, and the months after Gettysburg when he was in Tennessee. Severely wounded in The Wilderness, he returned, and was with Lee at the end.
   
   Longstreet was loved by his troops; he fought on the defensive, never wasting his men's lives. He could march, and charge, as well as Jackson when necessary, but preferred to let the enemy make the mistakes. Further, he was "human", sharing the vices of his troops, unlike Lee and Jackson. At Second Manassas and Antietam he proved his greatness, and at Fredericksburg came his finest hour as wave after wave of Blue troops bravely, but foolishly, charged up Mayre's Heights.
   
   Gettysburg...THAT is where most discussions of James Longstreet begin and end. He and Lee had different ideas as to how [and whether] to fight the battle, and Lee was the boss. Longstreet [and Hood] wanted to move to the right, get between Meade and Washington, and hold on the defensive. Lee wanted to fight the enemy where he was. Who was right? God knows that what we did didn't work, but we forget that it dern near did. Lee took the blame; as commander, that was proper. Dick Ewell's lethargy and Jeb Stuart's independent brashness weren't noted at the time, though they contributed massively to the Confederate defeat. Generations of Southerners have blamed Longstreet for Gettysburg, but that didn't start till well after the war, and the causes were political, not military. I guess my own opinion of who was right is obvious, but I yet maintain that Robert E. Lee was the greatest soldier that ever lived.
   
   After the war, Longstreet was a cotton merchant in New Orleans, and did well until he wrote a letter in 1867 essentially stating that the South needed to build a bridge and get over it; for this, he remained an outcast the rest of his life. Dr. Freeman stated that after the war, if a man "became a Republican or consorted with Negroes", those sins would never be forgiven. Longstreet was reduced to living on Republican political appointments. [Billy Mahone likewise became an apostate, but at least he became rich; Beauregard said nothing; he simply got over the bridge to wealth. But Beauregard was always different]. Longstreet wrote his memoirs, but did it badly, and made his cause worse.
   
   This is a superb book that does a wonderful job defending a man who, in a just world, would need no defense...I've saved the best till last...the opening two pages of the book, describing General Longstreet's appearance at the dedication of the Lee statue on Monument Avenue in Richmond in 1890, is the very finest piece of historical writing I have ever read, anytime, anywhere. Period. The other Generals saw James Longstreet as an apostate, but his old troops knew what made a leader, and loved him for it.



4. I like how the book goes into detail on General Lee and the problems of being a Staff Officer under a "Demagod". General Longstreet's request for a flanking movement, if greated by General Lee, could have changed the course of the war.



5. Historians since 1865 have blamed General James Longstreet for the Confederacy losing the Battle at Gettysburg. This book places the blame on Robert E Lee, which after reading this book as well as other books recently, I would tend to agree with that assumption. The writer seems to be a Longstreet fan though, and seems to add to Longstreet's capability as a General, while placing the blame for several Confederate losses on General Stonewall Jackson which I do not agree with at all. In essence, the writer's purpose of the book is to clear Longstreet's name at the expense of Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson, as well as other Generals that Longstreet came in contact with during the Civil War. Unfortunately the author feels that is the only way to clear Longstreet's name.

5 comments about Cigars, Whiskey and Winning: Leadership Lessons from General Ulysses S. Grant.

1. This book is a quick read. I particularly enjoyed the author's focus on Grant's ability to react, adjust and adapt. Staying away from Grant's presidency was a good idea until the end. Even then, the author contrasts Grant's leadership style as a General to President and why he failed (at least historically) as a politician. What I didn't like about the book was the lack of reference to God. I understand that not everyone is firmly rooted in "the Word", but its absence leads to more questions...at least for me. Overall, thought provoking, mildly insightful and interesting. I heartily recommend Lee's Leadership Lessons. It is the best book of this style I have ever read.



2. I've never been a fan of "lessons" books and here is yet another. There are some interesting and informative quotes of/from Grant, but the lessons are, at best, better than average for such a book. -- Louis J Sheehan



3. Grant may have been a poor President, but he was a great General. This book expounds the leadership principles of his war years. Grant was not only decisive, but he could also admit to mistakes. His treatment of his fellow officers shows he was a born leader. In three years, he rose from being a store clerk to a four star general. He did this using his courage, common sense, and good decision making. Lincoln may have saved the Union through his political leadership, but U.S. Grant saved it militarily with his good leadership.
   
   This is a easy to read book. The book is in excess of three hundred pages, but most of the pages are not full. Some two hundred and fifty principles are detailed in the leadership of U.S. Grant. Too bad Grant did not use some of these principles in his Presidency.



4. Kaltman has done the research for you and put it all in a great lesson by lesson format. Any leader can refer to this book for day to day operations.



5. Very good read for anyone in management.
   Uses the Civil War memoires of U.S. Grant to illustrate management skills and practices.
   Very interesting. Excellent gift for men.

5 comments about Jefferson Davis, American.

1. Like many of the reviewers, I think this is very good. I came to this biography because I wanted to understand The Civil War better from the perspective of the South. This book covers that well in that it does provide a good overview of how Davis viewed equality as being about equality and balance between the states in the union and not equality between people. For Davis, the Constitution was primarily about the interactions between states.
   
   On the reviews that say that the book glosses over Davis's owning of slaves, I saw these sections differently. It appears that Cooper did not have any evidence that Davis had abused his slaves in the cruel sense. So, he can't write that. However, just the simple description of how many slaves Davis owned, how old they were (adult, old, and children), and how Davis's slave "assets" grew from the birth of children was disgusting to me. There did not need to be cruelty for the idea that a child born into slavery could not decide on their own future. While it is hard for me to fathom how Davis could speak of liberty while owning slaves, Cooper did a good job of framing how Davis probably thought about slavery. In the end, the overview made me more thankful to have not lived in those times, just as living in even more ancient times would have been even worse.
   
   The other sections that I found interesting were the descriptions of Davis' participation in the Mexican War. Having recently read a biography of James Polk and now this, I think I will have to look for a good history of the Mexican War.
   
   Lastly, I agree with the reviewer that the book needed an epilogue that spoke to Varina Davis's last years. Throughout the book, she is a large part of the story and to stop the book with Jefferson's death just didn't work.



2. It is rare that a biographer can capture both the essence of his/her subject and the historical context of that particular subject's time. Cooper not only does so, he does so brilliantly, like no other biographer of Davis has done to date. Cooper focuses less on Davis's role as leader of a doomed Confederate Nation and more on his accomplishments as a Mississippi politician. That is not to say that Cooper ignores Davis's role in the Confederate war effort and national politics. He writes extenisvely on the friction between Davis and two of his leading Generals, explaining how Davis went from being a luke-warm secessionist to the most ardent Confederate Nationalist in the South. Cooper also focuses on Davis's role in the Mexican War and his youth at West Point, his managing of slaves, his friction with his wife, and his constant battles with weak health. Cooper also focuses rather extensively on Davis's time after the war and his travels abroad. In this excellent biography, Cooper captures Davis the man, not Davis the symbol of a lost cause, setteling ultimately on Davis as a patriot and American.



3. Alone among historical events from which the participants are all dead, our Civil War continues to ignite passions. Many treat the issues as current, and see the personages as a still-living presence. Trust me; I live in a suburb of Richmond, and see it all the time. Up front, let me say that I respect President Davis; I visit his house and grave, and contribute to the maintenance of both.
   
   Was Davis the right man for the job? He was probably the best man available. Bob Toombs? He would have been perfect if he could have been depended on to be sober. Breckinridge? Sure, but he was Vice President of the United States when the Confederacy was formed, and he also knew which end the bottle poured out of. Louis Wigfall? Brilliant, loyal, but an alcoholic hot-head. Alex Stephens? Please. A brilliant man; a good and decent man, but not a true leader.
   
   This is an absolutely outstanding biography of a very difficult man to study. Sure, it's a long book, but Davis' life was long, and complicated. Reading it, one doesn't notice the length; Cooper is such a superb writer that this is a "page turner". Davis gets full cradle to grave coverage. The tough issues are in no wise avoided. His early education, West Point training, and U.S. Army career are all well documented. The stories of Davis' all too brief marriage to Sarah Knox Taylor, and the subsequent seven years of isolation are particularly poignant. Marriage to Varina gave him a second start, and he made the most of it. To my mind, Varina Davis is the absolute definition of "First Lady".
   
   Jeff Davis was a man of his time and place. Before anyone would criticize him, it is well to reflect on the danger of applying the standards of our day to a man from another; Thomas Jefferson, Ty Cobb, even FDR, all came from a different age; so did Jeff. In his day, the right [NOT wisdom] of secession was assumed; the White man's right to own, and obligation to care for, the Black were instilled from birth. On the record, Davis was probably as humane a slave owner as existed anywhere. Only once did he ever break up a family, and that was after much begging by the slave. Davis DID NOT want secession; he followed reluctantly.
   
   The tragedy of Jefferson Davis is that he was called to lead a country founded on State's Rights, which was then done-in by State's Rights. Vain, obstinate, and difficult, he was loyal and devoted. His mistakes are not glossed over. His loyalty to a fool like Lucius Northrop, and his tragic inability to get the most out of Joe Johnston and Beauregard are both part and parcel of the man. One of Jeff's flaws was the inability to work with people he didn't like, which FDR, for example, did quite well. One of his very worst errors was in thinking that Braxton Bragg was a field commander; placed behind a desk in Richmond, Bragg could have done for Davis what Marshall did for Roosevelt. By the time Bragg got his desk, it was too late. Davis could also be unwaveringly supportive of great men, like Robert E. Lee, and Judah Benjamin. Was his overall strategic vision the correct one? Who knows? A case can certainly be made either way. Jeff tried his best; I doubt anyone could have done better. Though some may call him obstinate, his strength and refusal to quit kept the country going long after others would have given up.
   
   If I have to criticize something about a great book, it's this: Jeff had a lot of health problems [which may well have affected his job performance], and they are documented as if writing for physicians. No problem here, but...while Plasmodium falciparum and herpetic keratoiritis may be perfectly understandable to me, others may need explanation. You may know a lot about the Civil War, but your knowledge is incomplete unless you know something about the political leaders behind the Generals. Reading this book will be time well spent.



4. I thought this was a good book. William Davis' "Davis" was better in that it gave a more honest personal portrayal. However, and editors do listen up, most of us in the real world don't have time to read an immense book. Keep succinct; keep around 300-350 pages. Thank you.



5. With so many reviews already, it is hard to add much so I'll keep this short and sweet. This is a great book and the seminal biography of Davis. Historians will be hard pressed to top Cooper's work. The book on the years preceding the Civil War were, at times, not overly inspiring, but the chapters on the war years and Davis' post-war life more than made up for it. Page turning reading and solid research to boot. This book is the best kind of history--readable, entertaining, yet solidly researched and educational as well. Having read other books that discussed Davis in varying capacities, I feel like I have a much better grasp on Davis the man than ever before. Highly recommended for any and all history buffs.

5 comments about Jesse James: Last Rebel of the Civil War.

1. This book was way too politically bias for me to enjoy, and the author went on at length more or less attacking James for being a southern democrat. He should get over it, most people who are familiar with James know that he was Rebel and fought for the south during the war. The author details the Pinkerton detectives and the politicans who were against James more then he does the central character which is James himself. If it was written by a less politically oppionated person it cooooooooould have been decent, but it still kept diverging from the central theme of James and the James gang often enough and at such length that at times I wanted to hurl it against the wall. I only keep the copy I own because of the sepia photo on the cover.
   Read the assisination of Jesse James by the coward Robert ford, it or most any other book on the famed outlaw is surely far better then this account.



2. This is one of the most in depth and well researched biographies that I have ever read. Stiles did extensive investigation into primary sources when performing the research for the book.
   
   There is a great deal of perception of Jesse James as a larger than life myth. Much of what he did was very much grounded in the history of his time and focuses on the Civil War as a driving force behind his actions and behavior.
   
   James's father was a Baptist minister who left the family to go to California during the gold rush in 1849. While there, he contracted an illness and died when Jesse was still a young boy. This left his mother to raise Jesse and his siblings on her own until eventually remarrying.
   
   The James family owned a good sized farm with quite a few slaves and so had a vested interest in maintaining the slavery structure. They were very much a part of the Confederate mindset and supported that side during the Civil War.
   
   Jesse joined his brother as a teenager during the Civil War by banding together with a bunch of "bushwhackers" who were basically guerrillas (or terrorists depending on how you look at it) on the Confederate side. They would walk up to Union sympathizers who were often neighbors and point blank kill them in cold blood simply for being supporters. This instilled fear in the local populace and a general sense of uncertainty and terror.
   
   People from the Union side did similar types of things to Confederates namely Jayhawkers from Kansas. Missouri during the civil war and the days afterwards had a feel like that of Iraq today. People of differing ideological backgrounds resorted to violence and force to push their political agendas and philosophies.
   
   Following the war James stayed with the bushwhackers until they gradually dissipated. At first they targeted banks to rob with Union ties for political reasons. Eventually, however, the targets became less political and more for pure monetary gain.
   
   One of the primary reasons for Jesse James's notoriety and fame was his frequent correspondence with newspapers. He was a voracious reader and constantly maintained his innocence in letters to editors. Newspaper man John Edwards became a champion for James and glorified him and his gang in articles. He cast them as heros and icons for the Confederate political agenda and used them in print to help advance political purposes. In that day, newspapers were very openly partisan and did not try to maintain an appearance of neutrality as news agencies do today.
   
   As James et al gained more and more fame and notoriety, public outcry became much more pronounced against them while encouraging local and state officials to crack down and bring them to justice. After stealing from express companies similar to Wells Fargo who operated primarily via railroad, private business interest arose in tracking them down and preventing future robberies.
   
   His gang branched out into other states as well such as Iowa, Tennessee, Minnesota, Kentucky, and West Virginia obtaining national attention.
   
   The Pinkertons a private investigative agency were hired to find them but most of their efforts were fruitless considering the James/Younger gang's support from local friends and their knowledge of the backwoods.
   
   On several occasions, Jesse was injured in gun fights some requiring lengthy recovery times. All told though he personally probably killed at least 20 men so came out on plus side from his battles.
   
   The gang eventually met their match while trying to rob a bank in Minnesota where the people fought back and injured or killed many members of the gang. Jesse and his brother barely escaped back to Missouri once word got out and posses were gathered to track them down.
   
   Jesse never could settle down to a life of honest work which resulted in his downfall. He was constantly suspicious of those around him but gathered a new gang to continue his exploits. A couple of brothers in his new gang plotted to kill him and eventually succeeded, collecting a hefty reward in the process.
   
   Stiles book reads like a combination of a pure history and real life historical novel. The first 200 pages are primarily devoted to the historical background of the Civil War and environment James grew up in. The last 200 pages are focused more on Jesse's emergence as a bank/train/stagecoach robber, leader of a gang, and Confederate symbol. As mentioned on the book cover, Stiles debunks the myth that James was a form of Robin Hood and was instead mostly interested in his own fame and fortune.
   
   At times the book moves slowly and is exhaustive in its coverage of the material but if the reader stays with it, he or she will have a very complete picture of Jesse James and the history of Missouri during the Civil War and the decades afterwards.



3. This book explains how the Civil War gave birth to outlaws like Jesse James. It is very well researched, detailed and interesting. A must for historians.



4. 
   This is a fascinating work on Jesse James. It is not so much a standard biography as a "political history" of James. And that makes this an interesting read. The question animating this book is (page4): "Why should one set of criminals be so much more memorable than another?" The answer (page 6): " [Jesse James] was a major force in the attempt to create a Confederate identity for Missouri, a political and cultural offensive waged by the defeated rebels to undo the triumph of the Radical Republicans in the Civil War." Hence, his Confederate background resonated strongly with the politics of Missouri.
   
   The book itself follows a chronological organization, beginning with Jesse's father, a preacher. It also describes his mother, a most formidable person, who remained an important part of his life over the years--and a strong advocate for her sons. The Civil War was critical for the family. Frank James rode with some of the Confederate irregulars, such as William Quantrill and Bloody Bill Anderson. Jesse was too young at the outset of the Civil War to be involved, but he rode with his brother, later on, with the partisans. When the war ended, the rage continued for the James brothers (especially Jesse).
   
   The book contends (and it is a reasonable case as made by the author, although I'm not sure that all readers will be convinced) that James' outlaw exploits after the war were a continuation of that conflict by other means. He was, in the eyes of the author, something of a guerilla; he is also termed a "terrorist," in the sense of using violence to try to advance a political cause (this case may not be convincing to readers; I have my doubts that the case is very strong to adopt this language).
   
   There follows an outline of his many robberies, the violence associated with them, the various members of his gang over time (including the Younger brothers), the ups and downs of their brigandage, and the political context in which their actions occurred. The political discussion appears to be done pretty well, placing the James' gang's depredations in a larger perspective.
   
   Then, they detail nicely the disastrous Northfield, Minnesota raid (disastrous from the James' gang's perspective--not from those who wanted to hunt them down). Frank and Jesse escaped, Jesse (and later Frank) to rob another day. Then, Jesse's demise. The book ends with a quick summary of the fates of key players from this volume, and provides some satisfaction in bringing things to a close.
   
   The political aspect to James, as argued by T. J. Stiles, the author, is very interesting and makes this an intriguing work. I am not sure that all elements of this work successfully (e.g., the use of the term terrorist). But the book provides a nice spin on the life and times of Jesse James.



5. I picked this book up, like everyone else, as I was curious about the man behind the legend. Well, I never really learned all that much about Jesse James. I certainly learned about Missouri, Kansas, the civil war, bushwackers and the like, but not a whole lot about James.
   
   It seemed well researched and Stiles writes in a readable style but it was not the book I thought it would be.

5 comments about "Bayonet! Forward": My Civil War Reminiscences.

1. This book, written by Civil War hero Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, is an interesting first person look at his experiences in the war. While some of his passages are self-serving and do not necessarily reflect what actually happened (e.g., his and the 20th Maine's actions at Little Round Top during the battle at Gettysburg), this is a good rendering of one person's account of his experiences.
   
   The book provides a tour of Chamberlain's part in the War, beginning with his engagement at Fredericksburg, through the violence at Gettysburg, to the battle at Petersburg (where he was badly wounded), to White Oak Road and Five Forks (and his dramatic encounters with the fiery Phil Sheridan), to Appomattox. The book concludes with the story of the Army of the Potomac's grand review in Washington D. C. after hostilities had ended.
   
   It is written in the style of the times, which seems somewhat overblown and overstylized today. Nonetheless, it provides one soldier's perspective on the War.
   
   In addition, there are a series of Appendices that flesh out Chamberlain's story (such as his comments at the dedication of the 20th Maine's monument at Gettysburg in 1889, Chamberlain's report on his and the 20th Maine's role at Gettysburg, his rendering of the last salute of the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox. The volume ends with a memoriam to Chamberlain upon his death.
   
   All in all, a useful book to gain a sense of the perspective of an important soldier in the Union Army, although flawed to some extent by some self-serving discussion.



2. I became acquainted with the story of Joshua Chamberlain after reading Shaaras' "Killer Angels" and wanted to learn more about him. This book has been an overwhelming dissapointment. For a man who was present at a number of important and exciting events in US history and an authentic American hero, his narrative is plodding and dull. His battle decriptions and his attention to minor troop movements are confusing and essentially unreadable. The maps he provides are completely inadequate in providing a better understanding what took place. The maps can be excused by the fact that they are provided with 19th century technology, his muddled writing style cant be. If you're looking for an enjoyable reading experience that will help you learn more about Chamberlain, I suggest you look elsewhere.



3. An excellent read. Chamberlain brings himself to you for examination. He hides nothing while bringing you through some very vivid accounts of the Civil War. If this book is not in your library, you should consider getting your hands on it. Enjoy!



4. These United States of America have more pretenders to the title than genuine heroes. Revisionist historians often inform us that our idols have feet of clay. George Washington, the "father of our country," was too proud to shake the hand of ordinary American citizens. Thomas Jefferson, "author of the Declaration of Independence," held others in servitude. Abraham Lincoln was subject to deep bouts of depression. George Patton was a bully incapable of showing compassion for psychologically wounded soldiers. It is even whispered that "Ike," the very symbol of 1950s family stability, may have had an affair during WWII, while Mamie patiently waited at home for the return of her soldier. The list goes on.

   That on-going litany of real world disappointments is what makes Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain so important to the American story. In Chamberlain, we find one of the few genuine heroes, so far revealed in our short, national history.

   In this volume, we read Chamberlain's (mostly) post-war speechs and reports on some of the most critical actions of the Civil War. Despite his meteoric rise from Lieutenant Colonel to Major General in four, awful years, Chamberlain does not turn the spot light upon himself. Despite being awarded the Medal of Honor, Chamberlain does not see himself as special. Instead, in speech after speech, Chamberlain gives credit (by name) to his soldiers and to his God. Like Alvin York, another American hero who would follow him 50 years later, Chamberlain was truly humble, and in his humility could be found the seeds of his heroism.

   This book, like Chamberlain's other writings is a magnificent primer for those who would seek to give selfless service to their nation, their God, or both.




5. If you want to learn more about Joshua L. Chamberlain, what better way to do it than to read his first hand accounts and speeches. This book is a compilation of several articles he wrote for a magazine and a number of speeches he gave after the war. Bear in mind that the magazine articles were heavily edited by the editor of the magazine, much to the chagrin of Chamberlain, who was quite angry! One of his speeches at the dedication of the Gettysburg monuments very succinctly outlines his reasons for volunteering for the Union Army and the ideology that kept him going back to the field, even after a horrible wound that should have killed him. Chamberlain wrote very eloquently about his experiences and his speeches are extremely moving. A must read for any Chamberlain fan!

5 comments about Company Aytch.

1. Sam Watkins is amazing and a part of you wishes he were still around signing books.
   
   There are primarily two first hand accounts of the Civil War that get qouted a lot this one and Eliha Hunt Rhodes's "All for the Union." I like this one the best because unlike the guy who wrote "All for the Union" Watkins never moved beyond the rank of corporal. When Sam Watkin's joined the "glorious cause" in 1861 1,200 marched away from his home town 65 returned including Watkin's himself. Sam states many times that this is not a history of the war, just a few things that have stuck in his memory 20 years later.
   
   The book flows in a mostly chronological order and includes personal observations of Jackson, Bragg, Johnstone, the Honorable Jefferson Davis (who shook Sam's hand) and many others. These accounts are extremely insightful and even eloquent.
   
   There are the accounts of battles in which Watkins fought 1861, Murfreesboro, Shiloh, Corinth, Perryvile, Chattanooga, Missionary Ridge and the darkest of all Frnaklin.
   
   There are also extremely entertaining elements of social history that are not directly related to battles but give you a good idea of how an average solider of the south lived and how they had fun; of these the segment "pass the butter" is probably the most hilarious. Then there is also the story of how Sam was arrested while on leave and one of his old friends from his home town got him out of trouble.
   
   Overall-This book has something for everyone and if Watkin's is correct and this book was not intended as a history it is definatly one of the most entertaining not-histories that I have read.



2. This book lives up to its reputation. If you have any interest whatsoever in the Civil War, whether you're from the North or South, you need to read this book. It has an immediacy that's lacking in history books, because the author was there and lived through some of the most hellish events in the war. And the kicker is that he was a great writer... Imagine if Mark Twain had fought in the Civil War and then wrote about it afterward. He has a gift for making you feel the exhiliration, terror, heartbreak, and drudgery of life as an infantryman in the Civil War... with a degree of literacy and introspection that raises the writing above merely a 'this happened and this happened' sort of account. His writing style is very accessible, too- this book is timeless.



3. My wife and I enjoyed reading this book together. It captured the day to day grind of life during the war years that southern people love to read about. We both recommend this insightful book.



4. 
   While this book is not for the beginner Civil War reader it is a must have for those that want to understand just how it must have been. Along with "All for the Union" "Bayonet's forward" and other Company level collections.
   
   This is an editted version and has cleaned up some of the grammer and errors per the author.
   
   Further the text presumes that the reader knows what is going on and makes scant reference to the common names for the battles he fought in or other forms of reference, hence the not for the casual reader comment earlier.



5. This book was written by a Confederate private who served in the Army of Tennessee for nearly the entirety of the Civil War. Published in serial form after the war (one reviewer suggested that his material was written during the war, such as a diary would have been; however, that reviewer is simply incorrect, and the distinction is important enough to warrant mention) and then in book form in 1880, this memoir of civil war experiences from a private's perspective is priceless in terms of primary source material. Watkins is frank and unapologetic, a quality that provides the historian with unique material in terms of dealing with the sentiments that the non-elite confederates often held.
   
   Watkin's candor is probably the most important feature of this work. His hatred of Yankees and often equally strong hatred of some of the Confederate command suggests an individual who probably defies current simple notions of Yankee/Rebel mentality. Watkins is often witty, especially when reflecting upon feelings that we would now understand as being imbedded in "class struggle". Of course, Watkin's frankness extends to his views of blacks and slaves, illuminating an individual who was both racist and yet not in the generally held stereotypical manner.
   
   I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand the Confederate experience from the perspective of the non-elitist point of view. This book would be great for a high school curriculum covering the Civil War era, and would also be a good part of any similar college-level syllabus. This is a relatively quick read (especially when compared to such works as "Mary Chesnut's Civil War" or "The Diary of Edmund Ruffin"), which makes it ideal for those just beginning their exposure to the Civil War or more specifically to the Confederate experience.

5 comments about Jim Bridger: Mountain Man.

1. it was a rather hard read and need more details, but a OK read on Jim Bridger. Would like to have detais on Morman fights ect.



2. I just finish reading this book. I thought it was very excellent and intriguing about Jim Bridger. A man, who took no pleasure in killing, following the number one rule, "Survival of the Fittest and Kill or be Killed. I would've like to have gotten more information on his wife and children. It's sad about what happened to his daughter and that he was widowed twice. But it's good to know that his last years were spent with his children and grandchildren. I was brought almost to tears upon reading the final chapter of this book. I'm very fascinated with the Mountain Men and the Indian women they married.



3. So far so good. The book tells the life story of Bridger, which is what I wanted to see.



4. I'd like to give the book another star, but just don't think I can. I found it an interesting and well researched description of Bridger's life. It has both an excellent index and references. The author gave a fair and balanced assessment of Bridger. It appears that some previous books on him might have been unfair or too praiseworthy about his life. Somehow the descriptions lacked a little spark, although there are a number of vivid passages. Perhaps this has to do with the fact the book was written 100 years after Bridger's death. In fact, this book is now 30 years old, and I believe the author wrote his first book on similar topics back in the 30s. Nevertheless, it's a good and complete description of Bridger's life.
   
   One of the sadder aspects of the story is near the ending when the author reveals that during the last 10-15 years of Bridger's life no writer took the opportunity to interview Bridger. He was in his sixties and seventies, I believe, but was a rather ignored individual, except by his family. He had an exceptionally good memory. Someone missed the opportunity to get more of his rather amazing life straight from the source. The 2-3 page description of his last years, and his desire to keep moving summarize his deep need for adventure and discovery.
   
   He was apparently quite a wit and teller of tall tales. Only four of five of his short tales are found in the book. Interestingly, he told many of his stories in sign languages to the indians.
   
   The book contains on chapter of the famous Hugh Glass incident. It's worth reading if you have not heard it. The story was incorporated into a movie, A Man Called Horse , starring Richard Harris, in a slightly different form. I also found the long passage on "medicine wolves" quite intriguing.
   
   I think this book might disspell a notion that the indian's scalping and body mutiliations of their enemies was derived from copying Europeans might be false. I read such an explanation in another book written at about the same time as this one. However, here we find repeated references to such carnage. In fact, it seems this savagery also been deeply engrained into the mountain men and other early frontiersmen. I suspect such carnages placed on one's enemies has deep roots in all of human history.



5. Bridger is a larger than life character. The author portrays Bridger as a character who was unimpressed with developed society. His treasure was the mountains and the mystery of an undeveoped land and people. His humility and lack of concern for unbelievers of the wonder of the mountains aligns him with someone who has a tremendous fishing hole but doesnt want anyone to fish it dry.

2 comments about Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass An American Slave (Barnes & Noble Classics Series) (Barnes & Noble Classics).

1. It's simply amazing that a man such as Frederick Douglass could rise up from the bowels of slavery and make such an impact on American history. And the fact that he allegedly educated himself and became an outspoken leader/advocate in the abolitionist movement, while becoming one of the leading intellectuals in the 19th century would indeed be miraculous if it didn't seem so fallacious.
   
   But what I'm about to state will disturb many people, and for that I'm deeply sorry. However, I feel Douglass' autobiography and how he managed to educate himself with little or no help then escaping to freedom is unmitigated hyperbole.
   Also, the fact that Douglass downplays Harriet Tubman's Underground Rail Road as something unfeasible and the fact that Douglass doesn't reveal any information on how he escaped made this book seem extremely far-fetched if not fanciful.
   Unfortunately, this narrative seems like a work of fiction that was written by a 19th century white person trying to capture the essence of the black experience. (In other words this narrative would make a pretty good TV movie of the week.)
   
   And Of course, many people will make the accusation that what I'm conveying are racist sentiments, but that simply isn't the case. There were an abundance of capable Blacks in the 19th century that could and did accomplish what Douglass achieved ten-fold.
   So, with that said, I emphatically feel that he should've been professional and intellectually forthright with his tale. It would have been intriguing to envisage his perilous journey to freedom.
   By leaving the readers in utter limbo on how he made his trek to freedom when he simply could have given realistic details of what transpired during his escape without revealing accomplices would have made his story more palatable.
   
   But overall, what I think everyone should ascertain from this autobiography is the iniquitous brutality of slavery and the impact it had on America as a society then and now, and we must all muster enough strength to love and respect one-another so someday we'll overcome adversities in our sacred land.
   So to sum up; even though I found this book far-fetched at times I still consider Frederick Douglass to be one of the greatest Americans of all time.
   A must read for the learning experience insofar as reaching understanding even though this autobiography reads like a work of fiction.



2. Frederick Douglass wrote this while still a relatively young man, recently escaped from slavery. He is extremely articulate; especially for someone self-educated. This is the story of his life as a slave up until the time he escaped and became an abolitionist. He later wrote a couple of other autobiographies, but this is the one that packs the most wallop.
   
   His observations of the degrading effects on slavery, both on the slaves and the owners were very fascinating. His description of the change he saw in one of his mistresses from a kindly new slaveholder to a typical cruel slave owner highlighted what evil an institution slavery is. It made me grateful not only that I'm not a slave, but more so not a slaveholder.
   
   It was also interesting to see how his religious masters were much crueler than the non-religious owners were. It shows how if a "moral" institution justifies an immoral practice, its practitioners lose all sense of guilt and act accordingly.
   
   The methods the owners used to keep the slaves ignorant and debased was another disgusting practice. It seemed to work at keeping them from revolt, but at what cost?
   
   I highly recommend this book for everyone. The lessons it teaches about human nature are things we all need to be reminded of.

1 comments about Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings.

1. This book, which is an abridgmment of Basler's larger 8-volume "Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," is ideal for all students of Lincoln as a quick source for finding Lincoln's most well-known speeches, letters, and other documents. While other collections of Lincoln's writings do exist, Basler's is considered the most definitive. This one-volume edition of that collection makes the most popular and important Lincoln documents accessible to a larger group of people.

5 comments about 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and the War They Failed to See.

1. 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and The War They Failed to See, Bruce Chadwick , Sourcebooks Inc., 355 pp., notes, bibliography, index, 2008, $24.95
   
   1858 offers clear and concise descriptions of key political and social events that shoved the states into rebellion and resistance. Adventurous and even compelling at times, 1858 moves the reader through twelve months of political and social turmoil. Chadwick explores not the mundane but the exceptional.
   
   Not familiar to most Civil War readers is Jefferson Davis' 1858 visit to Maine in order to recuperate from herpes and build a coalition of Northern Democrats in a bid to establish a presidential candidacy in 1860. The Southern press pilloried him to the point that when he returned he retracted his statements. Ironically, these retractions put him into a position where he would be offered a presidency in 1861, that of the Confederate States of America.
   
   In one six page chapter, Chadwick offers a cogent and balanced description of the Dred Scott Decision, one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court event in U.S. history. His ability to put into place the origins, personalities, issues, and outcomes of this event is exceptional. As a Advance Placement U.S. History test reader, CWL reflected that this chapter would be a fine contribution to student resources.
   
   Though CWL is quite familiar with the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Oberlin Ohio Rescue and John Brown's escape with slaves from Missouri to Canada, Chadwick offers the essentials in a manner that captures the excitement and underscores their place in bringing the states to the brink of rebellion in 1860. After reading 1858, Civil War buffs may have a new appreciation for the events leading to the Secession Winter of 1860-1861. Some readers may need to keep in mind that all soldiers in the ranks had lived through and had argued over the events of 1858.
   
   Though a Pennsylvanian, CWL has not be able to work up any enthusiasm for James Buchanan, 15th president of the United States. Chadwick's 1858 covers the Buchanan presidency in nine chapters that fall between chapters on Davis, Lee, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Oberlin Rescue, Seward's Irrepressible Conflict speech, and John Brown's rescue of slaves from Missouri. Read consecutively the Buchanan White House chapters make the case for this Northern Democrat holding Southern Democrats' interest higher than his own section and possibly allowing the conflict to become truly irrepressible.
   
   Some quibbles: The subtitle is unclear; nine of 17 chapters deal with the Buchanan White House, two deal with Lincoln and Douglas, and single chapters deal with Lee, Davis, Seward, Sherman, The Dred Scott Decision, John Brown's Raid on Missouri and the Slaveholder's raid on Nicaragua. Mysteriously, U.S. Grant is mentioned only on four pages in the book but is in the subtitle. Buchanan has nine chapters but has no mention in the title at all.
   
   CWL suggests that the subtitle be changed for the paperback edition: 1858--The Year the Civil War Became Inevitable for Davis, Lee, Douglas, Lincoln, Seward, Sherman and John Brown. Or 1858--Blood Before The Civil War's Dawn: The Men Who Pulled the Trigger on the War.
   
   Chadwick assumes the reader has no detailed understanding of the period; 1858 is written for the general audience. For the paperback edition, a chronology for the year should be added as well as a brief chronology of the 1846-1860 era. A list of characters would also be helpful for the general audience. Also, the index needs some attention. The entry--Forney, John--lists 6 pages with three subtopics. John Forney has a whole chapter, Number Nine, pages 135-140 but these pages are not listed under the entry--Forney, John--in the index. Some proofreading needs to be done. Notes 159, 160 and 161 are the same font size as the text font; these note number should be the superscript font size, just like the other 744 notes.



2. I have to admit that I can't quite place this book. I would say on the one hand I was disappointed because while it did a good job of portraying the year 1858 it could have just as easily been 1856 or 1860, both of which would have been more interesting. The book spent a lot of time focusing on personal rivalries to the detriment of painting the national picture. Also certain figures who would rise to prominence in the Civil War were given great exposure yet others were barely mentioned. (Like Grant)
   
   So all in all if you like the period, there are worse reads out there but I still think that James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom does a much better job at portraying the period.



3. Reads like a novel, but its pure history and gives a perspective on the Civil War which has been lacking. The war wasn't about slavery in the south, but more so about slavery in the new states of the west....



4. Why 1858? I found myself asking that question repeatedly the entire time I was reading this book. What made 1858 THE year to look at in regards to the coming of the Civil War. Author Bruce Chadwick tries (largely unsuccessfully, in my opinion) to argue that 1858 was the year slavery became THE main issue facing the United States and events which occurred in 1858 played a large role in bringing about the war. In his Foreword, Chadwick tells the reader he will attempt to accomplish this by weaving together seven stories of people and events, linking these disparate stories together with looks into James Buchanan's "spectacular failure" as President.
   
   1858 weaves together seven stories all (loosely) tied together by Buchanan's Presidency. These stories are, in no particular order:
   
   1. Jefferson Davis
   2. Robert E. Lee
   3. William T. Sherman
   4. The Oberlin-Wellington Slave Rescue
   5. William H. Seward
   6. John Brown
   7. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates
   
   At first, I was intrigued by the author's decision to abandon a traditional narrative and use what I thought would be an interesting change of pace. The idea works better in theory than in the pages of 1858, however. Stories are broken up into different chapters with little regard for continuity or chronological order. For readers new to the subject, this may very well be misleading as far as a time line of these events goes.
   
   As I stated in my introduction, my main and overriding question while reading the entire book was "Why 1858? What makes this year so special?" Unfortunately, although the author does claim he chose 1858 because it was THE year slavery became the overriding issue facing the United States, he doesn't give nearly enough reason WHY, and thus doesn't really answer my question. In essence, he argues FOR 1858, but he really gives no arguments AGAINST other years. To me, slavery had been THE issue for quite some time. A post concerning the Compromise of 1850 at Elektratig shows that slavery was very much at the forefront of the country's concerns as the 1850s opened, and that the Civil War may well have started a decade earlier had the Compromise of 1850 not happened. I can agree with the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the Oberlin-Wellington Slave rescue as two MAJOR events involving slavery and an acceleration towards war. However, other events outside of this year, especially John Brown's Harpers Ferry Raid in 1859 and obviously the Presidential Election of 1860 were major events which did much to hasten the Civil War. Chadwick does argue that the seeds were sewn for these events in 1858. He stresses that John Brown's raid into Missouri and successful escape with slaves into Canada in 1858 and the Lincoln-Douglas debates led to these other events. That may be true, but the MAIN events happened in years other than 1858. Without belaboring the point too much, I believe you simply cannot make a strong case that 1858 was any more important than many other years in causing the Civil War or having slavery become THE issue facing the country. Chadwick's failure too largely explain WHY or argue against other years only drives home the point for me.
   
   To me, deciding to include William T. Sherman was an odd choice other than to allow the author/publisher to get Ulysses S. Grant's name into the subtitle of the book. Grant is barely mentioned, and Sherman had hardly anything to do with the author's assertion that 1858 was the year slavery became the most important issue in the country. The only reason I can see to include Sherman is to show an example of a Northerner who had no strong feelings towards slavery, much like Robert E. Lee was personally opposed to slavery as a Southerner. In reading the chapters covering Sherman, I was puzzled as to what purpose his antebellum life story served to the narrative as a whole.
   
   The subtitle of the book is especially puzzling to me. U.S. Grant is listed and he is barely mentioned in the book, pretty much only in relation to the Sherman portion of the story. Putting a famous figure into your title or subtitle only to barely mention them isn't going to win points with this reviewer. Another issue I have with the subtitle is "The War They Failed to See." Huh? Lincoln's "House Divided" speech is mentioned. So is Jefferson Davis' ascension in late 1858 as the leader of the Secession Movement. John Brown not only saw war coming, he was determined to start it himself! And lastly, Seward's "Irrepressible Conflict" speech is also stressed. It seems to me these men at least had an inkling that war was at the very least very possible if not imminent if some drastic steps were not taken with regards to slavery. I don't want to pin this on the author at all. Marketing sells books, and the subtitle screams MARKETING from a tall building. Blame the publisher here folks.
   
   If you have lasted this long, you might believe I hated 1858. This is definitely not so. My policy is to get the bad out of the way first and move on to the good. Let's start with the author's style. Bruce Chadwick is definitely a good storyteller. Despite some continuity issues in his narrative choice as mentioned earlier, I read this 300 page book in only two sittings. I could not put it down.
   
   Chadwick's chapters on the gross ineptitude of James Buchanan's Presidency were my favorite portions of the book. Rather than focus on the slavery issue and try to resolve it in some way, Buchanan instead completely ignored slavery when possible and blinded himself to the enormity of the problem the rest of the time. His "Don Quixote-ish schemes", as Chadwick calls them, to annex portions of Central and South America by any means possible while ignoring slavery was just one issue. In addition, Buchanan chose to fight petty feuds with two powerful men, Senator Stephen Douglas and newspaper editor John Forney, and these feuds were disastrous for the Democratic party in the elections of 1858 and the Presidential election of 1860. More than any other man, Buchanan had the power to slow or even prevent radical developments with regards to the slavery situation. Instead, says Chadwick, he did nothing while radicals on both sides led the nation to the brink of war.
   
   I was also pleasantly surprised with the bibliography and notes. Chadwick uses a nice number of endnotes, including 747 in exactly 300 pages of text. He did use quite a few secondary sources, but for what was obviously to me a "pop history" book aimed more at the masses than to deep readers, Chadwick also looked at the papers of many of those involved in the events of the year 1858 and around 90 newspapers published at the time. A serviceable index rounds out the book.
   
   Bruce Chadwick's 1858 sets out to prove that year was the year slavery became THE issue in the United States, but was rather unsuccessful in this regard. His arguments for 1858 as the year were sparse and his arguments against other years were non-existent. The story's continuity suffered somewhat as a result of some conscious choices on the author's part. Despite these flaws, 1858 is an enjoyable read aimed at the masses which I would be happy to recommend to readers new to the subject. Deep readers will find this material covered elsewhere in much greater detail.



5. "1858" is a solid overview of a pivotal year in the run-up to the Civil War. Certainly, this is not an exhaustive treatment, and, as other reviewers have suggested, more in-depth analysis of the year's key personalities and events can be found elsewhere. I agree with previous comments critical of the subtitle. In particular, Grant makes a few fleeting cameos in the narrative, while lengthy chapters are devoted to Seward, Douglas, Sherman and John Brown, all of whom are absent from the subtitle. The book's primary antagonist also escapes mention: James Buchanan. Frequently ranked by historians as our worst president, the flawed and inept Buchanan chose to feud with friends and rivals within his own party and engage in fanciful foreign policy pursuits (like trying to purchase proslavery Cuba) rather than confront the deepening divisions over slavery.
   
   Clearly, this book aims at a mass-market audience. Scholars and aficionados of the period will be disappointed. On the other hand, Average Joe readers like myself will find new information and fresh insights. For example, the friendship between the firebrand abolitionist Seward and the rabidly proslavery Jefferson Davis, or how Buchanan's meddling cost Stephen Douglas the popular vote to Lincoln in their Senate contest, providing Lincoln with the rationale for his subsequent Presidential bid. The anecdote about the slave rescuers in Oberlin, OH was also new to me. For the general reader, "1858" is time well spent.