No comments about Sherman's March To The Sea (Campaigns of the Civil War).

5 comments about A Brotherhood of Valor: The Common Soldiers of the Stonewall Brigade, C.S.A., and the Iron Brigade, U.S.A.

1. I re-enact as a sergeant in Company "E", Bragg's Rifles, 6th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry (the Calicoboys). Other than Nolan's book on the Iron Brigade, Wert's book is the best on the entire history of the Iron Brigade. I have also studied the history of the Stonewall brigade. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is a serious scholar of the Civil War. Those d**n "black hats" gave as well as they got at Brawner's Farm. Considering that they were rookies, they handed out a pretty good lickin'. Even Stonewall Jackson said it was the worst he had been in. After the battle, the Black Hats gave out three loud huzzahs. There was no answer from the sesesh.
   
   Calicoboy



2. There are a small number of brigades in the Civil War that earned a towering reputation because of their valor. Two of these are reviewed in this book: The Iron Brigade ("The Black Hats") of the Army of the Potomac and the Stonewall Brigade of the (in the end) Army of Northern Virginia. This volume does a nice job of indicating why these two brigades so justly earned their accolades.
   
   It is also something of an irony that the first major action of the Iron Brigade (although not yet so named) came when it faced off against the Stonewall Brigade in the forerunner to Second Manassas--at Brawner's Farm or Groveton (take your choice as to the name of the battle). The two brigades, with other troops also being engaged, slugged it out. The veteran Stonewall Brigade versus the fairly untested Iron Brigade. In the end, both demonstrated their brotherhood of valor in this engagement.
   
   The book describes the histories of the two brigades until they essentially lost their character and integrity. The Iron Brigade earned its name during the fight at the South Mountain pass before Antietam. It was destroyed as an elite fighting force at Gettysburg, as it fought itself out on the First Day, staving off the ultimate Confederate attack. It provided value during the rest of the battle and continued as an entity in the Army of the Potomac after that, but its legendary hitting power largely ended there.
   
   Just so, the Stonewall Brigade (and Division) lost its integrity at the Mule Shoe at Spotsylvania.
   
   Nonetheless, despite the damage done to these two units during the war, both well earned the honors given to them. This book does justice to both units and ought to be read by those interested in brigade level histories.



3. If you are interested in the Iron Brigade, this is a book not to be missed. It is a book that draws on all the old scholarship on the Brigade and brings it into the modern era.
   
   Where Nolan draws the broad brush strokes of the Brigade's history, Wert revisits that outline and fills in a lot of detail. Wert has scoured the archives and read all the correspondence he could find, and quotes it liberally to draw us close to the ground level action. His book is fast paced and accessible.
   
   Not only has he done this with just one Brigade but two! It is a natural approach, since the two brigades clashed so often, or were on the same fields, one gets the perspective of both sides.
   
   After reading this book, one can only ask, what research is left to be done now on the Brigade? Wert has done a fine job, and provided us a most up to date, short, yet definitive general history of the Iron Brigade.



4. I don't think Wert included enough on the common soldiers and spent too much time on filing in the broad strokes of the Civil War. Also I have seen nowhere else Wert's contention that the Stonewall Brigade was so plagued with desertions, a serious charge. Nolan's book on the Iron Brigade is vastly superior. Finally, given Wert's penchant for abusing the southern command it seems like a miracle the confederacy last one year much less five.



5. Being a fan of author Jeffrey Wert's work I didn't have to decide on whether or not to buy this book when I came across it. Wert's writing flows well and he backs up quite a lot of his information with useful references as he has done in other books. Wert has taken two of the more popular brigades of the Civil War and has followed their enlistment and organization in 1861 to final muster in 1865. Wert documents each brigade's movements and battles while carefully explaining changes in command and regimental organization. I found this book quite intriging as these famous brigades met each other in battle three times at such places as Brawner Farm, Antietam and Gettysburg. Wert explains the battles quickly at times which was refreshing in cases where the brigades had little conflict or involvement. In times of battle, Wert gets to the point of the fighting and doesn't dwell in huge detail as you may find in some books covering a certain campaign or battle.

   What I did find a bit disappointing in this book was the fact that under the title it reads, "The common soldiers of the Stonewall Brigade and the Iron Brigade". I was under the impression that more soldier life would be covered instead of regiment movements or the following of commanders. This book didn't quote too many soldiers or bring their diary writing as you may see in other books on soldiers. Overall, Wert has taken a great amount of information and packed it into 319 pages of material. Could more have been written? Perhaps, although the coverage was excellent and I can recommend this book to many who are seeking additional information regarding these famous and hard fighting brigades.

2 comments about Rebel Sons of Erin: A Civil War Unit History of the Tenth Tennessee Infantry Regiment (Irish) Confederate States Volunteers.

1. Sometimes you just have to learn to live with paradox. It is indeed a paradox getting reviews left on even after it is posted. Someone is afraid of rebels from the South. They would have been hanged like the real boy spy from Smyrna, Tennessee, Sam Davis (no relation to the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis) was hanged on a hill in Pulaski, Tennessee, where his statue still supervises the courthouse square and a corner of the State Capitol grounds in Nashville.
   
   The usual practice of the Union leaders was to get information from the spies and then hang them anyway. Sam was given the option to tattle on his source. He said, "If I had a million lives, I would give them all up before I revealed the name of my friend." The person who had given him the bit of war news was in the jail cell next to him and lived to tell the story -- after the war.
   
   Tennessee was particularly hit hard by the rascals. One girl in Knoxville had to be sent to relatives in another state to keep her from ending up as Sam Davis did. Since then other books have surfaced of female spies. At the fair, I asked a real photographer if he could make me look like a Confederate spy; he did by dressing me as a Southern matron holding that flag. So, you see, I would have been one had I lived here in Union land (now Republican). No man tells a Southern woman that she is inferior in any way. We fight for our rights. Some years ago, I told a local historian had I loved back them, I might have been hanged as a Confederate spy (Knox. was Union) and he agreed. In one of his recent history lessons, he describes the defeated Jeff Davis as a defeated man with receding hair and a wispy goatee who visited this town in 1871 who was on his way via rail to Memphis. Davis described Grant's administration as wicked and the writer had him and one of his generals, Forrest, as leaders of the klan which was started by a group of Pulaski lawyers and judges. It was not a part of the Confederacy at all, formed to protect Southerners from the Northern Carpetbaggers during reconstruction.
   
   Our Southern lads gave up their lives for a cause. One which was disrupted by the corruption of leaders after the war and since. But, we are not called the Volunteer State for nothing.



2. this book deals with a little written about subject,a confederate regiment comprised of mainly Catholic Irishmen.It traces their record from Ft. Donelson to Bentonville.the book is notable because of what it doesn't say as well as what it does. Most of theses soldiers seemed to have little to any political views and joined up in defense of their lands and families,not really yankee-haters or sympathetic to southern slavery. when the war machine goes into gear they are caught in the machinery and sign up without much hesitation as southern patriots. Almost none of them own slaves or would even want to.What keeps them going is their loyalty to their country ,their religion,and each other.The book contains alot of anecdotal stories about the individuals in the book,like the heroism of Father Biemel,who ministered to the physical and spiritual needs of the men and paid the ultimate sacrifice.there is also alot of humor in the book,I particularly enjoyed the story of General John Bell Hood,the rebel General in charge of the defenses of Atlanta. Gleeson says of him that Hood became more agreesive on the attack the more body parts he lost.there are alot of human interest stories as well as a "where are they now",section which tracks down some of the alumi of the 10th Tennessee after the war.A wife of one of the commanders who was killed in battle more or less forgot her husband and later became a notorious nag.the drummer boy made it 1938 and some of these ex-confederates were actually able to get state veterans benefits for their widows.The book also deals with the subject of confederate desertion rates throughout the war and this factor definitely cut into the combat ability of the 10th.I was surprised at how many desertions occurred in the earlier part of the war as well as the later.

5 comments about Jefferson and the Indians: The Tragic Fate of the First Americans.

1. The detailed review by Robin Friedman (below) gives a fair and ample account of this book's content and quality. I'm afraid Thomas Jefferson does not escape with his reputation intact, but I doubt that AFC Wallace intended to besmirch or belittle him for any political agenda. Jefferson was my hero in high school, but almost nothing I've learned about him since then has polished his image. John Quincy Adams, who knew him well, slowly came to regard him as hypocritical, cunning, self-absorbed, given to magnifying his own exploits... what today might be called "narcissistic". Wahington detested him in his later years and cut off communication. Obviously, Jefferson can't be blamed for the uses later generations have made of him to justify secession, states-rights conservatism, racist forms of populism, etc, but history does provide a lens for interpreting his ideologies and for finding that aside from the noble rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson's legacy is mostly pernicious.
   This is, however, a very well-written and readable book, superbly researched, and not at all tendentious. Don't read it alone! (Of course, if you read it at all, you've probably read other books on Jefferson and on the 18th C). Take a look at FORCED FOUNDERS as a counterweight.



2. While I found the book, on the whole, to be an interesting entry in a historical space that is lightly populated; meaning that few books are written about the Indian culture during Colonial times and the impact of expansionism on their culture, I felt there were aspects of the book that adversely affected its quality:
   
   1. The detail surrounding the land, colonial speculation (including Jefferson's holdings) and the treaties to expand the colonies' territory to be excessive and ineffective in their attempt to connect Jefferson's said holdings with an overall strategic conspiracy.
   2. The book's focus on Jefferson's interest and approach to the American Indian, while interesting and keeping with the title, limited the potential of the book which, I believe, would have been better served if the premise focused more on the colonies' overall perspective and dealings with the Indians. This would have included a more extensive overview of the interaction of the specific tribes, the impact of the six nations and how this interaction diluted or enhanced the Indian culture.
   3. I don't believe that it is contradictory for a man of science (based on Jefferson's interest in language and culture correlations and origin), to suggest that certain tribes represented a real threat to the safety of citizens that were, technically, the responsibility of Virginia and,eventually,the United States. Decisions to support eradication of "bad" elements versus those tribes that were cooperative seems logical given the reports that were received and magnitude of the violence that was observed.
   
   Having said that, the chapters regarding the tracking of language patterns, formulating questions that would uncover additional information about tribal history and Jefferson's desire and passion to explore the role of the Native American and determine whether there were connections with the Welsch were fascinating and were great reading.
   
   Overall, while I enjoyed the book, I sensed too much intent to discredit Jefferson and too little effort to suggest the overall importance of Jefferson's desire and approach to collecting and preserving data on the American Indian.



3. Part of the Jeffersonian fascination involves the many facets, ambiguities and paradoxes he presents: the libertarian who owned slaves; the budget-slashing, small-government advocate who was a personal spendthrift, perpetually teetering at the brink of financial ruin; the shy and ineffective public speaker who was one of the most ruthless and scheming of backroom political operatives; the reclusive scholar and intellectual who spent two hours a day on horseback, and apparently indulged surreptitious passions in the slave quarters. Professor Wallace gives us a little known side of Jefferson: the student of Native American culture, history and language, who took quite deliberate measures to destroy them. Jefferson, who apparently was sincerely fascinated with the Indians, and sympathetic to their plight as they vanished under the burdens of disease, debt, whiskey and the murderous encroachments of frontiersmen, did little to protect them and their way of life, which was incompatible with Jefferson's expansionist, egalitarian vision of a nation of white protestant yeoman farmers. At best, Jefferson hoped that the Indians could be assimilated into white society, as were the Cherokee before Jefferson's successors allowed them to be dispossessed. A fascinating book with some great sidelights (for example, I had no idea that Siouxian tribes at one time lived in Virginia).



4. Many works on early United States history tend to give Indian affairs less attention than it deserves. There are two recent books with which I am familiar that help correct this situation. The first is Robert Remini's study of Jacksonian American, "Andrew Jackson and his Indian Wars". The second is Professor Wallace's book on Jefferson's relationship to the Indians, which I am discussing here.

   Remini's and Wallace's book can be read together because both tell parts of the same sad story. Expansionist pressures from settlers and the fear of the United States of Indian attacks, particularly when incited by hostile European nations led to a policy of land cessions, wars, and forced removal westward of the Indian tribes. The process culminated with Andrew Jackson's Indian wars and presidency, the subject of Remini's book, but it was effectively put in place by Thomas Jefferson, as shown by Wallace.

   Jefferson and his Indian policy, however, seem to me to present a more complex case than Jackson. As Wallace's book shows, Jefferson was indeed a polymath, a scholar and intellectual as well as a, paradoxically, man of power and position. Jefferson took a genuine interest in Indian archaeology, culture and language and made himself or encouraged others to make, scholarly and enthnological contributions that are still important towards understanding the Indians.

   Jefferson, even on Professor Wallace's account, had compassion for the Indian tribes and an interest in their well-being, even if this interest was overshadowed, as it was, by his desire to obtain Indian land for the new nation and even though his view of Indian interests was misguided and partial.

   Wallace's book traces Jefferson's early relationship with Indians beginning before the revolution when Jefferson was a land speculator in the then Western United States. He explores in detail Jefferson's writing on Indians, particularly his writing on the Indian chief Logan in his "Notes on the State of Virginia." Jefferson's partial reading of the fate of this "Noble Savage", according to Wallace, shows the ambivalent character of Jefferson's approach to the Indians.

   Wallace describes in detail Jefferson the politician approaching Indian affairs in the original United States territory and in the Louisiana purchase, which doubled the size of the United States. The announced goals of the policy were peace, land cessions and civilization for the Indians. Too often, these policies became simply the means for tribal destruction and deprivation and for the removal policy, for both the southern and the northern tribes, that culminated in the administration of Andrew Jackson. (again, see the Remini book.)

   There are some fascinating quotations in the book that illustrate Wallace's points that are set aside and emphasized in blocked-type and quotes. It is a good way of gaining focus. The book has a wealth of documentation and is not simply a political history. As I indicated Jefferson was a complex individual and this book shows him, focusing on Indian affairs, in all his personal and political variety.

   Wallace has a clear feeling for the tragedy of the American Indian. Yet his book is balanced in tone and does not degenerate into ideological or special pleading. His opinions are stated clearly and eloquently in his introduction and conclusion and in his discussions of the events described in the text. The book has the measure of a scholar and encourages the reader to reflect for him or herself on the record.

   There are those who are skeptical of the public's recent interest in American History, as shown by the success of McCollough's John Adams as well as other popular historical works, on grounds that it is a new attempt to promote American exceptionalism and to avoid considering the tragedies of our past. I disagree. I think, this interest in history shows a renewed love and interest in our country with no desire to minimize its failings. Wallace's book to me shows both love of our country and a sense of one of its major tragedies.




5. I felt that this was an excellent book on Thomas Jefferson's views toward the native people of North America. It illuminated many parts of his feelings toward native people and their place in the "American Republic." I felt that it also raised many questions about his participation in early land speculation with Henry, Washington, and Franklin as well as his role in the eventual displacement of native people. Anyone interested in early colonial policy toward natives will surely love this book.

2 comments about Genteel Rebel: The Life of Mary Greenhow Lee (Southern Biography Series).

1. "Grounded in impressive primary research and an extensive secondary literature, Sheila R. Phipps's Genteel Rebel is MORE THAN JUST A BIOGRAPHY.
   
   This imaginative work brings readers into the complex world of Civil War-era Winchester, Virginia, and addresses important questions about women's power and Confederate identity."
   ---George C. Rable, author of Fredericksburg! Fredericksburg!
   [from the book of the back cover]



2. Through scholarly research, careful historiography and sharp wit, Shelia Phipps brings alive to the reader the life, personality, and culture of Mary Greenhow Lee in this colorfully written volume. This book is not a biography in the traditional sense, through exploring Lee the author brings the reader into the world surrounding Lee. It is for this reason that this volume is valuable for individuals not only interested in Lee, but also the Civil War and the effect the war had on the individuals who lived through it as a civilian. This book is highly recommended by this reader.

4 comments about May I Quote You, General Longstreet: Observations and Utterances of the South's Great Generals (May I Quote You--?,).

1. Thin volume of quotes from and about Longstreet, both before and during the war of Northern Agression, or Southern Independence, or the Civil War. The quotes reinforce Longstreet's loyalty to Lee, his fighting spirit, and his advanced tactical skills, while defending him from charges of improper action on that fatal day at Gettysburg.



2. This is another great book of quotes from Southern Generals.
   ( actually you should by the set, which is four books of these) I really enjoyed the quotes, everyone taken from the history books.

   There is one quote, which states, had Lee listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg, the Southern people would today be Free!

   ( Oh give me a break!)

   Ok, that is a direct quote, but it's one Longstreet wrote, simplying putting words in Lee's mouth.

   Please don't discard the book for this single quote, as it's a great book.

   I'd like to see more of these quote books on all the Civil War Generals.




3. This is one of a series of books with quotes by and about "The South's Great Generals." A slim volume, it takes only a short time to read through.

   I enjoyed this collection of quotes, as much for what his Union enemy's said about Longstreet, as what he said himself. However, reading the quotes regarding the criticisms of Lee's Old Warhorse in the battle of Gettysburg are almost painful. Yet they had to be included to give as full a picture of the man and the soldier as can be done in so short a space.

   Readers and scholars of the War Between the States will enjoy this book, perhaps even keep it at hand to browse through at any time.




4. Randall Bedwell's "May I Quote You ..." series is always a pleasure to read. General Longstreet was a plain spoken man, and Mr. Bedwell has captured the essence of him exactly! From General Longstreet, an undeservedly maligned American patriot, I have found words to live by: "Error lives but a day. Truth is eternal." If you enjoyed this book, try my other two favorites in the series, "May I Quote You General Lee?" and "May I quote You General Forrest?"

No comments about Rhett: The Turbulent Life and Times of a Fire-Eater.

No comments about Thomas Ewing Jr.: Frontier Lawyer and Civil War General (Shades of Blue and Gray).

3 comments about Return of Assassin: John Wilkes Booth.

1. John Wilkes Booth died as history records he did. He shot Lincoln, and fled, nearly escaping. He was caught, more with luck and manpower than anything else, by Federal troops and detectives in a barn near Port Royal Virginia. After he refused to surrender, one trooper took it upon himself (against orders) to shoot Booth. The bullet went through his spine. Booth was dragged out of the barn, and died a few hours later on the porch of a farmhouse. Booth was a famous man. Everyone recognized him. His autopsy was preformed virtually in public, and his body matched very well with descriptions given of him by various people.
   
   Do not allow yourself to be convinced by amateur, opportunistic and deceitful history. The huge amount of genuine confusion and mystery which still surrounds the assassination of Abraham Lincoln should not be discounted or swept under the rug. Neither should it allow the propagation of such utterly untrue and patently false theories as this.
   
   Yes, for many years, a mummy toured the country, reportedly the corpse of John Wilkes Booth. It was a carnival side-show. That is all this book amounts to.



2. I have read this book from cover to cover since i got it and i am of the firm belief that the John Wilkes Booth Claimant David E. George in 1902 was indeed the real Booth and that he had escaped capture from the law after assassinating President Abraham Lincoln in Fords Theater back in 1865, and that a confederate soldier by the name of 'John' 'William' 'Boyd' was killed in Booths place!.Read this gripping book and judge for yourself!.



3. I read this book from cover to cover the first time I got it and have bought 5 other copies as gifts for friends who have said the SAME THING!!! It is the BEST book I have read since THE LINCOLN CONSPIRACY, and by the way, The last 4 chapters read very much like an extension OF THAT very BOOK!! I won't give any thing away except to say that RETURN OF THE ASSASSIN-JOHN WILKES BOOTH is most assuredly a MUST READ BOOK for every Lincoln Assassination buff Bar none!!!

1 comments about The Presidency of James Madison (American Presidency Series).

1. Writing after the fact, historians often conclude that a war was preventable. This is generally false, as the dispassionate writer is removed from the context of the times. The war in 1812 between the United States and Great Britain has often been viewed as a pointless, forgettable war, yet in fact it had enormous consequences. The war was the defining moment of the Madison presidency and a significant break from the policy of the previous Jefferson and early Madison administrations. In describing the war, Rutland is masterful in describing the context and emotions of the times, the combination of which caused a war that was inevitable.
   At the time, the Napoleonic wars were raging on the European continent and both Britain and France sought to wring every advantage they could out of what they considered an upstart nation. For years, Jefferson and Madison tried every tactic they could short of war in an attempt to delay a call to arms. Finally, national pride won out over all other factors and the war began. Madisonýs conduct of the war was not nearly as effective as it could have been, and yet the tie was all that was needed. James Monroe, the successor to Madison, enunciated what is now known as the Monroe doctrine, which warned all nations to avoid colonization efforts in the Western Hemisphere. With little American sea power to back it up, it was the first example of cooperation between Britain and the United States, as the enforcement was due to the power of the British navy. It is doubtful that this could have happened without the war.
   The ways in which Rutland places the war in the context of power struggles in Europe and in the United States is masterful, as he describes how fragmented the United States was in those years. It is also possible to see the seeds of an eventual split and internal war, not over the issue of slavery, but over commercial and social differences.
   In so many ways, Madisonýs best years were behind him when he became president. And yet, his handling of the war of 1812 was most likely the best that could have been done, as he sought to defend a fractious nation against an old foe who afterward became a staunch ally. For that reason alone, his administration should be considered a success and this book is the most realistic appraisal of his years in the White House that I have ever seen.