1 comments about Blood and Whiskey: The Life and Times of Jack Daniel.

1. A double shot of a biography on whiskey magnate Jack Daniel with hard-work and determination as the foundation to his life and principles.
   Born in the mid-1800's and orphaned at the age of fifteen, JD immediately found himself working in a local Tennessee distillery manufacturing some of the highest quality spirits in the region from men who were the best in the business. He was known as the boy distiller.
   In his early twenties, he had the opportunity to partnership with his mentor and the rest as they say is history.
   It was not easy though. For decades he battled revenuers, the government, corrupt officials, temperance groups and later the prohibition movement. Even with these many adversities throughout his life, philanthropy was his middle name.
   Peter Krass has uncorked an imbibing read of a unique man and the times in which he lived.

5 comments about When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession.

1. I just finished this book yesterday. I have found that there is already 50+ 5 star reviews of this book, but I could not refrain from writing one myself.
   
   This book was simply amazing. I could hardly put it down. It is definetly NOT a history of the Civil War, from a military standpoint. It IS a history of the War from a political standpoint. The major arguement is whether secession is legal or not under Constitutional law. That is a question best left to the book. Though the author does make a pretty strong arguement in favor of secession being legal. Using historical precedents that predate the war, as well as the thoughts on the subject concerning the Founders.
   
   I will that I was impressed by all the new information about Lincoln that I had not known. The more I read about Lincoln, the REAL Lincoln, the less I like about him. This book also deals with the subject of Reconstruction. It is informative, and has sparked my interest in learning more about the period immediately following the war.
   
   I give this book a well-earned 5 stars!



2. This is book seems to me like a manifesto on why the KKK was justified in terrorizing black people. Everyone who knows anything about Lincoln knows that he wasn't a racist but, he also was willing to do whatever had to be done to perserve the union. No President before or since has had to deal with such an issue. The man live through and extremely tough time period, politically and personally. I found this book offensive and demeaning to a historically great president. Our some of Charles Adams arguments true? Yes. But, to make such claims as the freed blacks brought on their harsh treatment after the Civil War is absurd. Racist and people who still believe the South will rise again, for whatever reason, will like this book.



3. As a historian, I have learned that the heart of any great work in history lies in the ample and accurate use of primary sources, and primary sources are the great strength of this work. While countless tomes have debated the perceived moral sides of the Civil War and the motivations of the various actors, this work goes back and investigates the motives of the primary players in this time from their own words and writings. This gives the work an excellent realism and accuracy.
   
   The author, Charles Adams, has earned a reputation as one of the leading economic historians in the field, particularly in the area of taxes. He utilizes this background to investigate the American Civil War, and comes to some very striking conclusions, many that defy the politically-correct history of today. His thesis postulates that the Civil War had its primary cause not in slavery or state's rights, but rather in cold, hard economic concerns.
   
   He shows that the North used its supremacy in Congress in push through massive tariffs to fund the government, and that these tariffs fell much harder on the export-dependent South than upon the insular north. In fact, the total revenue from the "Compromise" Tariffs on the 1830s and 40s amounted to $107.5 million, of which $90 million came from the South. Despite by this, the majority of the revenue was spent on projects far from the South.
   
   According to Adams, this disparity finally pushed the South to seek its own independence. Supporting this conclusion is the fact that the South enacted extremely low tariffs throughout the war, whereas the north enacted the Morrill Tariff of 1861, which enacted tariffs of as much as 50 percent on some goods.
   
   Adams also chronicles the oft-overlooked excesses of the Lincoln Administration, and compares them to the actions of Julius Caesar. While this initially made me quite skeptical, his plentiful, primary source-based examples overcame my qualms. Using the letters and reports of the times, he tells how Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, trod roughshod over the Constitution, jailed thousands of U.S. citizens who dared disagree with him and even wrote a warrant for the arrest of the Chief Justice of the United States.
   
   Adams also ably uses the viewpoints of British and other Europeans to describe different contemporary views on the struggle. These provide excellent outside insight.
   
   On the whole, readers will find the book a superb and scholarly analysis, providing fresh insights into the motivations and causes of the defining war in American history.



4. This book was superb. I would write a short description and/or critique; however, much of what I have to say has been covered in earlier reviews. Every student in the south should be required to read this book. Our ancestors were not traitors. We held the true government of the founding fathers on our backs in every battle.



5. Southrons, hear your country call you!
   Up, lest worse than death befall you!
   To arms ! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
   Lo! All the beacon-fires are lighted,
   Let all hearts be now united!
   To arms ! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
   
   Advance the flag of Dixie
   Hurrah! Hurrah!
   For Dixie's land we take our stand,
   And live or die for Dixie!
   To Arms! To Arms!
   And conquer peace for Dixie
   To Arms! To Arms
   And conquer peace for Dixie
   
   Hear the Northern thunders mutter!
   Northern flags in South winds flutter!
   To arms ! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
   Send them back your fierce defiance!
   Stamp upon the accursed alliance!
   To arms ! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
   
   Advance the flag of Dixie
   Hurrah! Hurrah!
   For Dixie's land we take our stand,
   And live or die for Dixie!
   To Arms! To Arms!
   And conquer peace for Dixie
   To Arms! To Arms
   And conquer peace for Dixie
   
   Fear no danger! Shun no labor!
   Lift up rifle, pike and saber!
   To arms ! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
   Shoulder pressing close to shoulder,
   Let the odds make each heart bolder!
   To arms ! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
   
   Advance the flag of Dixie
   Hurrah! Hurrah!
   For Dixie's land we take our stand,
   And live or die for Dixie!
   To Arms! To Arms!
   And conquer peace for Dixie
   To Arms! To Arms
   And conquer peace for Dixie
   
   Swear upon our country's altar
   Never to submit or to falter,
   To arms ! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
   Till the spoilers are defeated,
   Till the Lord's work is completed!
   To arms ! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
   
   Advance the flag of Dixie
   Hurrah! Hurrah!
   For Dixie's land we take our stand,
   And live or die for Dixie!
   To Arms! To Arms!
   And conquer peace for Dixie
   To Arms! To Arms
   And conquer peace for Dixie

5 comments about James Monroe: The Quest for National Identity.

1. Lack of information? This is a good Biog. It does get a little wordy, especially concerning Monroe's foreign affairs work. Personally, I like to study the revolutionary mind, and read about the founding fathers' philosophy concerning politics and life. I just don't think there is as much information about Monroe as some of the others. He seems to have been a somewhat private person. Over all though this is pretty good work. Probably about as good as it gets for the amount of info available.



2. I read this book as part of my goal to read the established biography of every President. This was really an outstanding biography on what is clearly an underrated President.
   
   I would consider Monroe the Eisenhower of the 1800s. He did a lot and doesn't seem to get a lot of credit for it. I don't think credit was what Monroe was after.
   
   He played a key role in both the military and political history of the country and the author did a great job in depicting both. I especially liked the authors discussion of Monroe's role in reaching agreements with G.B., France, Spain, Russia, Portugal, etc.
   
   Obviously we all know about the Monroe Doctrine, but the author went into great detail in other key areas and detailed his relationships with other important men from his era.
   
   It may be longer than most would want to read, but if you want to read a really great book on a great President that is well constructed, flows well and is detailed enough to highlight the key and not so key aspects of a Presidency. This is the book on Monroe you should read.



3. I am presently reading a biography of every U.S. President in order. From browsing the reviews of Monroe biographies, Ammon became the obvious choice. I can gladly say that I was not disappointed. Ammon's biography of Monroe is comprehsive, well written, and superbly researched. Ammon's writing style is refreshingly easy to read and the information is very well organized. Monroe emerges as a very important President and, while not as brilliant intellectually as his two predecessors, certainly well suited to be chief executive and arguably the most important influence on American foreign policy until Theodore Roosevelt.
   
   My criticism of Mr. Ammon's volume is that, despite adeptly describing the political life of Monroe and its importance to American history, the biography never succeeds at leading the reader to understand Monroe on a personal level. Perhaps this task is not possible given the research available, but this is the first presidential biography that I have finished feeling that I did not have an adequate understanding of the personality traits behind the subject's actions.



4. This highly readable book focuses on the foreign policy elements of Monroe's career almost to the point that it is more of a book on diplomacy than a general biography. The portions that detail his partnership with his Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, especially the genesis of the Monroe Doctrine, are where it is at it's best. Unfortunately it gives short shrift to his relationship and feelings to his own slaves, even while giving a very good account of his activities around the Missouri Compromise.



5. James Monroe by Ammon
   Over the last several years, I've read biographies of the first 40 presidents. I've usually used Amazon readers to guide my selections. At the end of this review is a rating of these biographies.
   
   James Monroe was the last of the founding fathers to be president and he is one of most underrated statesmen and presidents. During the Revolutionary War he served with George Washington. Later he was minister to France and Secretary of State. Aside from Washington he is the only president to run for a second term without opposition. He was an excellent diplomat. His cabinet included John Quincy Adams and John C. Calhoun , and it can be argued this was the most effective cabinet and administration of the 19th century. Monroe is closely linked with fellow Virginians, Madison and Jefferson, and while he does not rank as a genius or philosopher with this pair, he was probably a better leader than either. Monroe's political style was to solve problems, be diplomatic, and develop consensus. Ammon's accounts of 12 hour cabinet meetings demonstrate this style of governance. Monroe also believed in a limited presidency . He consistently chose to respect the separation of powers, and at times limited his effectiveness out of respect for the Constitution.
   
   Ammon's biography is better than serviceable. It shines during Monroe's early years and his presidency. The book often drags during the middle third. My sense is this is because Monroe was more of a peripheral figure during these years, and this biography tends towards a tangential sense of history during this section.
   
   
   Bonus - You can see my reviews (SMR) for many of the following books, but here's a capsule summary
   The BEST
   Franklin Roosevelt - Conrad Black - captures so many facets of a great leader weaving his way through constant challenges, completely engaging writing; SEE MY REVIEW
   Teddy Roosevelt - Edmund Morris - the best writing hands down of a presidential biography - Teddy himself was so much fun that its hard to miss with this subject
   John Kennedy - Robert Dallek - detailed, balanced biography of a complex man, SMR
   Lyndon Johnson - Robert Dallek - volume one is as good as Morris' Teddy Roosevelt in terms of story- telling and describing the complexity of an absolutely driven man. Volume 2 deals with LBJ's presidential years and the morass of Viet Nam - its well written but like the war itself, it goes on and on from one disappointment to the next. SMR
   John Adams - David McCullough - great writing, perhaps a bit too favorable to Adams, but this is the book that got many readers to take a first or second look at our founding fathers
   Warren Harding - Francis Russell - absolutely the best biography of a unqualified president - captures Harding's sexual scandals as well as the smoked filled rooms and corruption of the times and Harding's administration, SMR
   Chester Arthur - Thomas Reeves - a great biography of an very corrupt politician and an incredible job of detailing the spoils system and New York politics, SMR
   The SECOND TIER
   Harry Truman - David McCullough - McCullough is always engaging, but it seems to me that he places Truman a little too high on the pedestal
   Abraham Lincoln - David Donald - the authoritative biography of Lincoln, I felt like crying at the end
   Jimmy Carter - Peter |Bourne - a good history of the time and an unflinching, thorough analysis of Carter Written by a Carter insider, but not afraid to criticize. SMR
   Franklin Pierce - Roy Nichols - a well written description of a man who was simply in over his head, SMR
   Martin Van Buren - John Niven - paints a pretty likeable picture of a man who many despised and distrusted, sifts through a great deal of detail about New York politics, and the Jackson and Van Buren administrations - subtly introduces the idea that most of Jackson's successful policies came from Van Buren
   Grover Cleveland - Alyn Brodsky - a better than average biography, very well organized and readable, soft pedals Cleveland's personal indiscretions SMR
   James Buchanan - Philip Klein - Buchanan schemed to become president for 30 years - Klein's biography gives a great overview of years of US politics and of Buchanan's scheming sort of politics, SMR
   James Monroe by Harry Ammon
   Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation - Merrill Peterson - a very thorough description of Jefferson and his times - much more emphasis on his politics and other works than his personal life, SMR
   Andrew Jackson - Robert Remini - this is perhaps unfairly low - I read the one volume abridgement, and would have preferred the detail of three volumes
   Gerald Ford - James Reeves - brisk writing and the best retelling of Watergate. A thorough description of Ford's developmental years and career prior to becoming president, but his presidential years are given less than 30 pages. SMR
   John Quincy Adams - Paul Nagel - uncovers Adams' personality and depression in a very sympathetic way but covers Adams' failed presidency with only a single chapter.
   Andrew Johnson by Hans Trefousse - a very good biography of a very complicated guy during the US`s darkest years - at times I had trouble keeping the many Reconstruction era politicians straight
   Rutherford Hayes - Ari Hoogenboom - a good biography including Hayes' war years, rise to the presidency, and his years in office. Although the election crisis of 1876 is presented in detail, Hoogenboom tries a bit too hard to give Hayes a free pass. SMR
   Ike Eisenhower - Geoffrey Perret - a workmanlike complete biography
   Ulysses S. Grant - Feeley - a great biography of Grant as a general, but it really falls down (as did Grant) during the presidential years
   Millard Fillmore - Robert Rayback - a good biography of a forgotten president who actually had some success in forestalling the Civil War
   Ronald Reagan - Edmund Morris - the weirdest "major" presidential biography - the fictional and real narrative are confusing. Although Morris captures Reagan, so much time is taken up with childhood, adolescence, and acting that important parts of the presidency are glossed over. SMR
   George Washington - Douglas Southall Freeman - I read the one volume abridgement of his seven volume monster. Freeman tells a great story, but he probably admires Washington too much.
   NOT QUITE GOOD ENOUGH
   Ulysses Grant - McFeely - This is a great biography of Grant's early life and Civil Wars years, but Feely seems about as disconnected from the eight years of Grant's presidency as Grant was.
   James Garfield - Allan Peskin - Garfield could be a caricature of a post Civil War president - log cabins, Civil War general (not much of one), Ohio, Republican, and weak - Peskin writes too much about Ohio politics and not enough about the corruption of the times
   Herbert Hoover - David Burner - A pretty boring read about a fascinating character during a fascinating time
   Woodrow Wilson - August Heckscher - Wilson was a very complex guy. This book captures Wilson and his times but it is a pretty dry read
   James Madison - Ralph Ketchum - just too dry - SMR
   Calvin Coolidge - Robert Sobel - this never really grabbed me but it is written in an engaging style
   William Henry Harrison - Freeman Cleeves - This biography is more than 50 years old. The narrative is engaging and Harrison had an interesting life; BUT, Harrison gets pretty much a free pass for his relationship with the many tribes who he evicted from the Northwest Territories. See the recent biography of William Clark for an more revealing telling of this aspect of Harrison's life.
   VYING FOR THE WORST
   Zachary Taylor - Jack Bauer - Taylor was an egotistical, quarrelsome, and paranoid guy who became president after winning several important battles during the Mexican War. Bauer does a workmanlike job detailing Taylor's life but he avoids a lot of the controversy by not making some pretty basic judgments into Taylor's character.
   Richard Nixon - Tom Wicker - An odd book. Wicker writes with great insight into Nixon, but he seems to get tired of writing the book. Watergate is almost completely left out as is much of the last years of Nixon's presidency. SMR
   James Polk Eugene McCormac - This two volume set was one of the most disappointing biographies I read, but there is little available as far as a complete biography of Polk. A political biography, that completely ignores Polk's personal life (slave-owner, ambitious wife, father). SMR
   John Tyler - Oliver Chitwood - A poorly organized and overly apologetic biography of one of the leading candidates for worst president. Written in the thirties, this book is stylistically dated. SMR.
   William Taft - Judith Icke Anderson The author is a disciple of the Fawn Brodie - psychoanalytic school of biography. Taft is actually a pretty easy guy to figure out, and he was quite open and honest about his feelings about his life and career. He didn't need this sort of biography.
   Benjamin Harrison - Harry Sievers - This is dreck! Three volumes of hero worship. Harrison had an interesting life and was an ineffective president, but this set does little to engage the reader. SMR
   William McKinley - Kevin Phillips - This is more of a long essay than a biography. Way too many aspects of his life are brushed over. I was left with far too many questions about McKinley, and definitely feel a need to find another McKinley biography. SMR

5 comments about In the Hands of Providence: Joshua L. Chamberlain and the American Civil War.

1. 
   In the Hands of Providence is a very well researched look of the life of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. Alice Turlock presents a definitive biography of this modest professor from Bowden College, who met challenge after challenge to become one of the greatest leaders in Civil War history. Chamberlain had extraordinary observational and superb writing skills. His persistence at recording the historic events, which included his emotional reactions, gave Trulock's wonderful historic accounts for her book.
   The book starts by giving us an in depth look at his obscure Christian upbringing in rural Maine, and follows his processes of becoming a great young man. He was an exceptional college student, receiving the praise of his instructors. He was also highly regarded by his neighbors and towns' folk alike. Many considered him to have the highest moral and ethical standard. He was so trusted and respected as a young man in his home town that an older business man of Maine, who was an acquaintance of Chamberlain's, entrusted him with the dealings of his estate.
   
   While finishing his studies at Bowden, Chamberlain married his sweetheart Frances Caroline Adams. They had a very close and loving relationship. But during the war, the constant distance between them put a great deal of strain on their relationship. After graduation, he accepted a position as a professor at Bowden, and held that position for several years. Chamberlain maintained a very close relationship with his family, and he was especially close to his father in law George Adams.
   
   When the war broke out in 1861, Chamberlain ask for a leave of absence from Bowden to enlist, but was turned down. Not to be left out of the war, he again applied for a sabbatical to study in Europe, and this time it was granted. He had no intentions on going to Europe, and instead immediately enlisted in the army as a lieutenant colonel, and never looked back. He played a huge role in the recruitment of the men for a regiment, which would later come to be known as the 20th Maine.
   
   With no military experience, Chamberlain showed great promise in his leadership shills and military expertise. He became friends with his unit's commander, Colonial Ames, who became his tutor. According to Trulock, Chamberlain held a great deal of respect and admiration for Ames, and he gave Ames credit for his military success.
   
   Trulock's description of Chamberlain's military life is extraordinary, and she supplies us with great details about the battles in which he was involved. At the battle of Antietam, Chamberlain was not directly involved in the fighting but was brought up in reserve the next day. Trulock gives a very vivid description of horror that Chamberlain witnessed upon arriving at the battlefield that day where 22,000 lay dead or wounded on the field. It was the bloodiest, one day battle in the Civil War.
   
   Next, she transports us to the Fredericksburg, and the final assault by the North on Marye's Heights - the charge that involved the 20th of Maine. All the other divisions that day were either driven back, laid dead or wounded on the field. She describes tremendous courage that Chamberlain and his men showed as they made their charge on the now famous wall at Marye's Heights, the wall that was heavily guarded by Confederates. The division suffered great loses that late afternoon. They remained among the dead or wounded for 2 days and nights before the order was given to retreat.
   
   The episode in history that Chamberlain is most remember for is the courage and heroism he displayed at the battle of Gettysburg. He was ordered to the top of a hill known as The Little Round Top where he was placed at the far left flank. There, Chamberlain was instructed to hold that position at all cost. The 20th Maine repelled assault after assault by the Confederates that day. When ammunition ran out, Chamberlain ordered a bayonet charge, an event that many historians say was the turning point of the Civil War.
   
   Trulock also gives a very detailed account of the battle of Petersburg, where Chamberlain was horribly wounded. After hearing of his heroic actions during the battle, General Grant immediately promoted Chamberlain on the battlefield to Brigadier General. This was the only battlefield promotion ever issued by Grant. Somehow, Chamberlain survived his wound, due to the skilled surgery that was preformed on him that night and next day. Chamberlain's two close friends, Dr. Shaw and Dr. Townsend worked for hours repairing the damage inflicted by the mini ball. The wound he received that day would trouble him all of his life and required numerous surgery's to repair the damage.
   
   His persistent heroism and outstanding leadership were the deciding factor when Grant chose Chamberlain to receive the Confederate surrender at Appomattox. He showed great respect for his fellow countrymen that day when he gave the order to his men to give a solders salute to the surrendering confederate men. His honorary actions that day were later critized by many people.
   
   This book contains a lot of historic photos of Chamberlain's family, friends, fellow soldiers and numerous battle maps. The book also gives a great account of Chamberlain's life as Governor of Maine and President of Bowden College, but these accounts do not compare to the bravery and patriotic devotion that Chamberlain displayed during the Civil War. His actions made him a hero to his men, and the country he served.
   
   Trulock has given us a great biography, not only one of the Civil War's greatest commanders, but one of the United States most distinguished citizens. The book flows very smoothly while covering details of battles that would interest even the most die hard Civil War enthusiast.
   
   Finally, a book that does justice to an astonishing person. I highly recommend this book.



2. Chamerlain's heroism is similar to Teddy Roosevelt, Alvin York, and Audie Murphy who came behind him, but have been better publicized.
   
   The difference is that his act of confidence, courage and decisiveness may have been the one that changed the outcome of the Civil War, the 1864 election and the future of America.
   
   In The Hands of Providence is the story of Chamberlain's exemplary character before, during and after that momentum changing moment. All Americans should read and learn this story.
   
   - Richard V. Battle - Author of The Four Letter Word That Builds Character



3. I found Alice Trulock's biography on Joshua L. Chamberlain to be quite readable, well researched and well grounded. Considering the length of the book, Trulock's book read quite well for most readers of any level. Well, it may not be good as the one written by John Pullen but it definitely is superior to the one written by Edward Longacre. I put that in just for comparison purpose.
   
   I think this biography may served as a good introduction to Chamberlain who's name have definitely reached near mythological level nowadays among Civil War readers thanks to Jeff Daniels and his role in that movie "Gettysburg". Of course, most readers would probably be disappointed that Jeff Daniel's portaryal of Chamberlain will not jive with Joshua Chamberlain of Trulock's book.
   
   The biography covers all aspects of Chamberlain's life. The book does a good job covering Chamberlain's military career which proves to be the most important period of his life from which Chamberlain's life will be centered around until his death. I do wish to make a point here. He died at the age of 86, a very ripe old age and I doubt if his wounds he got from Petersburg really hasten his death, it may have cause him a lot of pain but even in modern days, most people don't live that long!
   
   Overall, an very good biography on one of Union's more natural soldiers. A non-professional who performed better then most professional soldiers.



4. The Duke of Wellington supposedly stated that it is impossible for a Christian to serve in the military. Too bad he wasn't around during the American Civil War! Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson from the South and Joshua Chamberlain and Otis Howard from the North are notable exceptions to Wellington's thesis.
   
   Trulock has written what is the best account of the hero of Little Round Top and who personally oversaw the surrender of Confederate troops at Appamattox.
   
   Among the important events in Chamberlain's life covered include:
   
   1. Birth and Christian upbringing in rural Maine.
   2. His days as a student and adminstrator at Bowdoin College.
   3. His early Civil War service including the formation of the famous 20th Maine Regiment.
   4. Fascinating accounts of his involvement in major Civil War battles: Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, Petersburg, and other engagements.
   5. The horrible wound suffered at Petersburg that eventually killed him some 50 years later.
   6. His loving yet strained marriage to Frances Caroline Adams.
   7. Postwar public service as President of Bowdoin College and Governor of Maine.
   
   Reading the book was a joy - the narrative flowed smoothly while covering several details of a fascinating character. The author managed to keep the story from becoming too bogged down in dry detail without insulting the reader's intelligence. Oh, how I wish more biographies were written like this!
   
   The book also contains excellent battle maps and numerous photographs of the main characters: Chamberlain, his wife, parents, sister and brothers, many Civil War officers, and other important people in Joshua Chamberlain's life.
   
   All in all, an excellent and highly recommended read. Read and enjoy!



5. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was the epitome of the American citizen-soldier. Since the birth of the republic, American soldiers have left home and hearth to serve the nation and many of them have come home physically shattered and haunted by what they have seen while still others have not come home at all. Thrown into the breech, some of the citizen solders found they did not have the fortitude for what was asked of them while many others have excelled, performing better than graduates of West Point or Annapolis, America's most prestigious military academies. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was a citizen soldier who became a great hero of the Civil War, a man who met challenge after challenge and became a great leader of men and afterward, the course of his life was forever altered. An academically inclined young man, Chamberlain left Bowdin College and his studies and teaching in theology to accept a lieutenant colonel's commission in the 20th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment. The modest young professor took part in most of the important battles of the North's Army of the Potomac. He was a participant in the Battle of Antietam, still the bloodiest single day in American history. Today, we can walk the battlefield off Sharpsburg Pike, in rural Maryland and see "Burnside's Bridge and the cornfields where so many men fell and get some small measure of what men like Chamberlain went through. We can also visit the battlefield at Fredericksburg and see the heights that he and his 20th Maine and the Union Army tried to take in bloody frontal assaults into the teeth of Confederate guns and under the pounding of their artillery on the hills. Today Chamberlain's comrades - as well as the fallen Confederate troops - are buried on the commanding heights they failed to take, one of the Civil War's bitter ironies. Colonel Chamberlain then immortalized himself at Gettysburg's Little Round Top where he anchored the Union left, repelling assault after assault and winning the day by leading a charge down the slope that broke the Rebel troops. He was given a general's star by General Grant at Petersburg and was honored to receive the Confederate surrender at Appomattox. His heroism and leadership qualities helped him win the Governorship of Maine no less than four times, after which he retired to the Presidency of Bowdin College, his alma mater. Alice Trulock who wrote this book, was not a professional writer and after her retirement from civic affairs, this book took her ten years of careful research, writing and rewriting to complete. She based her work on a great deal of new research and handles the account of infantry combat beautifully. Unfortunately, Trulock died before the book was released and so she wasn't able to accept the accolades that were due to her for such a well-written and moving biography of an emblematic Civil War figure.

4 comments about George Washington: A Biography.

1. Washington Irving's biography on Washington is by far the most detailed review on our first President from youth through his post Presidential years. Given that Mr. Irving personally met George Washington at the young age of 7, Irving's book has all the more relavence than today's revisionist historians can ever provide. However, the "old english" that Washington used in his correspondence makes for difficult comprehension. It is interesting to note that by 1850 the change to a more modern writing style by Irving presents a clearer picture of Washington's time, but it still requires an occasional re-read to fully understand Irving's point. A person with a limited interest in the Revolutionary War may be better suited to purchasing a more contemporary biography for ease of reading.

   However, this book does provide such insite into the minds of Washington and those around him and it allows the reader to finally start to understand why our Founding Fathers risked all for the sake of freedom and liberty from the English. Today we take for granted rights that never existed anywhere in the 1770's and such historical works penned in the mid 1850's provides an insite that should be required reading for both liberals and conservatives. Overall, the book is long and difficult to read, but well worth the time, effort and cost.




2. The life of Washington should be required reading for everyone. The amount of difficulty he faced throughout his life is unimaginable to modern man. Washington had a life of privilege which is the main reason he was placed in a position of responsibility so early in life. However, in all of his campaigns he was dealing with shortages, sicknesses and other difficulties that make our own seem not so difficult.

   Reading this work will provide the reader with an understanding how lucky America was to have a man of such temperament at her founding. Washington was a man of great intellect. He proved that by defeating the British on a number of occasions. He was a man of high honor which he proved when the various cabals tried to remove him from his office and he answered them with excellent performance and an absence of the acrimony so many would have used. He was a man of incomprehendable determination. The crossing of the Deleware, the winter at Valley forge and hundreds of other examples prove this. He was a man of tremendous resourcefulness as is shown by his ability to field an army when provisions were always in want for many years and at the same time attend to so many other details.

   Washington Irving's work will provide the reader with an excellent understanding of all of these qualities. I recommend this book to anyone interested in Washington's life. The vast majority of this work deals with the revolution so if you are interested in the early years or the later years you will not find a great deal of detail in this particular work.




3. The life of Washington should be required reading for everyone. The amount of difficulty he faced throughout his life is unimaginable to modern man. Washington had a life of privilege which is the main reason he was placed in a position of responsibility so early in life. However, in all of his campaigns he was dealing with shortages, sicknesses and other difficulties that make our own seem not so difficult.
   Reading this work will provide the reader with an understanding how lucky America was to have a man of such temperament at her founding. Washington was a man of great intellect. He proved that by defeating the British on a number of occasions. He was a man of high honor which he proved when the various cabals tried to remove him from his office and he answered them with excellent performance and an absence of the acrimony so many would have used. He was a man of incomprehendable determination. The crossing of the Deleware, the winter at Valley forge and hundreds of other examples prove this. He was a man of tremendous resourcefulness as is shown by his ability to field an army when provisions were always in want for many years and at the same time attend to so many other details.

   Washington Irving's work will provide the reader with an excellent understanding of all of these qualities. I recommend this book to anyone interested in Washington's life. The vast majority of this work deals with the revolution so if you are interested in the early years or the later years you will not find a great deal of detail in this particular work.




4. This edition of Washington Irving's biography of George Washington has been substantially reduced in size via editing from the original editions, published in the 1850's. Irving was one of, if not the first American author to receive literary acclaim in the salons of Europe. This book was Irving's life's dream. The book details Washington's life, military career, and political thoughts in a very deferential way, as the author appears to have remained in awe of the "Great Man" who had patted him on the head when he was but a child. Irving seems incapable of finding any fault with Washington, and his conclusions on that score probably do not fully reflect later historical thinking. The book does suffer from a lack of maps, as the stories of the military campaigns of the Revolutionary War are recounted in great detail. In addition, having been written almost 150 years ago, there is a substantial amount of archaic word usage that could give your dictionary a workout, if you are so inclined. In addition, the book treats the latter stages of Washington's life thinly, due largely, I believe, to Irving's declining health as the last editions of his multi-edition biography was being written. Thus, if your focus is on Washington's Presidential years, look elsewhere. Otherwise, one could hardly choose a better biography of Washington; it is probably the oldest biography of Washington that is easily accessible to the average reader today. Overall, the book was very enjoyable to read.

4 comments about George Thomas: Virginian for the Union (Campaigns and Commanders).

1. In reading about the Civil War, I was intrigued by the story of Union General George Henry Thomas. How fortunate that Christopher J. Einolf recently published George Thomas: Virginian for the Union. This book does much to introduce 21st Century readers to this once famous general who has pretty much dropped off the radar screen.
   
   The background of George Thomas is very similar to Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Coming from a prominent Virginia family, Thomas went to West Point, served in the Mexican and Indian Wars, and then taught at West Point. But unlike Lee, when the Civil War began, Thomas placed his oath to the Constitution above his loyalty to his family and his state and sided with the Union. He never saw his homestead or his sisters again.
   
   While both armies had more than a few eccentric characters in key leadership positions (think Grant, Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, McClellan, J.E.B. Stuart, etc.), Thomas proved to be one of the most steady, consistent but understated generals during the Civil War. His friend and West Point roommate, William Tecumseh Sherman said of Thomas that "He was never brilliant, but always cool, reliable, and steady--maybe a little slow." After the war, Sherman praised Thomas as "the second-best general of the war, after Grant, and argued that Thomas was a better general even than Robert E. Lee."
   His greatest successes were at the Battle of Chickamauga and the Battle of Nashville. His actions at Chickamauga helped to save the Union army from total annihilation and earned him the nickname, The Rock of Chickamauga. He finished the Civil War as the sixth highest ranking general in the Union army behind Grant, Sherman, Halleck, Mead and Sheridan.
   
   While I found George Thomas: Virginian for the Union to be engrossing, it's very long on military information and short on personal facts. The reasons for this are the same reasons that Thomas is not very well known today. First, he had all his personal papers burned upon his death and he rarely spoke to his colleagues about his personal life. He never published his memoirs, unlike many of the key players from the war. He also was the first general to die after the war at the young age of 53 (in 1870). Three friends wrote biographies of Thomas after his death and respected his wish for privacy. This book doesn't even contain a photograph of his wife, Frances. Frances was also a very private person, and they had no children. While I would have preferred more personal information, I can't hold it against Einolf is very little is available to researchers.
   But despite this shortcoming, George Thomas is still an excellent book and one that I would strongly recommend to others.



2. Anyone who is mildly interested in history should read this biography. Mr. Einolf has thoroughly researched George Thomas and while providing an extensive account of his life, he has managed to create a work that is entertaining. Civil War buffs should enjoy this work as it shares an interesting and valid view of loyalties to fellow man and country.



3. Volume 13 of the "Campaigns and Commanders" series, George Thomas: Virginian for the Union is the in-depth biography of one of the Union's most prominent and successful generals, who was at one time considered for overall command of the Union Army. Remembered today as the "Rock of Chickamauga", George H. Thomas was a slaveholding Southerner who chose to fight for the North, and his experience with the heroism of black soldiers on the battlefield forever changed his view of African-Americans, transforming him into a defender of civil rights. While George Thomas: Virginian for the Union makes a solid case for Thomas' integrity and competence, neither are Thomas' flaws and ill decisions neglected. Notes, a bibliography, and an index enhance this evenhanded appraisal of a truly remarkable commander.



4. General George H. Thomas was a Southern born Union officer who commanded the outstanding Army of the Cumberland and he was one of the great generals of the American Civil War. In military circles he will forever be known as "The Rock of Chickamauga". However today, for a number of reasons, he is relatively unknown to the American public.
   
   Any author writing a biography of George Thomas is faced with a major hurdle in that most of Thomas' private papers were burned at his request when he died, and the fact that he died suddenly of a stoke soon after the Civil War which left no chance for a memoir. The author addressed these problems by relentlessly researching every collection of Thomas Papers available and reviewing as many private letters that he could. Other authors may have done this also, and used them to influence their writing, but Mr. Christopher Einolf has done more. He quotes from the Thomas letters giving the reader a glimpse of the real Thomas.
   
   The author uses an understated writing style that I think would have been appreciated by Thomas himself. He lets the facts speak for themselves in many cases and lets his readers draw their own conclusions. However he is not shy about sharing any new understanding of Thomas that he has reached. His description of how Thomas' attitude about blacks changed, from one of a conventional Virginia land owner to a real Civil Rights advocate and that this change came not so much as an evolutionary process but more of a `frame-break' moment after the Battle of Nashville when he saw for himself how well his black troops fought, gives us a new major insight into the man. This view came as a revelation for me as I never agreed with some early Thomas biographers who assumed Thomas had some innate goodness in him that would not allow him to treat blacks unequally. With his aristocratic Virginia upbringing, it did not make any sense. To me Mr. Einolf's analysis rings true.
   
   The author's battle descriptions and analyses are very good with the notable exception of the Battle of Chattanooga. He basically subscribes to the standard `miracle theory' or to luck, as he has the soldiers saying, for the great success at Missionary Ridge. He states that `military historians' say the artillery was badly placed, and that the Union soldiers could scurry up the ravines unseen by enemy soldiers. This may be true, but the author misses the point that the prime factor in winning the battle was the effort of General Joseph Hooker and the fact that Thomas delayed his attack as long as he could to allow Hooker time to flank the ridge from Lookout Mountain. Confederate veterans on high ground and in good defensive positions would ordinarily not have been worried about any Federal charge, but with the added knowledge that a Union Corps was marching across their line of retreat, they decided it was time to skedaddle. That aside, the author's description of Stones River, Chickamauga, Nashville and the other battles is very good and his conclusions are astute.
   
   Mr. Einolf's chapters on Thomas' post war actions and decisions during the occupation and the early reconstruction periods are given the detail they deserve. The author shows how Thomas had a unique perspective on the situation due to his being a Southern gentleman, a Unionist and knowing first hand the qualities of the black men who fought for their freedom. These two chapters really differentiate this book from other Thomas biographies.
   
   In his concluding chapter entitled "Thomas in Historical Memory" Mr. Einolf goes into the reasons for loss of Thomas' place in history. This makes for very interesting reading especially in what he has to say about the Southern Historical Society. While I personally think he is too mild with regard to Generals U. S. Grant and William T. Sherman in their treatment of General Thomas during the war and later in their memoirs which contributed to the loss of George Thomas in history, Mr. Einolf's opinion on this matter has merit.
   
   Overall this biography is excellent and a very creditable addition to the literature on the American Civil War.

5 comments about Daniel Webster: The Man and His Time.

1. Unlike Remini's three volume biography of Andrew Jackson this work shows a real person not a god idolized by the biographer. Webster was a talented, ambitious and complex man. He played a heroic role as Secretary of state, he defended the Union against the South Carolinian secesssionists, he solicited money from many people including N. Biddle in support of the Bank of the United States. He illustrates the difference in what we consider unethical acts among politicians. He was cursed by the radical abolitionists because he refused to put the Union in jeopardy to stop the spread of slavery.
   
   It could be said that Remini redeemed his reputation as an impartial historian with this work.



2. Daniel Webster was a great man in every meaning of the word. He had great talents and love for his country and its constitution; and he had great flaws that were magnified by his greatness. One thing he didn't have was a great modern and objective biography. He now has one, thanks to Mr. Remini.
   
   Along with Henry Clay, John Calhoun, Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams and other notables, Daniel Webster represented the generation of Americans to whom the Founder Fathers entrusted the nation they had fought for and created.
   
   Webster took that responsibility very seriously and used his intellectual and oratorical powers to help shape the interpretation of our laws and constitution to the needs of our growing and expanding country. He was involved in many important Supreme Court cases, many in front of John Marshall, who is still considered by many to have been our best Chief Justice.
   
   Webster's greatest fame is probably as an orator, mostly in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Remini shows us that he wasn't necessarily a great legislator or floor leader in terms of moving important legislation. Henry Clay was the man to do that. However, Webster's rank as one of the country's top senators of all time is merited by the incredible ability he had to express what this nation stood for, what the constitution stood for and that the Union, above all, was what was most important. Several of his speeches, which he would edit carefully for publication, are still moving and were generally printed fully in the press and memorized by children. His "union" stance many times cost him in popularity as he had to take some stances on specific legislation that may not have been "morally" acceptable to many (like his defense of the Slave Fugitive Law), but that was necessary to uphold the law.
   
   It is little known by many that Webster was a very able Secretary of State for three different presidents (Harrison, Tyler and Fillmore) and that he used his knowledge of the law (maritime law in particular), the constitution and America in general to develop foreign policy designed to continue gaining international rights, commerce and respect for our nation. In particular, he did much to open trade relations in Asia and Latin America.
   
   Unfortunately, Webster's flaws (drinking heavily, money mismanagement, duplicity and abuse of friends) were also great enough to prevent his being elected president. People just did not trust him enough. He was acknowledged as perhaps the best orator of the day and "Defender of the Constitution", but he had trouble relating to the common man. He was essentially an East Coast snob and the people of the south and the expanding west could not really relate well to him, or he to them. His stubborness also caused him to commit some real blunders on the foreign policy side, but I think that on balance he had a very creditable record as Secretary of State. That stubborness probably cost him the presidency at least once (he could have acceded to have been Harrison's VP but refused to; John Tyler accepted and became president when Harrison died just a few weeks into office) and cost the Whig party the presidency in at least another ocassion when he refused to concede during the nominating conventions.
   
   Men like Webster get lost in the popular mind between the greatness of the Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln. Yet, at a very crucial time in America, when the country was expanding at incredible rates, when interpretation of the constitution would define our legal framework to the present day and when the union was threatened to be torn asunder by nullifiers and abolitionists, men like Webster, Clay, Calhoun and Jackson were there to make sure the Union's survival was the primary object. In the intermediate term, they failed because the nation fell into Civil War (after they were all dead), but while they were alive, they compromised, orated and legislated to avoid that awful event. After the War, and even today, many of the things that America stands for and are taken for granted. But they were formulated and imprinted on our national character by men like the "Godlike Daniel".
   
   Remini has written extensively on the Jacksonian period and has detailed and excellent biographies of Jackson and Clay as well. These men did not all necessarily care of each other and Remini doesn't play favorites in his biographies. He deals with Webster very fairly, granting him his well-deserved greatness, but also being very frank and objective about his shortfalls and political failings and blunders.



3. Robert Remini brings us Daniel Webster as no one else can.... In order to paint such a perfect picture of a man that is as complex as Webster requires the knowledge of a true expert.
   
   Remini gives us a very fair and well balanced portait of a man who was a contemporary of Henry Clay, Andrew Jackson, and John Calhoun (all of whom Remini has written authorative biographies on).
   
   Make no mistake, Daniel Webster was a very complex man. One who was capable of pure genious but could also be unbelievably ignorant. His feud with Henry Clay probably cost both men the oppurtunity to be president. His ability to amass ungodly debts and then refuse to pay them is equally bizaar. However, this is the same man who argued many of the ground breaking case before the Supreme Court. He helped to stall the Civil War for 20 years by showing unflinching support to Andrew Jackson (Who was in the opposite political party) handling of the nullification crisis.
   
   Remini shows us all of these sides with the rare ability to help us get into the mind of Webster. Remini understands the age and the politics of this era like no other... therefore, if you are interested in learning about the great Daniel Webster.... look no further!
   
   However, as much as I enjoyed learning about Webster I admit you have to be motivated to read the entire book. While the politics of Webster's time were undoubtley the biggest of the time - it is hard for to finish all 800 pages when living in 2004. Make no mistake this is a great book... but even great books can be a bit dull.



4. Occasionally, nature produces an individual with towering intellect and mesmerizing oratorical abilities, but haunted by deep and seemingly irrepressible moral flaws. Their lives are filled with a mix of remarkable achievement and profound disappointment; monumental success and disgrace both seem inevitable. The late twentieth century had Bill Clinton, and the early nineteenth had Daniel Webster.

   Webster's story - like Clinton's - is at once inspiring and frustrating, laudable and detestable. There is certainly an element of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" in Daniel Webster, and the noted Jacksonian historian Robert Remini uses that split personality as the foundation in building this important biography of one of America's greatest and most unique statesman.

   Webster's genius is undeniable. His many natural gifts, which even his bitterest enemies had to concede, earned him the highly flattering sobriquet "the Godlike Daniel." No private attorney has affected the course of American judicial history as much as Webster. With the ideologically sympathetic John Marshall presiding over the Supreme Court, he successfully argued nearly every landmark case of the early nineteenth century: Dartmouth College, Gibbons vs. Ogden , McCollough vs. Maryland. He also added his considerable talents to the defense of the Union, first during the South Carolina nullification crisis in the celebrated Hayne-Webster debates, and then in the twilight of his life as the debate over slavery mounted toward civil war he delivered an impassioned speech in defense of the Compromise of 1850. His many public addresses lauding the ideals and principles of the American republic - the Plymouth Oration, Bunker Hill Oration, commemoration of the lives of Jefferson and Adams - are legendary and were once memorized by schoolboys. When a Webster speech was anticipated in the Senate, the halls were jammed with attendees eager to hear history in the making. Indeed, as Stephen Benet notes in the classic The Devil and Daniel Webster: "You see, for a while, he [Webster] was the biggest man in the country. He never got to be President, but he was the biggest man."

   But there was also a less admirable, more human side to Daniel Webster; an alter ego to the Godlike Daniel known derisively as "Black Dan." Addictions to alcohol and gambling were the duel crosses Webster had to bear through out life. These afflictions ensured Webster was chronically in debt despite a flourishing law practice. These debts eventually presented conflicts of interests and put him in compromising positions, which undermined his moral authority and ultimately cost him the White House.

   It has been written that most great men are made by the events of their times, but a very select few would have been great regardless of time or place. Remini's splendid biography suggests that Daniel Webster is a strong candidate for the latter category.




5. The unfortunate result of the growing power and focus on the executive branch is that historians tend to focus on presidents as prime movers for american political development. Remini's biography of Daniel Webster proves paradigm deeply flawed, particularly in the early years of our nations history.

   Webster, though never achieving the presidency, deserves great credit for setting the tone of american government and the supremacy of congress that survived through the 19th century. Remini does a tremendous job exploring the early 19th century and the issues this second generation of american leaders faced.

   Recent great interest in the revolutionary generation hopefully will not eclipse the study of those, like Webster, who came next and solidified the nacient insitutions that the founders created. If the founders were the fathers of our government, than men like Webster was that government's teacher in primary school.

   A wonderful read, if you are really interested in the topic.

5 comments about Ulysses S. Grant: The Unlikely Hero (Eminent Lives).

1. Factually deficient. Some errors have been cited in earlier reviews here on Amazon. I will only point out that Korda repeatedly referred to Gen. McClellan as Gen. Mckennen. It gives one no confidence if the author cannot even remember the correct name of such a prominent person. Oddly, Korda seems to remember that Grant once remarked that he often wore a private soldier's jacket with stars on the shoulders so that the army might know who their general is. But then Korda triumphantly points to photos of Grant wearing a full general's frock coat in his meetings with Lincoln. Is this supposed to prove Grant was dishonest? Doesn't it occur to Korda that even Grant might think it appropriate to dress up a bit for a meeting with the President of the United States or for a photo? Some analysis! Korda's commentary on Grant's military decisions is on a par with his remarks on Grant's uniform: not worthy of a high school paper. Finally, it was annoying to see the author dip into academic hippy analysis of major events. Somehow, in a biography of Grant, we are to be dragged into Korda's hatred of President Bush. Aren't we sick of this yet? I couldn't--wouldn't--finish this pathetic book. It's in the garbage can. If the rest of the biographies in this series are this deficient, the publisher would do well to abandon the project.



2. The only books I've previously read about the civil war are All For The Union and Company Aytch. I recommend both if you want to read the memoirs of soldiers. Mr. Grant is a fascinating person and Michael Korda tries to capture his complexity of character. I can't say that I learned much more than I already knew from various Discovery Channel shows or visiting the home of U.S. Grant in Galena. As noted in previous reviews, some of the historical data is questionable. For example, is Mr. Korda correct about the position of forces on a battlefield or the several maps and writings I found on the internet that say otherwise? One thing I could do without is Mr. Kordas need to bring in his obvious dislike of president George Bush and anything whatsoever that has any connection to him. Mr. Korda, if you feel a need to vent your Bush-hatred get a job with the New York Times or Washington Post. I don't know about other folks but when I sit down with a book about U.S. Grant I don't expect to be hammered with the non-too-subtle neo-liberal desire to tie everything to George Bush.



3. These amazon reviews have done their job, in convincing me not to bother reading this book. There are two excellent studies of Grant as a politician and president, both by Brooks Simpson: LET US HAVE PEACE and THE RECONSTRUCTION PRESIDENTS. I highly recommend them.



4. 
   
   
   Military history is often a tragedy the first time around and a farce when it repeats, as this perceptive book makes abundantly clear in outlining and assessing the career of America's greatest general.
   
   Fans of Robert E. Lee may well argue about the "greatest", the blunt fact is that Grant understood Lee better than Lee understood Grant. Korda makes the point again and again that Grant, except on rare occasions, was able to correctly assess battlefield conditions and quickly exploit every indication of weakness.
   
   Grant was bitterly criticized as a butcher, similar to Gen. George "Blood and Guts" Patton in World War II. Veterans of Patton's armies have told me Patton's success was based on "his guts, our blood". But I've yet to meet anyone who regrets having served with Patton. The same is true of Grant; good soldiers always praise a general who wins, dead soldiers don't complain.
   
   Grant understood that victory meant killing enough soldiers to make the Confederate states quit. He understood the war was won at Gettysburg; just as Gen. Dwight Eisenhower knew World War II was won in Normandy. The tragic legacy of Grant is that too many generals since then have copied his "butcher" qualities without understanding his tactical brilliance; thus the appalling slaughter of World War I.
   
   Grant was the perfect American success story; literally a "barefoot" buy who rose to command the armies of the nation and then serve two terms in the White House. He was also the "perfect" American because of his absolute trust in the essential goodness, decency and honesty of others; politicians and business people took cynical and unlimited advantage of these qualities, which left his administration mired in the deep stink of scandal.
   
   In war, Gen. Grant faced one massive task -- victory. Everything was directed to one goal. In peace, President Grant as a politician faced a thousand simultaneous large and petty challenges, something he was never able to handle. His astounding successes were two great single-minded challenges; the war, and writing his autobiography as he was dying of cancer. Facing these two great challenges, he succeeded brilliantly.
   
   The contrast with today's politicians could not be more dramatic. Grant was instinctively drawn to the sound of the guns fired in anger; too many of today's politicians, who blithely send others to war which they cleverly avoid themselves, have never hear a shot fired in anger let alone a voice raised in anger in the White House.
   
   This book, and the story of Grant, is vividly relevant in today's politics. Everyone who reads it will understand at least some of the fundamentals of success, of America's greatest general and the current military incompetence that has led to another quagmire.



5. 
   This is one of two brief biographies of Grant (1822-1885) I recently read, the other written by Josiah Bunting III which is part of Times Books' "The American Presidents" series, with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. serving as general editor. Although both Korda and Bunting cover much of the same material, there are significant differences between their respective approaches to the18th president of the United States.
   
   For example, Bunting clearly disagrees with, indeed resents the fact that Grant is generally remembered "as a general, not a president, [which] explains in part the condescension - there is no better word for it -- from which pundits and historians have tended to write of him." Bunting asserts that if judged by the consequences of Grant's common sense, judgment, and intuition, his presidency, "so far from being one of the nation's worst, may yet be seen as one of the best."
   
   Korda indicates no inclination to view Grant's presidency as "one of the best." He duly acknowledges the problems which awaited Grant after he was elected to his first term in 1869. "What did Grant's reputation as a president in, however, (and continues to do so today whenever journalists and historians are drawing up lists of the best presidents vs. the worst ones), was the depression of 1873, which ushered in a long period of unemployment and distress, made politically more damaging by accusations that the president's wealthy friends were making money out of it." Given that the United States was growing too fast, in too many different directions at once, and the inevitable consequence was corruption and an unstable economy, "it would have taken a more astute man than Grant to slow things down or clean them up."
   
   This last observation by Korda is consistent with a contemporary assessment of Grant by the Edinburgh Review, one which Brooks Simpson quotes in his own study (Let Us Have Peace: Ulysses S. Grant and the Politics of War and Reconstruction 1861-1868), and which Bunting also cites: "To bind up the wounds left by the war, to restore concord to the still distracted Union, to ensure real freedom to the Southern Negro, and full justice to the southern white; these are indeed tasks which might tax the powers of Washington himself or a greater than Washington, if such a man is to be found."
   
   In his Epilogue, Korda explains that he wrote this book because, from time to time, "it is necessary to remind Americans about Grant, first of all because his is a kind of real-life Horatio Alger story, exactly the one that foreigners have always wanted to believe about American life...and that Americans want to believe about themselves." Yes, his presidency was severely flawed but as a general, Grant "defined for all time the American way of winning a war": It must have an essentially moral base to earn and sustain the full support of the American people, it must take full advantage of its great industrial strength and depth of manpower, and it must apply aggressively - without hesitation -- all of its resources to achieve the ultimate military objective, total victory.
   
   However, Korda suggests that any politician contemplating the use of military force should first consider lessons which Grant learned from failed Reconstruction initiatives in the South: "armies of occupation are no substitute for political thought, and that generals are not be necessarily the right people to institute basic political reforms or to reconstruct society."
   
   It remains for others much better qualified than I am to comment on the relevance of that statement to America's current military involvement in various parts of the world. However, I greatly appreciate Korda's attempt to provide a balanced view of Grant in terms of his character, talents, and values...all of which served him so well on the battlefield but which proved insufficient to the political challenges which he encountered later as the 18th president of the United States.
   
   Those who share my high regard for this volume are urged to check out Bunting's biography as well as Grant's Personal Memoirs.

5 comments about Personal Memoirs: Ulysses S. Grant (Modern Library War).

1. Written by the dying hand of one of the chosen men of his time. For any scholar of Grant, Civil War or Military History, these readings are a must. Grant's military genius was without equal. Had his superiors, early on, had his keen foresight, the Civil War could have ended a year or two earlier. Another great read is "Grant" by Jean Smith.



2. It is surprising that the most balanced and impartial view of U.S. Grant should be written by Grant himself. His style of writing is clear and sparse, recounting fact as fact and without lengthy editorializing. A must read for any civil war buff or serious historian.



3. I think this is the only real account you can get of the civil war. It's...Great!



4. This book really provides incredible insight into Grant and what made him a great general. In a plainspoken & straightforward manner he gives a recount of his role in the war and his military philosophy (attack). Unlike a modern autobiography we get nothing personal or confessional (not necessarily a bad thing). Any mention of drinking, or his dismal presidency are omitted and his family gets only a paragraph or two; which is fine because no one is interested in Grant's parenting or presidenting tips.



5. Although Grant doesn't blow his own horn, a close reading of his campaign accounts supports the "revisionist" view that far from being a butcher of men and Lee's inferior, Grant's victories (other than Shiloh) were tactical in nature, not brute force charges. (OK, there was Cold Harbor, but that was one mistake in a year-long campaign to destroy the South before the North lost its will to fight. Time was not on Grant's side.) Furthermore, Lee, Jackson, Johnson, et. al. always had the easier side of the equation, playing defense and disrupting the North's long lines of supply and communication.
   
   This is also an interesting study on how an apparently unremarkable person find greatness within himself when he is in his element, and how a great general can fail as a president because the leadership roles are quite different.
   
   There is a dry wit in much of Grant's writing which makes it a fun read even if you don't care for the details of his capture of Vicksburg and his eventual destruction of the South's Eastern armies. Grant does not shy away from describing the slogging nature of the war or his mastery of maneuver warfare.

1 comments about Civil War Goats and Scapegoats.

1. "Civil War Goats and Scapegoats" is a highly readable, even-handed book that does an admirable job in defending generals who have been maligned unfairly and censuring those who committed major blunders. It's well researched and amply illustrated, hard hitting but fair, and includes clear descriptions of military terms and Civil War military organizations as well as interesting anecdotes on the pre- and post-War lives of many of the commanders. The book is recommended for anyone - novice or serious student - interested in the Civil War.
   
   Three scapegoats defended passionately by Winkler are J.E.B. Stuart, often criticized for his controversial performance at Gettysburg ("He was following Lee's orders, and he provided Lee with substantial cavalry assistance, which Lee misused," Winkler wrote); Charles P. Stone, a Union general vilified by the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War (or JCCW, of which the author is repeatedly critical) for his defeat at Ball's Bluff; and Henry Wirz, the commandant of Andersonville, the infamous camp in Georgia for Union prisoners of war.
   
   Winkler is equally passionate in blaming generals for incompetent performances, including Stonewall Jackson for his "chronic tardiness" in the Seven Days' battles (though, as he notes, Jackson was ill); Ulysses S. Grant for his suicidal attack at Cold Harbor; and Grant and William T. Sherman, then one of the former's division commanders, for being "completely and shamefully surprised" at Shiloh. In the book's most provocative passage, Winkler wonders whether Jackson's mortal wounding by his own troops at Chancellorsville might have been an intentional act. Also interesting is Winkler's assertion that George McClellan, in addition to being undone in the Seven Days' battles by his notorious cautiousness, also was undermined by political intrigue leading up to those battles, with Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and the JCCW chairman, Sen. Ben Wade, as the chief culprits.