4 comments about Days on the Road: Crossing the Plains in 1865: The Diary of Sarah Raymond Herndon.

1. informative, and entertaining. This book is well written and proved to bea pleasant read.



2. This diary is well written and thoughtful. The detail is really vivid.



3. I found this diary charming and informative. Having always had a fascination with the time period and wagon trains, I couldn't put this book down. By the end of the book, I was saddened by the fact that Sarah didn't continue recording her life in Montana. I felt as if I had known her personally and was touched by the whole accounting of her travels.



4. Enhanced with a Foreword by Mary Barmeyer O'Brien, Days On The Road: Crossing The Plains In 1865 is the personal diary of Sarah Raymond Herndon, a young pioneer woman who, as the dust from the Civil War settled, left the battle-scarred state of Missouri with her family and traveled overland to the Rocky Mountains in search of a new place to live and a new life to build. Sarah's daily insights, her depictions of life on the trail, her descriptions of the hardships, the triumphs, and the evocations of her memories, combine to form a vivid and accurate image of pioneer life through the words of a pioneer who headed west to escape the ravages of the American Civil War to start her life anew. Days On The Road is a welcome and strongly recommended addition to 19th Century American Studies reading lists and history collections.

4 comments about PANZER GUNNER: From My Native Canada to the German Osfront and Back. In Action with 25th Panzer Regiment, 7th Panzer Division 1944-45.

1. I found this book to be a very personal account of battles on the Eastern Front of WWII. Whilst it might be a little thin on excitement, I prefer the author's honesty, especially with regard to their training regime. I was amazed at how many Russian tanks the Panzers took out in comparison with their own losses. Imagine if Manstein had been permitted to perfect his elastic defence option during 1944/45 instead of Hitler's preferred rigid defence - the losses on the Soviet side would have been far, far greater.
   
   Lastly, the writing style of this book is at times hard to follow, with overuse of commas, etc - but this adds to the authenticity of the account being that the author is not a noted writer.
   
   I enjoyed the book and it gave me a renewed interest in the events of the Eastern Front.



2. For those of you who are keen to read about the fighting on the Eastern Front 1944/45, from the point of view of a German tank crew member, then look no further than this book!
   
   The author was born to ethnic German parents in Canada, and was promptly shipped back to Nazi Germany in early 1939 with his brothers, to help the Third Reich! He ended up learning German, joining the Army, and serving with a Panzer Division fighting the Russians.
   
   This account is humourous, and also detailed, with plenty of technical information about the two vehicles in which the author served, the Panzer IV and Jagdpanzer IV tank hunter.
   
   There are plenty of gems of information, and superb accounts of tank combat against the Russians at the end of the war, about which very little has been published in German or English. Highly recommended, particularly for those interested in armour tactics at the small unit level 1944/45, and for understanding in detail how German tank crews operated their vehicles.



3. Some good insight on personal experiences but not much more. A lot of extra material added to beef up the book. There are better books on the personal experiences of a German soldier. This rates way down on the list of being really interesting.



4. Lots of info about the panzer IV and Jagdpanzer IV and how the crews operated them.

5 comments about The People's Tycoon: Henry Ford and the American Century.

1. The book was in great condition and it arrived right on time! Thank you very much



2. It's a great book with TONS of Information and in Wonderful condition which I received in a very timely manner and MY HUSBAND LOVED IT!



3. Here was this supreme industrial genius, Henry Ford, with a dark side which was hard to understand. Do read the two professional reviews above. They cover some very good ground about this book between them. Beware that, like many overly-highbrow reviewers, both are guilty of the "but" syndrome: they will tell you that Henry Ford was the premier genius of the 20th century, BUT his personality wrecked a lot of things. That implied "but," as any negotiator or linguist will tell you, says that the reviewer didn't mean any of the good stuff before the "but." That's unfair. Reading this quite lengthy book cannot help but let the reader conclude that Ford muscled this country into the modern age we all have now.
   
   The author often brings in Ford's own version of what a modern society ought to be. This is interesting, but not key to U.S. history. It is surprising that this very detailed book does not seem to distinguish the differing importance between: Ford's gifts to manufacturing technology and philosophy - decisive; and his wishes about how people should act in a society - irrelevant. The book makes this point indirectly many times, although the author seems not to catch on himself.
   
   The only really troublesome aspect of "People's Tycoon" is the wandering too freely through time in telling the Ford story. Like many histories in print, the author follows a thread of thought through years, then comes back to other threads of thought (think back to some of our confusing 6th grade history books). If this drives you crazy, then pick another biography of Ford. This may not cause a problem for many readers, but it is understandable that it could be for some, and this is a cautionary note. For example, as Henry Ford lost his intellect slowly through the decades, one might want to know if these losses were happening at the same time as, say, when he was shamefully ranting about races and cultures, or about his misunderstandings with son Edsel Ford. Still, this large work is well researched, and very well worth the time.



4. This is a review of the condition of the book - not the content of the book.
   
   I purchased this because I enjoy biographies of iconic American figures - and at 7.99 this book is hard to pass up so I figured I would add it to m y collection.
   
   This book came wrapped in celephane as a new book would - with a tight binding and inexpensive material for binder cover. The pages at the end of the book did not line up as the same width along the edge where you open the book. It looks like a 100 year old library book where pages could be falling out.
   
   The paper quality for a hardcover book is also below what one would expect. Most of my paperbacks have a better quality more durable paper than this book does.
   
   I guess I'll chalk this up to " You get what you pay for " but If I paid full price for this book - I'd definitely send it back for anohter copy.
   
   I'll try and update the content review of this book later after I read the book. But I'm currently reading another title.



5. How interesting. Henry Ford was the Bill Gates of his day and changed America forever. But he was kind of a nutcase!
   
   This book gets bogged down occassionally by too much information on his social positions. And he sometimes repeats himself. But all-in-all it was a good read and an eye-opener about one of the men who made the American Century. I would recommend it.

5 comments about War Letters: Extraordinary Correspondence from American Wars.

1. Good perspective of several wars from the point of those who served.
   
   Some really touching letters especially when the author reveals
   what happened to the letter writers.
   
   Some good outcomes, some not so much ...



2. There are letters from `very' different types of people such as George W. Bush (after he was shot down) and from George McGovern (who was a bomber pilot). I really don't care whose side (politically speaking) the authors of the various letters represent as long as it deals with the stated topic (WAR LETTERS). This is why I only gave the book 3 stars. What in the blue blazes are letters from Helen Keller (who is writing about a friend she once knew who is now in jail for being an American commie) & a letter from the American commie traitor Alger Hiss doing in the book? Neither of these letters even remotely have anything to do with an American War.
   There are other letters which also have very little to do with a U.S. war but I looked over these as they `sort of' and that is a stretch - were leading up to a war. I do not know for sure - but I believe the author is a left of center sort of guy and it comes through in the letters he chose.



3. This book is a great read. It is refeshing to be able to read words, thoughts and dreams from people as they perform such honorable duty overseas. This book is powerful and should be required reading for all, especially Americans.
   
   Some anti-war activist may think it is "pro-war" but it isn't just that. This book reveals personal thoughts and challenges faced by American military personnel in wars from the Civil War until the later conflicts in the 20th century. It is pro-war, anti-war and everything in between.
   
   This book reminds me of the sacrifice that so many make for their country. It is a great tribute for those who have served.



4. i only gave it three stars because many of the stories were more about patriotism than about the war themselves. Of course every book has its bias so its still a useful and moving read when taken with this grain of salt.



5. I received this book as a gift because my family knows I love reading personal histories from those who lived it and "War Letters" seemed perfect for that. I enjoy learning what life was like for the average citizen in an era, whether its someone riding the Erie Canal in 1840, a foot soldier in the American revolution, or a journal from the Civil War.
   
   This is a remarkable book and taken individually there are many, many heart-rending emotional stories that probably need to be read by many people. It does in fact put a personal face on war. Because it is a collection of letters, the book is easily read in short spurts; you don't want (and shouldn't) read this book quickly.
   
   I only gave the book 4 stars because I actually found it hard to read. While the personal letters (the spelling, mannerisms of the authors) help tell their stories, it also keeps the book from developing any flow. Some letters are agonzingly slow to read and understand. I'm certainly not faulting the authors or their stories; but if you're looking for a great, well-written, smooth-flowing story that you can't put down, this isn't it.

1 comments about The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin.

1. I was surprised how much I enjoyed this book. It lets you know how one of our American icons dealt with the ups and downs of daily life. Curiously, there are a number of typos ("h" for "b" and vice versa).

5 comments about President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman.

1. This is Miller's second book on Lincoln. His first, Lincoln's Virtues, dealt with Lincoln's pre-Civil War career and the formation of Lincoln's character and values. In this and prior books, Miller has been concerned with the intersection of moral demands and political realities in American history. The great problem of slavery is an obvious one but Mlller has also focused on the closely related issue of basic meaning of republicanism. In this book, Miller discusses Lincoln as President. As is typical for all of Miller's books, this is an engagingly written volume, using a well chosen combination of background narrative, quotations, and exegesis of Lincoln's acts and words.
   Miller demonstrates Lincoln's essential commitments to the republican experiment of America and his opposition of slavery. A good deal of the book is careful explication of how Lincoln dealt with the practical political problems of actually realizing his commitments. Miller also spends a considerable number of pages on other admirable aspects of Lincoln's character. Like many writers, Miller presents Lincoln as a remarkably admirable individual, an individual with an unmatched (at least in American history) combination of humane values and political skill.
   While this is a very good book, there is little here that is novel. Miller has drawn on the enormous Lincoln literature, much of which comes to the same conclusions. Miller's view of Lincoln, for example, is not particularly different from that presented in James MacPherson's excellent survey, Battle Cry of Freedom.
   Why did Miller produce a second Lincoln book, especially one covering well trodden ground? Part of the answer is Lincoln's tremendous appeal. But there is another explanation. Lincoln is the greatest war time President and this book is devoted to the moral and political challenges of a great war, the greatest in our history. This clearly has a very contemporary resonance. While Miller makes no direct reference to our present situation, the comparison is inescapable. Lincoln's moral qualities, his humanity, his intelligence and diligence, are a sad reminder of the inadequacies of the present occupant of White House.



2. Many of us have wondered through the years "what really made Abraham Lincoln such a great man?" Often we have read histories and biographies that have attempted to answer that question from any number of viewpoints, many of which are superficial and recitative at best. William Lee Miller has produced, I feel, the definitive work of revealing those character traits, moral underpinnings and intellectual methods that Lincoln not only possessed inherently, but actually labored to develop within himself throughout his truly inspired life. Miller has done this in such a way as to lead us step by step through his socratic method of establishing fact, precendent, context and conclusion. When I was finished with the book, I literally said to myself, "this is so clear now. Why haven't more historians been able to see this before?"
   
   Having read dozens of books and articles on President Lincoln by any number of historians/authors, this book I find to be the best, bar none, in outlining in clear terms and logical methods what made Abraham Lincoln so great - the fact that he was both an intellectual AND a moral giant at the same time.
   
   William Lee Miller continues to show his own intellectual and moral gifts with this hugely satisfying work. I already had a very high opinion of Abraham Lincoln before reading this book, but now I stand in awe of this "simple man from the prairie".



3. William Lee Miller has continued (from Lincoln's Virtues which ends with the 1860 election) with his profound insight to show us the crises which Lincoln faced, the alternatives presented to him and the choices he made. Miller shows us the moral universe around Lincoln and how Lincoln fit into it and how Lincoln brought his own self understanding to it.
   
   There are implications for how Lincoln has shaped the America which followed him. You can argue this or that decision, (this is an objective, warts and all, in depth evaluation), but when the smoke clears, we are better people for Lincoln's leadership.
   
   Miller, makes clear the cruel nature of slavery, and counters those who would obfuscate its essential importance to the meaning of the civil war.
   
   Miller shows that the Bush Presidency, one which has publicly used Lincoln as its model for how to deal with its crisis, has missed the point and upended Lincoln's understanding of freedom and its relationship to the laws and customs of humanity. Our current crisis is to understand freedom for our day. It cannot be done in secret, nor with a population mis-led by slight of hand or even calculated lies.



4. Miller had an almost throwaway line about halfway through the book where he stated his opinion that Lincoln was the most intelligent president we've ever had, bar none -- not even Jefferson.
   
   And, by the time I got done, I came to the impression that this statement (with which I heartily agree) was the fulcrum of the whole book.
   
   Miller breaks Lincoln's Civil War activities down into easily reviewed and analyzed chunks, and in doing so, parses, pulls out, and displays Lincoln's intelligence undergoing presidential growth, meeting the challenges and rising to the occasion.
   
   A couple of other specifics. Miller does an excellent job of defending Lincoln against improperly revisionist historians' (there are properly revisionist historians) charges of racism or similar. Lincoln was moderatly left of center on racial enlightenment, in terms of his day and age, even before becoming president, and grew vastly after taking office. As for colonization ideas, Lincoln was not racist, nor was he alone in proposing colonization, nor was he alone in why he proposed it.
   
   Miller is not a hagiographer, though. He points out that Lincoln did have one notable weakness, indeed somewhat of a failing, in his administration -- Indian affairs. The 1862 Minnesota Sioux uprising and its aftermath are cited as evidence.
   
   That said, had Lincoln served a second term, free from the Civil War, although dealing with Reconstruction, I certainly agree with the implied idea of Miller that Lincoln would have exhibited the same degree of growth in Indian affairs as he did elsewhere.



5. First off , Miller writes well. Very well. The voice is conversational. And the insights flow: how Lincoln saw the war as a transcedent matter(after all the South withdrew from the union because they lost an election; no fundanmental rights were infringed;how can any republican government survive that?); the way Lincoln mixed mercy, strategically used, with a firmness to do anything(and anything covered a lot of ground for Lincoln) within his power to save the idea of a republican government; how he never let it be about him and his needs, but always about the greater needs of the cause he served( the writing on how he dealt with McClellan ,and the border states is superb; makes you wish our current politicans had more of the stuff of which Lincoln was made). A must read for anyone interested in the war and, more importantly, on what makes a great leader, political or otherwise.

5 comments about A Life in Secrets: Vera Atkins and the Missing Agents of WWII.

1. I loved every second of A Life In Secrets. It was like reading the best mystery, spy novel, espionage thriller, personal history, and WWII fact-finding book all in one volume. In it Sarah Helm tells several stories and unravels many mysteries. The obvious story is that of Vera Atkins and her "missing agents", the women (mostly) and men who were dropped into France and other countries by Britain's Special Operations Executive, formed to help assist underground resistance movements in Nazi occupied countries. These agents were civilians who were hand picked and trained to blend in and do their job, and it was Atkins' job to communicate with their families and make sure they were okay.
   
   The obvious aim of Secrets is Helm's biographical telling of the life and career of Vera Atkins, which partially involves interviews with Atkins herself as well as surviving relatives, co-workers, and friends. Just the recounting is fascinating, as Helms travels all over East and West Germany, Roumania, France, Canada, and England, tracking down her tale. Then we have the chronicles of the missing SOE agents and Atkins' dogged pursuit of their fates, however tragic, made even more interesting when Atkins gets approval to travel to France and Germany. Her stories of attendance at war crimes trials, testimonials from concentration camp leaders, guards, and inmates, and her search for closure amongst the wreckage of post-war Europe are detached enough to be clear and objective yet connected enough to be horrifying.
   
   But the deepest and most interesting mystery turns out to be that of Atkins herself. How did Vera Rosenberg, a Roumanian Jew, become naturalized British citizen and SOE leader Vera Atkins? Why was she so interested in Nazi Germany? What drew her to this work, and especially to her dissection of the ends of the lives of her agents? What secrets was Vera Atkins hiding?
   
   The answers to these questions are surprising and a bit disturbing. The lines between good and bad, collaborator and enemy, friend and enemy are blurred. But in the end I had not only a great respect for Atkins and how she did her job (in more ways than one) but for Helm, who solves several deeply buried mysteries. Highly recommended!



2. The extraordinary life of Vera Atkins- the woman who parachuted female secret agents into occupied France during the war, and then in 1945 made it her personal mission to track down the missing agents and find out the awful truth of what had happened to them. Sarah Helm, the author of A Life In Secrets: The story of Vera Atkins and SOE's lost agents, tells the whole story about the underground and dark side of political intrigues, spies and beyond. A most fascinating book.



3. Numerous interviews with family members and friends, aggressive pursuit of declassified documents and old letters, allow secrets to be revealed in this book. A LIFE IN SECRETS traces the history of special agents parachuted into France during World War II and their fate. The bravery of these people, and especially of the women, should always be remembered.
   
   Secret organizations are secret, their files restricted, purged, and hidden. That makes it especially difficult to trace decisions, responsibilities, and fates. To place credit for the actual heroic achievements and to place blame for mistakes and over-developed egos is exceedingly difficult.
   
   This book is meticulously researched and reconstructed and reveals the facts of agents in World War II yet it evades being tedious. The reader is left to decide the personality and motives of various responsible cadre members and who may be a traitor or not.
   
   There is no doubt as to the achievement of the agents or the author of this superb book. It is an extraordinary book about courageous people in monstrous times.



4. It's one thing to be a trained trooper, heavily armed and supported by your comrades. It's another to be a young female civilian, clandestinely landed or air-dropped into enemy occupied territory. Sarah Helms has written a very personal biography, a page-turner that helps today's interested reader access a facet of the war that hasn't been forgotten because it's never been widely known. The portal is Vera Atkins, the woman behind F section at SOE, who was personally responsible for recruiting, training, dispatching and managing civilian female agents in occupied France. It's an inspiring and byzantine story that takes the reader back to the roots of the 20th century. More immediately it makes you shake your head when you realize that many of these young heroines, idealists all, risked and lost their lives owing to the incompetence and betrayal of their colleagues, as well as the twisted and bestial treatment they received from the men and women they faced in German uniforms. It's comforting to know that at least one person - Vera Atkins - felt a personal responsibility to discover the fate of her female agents. Vera's motivations are sometimes questionable and murky, and the tapestry of her roots and experiences are as complex as the war itself. It would have been useful to read more about the specific training of the agents and have more details of their actions in the field. It's not entirely clear what they were supposed to do and what they actually accomplished. More attention on the issue of whether these women were legally considered spieds or not would have helped. Overall Helms book succeeds because it makes an important chapter of the war accessible to today's reader/student. It makes you want to go out and continuing reading on the subject, but one already suspects that her book is one of the best.



5. When I think of secret agents from the United Kingdom, normally I think of MI 5 or MI 6. Another agency was created during World War II--and disbanded at its end--called the Special Operations Executive or SOE. This book is about one woman, Vera Atkins, and her work within this branch of covert operations that sent patriotic men and women spies into France to help bolster the work of the French Resistance prior to the 1944 D-Day invasion at Normandy.
   
   It is obvious from the start of the book that author Sarah Helm has done extensive research on Ms. Atkins, piecing together not only her work for the SOE, but also Ms. Atkins' personal life. For example, Helm was tireless in trying to find exact locations of photos taken during Ms. Atkins' childhood in Romania. At the very beginning of the book the author talks about the one and only encounter she had with Vera Atkins.
   
   At the time of the interview, Ms. Atkins was but a few weeks from her 90th birthday, and chose to speak little of her involvement with the SOE. With that as a backdrop, the author used her skill and connections to interview anyone who had worked with or knew Vera Atkins to put together a very interesting story. The book is written in narrative form, but at times Helm drops into the text a snippet from one of these various interviews with survivors from that era. Most of the book is about how Vera Atkins tracked down leads on the agents who didn't return or were presumed dead, because Ms. Atkins felt responsible to give an accurate accounting to the families that were unaware their missing family members were agents.
   
   When reading this book, you are aware that you are reading about British history by a British author. One of the ways that this is evident is by the author's liberal usage of French phrases, some of which are not translated into English. For a British audience this may not be a problem, but for the average American audience, it can be troubling at times.
   
   Armchair Interviews says: A fascinating story about World War II and well worth the time to read.

5 comments about Memoirs of General W.T. Sherman (Library of America).

1. As a writer Sherman was a natural. This book is a wonderful read and I've heard that it is the most important of all of the Civil War era autobiographies and I believe it. Everything that can be said of the book has been said in the many reviews, but I would just like to add my approval. Highly recommended book.



2. There's the example of Julius Caesar, of course. And in America, there was Ulysses Grant, whose orders and dispatches were so concise and unequivocal that they were credited by his subordinates for many of his victories. Grant's Memoirs are widely recognized as a classic of autobiography, as much for their literary merit as for their content. I've had this Penguin edition of "Cump" Sherman's Memoirs on my shelf for so long that the price is about a third of the current, but I've never been tempted to read them, chiefly because of Sherman's reputation for inhumanity during his service against the trans-Mississippi Indians.
   A couple days ago, however, I opened the book on a whim and started reading, and I've hardly looked at anything else since. The writing is fantastic! Utterly unadorned yet vividly descriptive. Witty, and that's a surprise! Forthright, modest, down-to-earth. As thoroughly planned as one of his campaigns, which I find may be explained in part by his frequent assignment of logistic tasks in his early military career. He knew how to move supplies and keep account of where things were.
   
   Like any 19th C memoirist, or any Viking skald, Sherman feels obliged to trace his ancestry for a few pages, which I confess didn't immediately stir my interest. Then, however, when he begins his narrative of his military service in Florida, against the Seminoles, suddenly the saga comes to life. I learned more from this one chapter, as a primary source, about the early Americanization of Florida than from anything I've read elsewhere. I could feel the rash from the palmetto on my skin. Likewise, the two chapters on his years in California just after the invasion of Mexico, took me to Monterey, to Yerba Buena before it became San Francisco, and up the river to Sutter's Mill and the Gold Rush Country more vividly, more "virtually" in the game-boy sense of the word, than any historian's account of those years. Sherman was, in his blunt style, as fine a writer as Twain. No wonder he was so effective as a general. Good writers make good generals, as I said before. My thesis is proven; I'll be sending a sample of my reviews here on amazon to the new Commander-in-Chief in Washington next February, in hopes of an appointment in the field. I will, of course, in true 19th C fashion, remind Pres. Obama of my ardent electioneering on his behalf.
   
   [I had no intention of reviewing this book until I finished it, but the first 112 pages have been so exciting that I wanted to share them. I plan now to add paragraphs to this report as I continue reading.]
   
   One of the thrills of reading Sherman's account of his years in California is encountering the street names of San Francisco -- Mason, Larkin, Stockton, Ord -- incarnated as ardent young bucks, flesh-and-blood yearning for the accomplishments you know lie well in their futures. It's also intriguing - poignant, if you will - to find Sherman hunting geese or courting señoritas in company with young fellow officers whom he will be thrashing on the battlefields in another fifteen years.
   
   * It's worth noting that Sherman was only slightly more successful during the 1850s than Grant. Despite his intrepid energy, probity, and obvious business skills, he found himself in 1858 with no significant wealth, no stable occupation, and a family of a wife and four daughters. Perhaps it wasn't so easy, after all, for a person without deep pockets to achieve success in ante-bellum America, except by luck, dishonesty, or slavery. Sherman's last job before the elction of Lincoln was as the superintendent of a "military seminary," that is, a school for the sons of planters, in Louisiana. Knowing that his moderate criticisms of the slave system would get him fired anyway, Sherman resigned as soon as Lincoln was elected. No one around him in Louisiana expressed any doubt that the preservation of slavery was the "fighting issue" behind secession.
   
   ** As Sherman left his youth behind and entered the fray of the Civil War, he shifts his tone from that of an adventurous raconteur to an earnest historian, and I've found that I need to read him differntly also, less for pleasure than for historical knowledge. I've slowed down and taken time to evaluate his reportage in comparison to what I already 'know' of Civil War historiography. Sherman's manner of constructing his narrative also changed; he began to incorporate documents - his field reports and letters, the field reports of other officers, etc. By the mid 1870's when Sherman wrote these memoirs, the true course of events and the soundest interpretation of them were already afire with controversy.
   Two insights, from Sherman's perspective: 1) the elite Louisianans whom Sherman conflicted with, over the act of secession, were amazingly confident that there would be no war and that their 'peculiar institution' would thrive. They were all remarkably civil and genteel in their agreement to disagree, and Sherman departed without obstruction and with his pay in his pocket! 2) from Sherman's perspective, right at the front firing line with his green regiments, the Battle of Bull Run was a wash; either nobody won or both sides did, but neither side had the military skills to follow up and inflict a tactical victory. The war would continue until somebody on one side or the other knew how to win... and as "we" know, that would be Grant and Sherman himself.



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



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



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

5 comments about Woodrow Wilson.

1. Having read many of H.W. Brands' works, I found this book was written with that same Brands style I've grown to enjoy so much. It is a narrative of Wilson's life, including his youth and adolescence, governorship, presidency, and post-presidential years. Like Brands' other books, this one had me on the edge of my seat, unable to put the book down at times.
   
   That being said, this book is only 139 pages (sans notes and index). It's broadly written and lacks the detail of a thicker, more traditional in-depth biography. After finishing this book I was still thirsty to learn more about this captivating president.
   
   One feature I really liked about this book is the section near the end entitled 'Selected Bibliography.' Not only does Brands list over 30 works about Wilson, he adds brief comments about each one such as "The finest single-volume biography. Sympathetic but objective." Another simply reads: "Handle with care."
   
   Thanks to this list of additional readings, I found another book with much more detail that I am currently reading. While it covers more depth, it's quite boring in comparison because it just doesn't have that Brands style.
   
   To Brands' credit, I think the brevity of this book is at least partially because it is one book of the multiple-volume "The American Presidents" series edited by Arthur Schlesinger - there may have been some editing or length issues to make this book more uniform with the rest of the series.
   
   At any rate, Brands' "Woodrow Wilson" is the best book for learning about the president overall for starters. If you still want more detail, skim through the comments in the "Selected Bibliography" to find a book that interests you.
   
   I would recommend buying the HARDCOVER version of Brands' Woodrow Wilson, because if you remove the dust jacket, you see Wilson's signature embossed into the front cover.



2. Many people ask when they found out that I'm a political scientist: "When has a political scientist ever affected politics?" Frankly, there are quite a few who have done so (think Henry Kissinger, for instance). But, above all, there is Woodrow Wilson. He served as President of the American Political Science Association and wrote a series of works that are still viewed as classics in the study of politics and public administration.
   
   This biography, another of those brief looks at presidents in "The American Presidents" series, does its job well. While I agree with other reviewers that this is such a brief volume that it glosses over much of Wilson's career, the series is what it is. And I think it somewhat unfair to criticize the book for working within the parameters imposed upon it.
   
   That said, this is a capable biography. I think a little more information about his early career, his life as an academic, an academic administrator, and governor may be covered too briefly even for this series. But that is not atypical.
   
   The book does give a sense of his persona--aloofness, stubbornness, rigidity, certitude, erudition, persuasive ability--and how this helped him succeed, but also could lead him to take stands that hurt his cause.
   
   The volume lays out the accomplishments with which he is associated, advancing the progressive agenda, enunciating a political perspective ("The New Freedom"), and the like. It also addresses his foreign policy--from the not terribly successful Mexican adventure to his leadership of the country in World War I to his efforts to transform global governance after the war (note his 14 points and his effort to establish a meaningful "League of Nations").
   
   He ran into political opposition with the League. The book does a nice job--even with its brevity on this score--explaining why he failed and how the effort here plus preexisting medical problems led to his breakdown and the strange last months of his presidency.
   
   There were contradictions with Wilson--his Southern background was associated with racism, even as his ideals led him to assist workers throughout the country with his Progressive policies. If you want a quick introduction to Wilson that nonetheless provides some understanding of his presidency, you could do a lot worse than visiting this volume.



3. H.W. Brands has written ambitious biographies of American historical figures, including a major work on the life of Andrew Jackson. Here, in keeping within the format of the American Presidents Series, Brands has writtten a shorter, but nontheless, insightful work. Wilson might have been a great president but, he was flawed. He was stubborn and uncompromising. Although he suffered a major stroke in his second term, he evidentally had suffered other, less serious strokes over the years. It is difficult to say whether his physical condition led to his unwillingness to yield but, much that could have been accomplished through compromise never came to fruition.
   
   An early sign of Wilson's concreteness appeared during his presidency of Princeton University. There was a dispute as to whether the graduate school should be located on the main campus or at another site. Wilson, a proponent of locating it on campus refused to negotiate a compromise and the project was stalled.
   
   Wilson was a Virginian and his racial attitudes were that of the Jim Crow South. However, being president of Princeton established his credentials as a New Jersey resident and Democratic party leaders put him up for governor of that state. He was elected and he showed remarkable independence as he proposed reforms that disappointed the party leaders and led them to consider him to be an ingrate. Later, when he was elected President of the United States, he continued his reform path in domestic matters.
   
   What defined his presidency was World War I and its aftermath. After the war, Wilson traveled to Europe to negotiate the peace treaty. On a tour of Europe, he was cheered wildly whereever he went. He was a genuine hero. However, in the negotiations England and France sought to impose harsh terms on Germany whereas Wilson sought more leniency. The heart of Wilson's Fourteen points proposal was a League of Nations. This League was included in the treaty and Wilson's next major battle was to get the Senate to ratify it. Here is where Wilson's stubborness did him in. Rather than negotiate with Republicans in the Senate, led by Henry Cabot Lodge, Wilson bypassed them and took his case to the people in a speaking tour. This was not the way to win favor in the Senate.
   
   Wilson's most egregious error, probably compounded by his stroke, was his total unwillingness to yield on one point regarding the League of Nations; i.e. a clause that required members to come to the aid of other members militarily. Republicans in the Senate were concerned that this clause might weaken US sovereignty. They noted that under the Constitution, it was the Senate, not the President who decalred war. Paul Johnson, in his "History of the American People" noted that if one of Great Britain's colonial possessions, such as India, had been attacked, the treaty might require the United states to get involved militarily. Anyway, Wilson refused to allow a reservation which would clarify the United States' understanding of the clause to the satisfaction of Lodge and other concerned Senators. Accordingly, the treaty didn't pass the Senate.
   
   The tragedy of the Wilson presidency is that so much more could have been accomplished. He was a great reformer on domestic issues and was a popular war president. However, his one major flaw kept him from achieving true greatness. Brand does a good job in capturing the essence of Wilson and I recommend this book.



4. You must guard your expectations on a biography (especially of a two term president) that only reads 138 pages. However, I thought that H.W. Brands could add his typical free flowing style and story-telling ability to make a completely satisfying short-read. Unfortuantely, Brands delivers his least inspired performance in telling the story of Wilson. Obviously, the context of the project (a short "taste" on the life of Wilson) curtailed Brands style, which I found to be my biggest disappointment.
   
   As a whole - the life of Wilson is fascinating - a great turning point in the life of "liberals" (While Wilson would certainly not be considered a "liberal" by today's standards). Wilson implemented the 8 hour work day, the FTC, and stiffened anti-trust laws.... not to mention a monstrous epidemnic of the flu... and oh yeah.... World War I. Unfortunately - most of these issues are just briefly touched on (The flu epidemic was not even mentioned).
   
   As a whole - I found this to be a fair brief glimpse into the life of Wilson. However, I would have love to read one of Brand's standard 400 pagers on the life of Wilson.



5. No one can truly understand the issues of the modern era without knowledge of of the man who mid-wifed it into existence, Woodrow Wilson. In his biography of Wilson's presidency, Professor H.W. Brands brings his insightful style and keen sense of relationships between critical events. One learns enough from this rather short book to ask the next set of more interesting questions.

   Absent Wilson, would there have been a central bank, the Federal Reserve, in the U.S.? How did the Wilson presidency effect the direction of the national income tax? What did Wilson do to foster the growth of centralized federal power in the U.S.?

   Absent Wilson's inept diplomacy, would the U.S. have become so involved in World War I, first by funding Britain and France, and then by participating in the combat? Would the Great War have lasted so long and caused so much damage to the fabric of European civilization and colonial influence? Would the world ever have heard of Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini, veterans both of front line combat?

   Absent U.S. participation in the European War, would a pedestrian lawyer, and middling state-level politician named Franklin Delano Roosevelt have found his first federal job as Assistant Secretary of the Navy? Would the U.S. ever have bred such soldiers as Douglas MacArthur and Harry Truman, and most of the rest of the list of future political-military leaders of mid-century?

   Absent events put into motion by Wilson, would Russia have broken up and descended into a Bolshevik Revolution? Would the Ottoman Empire have dissolved, to spawn the modern politics of the Middle East? Would the concept of League of Nations/world governance ever have gained the traction it did?

   Had Wilson never been president, would the U.S. and the world have had a far different 20th Century? Or was Wilson just one man in a particular time of great change? Germany and Italy had been building centralized, debt-financed governance for 40 years by the time Wilson walked into the White House. So did Wilson make history, guide history , or was he merely governed by historical forces whose time had come?

   Like it or not, we lived the 20th Century in Wilson's Century, and in the 21st Century we still follow the path he blazed. Wilson's ghost hovers over the plains of the Republic, walks the halls of power in every government building, and touches the lives of every person who draws a breath.

4 comments about Romanovs: Ruling Russia 1613-1917.

1. Information wise the book was ok - it covered a lot of subjects and poorly waved the people together. I fell like this book could have been longer and at one time was, but a lot of info was cut out. There were times that it seemed to me that it jumped from topic to topic, I am giving the author the benefit of the doubt when I say that information was cut out. Because either it was weathered down or just poorly written. It did not do a very good job on showing who these people were just highlighted some of the things they did. I would not even say this book gave me a good base or foundation on the Romanos.



2. History of a topic long of interest, but to review this would be a disservice to the author. Exellent, easy interesting read.



3. This is a very well-written history of the Romanov dynasty and its effect on the Russia it ruled for more than 300 years. The late author paints a vivid picture of even the most unheralded tsar, and the political and social life at the time of each reign. I would have wished for a bit more of the history of the expansion of the country, but I understand that in a sweeping narrative of this type there is not room for everything, or else the book will rival "War and Peace" in length. Occasionally the plethora of Russian names gets a bit confusing, but that isn't a distraction from the inherent quality of the work. If you are fascinated about Russian history, as I am, you will definitely enjoy this work.



4. The book is a well written summary of the orgins of the Romanovs and their ultimate claim to the Russian throne. Each of the Tsars ,who ruled during the three hundred and four years of the Romanov dynasty, has a chapter that discusses their reign in a concise fashion. I recommend the book for those who are interested in the Tsars and their affect on the Russian people and the disaster which they caused with the culmination of the Russian Revolution of 1917.