5 comments about Jefferson's Secrets: Death And Desire In Monticello.

1. The good stuff in this book is invaluable to anyone with a serious interest in Jefferson. I'd award five stars for such unique scholarship, but I've subtracted two stars as a rebuke to the author and to his editors, if there were any, for perverse self-indulgence. The readability of "Jefferson's Secrets" is damaged by its repetitiousness; Burstein even repeats the same quotations from Jefferson's letters in three and four chapters, without significantly adding to his exegesis. But a more serious flaw is Burstein's rhapsodic admiration of Jefferson's mind at the same time that he protrays the man as a consummate hypocrite and egotist--not only a slave-owner and unreconstructed racist but an exploiter of servants to the point of callously making one his concubine, a Jacobin in rhetoric who lived in the style of an ancien regime aristocrat, a man who gave his daughters a decorous education yet maintained that women had no claim to equality. Burstein's defense seems to be that we should forgive Jefferson's inconsistencies because he was conflicted, and a man of his times. Indeed, the central theme of the book is to demonstrate exactly how Jefferson was a man of his times, whose world-view was shaped by the ideas and particularly the scientific knowledge of the Enlightenment. That's the good stuff, the analysis of what Jefferson himself thought he meant by what he said and wrote, given the "vocabulary" of his time and place. However, in the next breath Burstein proceeds to declare that Jefferson was in some sense the first Modern Man, a harbinger of Romanticism precisely because of his ambiguities, the very same ambiguities that Burstein has just dispelled. Really, Professor Burstein, it seems to be YOU who are conflicted, by your adulation of the "timeless" Jefferson even while you pin the human Jefferson to the cultural matrix of his lifetime!



2. There is next to nothing here that caught my interest. I was looking forward very much to this work, and I was extremely disappointed in it. I had just finished an excellent biography of John Adams, which impelled me to try this one. I can only recommend that you don't waste your time. Every moment on this book was, to me, a complete waste of time.



3. Thomas Jefferson was a great and brilliant, but flawed and unconventional man. What can the zillionth book add that hasn't already been said? Quite a lot. It should not be anybody's first book on Jefferson, but it should be everybody's second, or third. Of course, Burstein hasn't got Jefferson "figured out", but neither does anyone else.....
   
   This wonderful volume focuses on Mr. Jefferson's later years, and does give us a good view of his thought processes. Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and Jefferson can be quoted to "prove" ANYTHING. "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that this people are to be free,..." The inscription on the wall of the Jefferson Memorial ends with a period, but look up the rest of the quote. I use the comma deliberately. He who said that "All men are created equal" also had things to say about the orangutang. And he also had sex with his slave, Sally? Well...maybe. In any event, he documented his views on this subject, too, complete with charts. The ongoing arguement with John Marshall gets coverage, too. It has been more completely documented elsewhere, but Burstein does an excellent job. This feud is truly one of the most profound topics in American history. It spanned from their early years till the day Jefferson died, and beyond, going from a rivalry, to disagreement, to blind, unreasoning, hatred after the Aaron Burr treason case of 1807. My own opinion is that the cause of the whole mess was multifaceted, involving familial, personal, political, and philosophical elements. {Not religious; they agreed about that} In this battle of giants, we have the origin of the Civil War, and of much of our political conflict today. An athiest who "swore on the altar of God"? This is covered, too. Jefferson may not have been orthodox, but he was assuradely not an athiest. A slave owner who hated slavery? Not unusual...the same is true of George Washington, Patrick Henry, John Marshall, George Wythe, and Robert E. Lee. {Lee inherited his slaves, and freed them before he had to}. A word of caution; though some of the founding fathers did not believe in slavery, they certainly did not believe in Black equality, either.
   
   Andrew Burstein has produced a superb work. As I said, NOT a first book on the subject, but an essential one. For a first book, see Joseph Ellis, or Noble Cunningham. Dumas Malone is, of course, definitive, but few will mine the gold in those six profound volumes.



4. Burstein has written an insightful book on the Jefferson, as he says, that has usually been ignored by many other historians, i.e. in the period after his presidency. Specifically, Burstein analyzes the thoughts and attitudes held by Jefferson on life, the role of women and slaves in society, religion, freedom of thought, politics and other topics. The Jefferson that emerges from Burstein's study is a multi-faceted man who both inspires awe for his intelligence and his abilities but also sets him in place as a creature of his time, especially concerning the issue of slavery.
   
   Burstein is especially keen on observing Jefferson's use of words to convey his inner most feelings and thoughts. He is especially observant of the medical terminology that Jefferson uses in discussing many different subjects. As Burstein mentioned, he usually didn't give his correspondent everything he was looking for in terms of revealing his innermost thoughts and secrets. After his presidency, Jefferson preferred a retreat from the public sphere and generally guarded his privacy. But we do get to understand Jefferson's devotion to his family, his sometimes very contradictory statements on human liberty and freedom especially when juxtaposed against the very present institution of slavery, his views on republican government and many other areas that he expounded on.
   
   There are friends, family members, well-known politicians, doctors, thinkers and others who emerge in Burstein's book, mainly through the correspondence that Burstein uses to help bring light to the elusive aspects of Jefferson's attitudes and sensibilities. The controversies surrounding Jefferson and the institution of slavery are discussed, especially concerning the generally accepted sexual relationship with Sally Hemings, with interesting insights by Burstein on Jefferson's attitudes on sexual relationships, racial differences and so forth. Though he would be considered a racist today, he was a creature of his time, with an odd, but seemingly well-thought out view of the nature of the races (not that his view was right).
   
   Burstein really does try to understand the foundations of Jefferson's inner beliefs and sensibilities. Jefferson was a devotee to the rights of man (though this didn't include everyone in his day), his family (he was especially close to his granddaughter Ellen), and the principles of republican government. Interestingly, despite his advocacies, he often turned to others to make the effort to combat his political opponents, we see this in his wanting to combat the histories written by such Federalists as Chief Justice Marshall.
   
   The reader will get to see snippets of the inner Jefferson in this book. Burstein, as he stated he wanted to accomplish, succeeds fairly well in presenting the living Jefferson as opposed to the dying Jefferson, though we do read of the effects of aging and other health issues that gradually took their toll on his physical body. We see the many facets of this highly intelligent human being who was such an influence in his day and through his words, actions and ideals continues to be to the present. The debates go on.



5. Jefferson has now fallen into the same category as Lincoln: given the zillions of books already written about him, what is there left to add? Burstein's previous book on TJ ("The Inner Jefferson") established that he had quite a lot to contribute to the literature, much of it quite unique in perspective. The same is certainly true of this volume as well.
   
   The focus here is on the retired Jefferson (1809-1826), and much of the author's material is drawn from TJ's private papers after leaving office. One of Burstein's great virtues--perhaps his greatest virtue--is that he looks for unique aspects not generally already addressed by other historians. For example, the impact of "time and mortality" on TJ's thought; his medical concerns and how these concerns are reflected in the unique vocabulary of the 18th Century (e.g., what is the meaning of "sensation"?); and whether there is something to learn about his political views from looking at these issues. Similarly, how did he conceive of "nature"?
   
   Burstein also looks at that perennial issue of TJ and slavery, including an interesting chapter on "sex with a servant" in an effort to probe that relationship. Did TJ's affinity for the ancient Greeks impact on his relationship with Sally Hemmings?--this is the kind of issue that only Burstein would explore. The most fascinating section I found dealt with Jefferson's efforts to get favorable history written so that his record would remain untarnished after his death. I am not quite sure anyone else has dealt with this issue. Finally, the topic is TJ and dying, which ends up focusing upon TJ's religious orientation during this period. Burstein's research is, as usual, prodigious as he searches for evidence to support his interpretations. While a great deal of speculation and imaginative thinking are at work here, Burstein continues to generate scintillating and provocative work that is highly unique and valuable. While one may not always agree with his interpretations, the process of considering them continues to be of substantial value.

5 comments about The Pianist: The Extraordinary True Story of One Man's Survival in Warsaw, 1939-1945.

1. One of those amazing stories that makes you realize just how much the human spirit can take, and still survive. And just how inhumane we humans can be towards each other. Once you start reading, you won't be able to put this down.



2. Szpilman reveals the tragedy of Jewish life in Warsaw under the German occupation from 1939-1946. Szpilman's autobiographical work was first published in postwar Poland in 1946 but then quickly removed from circulation by Polish authorities. An accomplished pianist before the war, Szpilman played for Polish Radio during the siege of Warsaw and later within the Jewish ghetto to provide food for his parents and siblings. With the systematic liquidation of Jewish life in Warsaw and separation from his family, Szpilman's life took a series of surprising twists. As the reader views life in the ghetto through the eyes of a survivor, his escape from the ghetto before the Jewish up-rising and his ultimate survival consistently depended upon a timely combination of luck and sympathetic acquaintances B including a German army officer.
   
   Included with Szpilman's memoirs are excerpts from Captain Wilm Hosenfeld's diaries and Wolf Biermann's own brief commentary. Hosenfeld's equating of National Socialism with Stalinist Communist and Biermann's emphasis on Szpilman's willingness to break with his past detracts from the overall quality of this work. Nevertheless, this work is well written and will retain the reader's attention to the end.



3. I could not put down this book, and read it in two sittings. Wladyslaw Szpilman, the famed pianist and composer, describes his harrowing account of life under Nazi terror. As a Polish Jew, Szpilman was considered by the Nazis to be entirely subhuman, and it is a miracle he survived the persistent and random acts of violence that surrounded him. He was nearly sent to a death camp along with his five family members, and somehow was pulled off the Birkenau-bound train to a grim prospect of survival. The images in this book are harrowing, such as the depiction of the shattered skulls of little girls, victims of the Nazis' "preferred" method of killing children by picking them up by their legs and swinging them into a brick wall. Imagine the horror....Szpilman's account is so matter-of-fact at times that you wonder how he survived. The fact that he did is a testament of human endurance, but also the ways of fate. There were occasions when he survived simply by the luck of the draw in a Godless universe.



4. Why do I consider a first person account detailing the horrors of the Holocaust to be uplifting? The events described by the author are harrowing and nearly unbelieveable to the degree that I was astonished that the man, in the end, survives. Perhaps that is why I am so uplifted by this story. He survived. He defied evil by daring to live. He also dared to pick up the pieces of his shattered life and continue to live. He does this without any fanfare or obvious heroism. I think that is what makes this particular telling of the Holocaust so remarkable. The author writes it in such an unremarkable fashion that it forces you to sit up and take notice. By simply stating that the caramel was his 'family's last meal together' makes you pause to reflect on such an event. Beautifully written. Highly reccommended.
   
   As a side note, Roman Polanski's adaptation of this book is truely brilliant. Adrien Brody's portrayal of Szpilman is awe inspiring and heart wrenching to watch. Both men do the book and Szpilman's memory justice.



5. I don't have too much to add to the other reviewers; having seen the movie I had a pretty good idea what to expect.
   
   Probably the most interesting thing about the book version is the diary of a German officer who helped save Spilman. The officer's diary (from 1942-44) shows that he was aware of the Nazi extermination camps by mid-1942; he explained that most Jews were "so weak from starvation and misery that they couldn't offer any resistance." By December 1943, he knew that Germany would lose the war, but suggests that Germans would not revolt because "no one would risk his life by standing up to the Gestapo."

1 comments about Terror of the Autumn Skies: The True Story of Frank Luke, America's Rogue Ace of World War I.

1. Blaine Pardoe does a credible job telling the story of WW I Ace, Frank Luke, Jr. New information about his fiancé is interesting, but he spends too much time trying to refute other writer's claims about this Ace from Arizona's ultimate demise.
   
   The book moved along at a novel-like pace, but if it goes to a re-print, needs more careful editing. I found so many sentences with structure problems; enough to give an English teacher heartburn. Subject-predicate and pronoun problems abound. This detracted from a great story.
   
   I also disagree with his underlying assumption that Luke didn't have PTSD, which was so apparent with other Aces at the front, including Luke. Pardoe mentions some of Luke's personal problems, while glossing over others.
   
   I also found his attempt to lower Luke's number of "kills," even with data to the contrary. Let's face it, Luke doesn't need to have his reputation rehabilitated like that of Billy Bishop, the controversial Canadian Ace who's "kill" record is more than he's entitled to. Bishop was a known liar, who inflated his "kill rate" and his morals and ethics are still hotly defended/debated to this day.
   
   The Pardoe book is a great read, but needs some serious editing.

5 comments about Baa Baa Black Sheep.

1. My family and I enjoyed this show so much that my wife actually started clapping at the end of one episode! She didn't even realize it! I watched this show as a young boy and loved it. We really hope that the second season is put out on DVD!!!



2. I was deeply touched by Pappy Boyington's thoughtful and apparently honest insights about himself in this book. Especially interesting was his descriptive telling of the 20 months he spent as a secret prisoner of the Japanese. His appreciation of cultural difference seems ahead of his time. His very human flaws made the book even more interesting to me. From the difficult upbringing he had, I can appreciate what he was to accomplish in his life (flaws and all).



3. The autobiography of one of America's top five aerial combat aces of World War II, Greg Boyington, is not only a great read about a very gifted and very human pilot, but also provides some enlightening historical insight that applies even today.



4. PIPPY PAPPY SLIPPY SLAPPY DIS WAS A GOODY WOODY BOOKY WOOKY. PAPPY WAPYPY SLIPPY SLAPPY
   SQUISH SQUASH IM TAKEN A WASHSQUISH SQUASH IM TAKEN A WASHSQUISH SQUASH IM TAKEN A WASHSQUISH SQUASH IM TAKEN A WASHSQUISH SQUASH SQUISH SQUASH IM TAKEN A WASHIM TAKEN A WASHSQUISH SQUASH IM TAKEN A WASHSQUISH SQUASH IM TAKEN A WASHSQUISH SQUASH IM TAKEN A WASHSQUISH SQUASH IM TAKEN A WASHSQUISH SQUASH SQUISH SQUASH IM TAKEN A WASHIM TAKEN A WASH



5. I came to this book believing that "Pappy" Boyington was a pugnacious drunken spendthrift that the Marine Corps was anxious to be rid of, and that he may not have been the leading Marine Corps ace of World War II as he was thought to be. From what I had read, Boyington spent most of his time on the ground as a member of the American Volunteer Group (AVG), better known as "The Flying Tigers," and was only credited with shooting down 3 ½ Japanese planes (although he claimed six). I also understood that Boyington left the AVG early and was the only man ever dishonorably discharged from that organization. In addition, I questioned his account of the final action in which he was shot down, another unseen action in which he claimed two more enemy planes.
   
   After reading this book, however, I'm not quite so sure. In it, Boyington readily admits that he was a "drunk" and a "bum," and he allows as how he liked to wrestle a bit. As to his claim of six enemy planes while with the AVG, his explanation is easily believable. As he explains it: In order to get credit for a kill with the AVG you almost had to bring your victim back to the landing field in your teeth and drop it where everyone could see it, whereas the majority of his kills had been 75 to 100 miles away, most times behind enemy lines. In addition, and most likely with some merit, he states that the records of his actions at Rangoon were lost when that city fell to the Japanese. With regard to his being "dishonorably discharged" from the AVG, Boyington acknowledges that he left shortly before the remaining volunteers were forced/coerced into the Army Air Corps as 2nd lieutenants. But once again his explanation rings true. Boyington correctly states that he wasn't the only member of the AVG to leave the group, that the reason he left was because he wanted to return to the Marine Corps rather than be conscripted into the Army, and that it was ridiculous to claim that you could "dishonorably discharge" someone from a civilian volunteer organization. As to his account of his final, once again unseen action, Boyington's account is so vivid as to be easily believable.
   
   Having read a number of books which touched upon the life and times of Gregory "Pappy" Boyington before reading this one, I had already formed a somewhat negative impression of the man. After reading this book, however, I have concluded that it is one thing to view a man from the outside, especially from a distance in time, recounting his every fault and failure, but it is quite another thing to view that same man from the inside looking out.
   
   So, although much about Boyington is and will always remain a mystery, he certainly was an American hero and he certainly could tell an interesting, believable, and highly entertaining tale. And this is one of them. But don't stop reading too early. You certainly won't want to miss the chapters in which he recounts his nineteen months as a "captive" of the Japanese. To me, that's the best part of the book. Six stars anyone?

No comments about The Hero.

5 comments about America's Constitution: A Biography.

1. This is a remarkable book. The author's knowledge, insight, analysis and synthesis are amazing. There's too much to praise about it, so I'll just mention one aspect: Amar makes a very compelling case that from the beginning slavery was a disease spreading infection in our society and political system (aided by the 3/5 clause), increasingly corrupting our character and institutions until a terribly bloody breaking point was reached. The evil was partially righted, then amorality returned, allowing a viciousness to fester until another crisis led to new progress. But it remains that slavery and its legacy constitute the central national failure, which we still haven't nearly corrected. Most of the book is quite positive, and slavery's not the principal focus, but Amar's treatment of it is both convincing and unforgettable.



2. For decades I've been wandering about with a mish mash of semi-contradictory ideas about the constitution. Mr. Amar has managed to correct, justify, and reframe most of them into a (_thoroughly_ documented) coherent whole.
   
   Where the constitution is unclear, he quotes the debates and letters of the founders explaining what they meant. Where there is modern debate, he footnotes where to look for different viewpoints. Where there was debate during the writing of the constitution, he tells you who said what and why.
   
   That would probably be enough to earn 5 stars, but he somehow managed to turn an erudite treatise on the history of one government into a page-turner. I don't know how, but there it is...



3. Wow, I learned more about the consitution then I ever could have imagined. I didn't have any idea about many of the themes and debates over the constitution and it's amendments. I'm a novice at political thinking, before the presidential campaign I could've care less about politics. Some of this is a bit over my head since I don't have a background in law or political history. However, Mr. Amar explains it well enough that most should understand. I can't recommend it enough for anyone interested in the constitution.



4. Although there are some tedious places, the book has a number of very valuable and interesting insights - especially the topics of the Second Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, and the "privileges and immunities" clause stood out for me. He does a good job interweaving historical context and the text of the document. There are some unexpected emphases and omissions:for example, it emphasizes slavery more often and more heavily than I expected for an issue that was resolved 140 years ago, and there was a little less on the Bill of Rights and on executive power than I was expecting, although those are more contemporary issues. His chapter on the path, pre-Civil War to the 13th amendment, was terrifically concise but there is very little discussion on the issue of habeas corpus during the war. These aren't complaints, just notifications; overall it was very stimulating. Like most constitutional scholars, he has some outside-the-box interpretations that are obviously developed to accomplish a particular outcome but these are fruitful to reflect on as well.



5. What an absolutely fantastic reference! Much of this book's praise has been sung by previous reviewers, but I'd like to add that I especially appreciate Amar's powerful paradoxes and equally profound "what-ifs." Buy the man's book so he blesses all of our futures with even more jewels of his erudition.

5 comments about Memoirs (Penguin Classics).

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



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



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



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



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

5 comments about The Road to Unafraid: How the Army's Top Ranger Faced Fear and Found Courage through.

1. Well written, and an eye opening account of the Somalia debaucle; an asset to Blackhawk Down and the ingedients necessay to became an Army Ranger.



2. A couple years ago, I checked this book out from the library and read it for the first time. Right there, it became one of my favorite military books, alongside Entebbe (Iddo Netanyahu) and Zvi (Elwood McQuaid). Although I didn't see Blackhawk Down until just recently (and that being an edited, more family-friendly version), Cpt. Streucker describes the battle very well, not just the physical aspects, but also the more important spiritual and moral aspects, which the film failed to touch on. I highly recommend this book; it's an inspiring read that will strengthen your faith.



3. Jeff is a proven leader and his story is one that will impact multitudes. Thanks for your courage. -A US Navy Chaplain



4. Fantastic! Jeff Struecker's personal testimony touches the heart and shows man's utter need for Christ in our lives. Themes such as courage, faith, loyalty and death are ingrained into your mind while reading Captain's Struecker's vivid recollection of events such as the Black Hawck down incident in Somalia, the Panama invasion, and his time as an elite U.S. Ranger. Jeff is truly an inspiration. I have bought a half dozen copies of this book for friends and family.



5. This book was in excellent condition exactly as described. Shipping time arrived as expected.

5 comments about Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters.

1. I think Lee would have liked this book. Remember, Robert E. Lee was a devout Christian. According to Lee's Bible, Jesus Christ said that nobody is "good" but God. Lee was a humble man, and all his life he tried to learn from his own mistakes, his father's, those of others'. That's to say, yes, Robert E. Lee did make mistakes on occasion. And so, I'd bet the one most opposed to the "Marble Man" myth would be Lee himself. I liked this book.



2. Robert Edward Lee (1807-1870) has won immortal fame among the great military captains of all time. Thousands of articles and books have been written about him. His most notable biographer is Douglas Southall Freeman's adulatory multivolumed work by a Lee worshipper. In recent years several revisionary works have appeared by the likes of Alan Nolan
   who have castigated Lee for his white supremacist views Now it is the turn of Elizabeth Brown Pryor.
   Pryor has sifted through over 10,000 pages of letters from Lee, his wife Mary and the Lee family. She has almost 200 densely written pages in her book listing first and secondary sources. She has done her homework!
   Pryor has produced what is, in my opinion, a great book on the great Virginian. We see Lee as a great and good man but one who was not perfect. Pryor begins each chapter with a letter from Lee or family memory and then illuminates how that letter became an important mirror into the life of the Confederate hero.
   We see Lee as a brave man who defended his beloved South against the North. Among salient points we learn:
   a. Lee was a white supremecist who had trouble controlling the slaves on the Arlington estate he inherited from Washington Park Custis (Custis was the father of Lee's wife Mary and the grandson of George Washington_).
   b. Lee could harsh in his treatment of slaves. Several slaves ran away from Arlington. He was not adverse to having them whipped for infractions
   of his strict rules. There are reports that Lee was also kind to slaves.
   He was a racist and believed the white race was superior to the African-Americans with whom he interacted. In this belief he was consistent with the widely held belief of the vast majority of nineteenth century Americans.
   c. Lee was a great general as manifest in the brilliant Chancellorsville campaign but had trouble in supervision of his subordinates. Lee also kept inadequate leaders in positions of leadership in the Army of Northern Virginia who should have been replaced.
   d. Lee was Virginia-centric. Lee believed in states rights.
   e. Lee was an elitist who thought upper class white males should be the leaders of society.
   f. Lee was frustrated by his antebellum army career as a member of the engineering corp. He suffered from depression and had a violent temper.
   g. Lee was a good and faithful husband to his invalid wife Mary. The Lees had several children. He was an absentee father due to his military career.
   h. Lee hated the years he spent as supt. of West Point. Following the Civil War he became President of Washington College in Lexington Va. bust disliked the work
   i. Lee was often perceived as aloof and cold. Lee was able to unwind with famiily and close friends.
   j. Lee's ideas on religion varied throughout his life from a mild Deism to evangelical belief in his later years. He was an Episcopalian.
   Not everyone will like this biography of a Southern icon without peer who has been elevated to the ranks of Dixie sainthood along with Elvis!
   As one who has read all the important biographies of Lee I consider this book an essential in understanding the great but enigmatic man. Pryor's book will engender controversy but is a vital read for anyone wanting a good understanding of Lee that does not portray him as a Lost Cause saint.
   Essential and excellent!



3. "There is indeed a certain childish willfulness in the American mind that insists on chastising the people of the past for not being like them, or else pretending that they were. Which is a certain way NOT to learn anything from history." ---Dr. Clyde Wilson
   
   Put it this way - if you are the type of person Dr. Wilson is describing, you're going to love this book! If not, you'll be wishing you had paid for it in Confederate bills instead of U.S. dollars.
   
   The book itself contains roughly 175 pages of footnotes, bibliography and index. There are 50 pages of actual letters, some of which have already been published and others of which are not even by Lee, but by other people. If you're planning on seeing 500 pages of newly discovered letters, forget it. The fewer than 50 pages of new letters by Lee himself will leave you grossly disappointed. Finally, we have 425 pages of Ms. Pryor's perseverative and monotonous interpretations of those letters, which I suppose is the "meat" of the book.
   
   According to Ms. Pryor, Lee did not release the Custis slaves immediately. The terms of the will specified "within 5 years" of the elder Custis' death (in 1857). Lee fulfilled that mandate by manumitting them in 1862. This apparently wasn't satisfactory enough for Ms. Pryor as she repeatedly drones on about Lee's failure to understand how the slaves felt.
   
   Ms. Pryor is also critical of Lee for expecting the slaves to actually work!? Oh horror! Oh horror!
   
   Of course, there is the matter of several slaves being whipped by Lee, something which has never been conclusively proven. Like a second rate shyster, Ms. Brown does her best to drum up the case against him.
   
   According to Ms. Pryor, Lee had no appreciation of other cultures and saw nothing worthwhile in the Mexican culture when he was there during the Mexican war. I'm wondering what Pryor expected Lee, an educated, well-to-do man from one of Virginia's first families, to say when he was in Mexico? "Gee! What lovely mud huts!?" I'm pretty sure that Mexico didn't have Grand Melia and Paradisus or any other resorts at that time, so I can't figure out what Ms. Pryor expected him to see in the place? I suppose to understand her reasoning, or her expectations, one would have to refer back to Dr. Wilson's quote above.
   
   Also, according to Ms. Pryor, Lee had "poor cross cultural communications skills", a term apparently taken from today's lexicon of multicultural drivel. In this case she was referring to his "communication", or lack of it, with the Comanches. I ran this past a native American friend of mine and he almost fell over laughing. I'm not sure there were too many folks at the time who had good cross cultural communication skills with the Comanches of that era, as this particular group wasn't usually given to such things themselves. Would that it were possible to transport Ms. Pryor back in time to the 1850s and observe how her "skills" with the Comanches would fare? I would be taking bets on how long she kept her pretty blond hair.
   
   In sum, this book, touted though it is by most "contemporary" historians, is one more example of the sham that has become what we used to call, "the field of history".
   
   If you feel compelled somehow to read it, buy it used and pay as little as possible. When you're through with it, it will make for an excellent target at the firing range.



4. Historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor has based her biography of Robert E. Lee on a huge collection of Lee family letters so that the reader sees Lee through his own words in repsonse to life situations. He comes through as a very complex person with a largely conflicted life. Lee of course was primariy a soldier (at one point he had been superintendent of West Point) and while Lincoln offered him the leadership of the Union army he followed his Southern background and in a few short weeks sided with the Confederacy. In this book we also see Lee as a husband and father. One example of Pryor's insight shows the reaction of Lee and his wife to the Union army taking over their Arlington estate which had been in his wife's family and their recognition that the house had been looted, and as the war progressed their land turned into a military cemetary for both Union and Confederate dead. Pryor says that that incident made the break complete and left the Lees embittered for the rest of their lives.
   This is a fine study of the man based on his own words and is a valuable addition to Civil War history. I would agree that Reading the Man will beocme a standard reference on Robert E. Lee.



5. When I first heard of this book, I couldn't wait to get my hands on it. Now that I am finished reading it, I wish I would have spent my money elsewhere. Although this revisionist history does provide some compelling and dramatic insights into Lee as a person, the author is clearly no fan of Lee or his legacy. I found myself wondering if Elizabeth Brown Pryor had any sympathy for Lee "the man" whatsoever. The concept of the book is very good, but the writer's analysis is shallow in many areas. She breezes over several significant events in Lee's life and Civil War career, yet makes it a point to showcase Lee's "racism" throughout many chapters. She uses a surprisingly narrow scope of primary documents. The writing style in some passages is mediocre at best. If you want a book about Robert E. Lee that a Left wing Liberal could love, then this may be the book for you. If you want a true portrait of the man, I would recommend you look elsewhere.

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

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



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



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



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



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