1 comments about Tad Lincoln's Father (Abraham Lincoln).

1. If you want to know what Lincoln and his family were really like, read this amazing book. Ms. Taft wrote this book in 1931. She played with the Lincoln boys in the White House as a 16 year-old. Her descriptions of the everyday life of the Lincoln's, the White House and the times they lived make you feel as if you ARE there. It's an amazing step back into a time that has been written about by many others, but not from such a perspective. Truly wonderful, simple and illuminating.

5 comments about Winfield Scott Hancock: A Soldier's Life.

1. This highly readable account of Winfield Hancock's life does not disappoint. Never commanding a Union Army on his own, Hancock emerges from the Civil War one of the most accomplished, most successful of all Union battlefield commanders. His performance at Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor and Petersburg earned him the sobriquet McClelland bestowed upon him early in the war during the Peninsula Campaign, "Hancock the Superb". Simply stated, he was one of the most important commanders in the American Civil War.
   
   Jordan does a very credible job of tracing Hancock's origins from the Mexican and Civil Wars to his service in the Plains Indian Wars, his controversial reconstruction command at New Orleans and ultimately, his unsuccessful bid for the Presidency in the 1880 campaign. Combining broad strokes with an eye for interesting detail David Jordan delivers a biography of a most interesting personality whose life embodied a unique reflection of America's history for much of the nineteenth century.



2. This book does a good job in painting Winfield Scott Hancock as this perfect general, great human being, and fair politican while tearing down those (U.S. Grant for example) who opposed Hancock. In this biography, Hancock always comes out as a honorable family man who put duty to his country first and at the same time this book shows how kind and considerate Hancock was to friends and strangers alike. However, a closer examination of the man reveals that Hancock was flawed. What upsets me the most about this book is David M. Jordan ALWAYS find a way to excuse/pardon Hancock's behavior. Jordan does a great disservice to readers when he refuses to deal with legitimate criticisms of Hancock.
   
   Let's deal with one of those criticims: Reconstruction. Hancock believed in state's rights but his noninterference in a time of great racial strife shows a man who allowed his personal feelings and not duty to his nation, get in the way of him doing his job. Let's be honest...Hancock was a racist, as most white men of the 19th century were. However, most white generals (Grant, Howard, Thomas and even Sherman) regardless of how they felt about blacks, understood that Reconstruction must work for the good of the country. It has been said and proven that Hancock's behavior not only help prolonged Civil Rights in the South for another 100 years, but that his policies helped foster the rise of the KKK. Jordan refuses to admit or examine that this is one of the reasons why U.S Grant removed him from the South because simply put...Hancock was NOT doing his job.
   
   I understand Hancock was a man of his time, but David Jordan should be honest in admitting how Hancock's policies (good or bad) affected the people of Louisiana and Texas and why others took offense to them. Jordan is so determine to paint Hancock as this great man who did no wrong, it begs the question about Jordan's motives.
   
   Mr. Jordan, it is true that Hancock was obviously a great man, but he was flawed. Tell the whole truth is all I am saying....



3. At the Battle of Williamsburg, as the Army of Potomac crept up the Peninsula toward Richmond, Virginia, General Winfield Scott Hancock attempted an aggressive flank attack on Confederate positions. At a moment when serious damage could have been wrought against the Confederate forces, a timid Union commander recalled him. Even at that, he was able to deliver one last serious sting to the southern forces. General George McClellan noted that "Hancock was superb yesterday." Hence, the nickname "Hancock the Superb."
   
   This is a serviceable book on this talented Union general. There is not enough detail on the battles in which Hancock was engaged; much of the book is "underdetailed." Nonetheless, one gets a sense of why Hancock was held in such great respect.
   
   The book covers his early years, his time in West Point, his service in the "Old Army" (with the capstone being the lugubrious final meeting after the firing on Fort Sumter among him and future Confederate generals Lewis Armistead and Albert Sidney Johnston in California).
   
   Briefly, he was consigned to a desk job. Soon, however, McClellan got him a brigade command. Then, his service where he earned the sobriquet "The Superb." He did good service at one point at Second Manassas/Bull Run; he served well at Antietam, where he advanced to division command. Then, the dreary battles at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville where, once more, he served the Union well. After Chancellorsville, he earned command of the Second Corps.
   
   It is at Gettysburg, though, where he may have had the best three days of generalship of almost any commander in the Civil War. He brought order out of chaos at the end of the First Day; he shuffled troops all over the place on the Second Day, providing "Hairsbreadth Harry" narrow escapes (think his ordering of the First Minnesota into a suicidal attack against vastly superior forces to buy a few moments time for reinforcements to get to the scene); his command of the center of the Union line on the Third Day, where he commanded the troops who destroyed the charge by Pickett's, Pettigrew's, and Trimble's attacking forces. He was also seriously injured, and the damage done to him hindered his physical ability throughout the rest of the war.
   
   After a convalescence, he did well at the Wilderness (his flank was rolled up by Longstreet, but he rallied his troops and led them well); he led a massive in depth attack at the Muleshoe at Spotsylvania. Eventually, his Second Corps bled down and he gave up his command in front of Petersburg.
   
   After the war, he served in the South, against the Indians, and had a long career as a general officer. He even ran for President of the United States. This book introduces us to Hancock; I wish that there had been more exploration of his character and more detail in a number of the chapters. But for those who want to learn more about "Hancock the Superb," this is a good starting point.



4. A well written biography of a mostly forgotten soldier. Hancock was in many battles and his influence was felt long after the Civil War.



5. "On each of the three days of the (Gettysburg) battle (Hancock) played a significant role - rallying the beaten forces on July 1 and selecting the battlefield, redressing the Sickles blunder the next day and saving the left wing of the army, and finally beating back the last and greatest assault of the Army of Northern Virginia. ... Gettysburg was Hancock's field." - author David Jordan
   
   It was these three days in July, 1863 that established Winfield Scott Hancock as perhaps the best corps commander to serve in the Army of the Potomac. Yet, his career of loyal service to his superior officers, his Commanders-in Chief, and his country extended for a multitude of years on either side of his command of the Second Corps, which encompassed the relatively brief period from June of 1863 to November 1864, and which included the battles at Gettysburg, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, and skirmishes around the Petersburg entrenchments.
   
   Hancock's Civil War generalship earned him the affection of his troops and the country's citizenry and the respect of his fellow officers, all of which were sustained and flourished during his post-war career as a Reconstruction military administrator, a Great Plains Indian overseer, commander of the Military Division of the Atlantic (states), during which time he earned the gratitude of the nation in quelling labor violence, and, finally, as a three-time seeker of the Democratic nomination for President (1868, 1872, 1880) and his party's nominee for that office in the 1880 election.
   
   David Jordan's WINFIELD SCOTT HANCOCK is an extensively referenced, solid, immensely readable biography and work of popular history. Jordan obviously thinks highly of the man. Even Hancock's less than illustrious stint as commander of the Military Department of the Missouri from August 1866 to August 1867, during which he stumbled around the Great Plains without a clue as to the nature and culture of the Indian tribes he was tasked with controlling, goes pretty much uncriticized. After all, Hancock was only following the orders of his superior, General Sherman. And that's what Winfield did best all his life - follow orders.
   
   If there's a failing to this volume, it's that it suffers from a limited photo section, and helpful maps are either absent or rudimentary. Beyond that, the book is a fine tribute to an American for whom much honor is due in the nation's history.

No comments about They Married Adventure: The Wandering Lives of Martin and Osa Johnson.

5 comments about Sleeping Arrangements.

1. I found myself struggling to finish this book. I almost gave up several times. The first several pages were quite good then it looses steam.



2. Very well written. I felt I had met these people. The writer's words flow smoothly, and I had to slow myself down or the book would have ended too soon. Some of things very young Lily and friend did were hair-raising (in a dark park, cavorting with perverts). What I liked best about this book were her uncles, particularly Uncle Gabe. In fact, I have now purchased Laura Cunningham's book "A Place in the Country" so I can read more about her uncles. I enjoy memiors that deal with unconventional families that provide a nurturing environment and a great deal of love, and this book is that sort of memior.



3. I cannot wait to read more of her work. I loved this book! I loved her writing. This is a must read!



4. This book's emphasis on prurient material turned me off. Also, the "characters" did not seem to behave in an age appropriate manner, which led me to wonder if the author didn't exaggerate many of the escapades described in the book.



5. Like another reader, I was drawn to the unusual cover of this book--a sweet lil' girl's face superimposed over a faded shot of two older men--in these pedophiliactic times of Michael Jackson and Catholic priests, I assumed it was yet another sad story of abuse. Wronnnngg! This is so outrageously funny that you can almost laugh through the sad passages, while still appreciating the depth of tragedy that befell Shaine's unusual childhood. Her uncles really did sound like a couple of Marx brothers, but the love this odd family shared always shines. I'd teach it in my high school classes, but a few passages here and there probably make it questionable--although the haunting description of her continuing search for her father would resonate with many kids. A great find that I stumbled on while hunting for something else at B and Noble.

No comments about Ridgway: A Biography of One of America's Greatest Generals.

5 comments about A Fatal Friendship: Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr.

1. Arnold Rogow's "A Fatal Friendship" does not set out to villify Aaron Burr, nor does it exhalt Alexander Hamilton unduly.
   Instead, it accurately gauges parallel events of their unique relationship, as befits a historian. Readers should remember Rogow is a psychologist, first and foremost, and thus he is permitted to speculate as to Burr and Hamilton's motivations. Rogow consistently qualifies any statements he makes, without overstatements or hyperbole. Therefore, any reader who wants a simple parable of good and evil will be greatly disappointed.

   While a history undergrad, I purchased this book simultaneously with Thomas Fleming's own interpretation, "Duel." I was pleased with both books, but I must say Rogow's writing satisfied more because of his more objective stance. Fleming seems to always nurture a slight, though forgivable, bias against Aaron Burr. It is refreshing to see a just assessment of that unprincipled, infuriating, but somehow likeable rogue. As for Hamilton, Rogow ably commends his great political contributions, but also reminds us of our "flawed giant"'s scandalous affair with Maria Reynolds and scurrilous smear campaigns against Federalist president John Adams. Finally, Rogow portrays Hamilton as the true instigator of the vendetta leading to Burr's final challenge and the duel of 1804.

   Aaron Burr was no saint, but neither was Hamilton an angelic martyr for the Republic. Two complex historical figures with a tangled common thread. Rogow's study has helped us unravel a Gordian knot of American history. A pity "A Fatal Friendship" is now out of print.




2. Author Rogow presents a well crafted dual biography of Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, trying to piece together the events that culiminated in the duel which left Hamilton dead and Burr an outcast. More emphasis is laid on Hamilton and his life, with Aaron Burr becoming more of a cipher. Burr seems to never have committed his thoughts to paper so his stand on various political issues isn't clear. Hamilton on the other hand, wrote volumes about all facets of his political life. The two came from a very different background yet both ended up as successful attorneys in New York City. Hamilton never stopped trying to sabotage the political rise of Burr and the reasons never seemed very clear. Many political figures of the time commented on questionable ethics and morals of Burr yet Hamilton himself was immersed in one of the first major political sex scandals.

   Rogow tries to analyze both men and provide various ideas about what could have led to the duel. It is interesting to note that Hamilton seemed to possess a "death wish" in the final years of his life, after his eldest son Philip had been killed in a duel. This seems to be the only context in which the duel makes any sense. Hamilton could not end his own life but dying a noble death and making Burr an outcast too boot was simply to enticing.

   The book was very well done and I especially liked the fact that the author didn't seem predispose to agree or disagree with either man. The men were shown with all their faults and yet their contributions to the founding of the country is richly demonstrated.




3. I originally purchased this book as a source for a term paper on the subject, and actually planned to only spot-read the book. Yet, after reading Rogow's introduction, I found his argument so intriguing that I felt I just had to read the whole thing. Imagine, Hamilton having "playground" issues with Burr's wealth. Its such an odd little interpretation of history, and its presented so well, that it not only makes for an interesting read, but actually does its job in convincing you of the argument. If you have a penchant for early American History, this is a must read.



4. I found "Fatal Friendship" to be an original, engaging and well-written account of a fascinating and still largely unresolved incident in American history. The book was also refreshingly free of the typical "anti-Burr" bias that has been the norm from the 1800's through Fawn Brodie. Rogow did an excellent job of discussing the protagonists' differing characters in the proper historical context. History of this sort cannot be neatly tied up with simple black-and-white explanations (despite what the grammatically-challenged reviewers from Oklahoma and Kansas below would seem to prefer). Rogow deserves credit for tackling an interesting subject from a new perspective. Two very recent books, Kennedy's "Burr, Hamilton and Jefferson" and Fleming's "Duel," follow Rogow's lead in examining this period and these two Founding Fathers from a new angle, and also are higly recommended.



5. Although a mildly useful work, the author seems content to conclude that a simpleton argument is the underlying reason for the two men's duel and fails to disclose perhaps the most revealing, yet little-known fact of all surrounding this most famous event -- that in 1804 Alexander Hamilton had exposed political moves by Vice President Burr, Jr. and Burr's cousin, Theodore Dwight, among others, ultimately designed to return the United States back to British rule. Like so many others here, I rate this book in the category of "mostly fiction".

No comments about The Spirit Divided: Memoirs of Civil War Chaplains-The Union.

5 comments about Home Before Dark (Contemporary Classics (Washington Square Press)).

1. I bought this after reading The Journals of John Cheever (which is an incredible book.) What I was most struck by after reading Ms. Cheever's book, was that her father was a true writer, and she is not. Her book was boring, predictable, and shed no real new light on her father's personality. His journals are raw, real, and intimate. Her recollections are alienated and just plain boring. Sorry, but I was hoping for an interesting read, and this wasn't it.



2. This memoir tells a great deal about the extended family of John Cheever. His is the less reputable wing of of a family which goes back to the early foundations of America. Susan Cheever writes with understanding and consideration of her father's troubled life. The shocking bankruptcy and abandonment of his father remained a basis for his great insecurity throughout his life. Susan Cheever reveals her father to be a man of great charm, and excellent ability to befriend and be helped by wealthy patrons, including those at Yaddo the Saratoga writing colony which for him was a second home. Susan Cheever also describes somewhat fitfully the mixed- up - marriage Cheever never let go of, one in which there seemed to have been infidelity on both sides- and which seemed to go downhill in the later years.
   Susan Cheever writes with descriptive elegance about her father 's life. She does not however explain or even hint at the great mystery of how he managed to create his best work. And she does not really tell us what the work consists in, or how it best expressed what her father was.
   I also felt the work lacking in another way. It does not really get inside Cheever and reveal to us the world the way he might have seen it. Nor does it trace the effect of his celebrity and alcoholism , of his wit and capacity for friendship on his children. Susan Cheever is silent about her father's effect upon her.
   I found that is with all the basic admiration and sympathy that she expresses for her father, a certain coldness in the work- a coldness which was perhaps her father's also.
   But again perhaps I found Cheever's story much less 'moving 'than I might have because I too am not a great fan of his stories.



3. This is a very interesting look at the demons of the father, from alcoholism to a confused sexuality that wreaked havoc on his family. John Cheever forged a career writing about his own issues, tales of disillusion and disintegration in suburbia, all to alcoholic excess and in search of meaning. Susan, his daughter, is an absolutely excellent writer and explains what he was like as she grew up, so it is not a straight biography but mixed with memoire. Some of it is shocking, such as the way John periodically left to be with men, only to come back to a wife he clearly loved enduringly. But there is also a lot of redemption, of striving to be better though the pain is ever present. Oddly, I have never liked his writing much, finding his personal problems more of a spectacle and indeed more absorbing to learn about. Susan, I think, is the true writing talent in the family - her style is clear and unflinchingly honest, almost exhibitionistic. Few expose themselves so evenhandedly. Indeed, her moments are unforgettably vivid: such as her sitting in the lap of a drunken guest writer, in a tweed jacket reeking of cigarette smoke, saying to herself that she would marry that kind of man; or watching her father, after a few hours of writing and overcoming a hangover, pruning his lawn with ritual energy.
   
   Truly a beautiful, often tormented, book. Warmly recommended.



4. Home Before Dark is a beautifully written, moving book that stays with you long after you have finished reading it. It helps that Susan Cheever's subject, her father, was (and remains long after his death) one of the finest fiction writers in the history of American literature. What distinguishes John Cheever's stories, outside of his magical touch with words, is the passion and love he brings to illuminating his small corner of the world -- life in the New York suburbs of the 1950s and 1960s. Most writers who explore the suburbs do so with an arm's length superiority -- taking pains to distance themselves politically, emotionally, and intellectually from their characters. What makes Cheever's stories such a joy it that he loves the world he writes about -- even as he recognizes its banalities and limitations. In Cheever's hand, the commuter life becomes a sad, beautiful symphony of lost hopes and desires. The 5:45 train, the clinking of cocktail glasses, the smell of meat cooking on an outdoor grill are not just dull routines of modern life, but thrilling and exotic elements of that peculiarly American optimism and quest for success that flowered after World War II -- all the more alluring because the quest is so often doomed.
   In the same way, Susan Cheever brings passion and honesty to the telling of her father's life. In her hands, John Cheever's own outwardly unremarkable search for the suburban dream life of wife, kids, dog and station wagon in Ossining, New York becomes a dark romantic quest of longing, passion, success and disappointment. She is thoroughly honest (sometimes brutally so) in detailing Cheever's alcoholism, philandering, phobias and parental shortcomings -- so it is all the more remarkable that the final portrait of Cheever that emerges is so rich and full of love.
   This book is the perfect companion piece for Cheever's indispensible Collected Stories (with that famous red cover). Think of Home Before Dark as a sort of lexicon to John Cheever's world. I keep both books on a special bookshelf -- easily accessible -- containing the books I come back to again and again, like old friends.



5. As a memoir of a daughter's relationship with her father, this is very touching, but there is little here that sheds much light on John Cheever, the writer. Given the various levels of family dysfunction and unhappiness in Cheever's stories and novels, it is gratifying that his daughter found so much to love in her father. For a more abrasive, but still admiring view of the man, you might also enjoy reading Benjamin Cheever's novel, The Plagiarist.

No comments about Surviving on the Texas Frontier: The Journal of a Frontier Orphan Girl in San Saba County, 1852-1907.

No comments about The Union vs. Dr. Mudd.