5 comments about Washington: The Indispensable Man.

1. This is an excellent book. It is well written and very informative. Not having read all of the single volume biographies of Washington, I cannot testify to its being the very best, but surly it must be one of the best. The book is Flexner's single volume abridgement of his four-volume biography. Being only one quarter the size of the complete work it cannot be as detailed, but it nonetheless provides a very coherent and compelling portrait. Perhaps the best accolade that I can give is that I now I want to know more and I am considering reading the complete Flexner series. As might be expected from the subtitle "The Indispensable Man" the book paints the most favorable picture possible and shows why Washington was indeed the "Indispensable Man". He was indispensable not only as the leader of the army but also as America's first president. His firm hand set many of the precedents that shaped the office of president.
   
   While Washington is shown in the most favorable light the same cannot be said of Jefferson and Hamilton. Both (but mostly Jefferson) are shown to be more loyal to their party (the Federalists in the case of Hamilton and the Republicans in the case of Jefferson) than to Washington. Confidences were betrayed, especially by Jefferson. If there was a villain in this story it was Jefferson, who is painted as one who was willing to bring on war with Britain in order to support France and to further his vision of an agrarian America.
   
   One word of caution - this book is not a military history of the American Revolution, or of the detailed causes of the revolution, the writing of the constitution or the complete history of Washington's presidency. All of these things are covered, but not in the detail provided in books devoted specifically to these subjects.



2. This book is a "distillation" of the author's award winning four-volume biography of Washington. "The extreme reduction of scale - to about one fifth - dictated that, if the shorter work were to have its own integrity and literary effect, the material would have to be revisualized and rewritten. Except for the account of Washington's death, the text is almost altogether new." (viii)
   
   The literary style is excellent. The narrative, however, stays so close to Washington that the historical context of his life is often only hinted at, and at times left out entirely. The chapters are, in almost every case, less than ten pages long. The book reads, with exceptions, like a series of extended, well polished essays written from selected notes compiled for a longer work - which I suppose is exactly what it is.



3. As a student for some reason I have never been able to focus on the founding fathers. I have read an assortment of biographies of Revolutionary-era politicians and military leaders and always emerge with only the faintest understanding of who these men were and what the different issues were being debated in the 1780's and 1790's. This book is the first one I've read from this period that really held my attention. Too bad I didn't have it on hand when I took my first class in American history but perhaps it might come in handy somewhere down the educational road.



4. This just isn't sufficiently accurate nor well-written given its hype and other ratings here. One example is at page 13, where Flexner describes young Washington's trip to a French fort at the confluence of French Creek with the Monongahela ("now Franklin, Pennsylvania"). The problem is that French Creek flows into the Allegheny, not the Monongahela.
   Another problem occurs when he describes (p. 24) how Washington accompanied General Braddock at the disastrous defeat at Turtle Creek in July 1755. Of course, Washington was 23 in July 1755, having been born in February 22 (Feb 11 by the old calendar), 1732. In the next chapter, he describes how after Braddock's defeat the British Army left Virginia defenseless, so the Virginia Assembly created its own army, and Washington "now twenty-two" was elected colonel (page 28).
   In an early battle of the Revolutionary War he describes how Washington held a strong position at White Plains, NY, but was outflanked and decided to move to higher hills near New Castle. Although New Castle, NY and North Castle, NY are close geographically, the hills in question are in North Castle.
   The book is also written in an annoying manner, using words (not quoted) like "unwisdom" and "plaguey." The writing seems at the level of a sophomore term paper. There have to be better one-volume biographies.



5. George Washington is known, of course, as the "father of our country"; that's not completely true, but what is true is that without Washington we might still be flying the Union Jack; he was "The Indespensable Man". He was a reticent, self-controlled, man who never let others get too close; this makes a biographer's task difficult, but it hasn't kept a LOT of people from trying. Washington may well have more published biographies than any man who ever lived; thus, we look hard at each new one, as if daring the author to justify his choice of subject. The volume here is James Thomas Flexner's abridgment of his own multi-volume work, and a wonderful offering it is.
   
   Part of the problem in a study of Washington is the immense wealth of available material; Washington was famous from his mid teens on, building a great military reputation at an age when Jefferson was still in school, and Patrick Henry was tending bar. The great Douglas Southall Freeman who wrote the definitive multi-volume biographies of both Washington and Lee commented on the differing problems; Washington was famous early; Robert E. Lee didn't "hit the big time" till he was 55, so a biographer has to hunt for the early material [again, this hasn't stopped a lot of folks from trying].
   
   Flexner has chosen to focus on the centrality of George Washington to the process of our becoming a nation...Washington was viewed as superior by his own contemporaries; their deference to him was as natural as breathing. Adams and Jefferson were better educated, many were better writers or public speakers [yes, yes, I know; Jefferson was a real thorn in his side...but that was later, and he still showed respect]. BUT, Washington had the limitless strength of character, the absolute refusal to quit no matter how bad things got [in 1776, they were pretty bad], without which we could not have won our freedom. It remained for Jefferson to think up, and write down, the ideas that make us work, but first, the battles had to be won......
   
   There are lies told about Washington, some important, some not...he never chopped down a cherry tree...he did not have wooden teeth [he had around nine sets over the years, mostly ivory, or animal teeth, spring hinged, set in a lead base...I've seen one set...hideous]...he was not without passion, he just controlled it well. Washington was not without faults; he was over ambitious, but always for the public good...he married Martha for her money...he was a lousy son to his Mother, but then Mary was a lousy mother, a real "Mommie Dearest"; still, George got his strength of character, and his horse riding ability, from her. The only real public blot I can find comes from the Presidential years....his lack of faith in Edmund Randolph.
   
   George Washington is tough for us to get a good handle on; alas, that was true for his contemporaries, too. The reasons that he is difficult to "figure out" are very different than those that Jefferson is, but still real. Everybody needs to read one good bio of Washington; this is a pretty good choice, easily readable, and readily available. Other good choices are Joseph Ellis' "His Excellency", Willard Sterne Randall, and Richard Harwell's one volume abridgment of Freeman's magnum opus [the full seven volumes are impossible to find at a decent price]. There are one volume versons of sets by Washington Irving and John Marshall, the latter abridgment done by Marshall himself. These are pretty much for people like me, and are only available thru specialized venues like Mount Vernon, or The John Marshall House. [both authors met Washington, though Irving was only seven; neither mentions Sally Fairfax...] If you want to read them all, go for it; if you only want one, try this.....

5 comments about Benjamin Harrison (The American Presidents).

1. A new biography on Benjamin Harrison, our 23rd president, has been written by Charles Calhoun who is a professor of history at East Carolina University. Harrison is solely remembered now for being the one-term president who served between rival Grover Cleveland's two non-consecutive stints in office.
   
   Harrison was elected for one term in 1888 by defeating incumbent Grover Cleveland. He then lost to Cleveland four years later in a re-match over pretty much the same issues once the president's popularity dropped when the nation's economy tanked in a recession so he was shown the White House door by the voters.
   
   Harrison's time in the White House more resembles the tenure of George Herbert Walker Bush, our current incumbent's father, who was also a somewhat popular president yet got tossed out after one term when it appeared he was out of touch with the public. The younger Bush seemed to have learned the lessons from the defeat of Harrison, his father and other one-term presidents who lost their second term chances by making sure he attacked first on the issues in his re-election contest instead of being put on the defensive to criticism of his administration by Democratic candidate John Kerry in the 2004 election.
   
   Harrison grew up with privilege, just like the current officeholder, being the grandson of a chief executive and a descendant to one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. He ably served in the Civil War, then entered politics against the advice of his father to rise through the ranks of political positions until he was the Republican Party presidential nominee of 1888.
   
   That contest was a close race and Harrison won the electoral count for the win even though Cleveland actually got more votes from the public in the same manner the younger Bush did in his 2000 election triumph over Al Gore. And he took office with his party controlling both houses of Congress just like our current leader.
   
   But the Republicans of the late 1880's were complete opposites to the GOP politicians of today. Then, they were in favor of tariffs on imported goods from other countries to pay for government services. Today, they encourage open borders and the constant arrival of foreign-made products to power the economy and the elimination of all government interference in global commerce to the detriment of American manufacturers who must now compete with cheap labor outside our country and are forced to keep wages as low as possible to the American worker in order to stay in business.
   
   Most of the money coming into the U.S. Treasury in those years was through the fees raised by tariffs on those imports. Harrison campaigned in the 1888 election against Cleveland to keep those protective tariffs in place since there was no federal income tax on citizens to raise government revenues at that time. His strategy was successful and he defeated the first Democrat to be elected to the presidency since 1856. But things began to immediately go wrong for the Indiana politician upon arriving in Washington and taking the oath of office.
   
   Calhoun makes the argument that Harrison's presidency soured when he tried to please too many special interest groups of his own party as the nation had its first billion dollar peacetime budget and Harrison's Republican Party subsequently lost control of both houses of Congress in the 1890 mid-term contest as a result of voter dissatisfaction. An ill-advised attempt to annex Hawaii as part of the growing nation and the constant fighting between his administration and both parties in Congress led to his sliding popularity as his upcoming re-election approached.
   
   His opponent in the 1892 contest would be former President Grover Cleveland who was trying to win his job back. A lackluster campaign on Harrison's part plus the death of his wife two weeks before Election Day took away all of his interest in keeping the presidency so only got 43 percent of the vote and left office a dispirited man.
   
   Harrison paid the price from a scorned populace by trying to please too many special business interests when the country was becoming less agrarian and relying more on manufacturing to spur economic growth in order to compete with the other nations of the world.



2. Benjamin Harrison lived most of his adult life in Indianapolis, and his handsome brick Victorian home on Delaware Street has long been a memorial open to the public. Yet even the citizens of his hometown are vague on who he really was. Many confuse him with his grandfather, William Henry Harrison, "Old Tippecanoe" as he was called, who also served in the White House, albeit for only thirty days. Some see the signature of "Benj Harrison" on the Declaration of Independence and assume that the Indianapolis resident was in Philadelphia in 1776. If they only stopped to think, they would realize that the city of Indianapolis was not founded until 1821 and that their Benj Harrison was not born until 1833. The signer was the great-grandfather of the 23rd President. Charles Calhoun has done a scholarly job of helping stamp out the ignorance and confusion surrounding Benjamin Harrison, the last President to sport a beard and the first to decorate a Christmas tree in the White House. He and his wife Caroline were occupants of the Executive Mansion when electricity was first installed, replacing the gaslight fixtures. The old story goes that they were both afraid of the strange new utility and refused to touch the light switches. Harrison was the second shortest of our Presidents, coming in at 5' 6" and was affectionately referred to as "Little Ben" by the 1000 soldiers of the 70th Indiana Regiment who followed him into the Civil War. His bravery in battle was recognized by General Joseph Hooker ("Fighting Joe") who awarded Harrison a battlefield promotion to Brigadier General. Calhoun makes a good case that Harrison could be considered one of the earliest "activist" Presidents, long before Theodore Roosevelt became the poster boy for the position. He makes the point that Harrison's term helped to restore the power of the Presidency that had been nearly destroyed by the impeachment attempt on Andrew Johnson. Harrison surprised and irritated his own party when he bucked their directives and insisted that party hacks would not automatically get patronage. He wanted to make sure his appointees were qualified for their jobs. It sounds like a "no-brainer" today, but it was liberal thinking in those days. Six states came into the Union under Harrison, more than any other Presidential term. Oklahoma was opened for settlement, 13 million acres of land were put into reserve for national forests, the size of the Navy was greatly increased, and Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the McKinley Tariff. So it's not like nothing happened under Benjamin Harrison. Calhoun points out that Harrison often had to serve as his own Secretary of State as a result of frequent "illness" on the part of James G. Blaine, whose relationship with Harrison can only be described as "chilly." Toward the end of his term, in the midst of a re-election campaign, Harrison's beloved wife Caroline was dying of tuberculosis. He stayed at her bedside. "I was so removed from the campaign that I can scarcely realize that I was a candidate," Harrison wrote to one supporter. Two weeks after Caroline died in the White House, Grover Cleveland won another term. But it was just as well to Harrison. He wrote, "It does not seem to me that I could have had the physical strength to go through what would have been before me if I had been re-elected, with the added burden of a great personal grief." He returned to his beloved home on Delaware Street and resumed the job he really liked from the beginning - attorney at law. Charles Calhoun, a scholar of the "Gilded Age," provides a very readable account of a President who helped lay the foundation for the 20th century.



3. If you ask most people what they know about Benjamin Harrison they might tell you two things they remember from history class...that he was the grandson of a president (William Henry Harrison) and that his term was sandwiched in between the two non-consecutive terms of Grover Cleveland. Beyond that, Benjamin Harrison remains a mystery to most, but author Charles Calhoun has done a crisp and clear job of relating Harrison's life and term in office.
   
   This is the third of the American Presidents series I have read and I think that these books serve better in telling the stories of the more obscure presidents. The brief length of the Harrison book (as well as the ones I've read about Arthur and Harding) give just enough overview regarding these men. They are nice "starter" books, which might, one would hope, prompt the reader to seek out deeper accounts of the lives of these presidents. That said, Calhoun's book offers a good flow of information. Harrison is usually rated in the middle of the presidential mix, and Calhoun creates no impression that Harrison should be moved up or down. He was a solid, if stoic president with some notable legislative accomplishments. While never rising to the stature that a more forceful president might have, Harrison nonetheless fought for rights of blacks to vote and was keen on providing a pension for Union veterans of the Civil War. It was fascinating to read that Frederick Douglass said of Harrison, "to my mind, we never had a greater president". That's certainly high praise coming from one of the leading abolitionists of the nineteenth century and a man who knew Abraham Lincoln personally. Harrison had a few challenges abroad, but his four years were generally quiet as the country saw the passage of such landmark legislation as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Harrison's political problems as president seemed to stem as much from members of his own Republican party, especially his wily Secretary of State, James G. Blaine. Through a combination of forces against him, Harrison lost badly to Grover Cleveland in 1892.
   
   Calhoun tells of the president's dalliance with and subsequent marriage to his wife's niece, Mary (Mame) Dimmick...it's a colorful addition to the life of a pious president. The rift that this marriage caused seems never to have healed with his two adult children as Harrison died just five years after his second wedding.
   
   Benjamin Harrison may have been a footnote in history but Charles Calhoun has rightly written about him. After all, there have been only forty-two different occupants of the presidential chair...and Harrison was one of them. I recommend this book for its insight and easy narrative style.



4. Unlike some of the authors in the AP series, Charles Calhoun is a professional historian who has written previously about his subject's era. He clearly has the depth of knowledge to analyze Harrison and place him properly in the context of his time.
   While Benjamin Harrison had a successful career prior to his election as President, he really was no more distinguished than any number of 1880s politicos. A respected Civil War officer and successful lawyer, he was a candidate because of his famous name and his popularity in the swing-state of Indiana. After his election however, Harrison was not able to hold his party together. He could not subdue or satisfy his party rival J. G. Blaine, or enact all of the desired Republican legislation. His presidency was crippled by losses in 1890 congressional elections and dissatisfaction among western Republicans. The death of wife Caroline Harrison in 1892 sapped Ben's desire to wage a strong second campaign.
   I was surprised to learn that Harrison was a strong advocate of black civil rights. However, he was not very successful in stepping up federal protection for blacks in the South. Calhoun also covers Harrison's somewhat creepy relationship with his wife's niece, whom he would marry after he left the White House.
   If you are not up to reading the three-volume biography of Harrison, this a good place to turn. Recommended for anyone interested in the Gilded Age.



5. Imagine a Republican who believes in a big government? This wonderful biography of Benjamin Harrison is useful for us today to sort out a different era. While this is short, it certainly covers an era in which few of us are very familiar. However, the era is the foundation of today, and this book opens a window for us.

5 comments about Shooter: The Autobiography of the Top-Ranked Marine Sniper.

1. While the title suggests it is an autobiography the majority of the book is concerned with the authors time in Iraq during the campaign to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
   
   The author was an experienced sniper with previous combat experience before going to Iraq. What comes through clearly is the very aggressive attitude of the Marine Corp and the author's desire to participate in the fighting. This is counter-pointed by an incident late in the campaign which obviously left a deep impression on the author and highlights the difficulties of modern fighting and trying to prevent civilian casualties.
   
   What also comes through clearly are the problems of trying to maintain a family life and being in an elite military unit. These problems led to the author's marriage breaking down and to his decision to leave the Marine Corp. He also details some of the frustrations he found serving with some people who are less than professional and his disgust at one person in particular being rewarded for his service was another reason for leaving the Corps.
   
   All in all, an intersting book with insight at what motivates a sniper but I would have liked to see more about the author's life other than in Iraq.



2. Shortly into the story it becomes pretty evident that this wasn't the "confession" of an honored and admirable soldier. This is not a warrior who wanted to share his story with the world to ease the burden of killing men who were fighting for their beliefs, even if those beliefs where not the same as his.
   
   Jack was a soldier and sniper who saw "the dumbest man in all of Iraq" in the first day of battle. The Iraqi fighter was not dumb to Jack because he watched him do something truly stupid, like load bullets into his AK47 backwards. This fighter was "the dumbest man in Iraq" because he was 1/2 mile away and felt secure and concealed enough behind a thick bush to attack from that position (remember that these soldiers are fighting based on experience and not from years of hardcore training like our Marines). Jack took this son/grandson/cousin/fathers/brother/friends/Iraqi soldier's life from his family. I honestly believe that the Iraqi fighter should have been killed because he was attacking our countrymen. However, I would respect Jack a little more if he treated a man that was so destitute in his beliefs he was brave enough to attack an entire force of American soldier, with a little more grace and respect. Instead, Jack takes credit for his cold bore 1000 meter (hahaha...oh but his rifle was already zeroed into the EXACT, no kidding he says it in the book, distance of the target haha) shot that saved an ENTIRE BATTALIONS MAIN COMMUNICATIONS HUBS from the ONE GUY ONLY PACKING AN AK47.
   
   Sorry for the brief ramble, but this book is filled with complete ego. I am ex-military and have been hunting and shooting for 17 of my 25 years on this earth and I have more respect for the deer/elk/beer/mtn. lions that I harvest than Jack has for the soldiers he has killed in battle. Through the book I was trying to tell myself that a sniper has to have an inflated confidence in themselves, but this was ridiculous!
   
   By the time I finished I thought of Jack as a supply and backline soldier who wanted to try to convince SOMEONE that he was good at his job as a sniper because he couldn't convince the Marines. It seemed that he killed not only because it was his job, but because he enjoyed it as well.
   
   ~Cam



3. Very realistic and updated perspective of what a modern day sniper might face in battle !!!!I have previously read the encounters of snipers in Vietnam.....and that was most interesting also ,but this book is the most recently published technology and tactics !!!



4. I didn't read this book yet but I knew Jack back in the day when I referred to him as a Sh** Bird. He actually was a good Marine as were most of us. If this book is anything like the Coughlin I knew back in the 80s, then I am sure it will be quite a read. Semper Fi.



5. I would first, like to make a point about the title, that I picked for my review. Some people, might possibly find it offensive. But if you were watching a motion picture, or a TV program, that had Jack as one of the main characters, and his comrades referred to him in that exalted way, you would take it in stride. Imagine Jack, as the young sniper in "Saving Private Ryan". With that being said, let's continue with the review. I felt this was an excellent book, and one of the things that appealed to me, as a U.S. Veteran, is that Jack and his co-writers, wrote in the "language", that is truly spoken between men, not only in war, but in training for war. Another thing that I really liked, was the fact, that as bad as Jack wanted to be a sniper, he then had even higher goals. He had the desire, to not just be the best sniper, but he had the drive and vision, to try to improve the entire operating procedure of snipers. The battlefield, was not the same as in World War II. A couple of earlier Marine marksmen, Hathcock and Mawhinney, showed in Viet Nam, "that snipers could be much more aggressive and effective by getting out of their holes and going on the hunt." I know what Jack meant, when he describes the anguish, of not only keeping classified missions to yourself, but also, dealing with the uncontrollable memories of death you've created, that reverberate in your dreams, that you can't discuss with anyone, including your wife. Jack says: "If I awoke suddenly in the middle of the night, with a start so violent, that it shook the bed, Kim knew not to question why or what was going on in my head. She was careful not to startle me with a sudden touch." This passage, sent chills up and down my spine, since in my own life, twenty years after I was out of the service, I was a single father, who always wanted my young son to wake me, before he left for school, and give me a kiss. He got scared, at the way I would wake up, swinging and yelling, about things I never told anyone. We then used a procedure, where he would come into my bedroom, tap my shoulder, and then run to the doorway, and after I got back to normal, I would give him a hug and kiss goodbye. I would like to give one last comparison of Jack's stature, especially, for the benefit of people that weren't in the military. I was awarded the "Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon, (SAEMR) with an M-16. Comparing that, to what Jack did, is like you comparing your two-year-old son's, hitting a wiffle ball, off a plastic tee, to the accomplishments of Babe Ruth. There are three things I'm happy for, after reading this book: 1) That Jack was on our side. 2) That Jack got home alive. 3) That Jack and his cohorts wrote this book. God Bless America!
   P.S. The 2007 movie with the same name, has absolutely nothing to do with this book.

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

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 Lee.

1. Magnificent
   5+ Stars.
   I originally read Douglas Southall Freeman's 4 Volume biography of Robert E. Lee 35 years ago. I was so impressed with both the author and the General that I have been a Civil War buff ever since. Recently, after rereading James Robertson's biography on General A.P. Hill, my interest in Lee was again piqued and I picked up the abridged version of Douglas Freeman's Pulitzer Prize winning classic to refresh my history of Marse Robert. Although I was walking old literary ground, I was amazed at how wonderful it was to again read about the amazing life of one of America's true icons. Absolutely magnificent in all respects. Richard Harwell's abridgement of the 4-volume biography was masterful in every since. Harwell captured both the beauty and depth of Freeman's style without diminishing any of the wonder or essence of General Robert E. Lee the man and General. Extremely well crafted in all respects that none of the Freeman magic was lost or diluted.
   Freeman's style was to view the Civil War events through Lee's eyes, ears, and available information rather than examine events through post war after-the-fact analysis: What did General Lee know at the time with the information he had and could "feel". Without going into an in-depth biographical review of General Lee, suffice it to say Mr. Freeman captured the essence of both Robert E. Lee the man and general. He artfully examines how Lee reacted to various situation and how his prior experiences and nature influenced both his decisions and personal relationships. All in all the absolute best biography ever written on General Robert E. Lee and a requirement in any Civil War expert or buff's library.
   Note: The final 4 chapters are an incredible summation of what made Lee, Lee. Freeman gets to the nub of it all in beautifully written concise statements. The most amazing thing of all is that the characteristics of what made General Robert E. Lee great are as timely today as they were back then. In the pantheon of great Americans he stands tall, very tall.
   Must read for anyone interested in the Civil War. Harwell's abridged version of Freeman's masterpiece is wonderful and although 600+ pages is really a rather quick read due to the excellent writing. I found it very hard to put down and read the entire book in only 3 days. Do yourself a favor and read a magnificent biography on a true American icon.



2. I preface my remarks by explaining that I am an avid reader of the history of the period from pre-revolution to post civil war.
   
   This book is very readable and not only offers concise detail but also gives terrific insight into the state of the Union and Confederacy during Lee's life. I couldn't put it down, and have since ordered others as a gift.
   
   Lee was truly a one of kind gentleman and American, and had Virginia not been in the south or neutral, he ultimately would have led the Union forces.
   
   It is a must read.



3. "Lee" is an excellent one-volume abridgment of Douglas Southall Freeman's epic four-volume life of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Freeman's original work, published in 1934, was based on over two decades of research into Lee's correspondence and military dispatches, and clearly benefited from contacts with friends, family members, and veterans of the Civil War who had known Lee in life. Richard Harwell's abridgment, at nearly 600 pages, is still an heroic length, but far more managable for the general reader.
   
   The Lee that emerges from this biography is a man who very consciously drew his sense of duty and responsibility from his Revolutionary War forebears. His father, "Light House" Harry Lee, was one of George Washington's cavalry commanders. His wife was a step-granddaughter of Washington himself. Lee knew genteel poverty as a youth, and the burden of caring for younger siblings and an invalid mother. Lee finished second in his class at West point, the result of the disciplined application of an excellent mind and the conscious molding of a self-controlled personality into an officer and a gentlemen in the very best sense of those terms.
   
   Lee's exploits in the Civil War have overshadowed his long apprenticeship in arms, following his graduation from West Point in 1829. As an engineer officer, Lee spent the pre-war years working on a variety of military and civil engineering projects around the young United States, learning the challenges of planning and logistics. His superb performance in the Mexican War on the staff of Commanding General Winfield S. Scott made his reputation in the Army, and gave him opportunities for line assignments in the cavalry he would otherwise have not seen. However, the glacial pace of peacetime promotion prevailed, and by 1861, Lee was only a Colonel. His talents were such that he was immediately considered for general officer command as the Civil War loomed.
   
   Lee's decision to go with his native state of Virginia at the breakup of the Union is one that may be opaque to present-day readers; Freeman does his best to explain Lee's reasons. Freeman's narrative likewise does justice to Lee's increasingly central role in the conduct of the Confederate military effort. The bulk of this volume covers the Civil War, and Freeman does not spare Lee his faults in what was by all accounts a remarkable effort against the odds. Lee was an exceptional strategist and logistician, but his preference for delegating battlefield management to subordinates cost him in a number of battles, especially later in the war as less experienced men took command. Likewise, Lee paid a price for his reluctance to enforce his will on stubborn subordinates. Freeman highlights Lee's conduct of civil-military relations with the Confederate Government in Richmond.
   
   Freeman's account of Lee's brief life after the Civil War may be especially illuminating of the man. Lee accepted the military outcome of the war and got on with his life, in the face of grief over losses, personal poverty, and sometimes studied insults from victorious Unionists. He lent his still considerable talents as an administrator, and his reputation, to small Washington College, saving it from extinction and turning it into a first-rate college for the young men of the South.
   
   Freeman's scholarship, especially in his analysis of the Civil War, is now somewhat dated. However this book is still very highly recommended for its insights into the personality and character of Robert E. Lee, man and gentleman.



4. From the time I was a toddler close to 60 years ago, I was taught that Robert E. Lee was, except for Jesus Christ, the greatest man who ever lived. A lifetime of study has confirmed my parents' opinion...I am NOT unbiased about General Lee. If Robert E. Lee was the greatest man, Douglas Souhthall Freeman was the greatest Civil War author, and he's not unbiased, either.
   
   Anyone reading this probably already knows Lee's story...born of a great mother and a useless father whose earlier greatness was long forgotten... raised in aristocratic poverty....West Point with no demerits...30+ years in the Army as an engineer, with brief combat in Mexico...offered command of the Union Army...a man who cried as he followed Virginia out of the Union...took over the Army of Northern Virginia a year into the war and made it, man for man, the greatest fighting force the world has ever known...held off a vastly larger, and better supplied, Army for three years...surrendered, then set the example for his men in becoming citizens of one nation...accepted the Presidency of a small college, and, in the five and a half years he had left, started it on the road to becoming the world-class school it is today...served God to the end, suffering his final heart attack while running a Vestry meeting at the Church pastored by one of his old generals.
   
   In 1915, a young newspaperman named Douglas Southall Freeman accepted a contract to write a 75,000 word biography of General Lee. Born in Lynchburg, the son of one of Lee's troops, he had learned about the General at a young age. Twenty years after starting, Dr. Freeman finally finished his 1,000,000 word biography, and saw it published in four volumes; those four volumes ARE definitive, and the greatest biography in the English language.
   
   Richard Harwell, who knew Dr. Freeman, made this one volume abridgment in the 1960's [and also a very fine one volume version of Freeman's "George Washington"]....it is very probably the best one volume study of Lee available, for which Harwell would give ALL the credit to Dr. Freeman. OK, what is lost in the abridging? Fair question if you're spending your money for this...I'm going to round numbers. Freeman takes 400 pages for the first 54 years [100 for Mexico], 1,600 for the war, and 400 for the last five and a half years. Harwell has roughly 100 [27 for Mexico], 400 and 100. Lost are the footnotes, the appendecies, the bibliography, much of the dialog, and most of the redundencies....
   
   Should you buy, and read this? Definitely. There are a LOT of one volume biographies of General Lee, ranging from kid's versions, to good, bad, and indifferent. Two or three are by men who actually met him. Harwell has done a superb job. Now the real question....do you need to read the whole four volumes? If you are a poor soul like me, you already have. Your best bet would be a used set, but if affordable, they may not be in good shape, and if in good shape, they may be expensive. [I was lucky to find a decent set for $35]. ["Lee's Lieutenants" is easy to find at a good price, and "George Washington" is impossible]. There were badly overpriced paperbacks available, but I'm not sure they still are; there is a beautiful leather bound edition in print, but you can imagine the price. The four volumes are definitive, and very readable....while you're deciding, read this first...



5. I enjoyed reading this book but it was sometimes hard to figure out what happenned in each of the battles since there was typically only one map for each battle. In fact the map for gettysburg did not even show where any of the troops were at any time during the battle.
   
   If you want to read this book I would recommend having maps of the battlefields that you could refer to. This would help you figure out what is going on better.

5 comments about The Wit & Wisdom of Ronald Reagan.

1. Those of us who lived through The Regan Years know what an icon is and what Regan brought to the office. This book gives the reader an insight into not only his political life, but his private life. Love him or not you will realize what made him tick. He lent the aspect of "Class" to the office giving people the chance to laugh with him and say "Right on". This book should become a classic.



2. Great quotes from our greates communicator, gives an insite to his sense of humor. I was expecting a little more to the book, more pages and anedotes.



3. This book is a mere fictional account of a president who was twice-elected by a near-braindead electorate who in 1979, quickly began to grow impatient with Jimmy Carter's lack of charisma and soon confused the 1980 campaign with the Oscars and awarded the gold statuette/the presidency to a man who was probably born with Alzheimer's Disease. But in their zealous haste, they quickly forgot about carefully considering more realistic, long-term policies that could serve THEM well, such as health care, tax cuts for THEM and not the rich, and perhaps a complete moratorium on immigration that continues to bloat an already overcrowded nation to this very day. But instead, the mindless electorate allowed itself to be seduced by the rhetoric of a well-groomed nitwit who overwhelmingly fooled them with ease with his prowess as an actor, and as a result, the idiots went on to gleefully elect him as the Incompetent-In-Chief beginning in 1980. And his oratory, which seduced millions of such mindless, blind flag-wavers, involved his reciting lines that were written for him to the the appaluse of said morons who had by that time, read too many Superman comic books and cheered as The Acting President hollowly insisted that "Government is the problem..." So hence, Reagan became their new Superman minus the costume. And as the S&L scandal came to tarnish America's image and the Iran-Contra scandal took hold, this man could not for anything, coherently answer a single question posed to him by the press for the duration of his entire presidency. Moreover, if it were not for Peggy Noonan, his speech writer, we more than likely would never had to have endured the likes of The Acting President. Perhaps Peggy herself will one day seek higher office in the Land That Time Should Forget.



4. If you love and miss Ronald Reagan, this is a book that will feed your nostalgia while providing a warm glow to your day. The author has been a speechwriter and the author of several books, so he knows how to select great words. James C. Humes organizes the book in eight short chapters.
   
   Chapter 1 provides quotations from the Gipper. They are a sentence or two on a wide range of topics (and are arranged alphabetically by topic). Chapter 2 is a collection of quips and jokes and also organized by topic. Chapter 3 provides brief comments by Reagan on world leaders and a few historic figures. Chapter 4 presents brief statements by friends and enemies about Reagan. For example, we are reminded that it was Margaret Thatcher who said he won the Cold War without firing a shot and Pat Schroeder who called him the Teflon President.
   
   Chapter 5 consists of short anecdotes about Reagan's life and career. Chapter 6 puts some of Reagan's best zingers in their true historical context (which the media tries to twist and distort and forget - because they are invested in the notion that Reagan was a dunce. History is taking a much different assessment of the man and his two terms as President). Chapter 7 presents some of Reagan's best stories. They reveal a great deal about his beliefs and his character. Chapter 8 presents excerpts from his best speeches and provides some information about the context in which the speech was given and its effects. Again, this helps undo some of the work the liberals in the media do to insult and undermine his memory.
   
   While much of the material Reagan used was not original with him (some of it is), he delivered it masterfully and had keen insight on when to use it for best effect. This book is not only an enjoyable read, it makes a great gift for anyone in your life who is fond of Reagan or someone you want to learn about how great and effective a President he was.
   
   Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI



5. This book clearly shows how Ronald Reagan was superior to his critics. The man they accused of having simple solutions to complex problems outwitted and outmaneuvered them by having just that. His solutions where simple, but not easy. It was the right step to take at a time when America and the rest of the world was suffering from failed economical policies. By making the economy more simple and easing the burdens of the taxpayer, he did more for the world economy than all the economists of the "old" system did after the second world war. His quick remarks and one-liners in response to critique is a great sign of his intelligence. What he did not make up for in his education, he accomplished with his intelligence and belief in the good intent of man.

5 comments about Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom.

1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom
   
   What can you say? It's a thoroughly researched, skillfully wound tale of a man who has no statesman-like comparison in modern American history. I'm an 'Eisenhower Republican' - though, I fear we're a dying breed - however, remark at the leadership and undying dedication to country this magnificently flawed giant of a president consistently demonstrated throughout the course of his illustrious political career.
   
   It's exhaustively researched and fact packed, to be sure - but will nary leave you wanting to leave this bulky work on the nightstand before dozing off. Whether you agree or disagree with FDR's policies or tactics, this book is nothing if not tendentious should appeal to readers across political spectrum and ideologies....the way a masterful biography should, in this hunble historian junkies mind.
   
   Fans of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt may want to pick up a separate bio for her life story, as Black certainly does not treat her with kid gloves. However, this book accurately hones in on the key subject - FDR - and Lord Black sticks to his prime subject matter with uncompromising rigdity, a keen focus and honesty.
   
   Bravo. I promise to read more of Mr. Black as a result of this admirable and impressive work.
   
   - Johnny Concannon



2. It took a month to receive my book; I was happy with it once it arrived, but the slowness was a problem.



3. We would be remiss to not credit Washington with defining the parameters of the powers of the Presidency, but for all intent and purposes, as far as impact is concerned, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the greatest President in the nation, including Lincoln. We must remember that history tends to overestimate martyrdom. As good as Lincoln was, he was never tested in a peace time setting.
   Conrad Black has written the definitive and best book on the great FDR, hands down. Far from being a fawning soft sell, "Champion Of Freedom" is very fair, and Black does not hesitate to discuss Roosevelt's shortcomings, as well as his triumphs. It is an incredibly thoughtful read, and the research is amazing.
   Roosevelt could, at times, be calculating, devious and even mean, especially toward political enemies. This was fair game, however, and in a world where deceit and hidden agendas permeate every action, Roosevelt simply was a mile ahead of everybody else and played the politics game better than anybody ever had before, or will again.
   His concern for the working man, the New Deal and landmark programs like the WMA put America to work when there was none to be had. Some lunk headed conservatives claim he stole the work from industry, but that is pure bull. We have Social Security, the Labor Relations Act, and a great park system because of Roosevelt's domestic programs. As far as a wartime president, his foresight and action was almost divinely inspired, and may well have been.
   While critics blame him for Pearl Harbor, Black points out that Roosevelt, who loved the Navy and was Assistant Secretary to the Navy in WWI, would never have deliberately put the men of Pearl Harbor in harm's way as it happened. Rather, he had expected the admirals to be fully prepared for possible attack, and was aghast (albeit privately) at the incompetence shown at Pearl Harbor, which should have been more than able to put up a very good fight against the Japanese attackers. True, he expected war, and knew that the sooner, the better once our armed forces were ready, and that was well underway.
   This is just one revelation of a very complex man who was regarded in Messianic proportions by the populace and by the world at large. Black is a master writer, and truly has created a masterpiece worthy of its subject. For serious history and Roosevelt fans, it's a must have.



4. We gave two copies of this book for Christmas this year. The recipients have had nothing but great things to say.



5. This one was a tough read - 1134 pages and a couple of laps around the world later I finished - but it was definitely worth the time. While not as readable as David McCullough, Conrad Black not only tells the amazing story of FDR, but also puts you right in the middle of this pivotal time in American History. Sometimes vindictive, often underestimated, FDR's ability to lead and leverage public opinion is unmatched by any modern day president. The complicated relationship between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill was navigated with great expertise. The personalities surrounding him - Eleanor, Teddy Roosevelt's side of the family, Stimson, Smith, MacArthur, Patton, Eisenhower, etc. are cause to hit the Barnes and Noble shop again soon for a few more biographies. If you like American history and biographies, this book comes with my recommendation.

5 comments about The Peabody Sisters: Three Women Who Ignited American Romanticism.

1. The author attempts to run the three biographies in parallel but what really happens is that she jumps from one place to the other, so none of the biographies unfold properly. I found it utterly unreadable. On top of it to add to my frustration, there are generalities, like Elizabeth fought with her mother "like all adolescent girls do" or romantic creations "like on this day if you didn't watch out a dog might have showered you with water". I wanted to read a proper biography and not a society novel. I had read "Eden's Outcasts" by John Matteson before and came away with a more lively picture of Elizabeth Peabody and her involvment in the Temple School then from this book. If you are interested in the transcendentalist movement, the time, or women I highly recommend "Eden's Outcasts: The story of Louisa May Alcott and her father".



2. The Peabody Sisters is a wonderful book. It was so interesting and fast-paced, it reads like a novel. The women of the Transcendentalist Movement have been so poorly remembered it is possible to learn something new on every page. Megan Marshall's writing style is relaxed and conversational, a good balance to the 19th century melodrama, angst, sentimentality, and lofty philosophies of the sisters and their circle. Although Marshall quotes letters, sermons, poetry, reviews, journals, reports, and literature from many sources, it is done sparingly and logically integrated.
   
   The Peabody sisters were extraordinary women living in extraordinary times. A case can be made that Elizabeth Peabody, the oldest sister, is one of the most important figures in Transcendentalism. Barred from college and commerce by poverty and sex, she still managed to be more educated than many of the men she befriended and promoted. Many of the relationships we take for granted in Boston and Concord of the era can be directly linked to Elizabeth Peabody's tireless efforts to intellectually support interesting, creative individuals, make introductions, even find people jobs and students, housing, mentors - all while she is shut out and struggling to support her parents and five younger siblings while teaching herself Hebrew, Latin, Greek, Italian, Spanish. Also: teaching children and adults, writing articles, editing and publishing, and keeping up a lively correspondence with teachers, philosophers, artists, poets of the era. Her sisters Sophia and Mary are hardly less accomplished.
   
   And yet Megan Marshall always keeps things grounded. The sisters are always real people who display very normal sibling rivalries manifested in jealousy, competition, ambition, despair, frustration and anger. There was also commitment, love, affection, support, delight and generosity.
   
   What is most amazing is the strength of the women in this group. They are creative, adaptable, intelligent, extraordinary in many ways. They are continually held back by the convention of the time that women were somehow frail and that ambition and accomplishment were unseemly in the "fairer sex." Considering what hothouse flowers many of the men in this group proved to be, it's all the more unreasonable that the inequality of the sexes persisted.
   
   Megan Marshall never harangues - the rant is purely my own. Marshall simply gives us the benefit of her prodigious research in the most straightforward and appealing manner. Don't be scared off by the length of the book: the last 100 pages or so are notes and index. The book itself speeds by and the reader is left at the point when the sisters are taking up their own separate lives.



3. Somehow I overlooked this book when it was released, but thank goodness I discovered it later. The author takes readers back in time to share the amazing lives of these sisters. In the process, acquaintances of the Peabody family, that readers already know as historical figures, are brought to life as real, flawed but remarkable people. Readers will identify with these women as they strive to achieve and practice their own talents in a society that shares possibilities and limitations not so different from our own.



4. I only get to read on the train to and from work. This book makes my daily trip a real treat. I'm only half through, but hooked from page one. Not only does Marshall make a fascinating biographical and historical account of the Peabody sisters, but she provides answers as to why strong, ambitious, smart women have been so frustrated for so long. Society supressed gifted women in the 1800's so much so that women either became outcasts because they had to find expression, which in itself was restricted to motherhood, housewife or teacher, or they retreated into themselves in the form of illness or depression. Indeed, the contributions to romanticism by the Peabody sisters came at a very high cost to them. And now I can read about them and think "How strange that society was so close-minded back then!"



5. Megan Marshall has done superb work in this carefully researched account of the amazing Peabody sisters.

No comments about Wade Hampton: Confederate Warrior to Southern Redeemer (Civil War America).

5 comments about Washington's General: Nathanael Greene and the Triumph of the American Revolution.

1. easily one of the most underrated generals in american history...terry golway gives greene the recognition and appreciation greene was looking for...if you love reading about the revolution, this is the book for you...easy and vivid read that traces greenes accomplishments and even his weaknesses throughout life...you will not be disappointed.



2. This is a much needed book that rightfully gives some credit to one of George Washington's most important and able lieutenants. Nathanael Green did not receive much formal education, yet he sought knowledge and surrounded himself with others who were better educated; he was not a professional soldier by trade, yet learned the lessons of battle; he lost all the major battles he fought in, yet his strategy achieved victory in the South in the final analysis. This is the story of an often overlooked figure in the period of the American Revolution.
   
   Golway is to be credited for bringing due attention to Greene, but the author doesn't fall into hero worship; he is often critical of Greene. He made bad calls in his quarrels with others and in some of his decisions on the battlefield. Greene was obsessed with his reputation, wanted the approval of others, fell into bouts of self-pity, took criticism fairly hard, and so forth. His relationship with his wife seemed one of devotion and affection, but that didn't prevent him from writing to his wife about the other women he encountered and how tempted he was. This is a very human Nathanael Greene that emerges in this book, which makes him easier to relate too as well. After all, don't we all share certain traits in common, both the positive and the less flattering?
   
   The man with the limp was ridiculed by others when he first joined the military, but he grew into his role and held the confidence of his commander, George Washington. Greene made some bad calls on the field, but he learned from them. He also served as Quartermaster General, a critically important role, but one that denied him (as Greene thought) his often sought after military glory on the battlefield. He gained his chance for glory in his assignment to the Southern theater of operations in the Carolinas against Lord Charles Cornwallis, who had badly defeated two American armies.
   
   Without going into each battle or engagement that took place in South and North Carolina and Georgia, suffice it to say that Greene did what he had to do, namely, to keep the Continental army alive and wear down the British army. In these objectives he succeeded. He lost all the major battles he fought in, but they were battles that incurred heavy costs on the British and forced them to give up on their hopes of subduing the South. Even members of the British high command were quoted acknowledging Greene's skills in this campaign. Of course Greene wasn't the only man responsible for this result, but he provided the leadership, the ability, and the perseverance that were needed.
   
   The final pages seemed rushed in my opinion and there were some points that could have been developed further, but overall this was a good book. Greene served his country well and it was unfortunate that he died so soon after the war ended.



3. Nathanael Greene was often said to be George Washington's choice to take command of the continental army, should he himself be captured or killed. This is particularly striking when one considers that Greene was a private in the Rhode Island militia one year, and a general in the continental army the next. In Golway's excellent biography, we learn a great deal about Greene, possibly all we can know. This contrast can be frustrating, but it is not Golway's fault. How did a man who was a private, and asked to leave the guard due to his limp, come to be named a general? Golway can't tell us, as the historical record apparently just doesn't exist. Such frustrations aside, we get a great picture of Greene from what does exist. He was obviously a man of great understanding, realizing how the war would truly be won or lost (not necessarily on the battlefied, but "in the hearts and minds" of the populace). He was a businessman who became the quartermaster general against his own dreams of glory, and in so doing may well have saved the army. He was mindful of his own profits, while sacrificing much to the cause. He was the husband of a legendarily vivacious and impressive woman that we sadly do not know enough about. He lusted after glory, and was hypersenstive to criticism. His leadership in the Southern campaign set up the victory at Yorktown. Beyond all the facts we could list, Nathanael Greene epitomized what America would be at its best: a place where someone could reinvent themselves and be judged by ability and accomplishement rather than accidents of birth.



4. Terry Golway is a superb author and his work on Nathaniel Greene is one of his best works. If you are interested in the American Revolution and have some general background, you'll love this book. Golway takes you on a virtual tour of the life of this great American. He offers the reader a chance to not only follow General Greene through the day to day events of the war, but gives you a ample opportunities to consider the thinking behind his actions.
   
   Golway is careful not to elevate Nathaniel Greene to hero status as some authors have done. General Greene certainly had his share of faults and failures. But, his ability to persevere and ultimately succeed are the characteristics that make this such a great story. I recommend it to anyone who has read enough to know who Nathaniel Greene is. If you haven't read much on the Revolution, I suggest "A History of the American Revoultion" by Alden. This is not the most recent book on the subject, but it remains one of the best.



5. 1. The book was a good overview of the life of Nathanael Greene. It did a very good job of setting before the reader some of the inner drives and their sources which triggered some of Greene's actions and choices.
   
   2. The book suffered from a lack of maps. It needed strategic, operational and tactical maps in order to better explain the text, especially for readers who may not be familiar with the geography, the campaigns, or the methods of the American Revolution.
   
   3. Gen. Greene is justly held up for his service as the Quartermaster from mid Valley Forge until the Southern Campaigns. Even then his mastery of logistics set a tone and pattern for American warfare methodology to this day. The book would have been better served by some charts, data, etc of the challenges, successes etc of his efforts. Manpower, supplies etc. It would have helped the reader to better understand the contribution against odds that Greene made.
   
   4. Greene is laurelled for his innovative southern campaign which in this book suffers from detail and scope. With only about 50 pages devoted to this forgotten campaign.
   
   5. Overall a very good introduction, well written, easy to read, even providing a good glimpse into the relationship between Greene and his wife and children and his hero ... Washington.