No comments about The Interesting Narrative Of The Life Of Olaudah Equiano Or Gustavus Vassa, The African, Written By Himself.

5 comments about Honorable Warrior: General Harold K. Johnson and the Ethics of Command (Modern War Studies).

1. Well-researched and written. A Bataan death march survivor and prisoner of the Japanese for several years, Johnson rose to the top of his profession, Chief of Staff of the Army. Truly a great man but largely unknown. An exciting story.



2. Harold K. Johnson was a soldier's soldier who had the misfortune to have his career bookended by a pair of tragedies. As a young officer at the beginning of World War II, he was captured by the Japanese on Bataan and his sense of duty forced him to abandon thoughts of escape in order to look after his men. Then, as Chief of Staff of the Army, he was forced to watch the civilian leadership ignore his advice and make a hash of a winnable war. Again, his sense of duty to his men forced him to swallow his anger and abandon plans of resigning and going public with his criticisms.
   
   Lest one think that something other than duty led him to these painful decisions, the core of his career reveals a brilliant, courageous soldier for whom duty was his watchword. Sorley writes with objectivity and sensitivity about Johnson's career and this book becomes a virtual primer on duty. Selflessness marked all of Johnson's actions and while one would have preferred seeing a happier conclusion to the career of this fine man, Honorable Warrior shows you why the best people in America are sometimes forced to live with the consequences of someone else's muddled decisions.
   
   Sorley's book succeeds as top notch military history, a thoughtful biography of a good man and a philosophical meditation on the nature of duty.



3. Sorley had become the preeminent biographer of military leaders. His first book, Thunderbolt, was a joy to read. Honorable Warrior is the story of man who fought, the Japanese, survived the Battan Death march and many years of unspeakable horror in Japanese prison camps. He also fought with great bravery in Korea. However, I t was his time as Chief of Staff when General Johnson faced his most difficult professional agonies. Anyone interested in leadership, the military or American history should read this book.



4. I'm four-fifths done with "Honorable Warrior", and about the same amount done with "A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam" by Neil Sheehan, and I'm terribly afraid, in fact, I'm pretty sure (I looked at the ending) that Mr. Sorley will duck the question that his subject could not duck..quite. That question was whether the military effort was going to work. General Johnson was averse to Phoenix-style assassination programs and to unrestrained bombardment. He thought local policing and interdiction of infiltration would answer things. This assumes (on his part) that the South Vietnamese regime would use this breathing space to flourish in democracy, rectitude, and mercy. Why did he assume this? His cherished analytical principle, Mr. Sorley informs us, was "challenge the assertion". For instance, the General tore to shreds, anaylytically, one of McNamara's "Systems Anaylysis" monster-reports on Vietnam by pointing out that it had been cobbled together out of twenty-eight other analyses, each of which had different assumptions. As my history professor would say, "scissors and paste" or "daisy-chaining" does not good history make. My question is whether the General was rigorous enough in evaluating his own thought, his own assertions. The question is directed to Mr. Sorley, who says in his conclusion that the war was actually against mere "surrogates" of China and the Soviet Union. By that logic, we would have been morally authorized to kill every Vietnamese, since they were only inert instruments of the source of the belligerency. Trying to look through Mr. Sorley's somewhat blood-misted eyes, I take seriously his suggestion that the General was often tempted to quit and that he had paralyzing doubts about the war, which he justified to himself as bringing freedom to the people of Vietnam. Did the General end up believing, in the words of the U.S. officer so often quoted, that in order to save the nation of Vietnam it was necessary to destroy it? No, I hear his fans shouting, he was too moral! But was he moral enough to realize that it was immoral to police and interdict a viable political regime (sponsored by Ho) to death in the hope that another regime would spring up from the morally toxic swamps of Saigon? (This concept of viability of regime is the standard upheld by so-called international law in determining which of competing regimes deserves recognition). Could he make that leap of faith in good conscience? Or did he in fact drape his moral doubt in words like "anti-communism" and "security", and leave it to someone else to decide if the whole thing was going to work? My suggestion for a moral lesson is that if you're called on to do something by someone who is farther from the action than you are to the extent that you're confident that you know more about the moral questions raised than your "superior" does, so much so that your sense of obligation to this superior evaporates, you cannot dress up your feeling of emptiness with some slogans, much less with the claim that you're only following orders, but must do something to rectify the malfeasance of your own superiors. In the words of Matthew Ridgeway, words that the Army put on a leadership poster ten years ago, "If you are confident that your orders are mistaken, you are obliged to attempt to fix things." Not his exact words. I don't think he just said to bring it to the attention of your superiors. I suppose that leaves disobedience, resignation, and forceful advocacy. It is the lack of forceful advocacy by the General, and lack of concern by Mr. Sorley over the General's lack of forceful advocacy, that makes the life of the General, as Mr. Sorley tells it, only worth four stars out of five. I mean, you can't just blame everything on General Westmoreland, especially when he worked for General Johnson, traditions of lattitude for field commanders notwithstanding. Alright, how do I know the General wasn't forceful enough since I haven't finished the book? He could have ordered Westmoreland to fix things: whatever, invade Laos, install U.S. commanders in all ARVN units, take over the administration of the South Vietnamese civil population, which is the same as taking over the Saigon regime, whatever it would have taken in his mind to win ("the freedom of the South Vietnamese people", remember) and then suffered the consequences. The President could have fired him. The fact that the President didn't fire him is proof to me that he didn't advocate forcefully enough. That is crude of me. Romantic. Duel at Diablo. End of story. Soul intact. It is so easy in a bureaucracy to adopt the attitude of "garbage in, garbage out", but they pay you and respect you for doing hard things. In the words of the New Testament parable, we are worthless servants when we only do what we are told. If the General had no doubt that his conduct of the war -- he was plumb in the middle of the road of the chain of command, it was on his watch -- was ethical, we cannot second-guess God's judgment of him. To quote the previous reviewer, however, it seems that he thought that his job was to follow orders. That is not ethical. That is, in the final analysis, stupid. We don't creates lines of authority to multiply our stupidity, but to diminish it. If, when you give somebody an order, there is no implicit "or am I being stupid" which they feel free to confirm or deny, you are not getting the best out of that subordinate and the people are not getting its best out of you. This applies the more so, the higher up you go. Hey?



5. I had the honor to know General Harold K. Johnson while he was a Commanding General, and then to serve two years as his personal aide while he was Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. Sorley has done a magnificient job of research and reporting on the life of the most dedicated American military leader in recent history. General Johnson was a unique man, humbled by his roots, molded by his experience as a POW, and a man whose personal moral standards never waivered. I think the author has portrayed General Johnson as the man I knew. My only difference with the portrayal is the implication of "resignation in protest" on a number of occasions. General Johnson held the view that his function was to advise the President, and that the President had no obligation to accept that advice. I would accept the "resignation" theory only if it portrayed General Johnson as considering resignation because he felt his advice was inadequate or that his articulation ! of that advice was inadequate. The idea of resignation would have been because he felt someone else could perhaps do it better. He was such a private man that I also doubt he would have shared that thought with others, particularly junior to him. But, a really excellent biography and Sorley has done himself proud.

1 comments about Lone Star Confederate: A Gallant and Good Soldier of the 5th Texas Infantry (Texas a & M University Military History Series).

1. The collaborative effort of civil war enthusiasts George Skoch and Mark W. Perkins, Lone Star Confederate: A Gallant And Good Soldier Of The Fifth Texas Infantry is a collection of letters penned by a Confederate solider. Eyewitness accounts of bloodshed, aftermath, long marches, starvation and much worse fill the pages of this riveting firsthand testimony of the front lines of America's deadliest war. Lone Star Confederate is a welcome and strongly recommended addition to Civil War collections and reading lists.

1 comments about Lost Soul: The Confederate Soldier in New England.

1. Rolston writes of the experience of the ordinary Civil War soldier in a manner both compelling and informative. I found it hard to put the book down! By interweaving some of the clearest descriptions of major battles I've read with the fascinating story of Rolston's own quest to discover the story and resting place of a Confederate veteran near his home in Rhode Island, he becomes a character in the continuing of history of the Civil War. Rolston easily conveys the tragedy, the irony, and the terrible beauty wrapped up in a time in American history when men held honor dear enough to die for.

5 comments about Get Carter: Backstage in History from JFK's Assassination to the Rolling Stones.

1. As the leading civilian authority on the Secret service, I recommend this book from former agent William Carter (despite reservations I have about his post-assassination work--see chapter 12 of my book). Still, a great read and well put together. Worth your time and money. Get it!



2. "Wow! Bill Carter's life can only be described as a giant thrill ride and one which everyone should accompany him on. Not only will you be held hostage by the historical events, famous people and gripping stories in this book, but you will be reading a roadmap to high achievement in your own life. Get Carter. Get Reading."



3. What a life! Just when you think his life couldn't get anymore interesting you turn the page and presto, it's more interesting. Great life and great book.



4. "Shedding light on some of the most intruiging events of the twentieth century, Bill Carter delivers delicious tales of someone privileged to have a rare view in one of the front seats of our world. Bill rode the events of history and tells you about them in his unique and entertaining way.
   
   Read "Get Carter" and take a seat next to Bill in this enlightening book!"
   
   Terri Marie - Award-winning author of "Be The Hero of Your Own Game."
   www.herobookonline.com



5. Reading Bill Carter's book was like traveling through a time warp with stops at many of the important historical and social events that make up the history of the last half of the Twentieth Century. What an enjoyable ride! Bill Carter is a true American original. A fascinating personality.
   
   Robert Kleine - Author, Copywriter, Website Developer
   www.rapidarticle.com/copywriting

1 comments about Libby: The Alaskan Diaries and Letters of Libby Beaman, 1879-1880.

1. What a wonderful book! Libby Beaman accompanied her husband to the Pribilof Islands (1879-1880). One hundred years later, her granddaughter gathered her journal, sketchbook and letters together to form this book of Beaman's experiences in that remote outpost. At the worst, they spent seven weeks snowbound by severe storms with limited food and 40 below zero temperatures outside. At times they had to stay in bed all day trying to keep warm. Starvation threatened their lives and she almost died from that and from scurvy.
   Libby's accounts of daily life, of the fur trade, people and conversations and of nature form a remarkable picture of a long-ago life.

1 comments about The Civil War Memories of Elizabeth Bacon Custer.

1. This is a book I had a hard time putting down. It is an eyewitness account of civilian Civil War times, and is a "must" for Civil War period buffs. It tends to deromanticize the era, as Libbie Custer tells the day-by-day details of marching with the Union Army, living in then near-desolate Washington D.C., and taking over rooms in Confederate farmhouses to set up camp. But those details are nevertheless fascinating, because they are so different from life today. Her memoirs unfortunately give too little information about Custer's personality and her relationship with him, which I was eager to learn. This is probably due to the writing style of the era, however, as Victorians tended to be "closed" about their personal feelings.

5 comments about Gray Fox: Robert E. Lee and the Civil War.

1. This was an OK book on Lee, I was expecting better from Davis. It was just too dry, and not really enough detail. More maps would have helped, and he could have written more on some of Lee's failures following the Wilderness Campaign. But overall it wasn't horrible, I did read it from cover to cover so it kept my interest. BTW, this book focuses almost exclusively on Lee during the Civil War, so you don't get detailed personal information and background on Lee (i.e. his early years before the war).



2. Davis is one of those rare authors who has the magical ability to to breathe life into the past through his writings. In addition to being a truly gifted writer, he is also an insightful and even-handed historian. Davis depicts Lee as a great, but not perfect general, as a complex figure who was willing to fight invading Northern armies, but who also hoped for an eventual end to slavery, as a man who while being vulnerable to pride sought the ideal of Christian humility, as kind and humane, but also willing to see men die in their thousands for the cause which he and they fought for. Moreover, while the book is written from the perspective of Lee and his army, the Northern side is still treated with respect and the same depth of understanding. Since many books on the Civil War are filled with hatred, blame, and arteficial and foolish one dimensional standards of morality, this is refreshing. I do not at all regret buying this book. I only regret that the author did not write more books. In addition to Gray Fox, I also highly recommend Davis's biography of Stonewall Jackson.



3. An excellent read on the life of Robert E. Lee. Davis does an good job in portraying the general's life, not overloading the reader with details. Those who have read more detailed books on Lee might find this one lacking, but I believe it to be worth your time and would make an excellent addition to ones Civil War library.



4. I wouldn't say I disliked this book, but I did find it pretty short on both style and substance. It presents a good chronology of Lee's ACW campaigns, and might make a good prelude to a more detailed account if one wanted to get that chronology straight. However the prose is limp at best and details lacking. In his descriptions of the battles (especially) Burke Davis brings very little to life. For example, in the description of Chancellorsville, one never gets a sense that the battle is slipping out of Lee's control before his and Jackson's daring and innovative masterstroke changes the outcome completely.

   Credit should be given for good use of excerpts from Lee's correspondance which paint a picture of a gentle and humane man doing his duty bravely despite a mounting sense of the long-term hoelessness of the situation. But, more interesting material can be found than this historical overview for anyone who wants something serious on the subject.




5. Nicely written clear and concise facts from beginning to end. Burke Davis quotes and paraphrases several first hand accounts of civilians Confederate, and Union officers. Mr. Davis also recites several letters from General Robert E. Lee to family, Jefferson Davis, Confederate officers and General Grant.

   The reading of this biography permeates vast knowledge of Robert E. Lee. Starting with his birth, education at West Point, emergence from the Mexican War, "with a reputation as the army's most talented young officer." Mr. Davis does a great job of conveying General Lee's concerns about the possibility of civil war. Robert E. Lee made the difficult decision to resign from the U.S. military. Here is a sample of General Lee's letter of resignation. "I have devoted all the best years of my life and all the ability I posed. During the whole time-more than a quarter of a century-I have experienced nothing but kindness from my superiors and a most cordial friendship from my comrades. To no one, General, have I been as much indebted as to yourself for uniform kindness and consideration. I shall carry to the grave the most grateful recollections of your kind consideration, and your name and fame will always be dear to me."

   The book is worthy of reading I'll probably read it a few more times. Therefore five stars seems appropriate for a truly amazing book. This book is for folks from any geographical area. Whatever your race, creed, culture, religion is this book can be an enjoyable read. I leave you with one last quote this is Robert E. Lee's opinion of slavery. "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil...I think it greater evil to the white than to the black race."

3 comments about Lincoln's Abolitionist General: The Biography of David Hunter.

1. General David Hunter may have achieved more off the field of battle than directly on it. After serving as commander in Kansas, he was appointed Commander of the Department of the South, where, after Ft. Pulaski, Georgia, fell to the Union in April 1862, he freed all the slaves in his department. A gutsy move, but one that Lincoln annulled two weeks later. Undeterred, a short while later he formed the 1st South Carolina Regiment, consisting of former slaves - a move that the Confederacy so detested that it declared Hunter a "felon to be executed if captured." In 1864, after initial successes against Confederate forces in the Shenandoah Valley (especially at Piedmont), he was repulsed by Jubal Early and driven back into West Virginia. After the war he accompanied Lincoln's body to Springfield and headed the commission that tried Lincoln's conspirators in the assassination. He died in 1886 in Washington.
   
   Edward Miller's biography is detailed and scholarly, without being numbingly so. He is an excellent writer, and his account of Hunter's life is straightforward and competent. A good biography of this forward-looking general.



2. Every now and then, the Union high command reminds me of baseball. There are some generals who seem like middle relievers. They come in out of nowhere, pitch an inning or two and then vanish with little glory or fanfare. Or in the case of a general who has been on my mind these days, he commands an army for a week and then vanishes only to pop up a few weeks later leading a courtmartial.
   
   I'm talking about David Hunter. Hunter's odd career is examined by Edward Miller in this solid but somewhat disapointing biography. Hunter is best known for his command in South Carolina in the Summer of 1862 where he issued orders abolishing slavery (without checking with Lincoln first) and his only other major service was leading raids in the Valley between Siegal's and Sheridan's tenures there. Miller, a VMI man, spends considerable time exploring Hunter's raid in the Valley in 1864.
   
   But look closer. Hunter was one of the few Republican officers in the Old Army and he had ties in Virginia, Chicago and New Jersey. He knew Lincoln on a social level and started corresponding with him in 1860 before the nomination. Lincoln took Hunter along with him on the train ride from Springfield to Washington along with Elmer Ellsworth, John Pope (another Republican from Illinois whose dad was close to Lincoln) and that old bull E. Sumner. Hunter led the guards at the White House and got himself wounded at First Bull Run. After recovering, Hunter went out to Missouri where he kept Washington informed on what Fremont was up to and took Fremont's place in command for one whole week before Halleck appeared. After stints in Kansas and South Carolina, Hunter ended up back in Washington, leading the controversial and highly partisan Fitz John Porter Trial. In 1863 Hunter did not hold a command. Instead Hunter seemed to show up out of nowhere, dropping down on Union generals. He serveed as Washington's eyes and ears, meeting with Grant twice, scouting him out for high command. Hunter also showed up to lead courtmartials on Gen. McCook (from a very prominent family in a key border state), Gen. Crittenden (ditto as his father was the most prominent politician in his state save Henry Clay), dropped down on General Banks to see what's up in the Red River (Banks was a former Speaker of the House and a prominent politician from Massachusetts) and of course ended up chairing the military tribunal of the Lincoln assasians.
   
   Now I can't think this is all a coincidence. Hunter, one of the few Republican generals and a Lincoln protoge, kept on leading politically sensative invesigations where things can get swept under the rug or disposed of. He was very much Linclon's troubleshooter in the army high command. The problem is Miller touches on all of this and fails to connect the dots. He looks at Hunter as a battlefield commander and downplays Hunter's role in the bigger picture. That's what proves frustrating about this book though it certainly offers light on a mostly obscure subject. Miller does an excellent job of dispelling a number of myths about Hunter. Still, while Miller provides a basic narrative, he does miss the bigger picture and his writing is a bit dry. Civil War scholars will profit from the book but it really can not be recomended for casual readers.



3. Although General Hunter wasn't an abolitionist in the sense that Frederick Douglass or Garrison were, he may have been the highest ranking military officer to have issued orders freeing southern slaves without authority (before the Emancipation Proclamation) because he believed southerners who seceded were traitors and he needed every soldier INCLUDING BLACK SOLDIERS he could get. Hunter's bland history as a "paymaster" during the Mexican war and the Frontier Indian wars is an added bonus, as the job was much more than it seems. Miller's recounting of how Hunter decided which of the homes of "rebel sympathizers" to burn down is also highly instructive of what it must have been like to conduct a "war" in your own backyard, with family names you know. Hunter was a personal friend of both Jefferson Davis and Abe Lincoln and routinely went around normal military channels to make his points. Miller doesn't try to present Hunter as a hero, but an interesting character in the Civil War who was well in front of his fellow Republicans on the issue of freeing the slaves and enlisting them into the war. (They didn't all want to be free, nor did they all want to fight.) The prose is a little dry, but the story carries it along well. Civil War buffs should particularly like this viewpoint of the Virginia campaign. Recommended.

4 comments about Millard Fillmore.

1. I sympathize with chefdevergue who also reviewed this incredible biography. Is McFarland & Company a vanity press? Did the editors run out of time?
   First, the good news:
   I have read hundreds of biographies of which about two dozen are of American presidents. I remain surprised and disappointed at the futility of my search for cradle-to-grave biographies of the less famous presidents. For example, try to find such a biography of John Tyler. So I really appreciate the comprehensive, detailed treatment of Fillmore (although the author never explains how Fillmore supported himself from the time he left the presidency until he married a rich widow). I applaud the inclusion of a timeline, genealogy, illustrations, index, notes, and bibliography.

   Now to the reasons why I shook my head till it started to rattle:
   How can a book this long and expensive ($75.00) escape critical editing and some semblance of a peer review? Page after page, I shook my head in amazement as I wrestled with weak sentence construction, loose paragraph structure (as chefdevergue explained in an earlier review), frequent double prepositions, improper antecedents, and the ever present Department of Redundancy Department.
   Of course the author is on a mission, not to rehabilitate Fillmore to the status of at least an "average" ranking among presidents, but just to rescue Fillmore from obscurity. I wonder how poor Millard would feel about becoming well known as a result of this biography.
   If you want informed political analysis to set the context for Fillmore's adult life, look elsewhere but be prepared to look far and wide. This is not scholarly work, but rather a detailed story.
   Considering the dearth of alternatives for adult readers, those who are interested in learning about the life of Fillmore should put on their neck braces so they don't shake their heads too much, get comfortable, and read this book.




2. While I agree with the author that Millard Fillmore has been unjustly maligned by historians as a weak boring president, I found this biography to more of a disservice to Fillmore than anything else.
   
   Detail in a biography is nice, but this book reads more like a giant pamphlet, with endless recitation of one tidbit after another, than a coherent, analytical biography. The paragraphs often seem to have nothing to do with each other; the author states a single fact, cites his source, and then moves on. The facts being stated sometimes seem to be more than the reader really needs:
   
   "Fillmore wrote home about accidents. In 1838, a head-on collision of locomotives occurred on the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad which prevented a passenger train arriving with mail. In 1841, a flood on the Susquehanna River carried away a steamboat to Chesapeake Bay. A rescue boat was sent for relief." (p. 123)
   
   What usefulness such information serves in understanding Fillmore (other than the fact that he wrote letters to his family) is beyond me. Unfortunately, the book is full of such paragraphs.
   
   When he is not inundating the reader with minutiae, Scarry tends to sound like a character witness in Fillmore's trial. He clearly reacts personally to what he perceives as negative attacks on Fillmores character, and indignantly leaps to Fillmore's defense. Since I don't find Fillmore to be a particularly controversial historical figure, I find this passion to be somewhat misplaced. It tends to detract from a sense of objectivity on the author's part.
   
   When all is said and done, I guess you can say that this is informative a biography on Fillmore as the reader can expect to find. Being informative does not necessarily equate with being a good biography. For example, one could read Robert Remini's biography of Daniel Webster to get a contrast on how one can write about this time period. Fillmore is important to a certain degree, but I really don't think his importance merits a biography as exhaustive as this.
   
   This is not a terrible biography, and it does fill a void regarding Fillmore. However, the author would be well-advised to remove much of the minutiae, which would cut the book's length in half. The tedious nature of the book means many readers may lose interest halfway through.



3. Robert Scarry was a retired history teacher and town and village historian for Moravia, New York. Scarry's own study of Fillmore spanded several decades. In this work, Mr. Scarry has probably created the definative work on our country's thirteenth president.

   Robert Scarry has shown that much of what is commonly held to be true of Millard Fillmore is not. His earlier work (1965) on Fillmore was a small booklet that underwent several printings. Now, in his book, Millard Fillmore, Scarry has presented new material that stands even some of his earlier research on its head.

   As a much-misunderstood figure in American history, Fillmore has both received blame for that which he should not be held to account for and not enough credit for the his overlooked or forgotten successes during his pre-civil war presidency.

   Civil War period buffs and anyone intersted in the early days of our country and the presidentcy should get this book.




4. Historians have relegated Millard Fillmore to virtual obscurity. This biography, however, attempts to improve his image as a strong, effective, chief executive. The author traces Fillmore's lineage, childhood, law career, Congressional years, and presidency.

   The author argues that Fillmore based his presidency on nationalism, Constitutional principles, and laissez-faire economy. Although opposed to slavery, Fillmore supported the Fugitive Slave Law as a compromise to avert Civil War. He supported the Compromise of 1850 that submitted California as a free state. To promote economic growth, he endorsed a moderate 20% tariff. He also appealed for the Transcontinental Railroad. According to the author, he strongly handled the Texas-New Mexico dispute. Fillmore advocated neutrality in foreign affairs with moderate diplomacy.

   This book adroitly recognizes Millard Fillmore's accomplishments in an intelligent manner. The book has many interesting anecdotes and quotes that greatly embellish the narrative. For example, Fillmore's writings demonstrate an adherence to Constitutional principles, nationalism, and favorite foods, stand on slavery, and political ideology.

   This book includes illustrations and thorough footnoting. The chronological format adds to my reading enjoyment. The appendix includes letters and notes at the end to supplement the text. An excellent bibliography gives the reader a list of books for further exploration. The book also includes a useful Millard Fillmore chronology about important dates and events. The lucid prose adds cogency in perhaps a too sympathetic biography.