No comments about Fred Stone: Circus Performer and Musical Comedy Star.

2 comments about Irrepressible Reformer: A Biography of Melvil Dewey.

1. A very informative biography of Melvil Dewey. Full of fascinating facts and interestingly written, I highly recommend this title, especially to those in the library world.



2. The author, Wayne Wiegand, has written the definitive book on Melvil Dewey. He tells us how Dewey accomplished so much in his lifetime. We also learn of some of the less than admirable qualities of Dewey. I found the following parts fascinating: the rise and fall of the Lake Placid Club; his difficult time at Columbia College; riding his bicycle to work on a regular basis; his ownership of Library Bureau; and the development of the Dewey Decimal System. I really felt that I knew Melvil Dewey after reading this book. The author relates the successes and the frustrations of Dewey. No one has had a greater impact on librarianship in the English speaking world than Melvil Dewey. I highly recommend this book to anyone who would like to learn about Dewey. The author is to be commended for a truly outstanding biography!

2 comments about The Norton Book of American Autobiography.

1. I bought this book because I was interested in the autobiography. I had just finished reading a few "shorts" in different anthologies, and I decided to do a search to see if there was anything larger out there. I found The Norton Book of American Autobiography and was pleased. I just finished this massive 711 paged book, and I would recommend it to anyone who's just interested in other people's lives. There are some stand-out writers included (Malcolm X, Benjamin Franklin, etc.), but also some contemporary writers as well (Julia Alvarez, Caroline Knapp, Paul Monette, etc.). This is a great book to read on your own, but I can really see it benefiting a lit. class at the same time.



2. Autobiography isn't always just the blathering of B-list celebrities. Much of it is some of the finest American literature ever produced. Some say Americans are egotistical and self-involved. Well, fine, maybe so, but it makes for great autobiography. And the informative and literary life synopsi (synopsises?) make for great reading by themselves!!! Huzzah to the editor and his minions!!!

5 comments about The Civil War Diary of Sarah Morgan.

1. This was not the typical Confederate family, even though three sons were serving the Rebel cause. Mainly, they were were not Southerners as both parents came to the South as young adults and did not have native heritage. Sarah was from a wealthy family who had a Victorian two-story house near the capital at Baton Rouge and a plantation twenty miles North of the small town called Linwood.
   
   She and her rich friends took buggy rides and strolls around the terrraced grounds of the State House until April, 1962, when David Farragut as he left New Orleans, the Confederacy's largest city at that time. The Union sailors came ashore and pulled down the Confederate flag which was on the arsenal and it became a Unionist territory.
   
   The Morgans left the town after seeing much of the military action and occupied Linwood, just five miles from Port Hudson where one of the most important operations of the war in Louisiana would take place in spring, 1863. Much of the diary was written during the months they spent at Linwood.
   
   Sarah was in New Orleans when the war ended in June 1865. From the accompanying picture of Sarah Morgan, you would think she is a Yankee. This is a part of history, but not necessarily Rebel history. She was just a young privileged woman who lived to telll the tale. Had she been a poor, Southern girl, it would have been a different story altogether.



2. Sarah writes with all her emotion and holds nothing back. She writes very detailed however at times it can be a little slow in parts and I found myself trudging through it at times. However, it was an interesting view from a young woman in Civil War times with two brothers in the army and a brother who had been involved in a duel.



3. Ms. Morgan's diaries are so beautifully written that they read like a novel; there is never a dull moment as she describes with great detail life in Baton Rouge during the Civil War. Even if the reader is not a Civil War buff, he or she will find this book spell-binding. The book includes informative footnotes, fine copies of historic photographs, and is a MUST for those pursuing courses in women's studies, the American Civil War or Southern history and culture.



4. Sarah Morgan is a girl of apparent intelligence and wit with a palpable charm. I don't agree that her concerns were trivial. They are those of any young girl thinking about love, marriage, family and her future. Her worries for the safety of her three brothers serving in the Confederate army were certainly not unwarrented since two of the three were killed by war's end. The book is very involving. My sympathy is all with the Northern army but I do care what happens to Sarah and those she loves.



5. Sarah Morgan was an 18 year old girl who lived the most sheltered of lives the social aristocracy of deep south dictated before the war. We read as she grows up after the dueling death of a brother and the death by illness of her father as the Civil War began. She was a natural writer, later becoming one of the first women to get a by-line in a major American newspaper. Her adventures are many and some quite dangerous. Her concerns are frivilous and girlish. Her views are through the prism of bigoted class distinction. Yet you will come to see her as your sister. Intelligent by nature, ignorant by training these two selves are in constant conflict. Just a terrific piece of history!

5 comments about Four Years With General Lee.

1. A history of the Civil War by Lee's aide Walter Herron Taylor.
   
   This is more a history than a memoir, and I get the impression that Taylor's other book has more personal reminiscence, though I haven't had a chance to see it yet. It clearly has served as a major source for generations of scholars; it describes most of the ANV's actions with a fair amount of detail and also discusses Lee's early campaign in West Virginia. The numerical strengths of the armies are tabulated in detail.
   
   Taylor's hero-worship of Lee is clear in his analyses of events and in the appended anniversary address, which doesn't make this a less useful source but should be taken into account.



2. As did Gilbert Moxley Sorrel (Longstreet), staff officer Walter Taylor offers his insights of the War of Southern Independence. Indeed, Taylor has rightful claim to his judgements, as his acquaitance with Lee offered him first-hand knowledge of events. However, I caution future readers that this is NOT a memoir or diary per se - Taylor rarely gives any unique slants to anything, and more often than not, seems occupied with setting the "numbers straight" - many, many, many tables and charts are provided giving the numbers available for this battle and that battle, etc...I suggest this book only for serious students of the war - and more particularly, those wanting "first-hand" data on "numbers." Of final interest, though, is Taylor's disdain for Hiram U. Grant (accurately recognizing Grant as a true butcher - merely throwing big numbers at an under-manned, under-supllied army) and the insertion of a speech given upon the anniversary of Genl Lee's birthday (albeit NOT written, or presented by Taylor himself)



3. Taylor's approach to covering the history of the Confederate struggle is encouraging to read. Though the title of this book tends to be a bit misleading. It should be called Four years of Confederate history. Taylor tends to describe battle movements and give calculations as to the manpower of divisions, brigades and regiments to a dragging sense. This books I recommend highly for those trying to get an accurate count of soldiers available for each battle, how many were casualties, after battle net amounts,etc.. Rarely are daily affairs of Lee covered. When I read this book I was disappointed to find out that it wasn't a book about General Lee and his daily livelyhood as I wanted to read about. Since Taylor was Lee's secretary I thought who better than to describe Lee's motives, attitudes, triumphs and defeats? Very rarely did Taylor ever mention Lee in this manner. Not enough to capture the man and tell his story. This book is a quick refresh of battles and movements throughout the war of the Army of Northern Virginia which hardly fits being called Four Years With General Lee. Credit is due to Taylor's ability to calculate total manpower and army positions throughout the four years though falls way short in covering Lee.



4. Wonderful book describing the massive work and devotion to duty that General Lee adhered to. Written by his A.A.G. A must read for southern patriots.



5. Taylor, as Lee's trusty staff member thoughout the war, is a great reference on Lee. Not all his words are to be taken at face value, however. For example, he had provided himself with a lovely suie with a piano and all he needed, far grander than Lee's abode. When Lee commented that Taylor had himself "finely fixed" there, Taylor responded " It will do." Lee was rightfully astounded, and left, although Taylor does not phrase it this way. Just a warning.

1 comments about Military Record of Louisiana: Including Biographical and Historical Papers Relating to the Military Organizations of the State.

1. Originally published in 1875, the Military Record of Louisiana is a collection of various written records, casualty lists and regimental muster rolls pertaining to Louisiana's participation in the American Civil War. It was compiled by Napier Bartlett, a native of Georgia who had studied in Louisiana prior to the war and entered the service of the famed Washington Artillery when the war began. The collection is, as Bartlett admits, "in no sense complete." Among the scattered and fragmentary items that one can find in the Military Record of Louisiana are, for example, the Journal of the Orleans Guard, the muster and partial casualty list for the 6th Louisiana Infantry, and The Louisiana Brigades in Virginia and Their Last Commander. By far the largest document that the book contains is Bartlett's own account of the service of the Washington Artillery. Despite the fragmentary nature of the Military Record of Louisiana it is without a doubt an important Civil War resource, and therefore a valuable addition to every Civil War buff's library.

5 comments about How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War.

1. The whole premise of this book is thrown out the window by the fact that Robert E. Lee was not promoted to Commander-in-Chief of the Confederate Forces until 31 January 1865, before that he was the Commander of the Army of Northern Virginia thus defending Virginia. Before that it was President Jefferson Davis who was calling the statragic maneuvers of the war. If Lee had been promoted earlier, things might have been different.



2. The book is sloppily researched and uses too much uneducated opinion. Bonekemper is certainly no military theorist or tactician. The author allows for no discussions of alternate opinions and presumes too much. I new look at Lee and his generalship is long overdue, but I owuld not waste your money on this. Try Emory Thomas or if you hate Lee this much, read Connelly's the Marble Man. At least Connelly's was well researched even if I do not agree with the opinion. That so many here pile on the praise of this book I would suggest taking a basic course in military theory.
   
   A couple of thoughts for you to ponder. What would the Confederacy have done if Richmond had fallen? That the author claims that Lee bled his army white shows his lack of knowledge about other contemporary battles, particualrly Solferino and the Napoleonic Wars.
   
   If Longstreet was not wounded at the Wilderness, Grant would have beeen forced back across the Rapidan.
   
   The author makes a better case with his book on Grant, but this is garbage.



3. Bonekemper has written a book that many Civil War history buffs will find outrageously controversial. His thesis, that Gen. Lee lost a winnable war through incompetent leadership, is broken down into the following claims:
   
   1) By taking the war into the North, Lee followed an ill-conceived strategy that had no chance of ultimate success. He could not maintain himself in supply at that distance from his base. He would eventually have to retreat, making it seem like he had been defeated, whether he had been or not. Further, he was making poor use of the two strategic advantages that the South had: a) they did not have to conquer the North in order to win the war, they only had to outlast them; and b) with their internal lines of communication, they could shift men and resources to the places where they most needed them.
   
   2) Lee's strategical viewpoint was influenced by his focus on the war in the East, and particularly the war in Virginia. He demanded and received the best of everything the South had to offer, and used it to fight for Virginia rather than for the South as a whole. He ignored important developments in the West, and denied that theatre resources that might have prevented its collapse. This myopia eventually allowed his own forces to be cut off and surrounded.
   
   3) Lee's strategy was made even worse by his preference for being on the offensive tactically. He failed to grasp that technological changes in weaponry had made massed charges on well-prepared defensive fortifications tantamount to suicide. He sent his soldiers into numerous assaults on Northern positions, that, even when they succeeded in driving back the enemy, were using up his manpower resources at an unsustainable rate.
   
   4) Compounding the above errors, Lee was not good at managing his army. He failed to provide himself with an adequate staff that could oversee the carrying out of his orders. His orders themselves were often vague, discretionary, and delivered verbally so that they were subject to misinterpretation and distortion.
   
   Anyone who is not wed to the image of Lee as a brilliant military commander will probably find himself being swayed by Bonekemper's arguments. Although born and raised in the South, my opinions on the Civil War make me an honorary Yankee. Therefore, I was entirely open to reading criticism of Lee, in spite of his iconic status. I found that at some point, though, I began to lose confidence in Bonekemper's objectivity. No possible objections to his viewpoint are presented or answered. He sets up the facts he want the reader to focus on, and ignores everything else. Nowhere does he mention that the idea of an invasion of the North was promoted by Johnston before Lee ever took command, or that it was also floated by Jackson at the end of his Valley campaign. Nowhere does he mention that the weight of public opinion in the South was completely opposed to a defensive war, and would probably have forced the resignation of any general who attempted to fight in that manner. (Lee could hardly have argued in favor of a defensive war using the prestige that he only enjoyed due to his willingness to go on the offensive.) Nor does Bonekemper mention the material advantages in resources and advanced weaponry enjoyed by the North that would have made a defensive war unlikely to succeed. Although weaponry made great technological advances during the war, the South did not possess the advanced weaponry as soon or in the same quantity as the North. For example, the South's retreat in the face of McClellan's advance during the Peninsula campaign was necessitated by their lack of long range guns that could respond to an artillery bombardment by Northern batteries.
   
   That said, I think there is some truth in Bonekemper's book, even if he does overstate his case. The South did not lose solely because of the decisions of one man, but Lee does bear some of the responsibility for the loss (not that I would have wanted the outcome to be different). Had Bonekemper tempered his arguments and taken into account some of the possible objections, this would be a much stronger book. Even so, I think it is worth reading for those who already have some knowledge of the issues. It is not a good book to start with in learning about the Civil War, though, and it is definitely not the last word on its subject.



4. This is a very thought provoking look at Lee's career. Read with THE REASON THE SOUTH LOST and WHY THE NORTH WON, it gives one a very different view of the relative capabilities of the generals involved and the constraints placed on both sides -- both physical and emotional. Lee undoubtedly has to bear the major blame for the South's defeat -- Bonekemper details and quantify's Lee's shortcomings in his grasp of strategy and the South's resources. I enjoyed this book a lot and would recommend it whether you agree with his argument or not.



5. Calling Robert E. Lee myopic in any context of the war he fought is crazy. Lee followed a strategy that was highly tuned to Southern desires. His strategy was well calculated to exert influence in the North and the crowned thugs in Europe. Lee could see a truth in the war nobody else could see, the war could be lost in either the east or west but only won in the east. Lee knew his men in the east were superior to the generals in the west, this however gave Lee no satisfaction but he did know it. As far as Lee being too aggressive is out of play as well. The southerners demanded aggressiveness and clamored for one thing, more war! Lee's style was exactly what southern temperment required. Look at what he achieves during the war and any one can see that because he was not successful does not mean he was wrong. At Seven Days he saved Richmond, at second Manassas he gave Lincoln a true emergency and at Chancellorsville, with the exception of Grant, haunts all other generals in the North during the rest of the war. Lee alone gave the Confederacy its only chance of victory and lived a life that was a vibrant heritage to everyone. So all of you on the Robert E. Lee myopia train need to get off, quit playing Monday morning quarterback and start studying a piece of history that can hold some water.

2 comments about Vote Your Conscience: The Last Campaign of George McGovern.

1. A first class chronicle of the 1984 McGovern campaign. Mr.Marano offers a top notch explanation of the motives that pushed Senator McGoveron into the race. You will be inspired by this beautifully written volume.



2. Richard Marano provides an in-depth analysis of one of history's most honest, forthright and moral political figures. Marano points out the historical inaccuracies and political misconceptions of George McGovern that plagued him in his last campaign of 1984. Marano also illustrates the pitfalls of the horse-race mentality of American politics, that which overemphasizes the importance of winning verses losing. This mentality adversely affects otherwise highly qualified candidates such as George McGovern as well as the mindset of the voters themselves. Vote Your Conscience makes the reader aware that, despite his shortcomings in the win-loss column, George McGovern's efforts did have a positive impact on society and politics. Marano provides thorough research and rare insight into the life and the ideals of this extraordinary man and well-qualified candidate. He also takes the reader deep inside the political process itself. Richard Marano reminds us to look beyond the hype and headlines, and to look within ourselves and to the raw truth behind the political spotlight, when we cast our votes.

   I highly recommend this book.

No comments about Jefferson's West: A Journey with Lewis and Clark.

No comments about Done in Oil: An Autobiography.