2 comments about The Merchant Prince of Dodge City: The Life and Times of Robert M. Wright.

1. C. Robert Haywood has written a wonderful book on one of the founders (of perhaps two or three men) of Dodge City, Kansas. Wright made millions from cattle and spent it all. Four wives, and 45 years later he died in Dodge City, broke and not famous. He was one of the men who hired Wyatt Earp and was a backer of Bat Masterson, among many other more famous (infamous) Western heros. As President of the Ford County (ie, Dodge City) Historical Society, I assure the reader that no better history of that period has yet been written, except perhaps Robert Wright's own 1913 book on Dodge City. (out of print). Wright is an amazing man, from a family which included a grandfather who was Clerk of the US Supreme Court and a greatgrandfather that was president of the US during the period before the constitution. Great book. (Little known fact: Wright has, in 1999, a greatgrandson, age 80 and a grandson, age 49, still living. That doesn't happen often, but with forty years or so between wife number 1 and wife number 4....) George Laughead Jr.



2. C. Robert Haywood has written a wonderful book on one of the founders (of perhaps two or three men) of Dodge City, Kansas. Wright made millions from cattle and spent it all. Four wives, and 45 years later he died in Dodge City, broke and not famous. He was one of the men who hired Wyatt Earp and was a backer of Mat Basterson, among many other more famous (infamous) Western hero. As President of the Ford County (ie, Dodge City) historical Society, I assure the reader that no better history of that period has yet been written, except perhaps Robert Wright's book on Dodge City itself. (out of print). Wright is an amazing man, from a family which included a grandfather who was Clerk of the US Supreme Court and a greatgrandfather that was president of the US during the period before the constitution. Great book. (little known fact: Wright still has in 1999 a greatgrandson age 80 and a grandson, age 49, still living. that doesn't happen very often, but with forty years or so between wife number 1 and wife number 4, etc.) George Laughead Jr.

3 comments about John H. Behan: Sacrificed Sheriff.

1. Based on his "well-known" record, found in the charges against him in Tombstone, and later when he was a Federal Employee, the title could more aptly have been Johnny Behan: Scumbag. It's sales would also have been larger.
   
   Is this book worth reading? Hardly, until you've read a lot of the other evaluations of Behan in books. He was a drukard, philanderer and crook by any standards. But likeable.



2. The "Sacrificed Sheriff" is an excellent and well documented read. It provides a wealth of factual information about John Behan, the Sheriff of Cochise County, AZ. Behan's reputation, has too long been outright lies and innuendos. The footnotes in this text indicate it is well researched and make for easy confirmation of Alexander's story, unlike the so called auto-biographies of Wyatt, Virgil and Josephine Earp. Behan is nothing less than a partiot who served his country well while the Earps were seeking personal wealth and self-agrandized fame. You should read all the Earp texts before delving into this factual account of Arizona history.-Bill McLennan, San Antonio, TX



3. I truly would like to recommend "Sacrificed Sheriff" more strongly. It provides a wealth of factual information about John Behan, the Sheriff of Cochise County, Arizona, when the city of Tombstone reached its pinnacle of fame as the site of the so-called Gunfight at the OK Corral and the surrounding events. Behan's reputation, as Bob Alexander vehemently protests, has long been assailed through innuendo and an unfairly selective use of evidence, painting him as a weak and corrupt opponent of Wyatt Earp and his brothers. In Alexander, Behan has at last found a very sympathetic biographer, perhaps a biographer too sympathetic to objectively view the historical questions involved. While Alexander repeatedly (and rightly) protests the negative assumptions and interpretations of evidence used in the past against Sheriff Behan by various writers, Alexander himself falls into the same trap, seemingly never missing an opportunity to paint Wyatt Earp in the darkest colors, repeating sketchy rumors and always promoting the most negative answer to any question.

   I confess a particular personal aversion to some stylistic choices made by Alexander, most notably the lavish use of italicized words and exclamation points throughout his text. Reading this, I could not help but feel that the author is displaying an unseemly indignant petulance not at all appropriate for anyone attempting an objective history. In the end, I think that Mr. Alexander has eroded the effectiveness of his own book by such devices and through a blatant display of partisanship in his unceasing attacks upon Wyatt Earp at every opportunity (extending to creating such opportunities even where the narrative text about Behan, supposedly the focus of the book, does not logically involve Earp at all). At times, Alexander seems to confuse the opinions of earlier authors of an "anti-Earp" bent with actual evidence, citing with relish almost anything unflattering ever written about the man whom popular history has chosen, instead of Sheriff Behan, to be at the center of Tombstone's story. I believe that "Sacrificed Sheriff" would have benefited greatly from a strong editor who would have toned down Mr. Alexander's all too evident antipathy towards Wyatt Earp and kept the book's focus more clearly on its supposed central subject.

   Do I encourage persons interested in the controversies surrounding Tombstone in its glory days to read Alexander's book? Yes, I do. But I caution them to read it for the facts given about John Behan's life rather than for the interpretations the author makes about Behan's opponents.

No comments about Write It When I'm Gone: Remarkable Off-the-Record Conversations with Gerald R. Ford.

5 comments about Pickett Leader of the Charge: A Biography of General George E. Pickett, C.S.A.

1. I considered Edward Longacre's biography on George Pickett to be a pretty good one. The author goes into considerable length to show the reader what kind of man Pickett was behind his "Gettysburg persona" that most Americans know him from. The picture we get is one of strange contradictions of a man who can do a dishonorable thing like abandoning his own son to a brave and couragous soldier.

   The author proves to be very sympathic toward his subject. However, not even Longacre can excuse Pickett for his foolishness at Five Forks. It was interesting that the author did not investigate the effects of post traumatic stress disorder which must have affected Pickett after Gettysburg. That may have answered many of unusual downgrading of Pickett's abilities as commander. (Another famous combat leader, Marshal Michel Ney of Napoleon's army also suffered from it after Russian Campaign of 1812 and his performance suffered thereafter.)

   However, the book come highly recommended and it proves to be well written, nicely researched and very informative.




2. I enjoyed Longacre's book on George Pickett. I often read "on the go" and liked the way he broke down each chapter in brief segments which I could read and stop conveniently. The author does a good job of portraying Pickett evenly and sifting thru the legends and myths. I appreciated Longacre's discussion on Gettysberg as that is one thing I have always wondered about. Was it wrong for Pickett not to accompany his men on this heroic and futile assault ? Pickett himself proved to be a complex man and all too human. After reading this book I felt that Pickett's military career was a quest for respect and secondly for glory and not the other way around.



3. This is a good work. Other than the Gettysburg charge, before reading this book I did not know George Picket very well. I only got glimpses of him from various readings: Chapultepec, the Penninsula Campaign, Bermuda Hundred, Five Forks, etc. And in those various readings never once did anyone take him to task, making him account for himself like Longacre does.

   What we have here is a complex aristocrat, a fighter, whose personal attributes estranged the majority of his superiors (Lee and Jefferson Davis to name a few) but one whose loyalty and devotion to Confederate Independence made him indispensable to their efforts .

   He is difficult to like. He deserts a son, is a heavy drinker, is a panderer and is a political maneuverer in the worst sense of the concept. But we also have a person who personifies loyalty, who serves to the very end, under privation, while absorbing every imaginable insult from his superiors along the way. He may have made some serious errors but he always obeyed orders, remained steadfast, even when he must have known he had been identified as expendable. Above all else he served, served, served.

   Longacre does a remarkably good job of brining Picket to life. Even more important than Picket is the wonderful glimpse we get into the workings of the Confederate High Command. A very valuable additional plus is the myriad of interesting historical antidotes that will make the most serious student of the Civil War stop and say, "I didn't know that."

   No Lost Cause apologia, here you get all the warts. This one is definitely worth the time.




4. Growing up in the south I always held the same general opinion of Pickett that most southerners and indeed most Americans hold. The playboy image seen in the movie "Gettysburg" has always been what came to mind at the mention of General Pickett. Thanks to this book I see that the well known image is false.

   Pickett does indeed seem to have been a glory hound and playboy but he was also a brave soilder who exposed himself to deadly fire in the Mexican War and was wounded early in the Civil War. Longacre handles the fact that Pickett didn't actually lead his men to the angle at Gettysburg in just the way he should have handled it.

   I found most interesting Pickett's work at Petersburg to hold that city until Beauregard and then Lee could arrive on the scene. Pickett is not in general given his due for Petersburg probably because after the war the "cult of the lost cause" was so protective of General Lee that they kept to a minimum Pickett's role. In fact, Lee made a mistake and Pickett and then Beauregard saved the day. Without Pickett's contribution at Petersburg the war might have ended several months sooner. Richmond simply could not have been held without Petersburg.

   A great book that puts a new and interesting face on George Pickett. It belongs in any Civil War library.




5. Traces George Pickett's life from military school to Military Academy and on to his career in first the Union Army and then Confederate. As did many of Lee's Generals, Pickett saw service in Mexico with Scott and also tours in the Far West. Pickett's first assignment in the Confederate Army was to the Northern Neck of Virginia where his forces were mostly militia. He repeatedly complained that these forces and portion of Virginia failed to rally to the high standards of support for the Confederacy that he expected. When a more senior officer arrived in the area Pickett responsibilities were relegated to an even lesser position. Clearly this man was not a rising star but more of a place holder. In fact throughout his career he was constantly trying to position himself for higher visibility.

   The author makes a careful analysis of Pickett's actions at Gettysburg and concludes that while they were nether heroic nor cowardly they were in keeping with the actions expected of someone in his position.

   After the war Pickett had a difficult time "fitting in" and after several pursuits became a life insurance salesman in Richmond. Perhaps a testimonial to what he is best known for...leading (as directed) thousands of men to their slaughter.

   I found this book to be well written and documented but a little disjointed at times.

5 comments about Dirty Jokes and Beer : Stories of the Unrefined.

1. Back in 1992, my first big gig as a comedian was emceeing in Chicago for a week. The headliner that week was Drew Carey, one of the best guys to know and meet in the biz. He is very friendly and honestly wants everyone to succeed; a rare attribute in the world of standup. His also one of the funniest.
   
   Drew's book provides a lot of insight into his steps up the comedy ladder. I wish he had cut the dirty joke chapter and instead included more road stories. The story about his wacky friend and Jim Brown makes the book worth reading alone. I don't want to give it away; trust me, it is absolutely hilarious.
   
   Congrats on all the success Drew; you earned it.



2. Drew Carey is a thuddingly dim star in the entertainment firmament, an anomaly for sheer inscrutability of talent even in that recondite sphere. While comic actors have at times been known to build their careers on measurable skills, Mr. Carey has successfully parlayed a "less is more" strategy into a career dragging along for an improbably interminable period. No less insipid a figure today than the fateful moment he began desultorily scuffing the boards, Carey lately brings his singular skills and love of soccer to a new show, "Drew Carey's Sporting Adventures," which promises to showcase all that is wonderful about this beloved figure while offering its Travel Channel audience fresh reasons to eschew a sport loved around the globe.
   
   Buster Keaton, Groucho Marx, S.J. Perlman, Dorothy Parker, P.G. Wodehouse, Richard Pryor, Steve Martin, ... none of these shining lights of comedy will be called to mind by Mr. Carey's book, "Dirty Jokes and Beer," whose author bravely goes it alone in the comedic sphere, free from burdensome old bedfellows like perceptiveness, irony, intelligence, or humor.



3. my title here says it all. In this book Carey gives us tons of ammo to fire back at friends. If you're looking for a book to zip though and laugh out loud....get this book. Just don't expect Shakespere!



4. Drew Carey is a funny guy. As his Funny Bone commercials state, "funnier than you". The first half of the book is extremely funny then loses its momentum for the latter half. Drew lets you in to his human side, where a lot of other celebrities would shy away from such thinks making Drew even more likable knowing who he is and where he came from. I think his show was great and I think he knows that the joke and his star are not always going to be popular so enjoy it while you can. Drew, the every man's everyman. This book is not a laugh riot but a nice look a man that found his way to stardom by accident without any aspirations from childhood. It does make you laugh but it is not a jokebook. Remember that. I enjoyed this quite a bit while at home and at the beach, a very good beach companion. Give it a try!



5. Dirty Jokes is his section for ranting about stuff. Each chapter starts with a dirty joke and the follows with something close to his typical stand up routine. This is Drew as stand up comedian section. It's the most crass of all the book and in some regards the funniest.
   
   Beer is Drew's more serious autobiography with information on how his sitcom ran (interesting details), his run ins with the tabloids (funny), his childhood and some thoughts on how he ended up the person he is. Having friends who've been through similar childhoods, his recollections seem very plausible and I'm sorry he went through what he did. I'm glad he's come out of it a stronger person.
   
   Stories of the Unrefined was my least favorite section. The stories werer just too dull after his chattier sections. When writing fiction he tries too hard to sound refined. He should just relax and let the story flow in his natural voice.

No comments about Saratoga Sojourn.

1 comments about The Union Generals Speak: The Meade Hearings on the Battle of Gettysburg.

1. This book is truly a unique look into the politics of Army of the Potomac as well as the thoughts of the men who commanded it at Gettysburg. It is a work that most Gettysburg enthusiasts will greatly enjoy and will also serve as a valuable reference tool.
   
   The book in essence is the congressional testimony of some of the most important men involved in the battle of Gettysburg on the Federal side. The highlight of the book are the testimonies of Generals such as George Meade, Gouverneur Warren, Winfield Hancock, Henry Hunt and John Gibbon. Men whose testimony give us much insight into what their thoughts were during the battle and why it was fought the way it was.
   
   Also included in the book are some not so honorable testimonies by men whose goal at the hearings were to settle political and personal scores with Meade. The testimony of Dan Sickles will make even the most novice Gettysburg enthusiast's blood boil. To say it is full of lies and falsehoods would be an understatement. The testimony of Dan Butterfield isn't much better. The two men set out to destroy the reputation of Meade but in the end only managed to tarnished their own names in history.
   
   As important and interesting as these testimonies are, what really takes this book to the next level is the commentary by Bill Hyde. His comments put these testimonies in context and really help enhance the reader's understanding of what the men both testifying and on the committee were trying to accomplish.
   
   If you hold a strong interest in the Battle of Gettysburg then you are really going to enjoy this book. It will be a valuable addition to your Civil War book collection.

No comments about The Life Of Colonel Paul Revere Parts One and Two.

5 comments about America's First Dynasty : The Adamses, 1735--1918.

1. I saw this on sale and thought it would be a nice 'chaser' after David McCullough's long but excellent "John Adams" that I was just finishing up. I was right, but barely. First, on the good side: it's a well written quick review of the four famous and interesting generations of Adamses. It gets high marks for putting a lot into a small package. Also, all four get equal time, which, given the complexities of each, I appreciated.
   
   On the negative side: it did not surprise me that Brookhiser took a less flattering (and more mainstream) view of John Adams than McCullough. But when his disparagment stretched to the following three generations I started to wonder what size burr the author may be sitting on. If you buy Brookhiser's somewhat malignant view of these four, it then begs the question how such an irascible hypocritical set of men could be so successful. Which is neither asked nor answered.
   
   It was worth the $5 I paid, but I wouldn't pay full price.



2. Throughout much of human history, leaders of nations were the children of leaders of nations. Nearly 230 years ago, a radical notion was advanced in a document that would help to form a new republic: that all men are created equal. Many of those American colonists who declared themselves independent of their king wanted not only to limit the power of the executive but to be sure that they had the ability to choose who that executive would be, rather than to have it pass from father to son. Thus, "only three of the first eight presidents produced potential successors, [and] only three of those sons were considered presidential timber." Two of them were named Adams, and one of them would actually become president.
   
   In America's First Dynasty, Richard Brookhiser uses just under 220 pages to paint compelling biographies of four successive generations of a family from 1735 through 1918, an unusually active one that included two presidents of the United States, a public servant of the republic and his state, and a writer. These men lived through tumultuous and eventful times and played roles in them.
   
   The text appears to be well-researched and is quite readable. Quite a lot of history was packed into a very small number of pages; readers with a good understanding of the times and concurrent history will find their understanding of these characters enhanced. Readers who do not know much of the concurrent history might feel rushed.
   
   In groups of three chapters, each of the subjects is considered. Beginning with John Adams, we're introduced to him already in service of his country, at a dinner party in France. We follow him through the highlights of his professional career, and into retirement. We're suddenly focusing on his son John Quincy, as his career starts at an early age with his father, and how he differs from his brothers, who fall prey to the snare of alcohol. John Quincy himself was distinguished, even becoming president, but (much like his father) was hampered by his distaste for political parties and the method of serving in public office.
   
   Charles Francis Adams married well and held various public offices throughout his career, even running as a candidate for Vice-President on the Free-Soil party ticket. Most of his public life was in state and then federal legislature, followed by a diplomatic appointment by Abraham Lincoln. Brookhiser points out that it is in the family of Charles Francis that the family tendency toward alcoholism is broken.
   
   Henry Adams apparently had no taste for public life, preferring instead to become a writer. Much of the biographical sketch focuses on the creation of his best-known work, The Education of Henry Adams. With only his lineage and his wife's suicide to frame the work, we're left wondering what else Henry did. Perhaps this was Brookhiser's intention: to focus on that which each of the subjects left behind for posterity.
   
   Indeed, after the biographical sketches, we're given several more brief chapters that discuss the family habit of keeping a diary and the writing of history. Brookhiser then attempts to frame much of what we have read, discussing such matters as dynasty and legacy. I found the discussion a bit strange because while various Adamses were clearly concerned with the matter of greatness-returning to the question of who are great men-I was under no impression that the Adamses themselves were much concerned with the legacy of the family. I saw only that they were like every other family, wanting what is best for their children, hoping that they will be of good character and do well for themselves.
   
   Putting the discussion in terms of dynasty might not be so strange when viewed through the lens of history. The fact is that John Adams was there from the founding of the country, and his family remained prominent in American life into the twentieth century. Had Henry fathered children, perhaps the chain of prominent Adamses would be unbroken today.
   
   Given this country's interest in the families that produce presidents, it's hardly any surprise that there would be such interest in a family that produced two presidents, especially in light of the fact that the current president is also the son of a president. In all, America's First Dynasty makes for an engaging read, but the extreme brevity of the biographical sketches left me hoping for more.



3. The old style of biography was much like theatre criticism. The more cleverly you could trash the subject, the more you were -- or felt yourself to be -- a winner. When personality peculiarities made subjects as vulnerable to witticism as John Adams' was, we got decades of historical biographers trying to out-acidify the likes of Bernard Shaw. This style had faded significantly by the time David McCullough wrote a biography of John Adams that was unabashedly laudatory...an open fan letter...clear hero worship!

   From Brookhiser's race through four members of the Adams family I learned only two things for sure.
   1. The Adams's irritate him.
   2. The old adage that "the things you criticize most in others are usually your own worst fault" appears to be true.

   The author's rancor calls and raises the rancor he attributes to his subjects. Reading it was an unpleasant experience with little to no redeeming informational or ideational value for anyone but the author's therapist.




4. "America` First Dynasty" by Richard Brookhiser. Sub-titled: "The Adamses, 1713-1918".
   Understandably, this book concentrates on the two presidents, John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Their contributions as one-term presidents help to establish democracy in the nascent United States. Brookhiser notes that the two Adamses were the first presidents not from Virginia. Much of what John Adams did became precedents for later presidents.

   It appears to me that the author makes the tacit assumption that the reader has a fairly good knowledge of American history, so he casually introduces lesser know subjects, such as the "Know Nothing Party " (Native American Party) and the anti-Masonic efforts in upstate New York. This, of course, leads you to things that you want to examine further, but, on the other hand, inhibits the free-flow of the book.

   I think that the author is stretching to consider Charles Francis or even Henry Adams as "greats" who were continuing the Adams "dynasty". I did, however, enjoy Brookhiser's "book review" approach to "The Education of Henry Adams" and Henry's book on Mont St. Michel. Perhaps the next book by Brookhiser would be the comparison of the contributions of the Adamses, the Harrisons, the Roosevelts and the Bushes: all presidents who related by blood.

   I listened to the seven tapes as I commuted around Boston; excellent reading by Dan Cashman. It is appropriate to note the name of the town of Haverhill is pronounced as HAV AAAA rill by the natives.. The reader sounded it out and said Have Er Hill, which is logical but not the way it is said in Massachusetts. Further, the hometown of the Adamses , Quincy, is said as "QuinZZZy".




5. I've read all of Richard Brookhiser's biographies of the Founding Fathers (Washington, Hamilton, Morris) and I've enjoyed them all, but I liked this one the least. Brookhiser writes very well and his observations on the character of his subjects are always revealing. He shows how often the best quality in a biographer is not polished prose or research skills, but judgment.

   In his book on the four generations of Adams, however, Brookhiser overreaches. Had he kept his focus on the men, this would have been a fine if undistinguished book. But Brookhiser appears to be trying to say something about families, American dynasties, and the difficulties of sustaining greatness. What he wanted to say, I could never quite figure out. The wonderful aphoristic quality of Brookhiser's prose -- that makes him so good when writing some sharp and brief observation -- fails him when he must sustain an argument.

   An example of this is when Brookhiser writes in his introduction of the contradiction of an egalitarian society having so many political family dynasties, from the Adamses to Bushes. In noting this, he writes "[An American political dynasty] is the tribute democracy pays to aristocracy." This sounds very nice, but it's meaningless. Most of Brookhiser's comments on the significance of American political dynasties and how the Adamses were able to sustain their greatness fall along this line.

   Thankfully, most of this book is on the Adamses, and it is when writing on them that Brookhiser shines. Still, the bad ideas -- even though they don't make up a substantial part of the book -- hang over it. Brookhiser is always interesting when writing about a person, but is not at his best when trying to come up with a conceptual framework to make sense of it all.

2 comments about Dear Sarah: Letters Home from a Soldier of the Iron Brigade.

1. This is a collection of the Civil War letters written by John Pardington to his wife Sarah. Pardington, from Michigan, was a member of the Iron Brigade, having enlisted in the summer of 1862. From camp life in and around Washingon to the Battles of Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, Paddington faithfully writes his wife with particulars about army routines, concerns for staying healthy, and the misery of being so far away from her and their baby. He is rarely concerned with giving details about military maneuvers, his opinions about his officers, or with battle incidentals. He's a sensitive man and never fails to express his love for his family and the amount he misses them. He misses them so much that on a few occasions he thinks out loud to Sarah about deserting, but couldn't bare the disgrace. He worries about money and gives Sarah advice over the miles; he also warns her about friends and family members about whom he has questionable opinions. After Chancellorsville, his unit marches to Gettysburg, where the letters will suddenly end; Paddington was killed there on the first day of the battle. In one of his last letters he derides the activities of the Copperheads: "they seem bound for peace if it sacrifices the Union. It seems poor encouragement for us." (This has a haunting 2006 ring to it.) I found Pardington's patriotism admirable, though probably it was typical. The letters, which are unpolished and simple, are nevertheless heartfelt and compelling. Although not filled with the kind of information the historian might be interested in, they add a very human touch to a cause and conflict Pardington fought bravely for, and for which he finally gave his life.



2. There are several published books of letters and diaries written by American Civil War (ACW) soldiers --from both sides of the conflict.

   Enriching our understanding of the human heart in impossible circumstances is "Dear Sarah: Letters Home from a Soldier of the Iron Brigade," edited with loving care by the soldier's descendant Coralou Peel Lassen.

   In my opinion it goes without saying that this recent contribution is refreshing, of great value to not only the modern reader but to posterity, too, to those who want to know more about the men --and women; the real human beings, who lived through and endured the American Civil War. This volume also illuminates the nature of not only the American Civil War but all war.

   The Iron Brigade Soldier who wrote to Sarah was a young Union soldier named John Henry Pardington. The intense personal nature of his letters, what he writes about and how, is more than touching. The letters left by John Pardington offer a glimpse into the mind and soul of a man in the midst of a terrible situation and how he copes with it, how it defines him, shapes him, and how he continues to triumph over adversity.

   After reading several pages I already felt like I was becoming familiar with the people "back home" that this soldier wrote about 140 years ago. I began to feel the pain of his separation from his wife and daughter, the pain of every aching joint and privation he endured. The more I opened up to John Pardington and the realities of his life at war, the more psychologically invested I became --and the more I read. Knowing the inevitable outcome made some letters particularly poignant. And painful. Often, I found the book emotionally overwhelming and put it down, reflecting. Sometimes I re-read passages with a fresh insight --from John's point of view. It isn't too much to say the book is, at turns and by its nature, not only a body blow but also eye-opening. Reading firsthand accounts of how soldiers of the Iron Brigade's 24th Michigan Infantry lived and died day by day in 1862-63 can leave one feeling "beat" inside, symptomatic of the tremendous impact the reality of John Pardington's life.

   I think Ms. Lassen has really done an excellent job editing John's letters. One would think any student of history (or humanity) would want to read this book because John's words are universal. He was a Union soldier of the American Civil War, but his triumphs and failures, needs and wants, yearnings and hopes, etc., are an insight into the psyche of men away at war of all times. Her triumph is bringing John's words to the modern reader and to posterity. If one wanted to know how a soldier might be feeling or what he/she might be thinking, from Marathon to the Persian Gulf, one can find the essence of the human spirit, a soldier's dilemma, distilled and evolving in the letters of John Pardington.

   John Pardington's human face on a large historical event; his evident love and longing; his deeply human and often tender observations made me again wonder why there must be conflict, wars that kill far too many John Pardingtons and leave the world a poorer place. Is there such a thing as a tragic triumph? If so, John Pardington's triumph in expressing himself, in his very being, is all the more tragic because of his death at Gettysburg. He probably never imagined his words would one-day reach out across the years to so many people. He would probably be surprised. Rather than flustered or embarrassed to have his innermost thoughts laid bare, I like to think he would ultimately see how his own life matters today, and always.

   Ms. Lassen has helped John Pardington speak after all these years and still we hear him. And will hear him.