1 comments about A Damned Iowa Greyhound: The Civil War Letters of William Henry Harrison Clayton.

1. A wonderful compililation of letters from an infantryman in an Iowa regiment. Sgt Clayton was involved in actions in Missouri, Louisiana, and Alabama, including a stint as a confederate prisoner. Narrative anb pictures by Dr. Elder really rounded this book out. Clayton was an excellent writer and gives incredible insight into army life and the fighting of the civil war. Best of all you get a flavor for the general perceptions of the common soldier, the ones charged with the dirty work.

   I thoroughly enjoyed this highly readable book, in fact resented any interruptions while trying to read it. Thank you, Dr. Elder!!

2 comments about Uncommon Sense: The Achievement of Griffin Bell.

1. Excellent writing by someone who obviously lived and played with Bell. Very interesting to a new "Southerner".



2. A well-written account by a Southern journalist who was there of a time in history and one uncommonly gifted lawyer's often underrated pace through it.

2 comments about Why the West Was Wild: A Contemporary Look at the Antics of Some Highly Publicized Kansas Cowtown Personalities.

1. If you like to read about the old west, this is the book. Written using old newspapers and police records of the old cowtowns you can relive the time of the 1880's and what it was like.



2. This is without a doubt one of my favourite books on the West. It contains biographies of 57 Kansas cowtown personalities, ranging in length from half a page to 130-odd pages (about Bat Masterson). Since the authors quote generously from contemporary newspapers and letters and keep their own text to a minimum this is as close as you will ever get to the truth about these cowtown characters. It is richly illustrated, including a facsimile of Bat Masterson's only effort as a newspaper publisher. Highly recommended. (This review refers to the original edition from 1963.)

1 comments about Abraham Lincoln and His Ancestors.

1. This is one of the best books that I have read on the Lincoln family history. The accurate accounts of President Lincoln's family has enlightened me greatly in that his family was not a bunch of poor people, but was mostly made up of well to do land owners, and very successful pioneers; people that helped to make this country great.

   Ida Tarbell brings to the reader a vivid description of a family who worked hard,prayed hard, struggled, and succeeded in the great drama of the making of a nation. I highly reccomend this book.

5 comments about The Passions of Andrew Jackson.

1. Historical masculinity vs. Contemporary Masculinity
   Is it the triumph of intellectual rationality over ruffian physicality, or a Jacksonian warmongering spirit of vendetta?
   
   By Brian D'Ambrosio
   
   Spring is rife with emotionally ebullience. It's the ideal season to explore the depths and probe the unobstructed boundaries of intrinsic behaviors, all while thawing out from the long, frostily cold vagaries of winter's character consuming frigidity. Is there a better time of the year for calmness, prudence, self-analysis, and perhaps even self-deprecation? Being a history buff I tend to stock up on political biographies during the winter months, and through Andrew Jackson (1767-1845: 7th President of the U.S. 1829-1837), I've once again come face to face with the elemental problem of resolving - or at least broaching - the somewhat amorphous (and perhaps therefore indefinable) subject of true masculinity.
   
   The manliest president of all-time has got to be Andrew Jackson: he had lured away another man's wife and took her as his own; he relished killing and unapologetically engaged in dueling; he invaded Florida without constitutional consent; patriotic to a fault, he had ordered the deaths of insubordinate American militiamen during the War of 1812. Fiery, rebellious, fiercely patriarchal, he, as one contemporary catalogued, "did not like or dislike people; he loved them or hated them." Herein references the problem: Is Andrew Jackson a correct, defensible masculine model? If so, this presupposes the inherently violent, dastardly, nature of masculinity.
   
   Jackson was a man of unwavering principles, "an irascible man easily angered, a man who held back little." Jacksonian principle, according to Andrew Burstein, author of The Passions of Andrew Jackson, was as simple as it was ironclad: to be the object of slander was worse than death, for, in his eyes, mortality preserved "good character," and a "good heritage" descended to one's children; calumny left one alive, but "a living monument to disgrace," and only transferred "infamy" to one's surviving family members. Indeed, any comment that challenged his thinking, judgment, or sensibilities, he deemed to be an affront to his masculinity. A duel was the honorable and "gentlemanly" way to settle such disputes, the ultimate recourse to mend wounded pride.
   
   Was masculinity the duel itself, or was it the courageousness of a participant to show up and fight until the bitter end? Is pure masculinity brisk, mature judgment, sophistication of taste, keenness of thought, and lucidity of reasoning - intellectual discernment rather than ruffian physicality? Or is manliness the use of force to repel or displace those considered suspicious, ill-fated enemies - Spanish, British, and Indian? Is it the brutish implementation of this force? Is it a fistfight, a duel, or the knowledge of exotic wines? Eloquent pen? Or mighty sword? In Jacksonian America, "enemies were a necessary stimulus."
   
   Then perhaps residual Jacksonian masculinity, when applied to modern variables, is the end result, the bottom line stats, the final score of a football game. We won. They lost. Or vice versa. Perhaps modern masculinity is the emotion wrought from the engagement of such a contest, the way it felt to fumble or flub away a seemingly insurmountable lead.
   
   In these times, for a man to be a rightful, sincere man, he needs to delicately and sensibly commingle the very best characteristics of enduring masculinity with the emerging senses of newfound masculinity. The residually masculine part of my character wishes that I could have been a goon in the National Hockey League, dropping the gloves and engaging in fistic discord against opponents of equal prowess - night after night, shift after shift. It's the part of me that loves the beautiful brutality of boxing, doesn't like to be outpaced on hiking trails, cares about the way I look, and casts aspersions on the unfriendly, or, at times, unfamiliar.
   
   This appealing, cultivating, present day masculinity wonders how it feels to be one of those boxers' wives, ruminates about the physical, emotional and natural interconnectedness derived through hiking, and scarcely cusses. It's the part that flosses teeth and steams vegetables. This masculinity appears more concerned with emotional appeals to reason than spite-filled vitriol, and realizes that self-improvement cannot be static.
   
   Toward the end of his life, Jackson, remained as blunt, tempestuous, explicit, and opinionated as he had been when only a young man, failing to outgrow the advocacy of violent masculinity to decide personal quarrels. As Burstein puts it, even at advanced age, "He was not given to reflection, but he maintained sturdy principles of conduct, that, in his mind, never steered him wrong."
   
   Perhaps this is the greatest failure of the defiant nature of Jacksonian language and its rigidly principled masculinity: it failed to see past exaggerated pride and bloated ego, and remained stuck in the frontier impulses and obligations typical of its day. It was incapable of seeing problems. It did not allow for the free exchange of ideas. It did not learn from reading, nor did it aim to improve its self-worth through the acquisition of new knowledge.
   
   Modern masculinity should make a conscience decision to at least attempt to conduct itself in a manner most antithetical to such misbegotten notions of valor and pride. It should draw strength and justification from a specific American tradition that stresses economic mobility, political action, and industrious work habits as the foundation of individual dignity and manliness of character.
   
   Indeed, contemporary masculinity should continue to learn from - as well as struggle to avoid through recognition - the pitfalls of the antiquated and unstable ingredients of Jacksonian moral fury.



2. BOY, TALK ABOUT DECONTEXTUALIZED HISTORY!ANDREW JACKSON WAS A RACIST-AS OPPOSED TO WHO IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 19TH CENTURY ON PLANET EARTH!HE DEFENDED HIS PERSONAL HONOR-YOU MEAN LIKE HAMILTON AND BURR?HE SUBJECTED THE INDIANS TO BRUTAL EXPULSIONS-LIKE THE INDIANS DID TO US(ON OCCASION)AND TO EACH OTHER.HE ONLY BELIEVED IN DEMOCRACY FOR WHITE MEN(WELL,AT LEAST!).HE WAS FARTHER AHEAD ON THAT ISSUE THAN GEORGE WASHINGTON,JOHN ADAMS AND ALEXANDER HAMILTON(NOT TO MENTION KING GEORGE III)!THE THING ABOUT OLD HICKORY WAS THAT HE WAS IMPLACABLE IN DEFENSE OF HIS COUNTRY AND HIMSELF(GOD FORBID!)AND CLAWED HIS WAY FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE SOCIAL ORDER TO THE TOP WITH NARY A BY YOUR LEAVE TO THE SOCIAL ELITE OF THE TIME(GOD BLESS AMERICA!).AND ISN'T THAT REALLY MR. BURSTEIN'S HANG-UP? THE COMMON FOLK MAKING THEIR OWN WAY WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF ELITE IVORY TOWER SOCIAL ARBITERS LIKE HIMSELF?!NOT THAT I HAVE AN OPINION.



3. I found this book to be a very interesting if unflattering take on Andrew Jackson. The title is revealing-this book is primarily intersted in what made Jackson tick. This isn't done with new age psychoanalysis but by looking behind the actions Jackson took. Thus there is considerable time spent on Jackson's duels, physical confrontations and his political battles. Because of this there may be an imbalance in the book towards the negative actions Jackson took-such as his duels, disregard for military or political authority and his actions towards even his allies among the native americans. However the book makes it clear that it was these very traits that made him the General and President that he was. For a more positive and comprehensive book on Jackson read Brands book. Beter yet read them both.
   
   
   
   



4. If you are looking for a biography that takes you inside the head of the man, explains what makes him tick and how he managed his personal life and career, in as few pages as possible, this is it. If you want a thousand pages of historical broken-glass-studded factoids raked over your eyeballs in excruciatingly slow motion, look elsewhere. Personally, I prefer the former style of bio. The 325 pages read as 225. When I had finished I felt like I really knew Jackson, his relationships, and what about him contributed to his achievements. By contrast, I reached the same point after a mere 700 pages of D'Este's Eisenhower bio - which spared me from having to read the last 165 pages!



5. This book will surely enlighten those that want to learn more about Andrew Jackson. It does however glaze over a few of the mans more notorious deeds. There was barely a page devoted to the forced relocation of the Cherrokee and other tribes of indians that lived East of the Missippi. Today this would have been a crime against humanity and it led to the Trail of Tears which is one of the more humiliating parts of American history. Nothing at all was mentioned of the fact that this was done with the Supreme Court saying that such an action was unacceptable. The subject of the closure of the National Banks could have done with some more discussion as well. The book did give the reader a bit of a look into the "What was he thinking?" question that most modern minds are led to ask when thinking of some of the actions of Gen. Jackson.
   It's shortcomings aside, I am glad to have read it as it is a good look into an all too often forgotten time of American history.

No comments about The 11th Wisconsin in the Civil War: A Regimental History.

5 comments about The Dream: Martin Luther King, Jr and the Speech that Inspired a Nation.

1. Few speeches in American history are as well known or had the impact of the "Dream Speech". Hansen's wonderful book gives us a unique and insider's view of how the speech was developed, its roots in scripture and in King's lifetime of words up to that point. The analysis of the composition gives the reader a new appreciation of the speech's powerful messages, but also of the sheer beauty of the rhythm and cadence of the words. You can almost hear King's voice come off the pages.



2. Martin Luther King was not an unusual black man; in fact, he wanted much of what many black men before him, probably all black men and women wanted. But Martin Luther King was a very unusual man, who happened to be black. His degree of passion, his conviction, his hope, and his perseverance were unlike most before him, and most after him, with the inspired, God given desire to make the world a better place for everyone, including blacks. His vision was not just the result of respect and reliance by his people, it was divinely inspired so that his passion, his hope emerged and blossomed before millions, many of whom were not familiar with him, his history, or his prominence and reputation. He was possessed of those rare qualities, and that rare talent, of the ability to inspire others to believe in themselves, and the world, that they had the dignity to alter their own dynamics, the manner in which they lived, and in the manner in which they were treated by others. As an evangelist, he was superb. For that, like Jesus, and many other prophets who have been threatening to the status quo, his ability to show others the way to self respect and to peace were certainly the force of why his life was taken so early, and so brutally. He was more than a leader; he was a messiah for the many black people who had waited so long for one to lead them out of the psychological bondage which was still very real to them. He positioned himself to show the way, and how to do it in the least offensive manner possible, by non-violence. He was a pillar of strength that even whites unfamiliar with him understood the necessity of yielding to God's will, instinctively knowing that all men were equal, and that all needed the recognition of being equal. Indeed, whites were aware of their obligation under the Constitution to recognize that equality but felt no compulsion to expect it of themselves until Martin forced them to face the truth they had so long avoided. Not only did he demand of blacks the energy and commitment to themselves, he demanded the energy and commitment of whites to respect themselves by being brave enough to help resolve the problem that had long festered in American social reality. The timing was right; the message was right, and Martin was right. He allowed none out of God's boat and helped everyone see that upon that ship, we were all afloat upon the ocean of humanity, and would indeed survive or perish. That message remains very much a part of his legacy, and today's reality although we face other issues as well, and the issues are now broader than ever. No one on earth has the option to say no to God and expect that it will be of no consequence to the world. He was the most remarkable of men that America has ever produced guided by his own devine light within as a beacon of humanity for all to follow.



3. Let me get first vent about the frustrating parts of this book before I get to the good stuff. First, at 229 pages of text, this was a rather short book, made shorter by Hansen's annoying habit of repeating important stretches of speeches. Second, the chapter analyzing the various drafts of the speech is probably better suited to a scholarly dissection of the speech than to a popular book. As was the chapter describing King's preaching style. And I got tired of ascribing every change in the speech to MLK's "genius". The man was exhausted, under threat and working on the run. Surely some of his decisions could have gone differently?

   But minor grumpiness aside, I found this book hard to put down. The description of the organization for the August 1963 March on Washington was fascinating in its details about the people who attended it. One got the impression that the day was pretty disorganized, with the crowd making decisions on its own about when to start marching. Hansen also did a nice job of showing the internal disharmonies among groups within "the movement," as well as hinting that MLK's leadership done to him rather than pursued by him -- less because of his ability to manage and lead than because of his philosophical sophistication, personal courage, stamina and eloquence. That King comes across as a preacher and a prophet (as opposed to a great organizer) does him no disservice, but actually helps to humanize him and make the Civil Rights movement more real. Hansen did a nice job handling the post-1963 life of the speech. He is honest about the impatience that some blacks felt about the 'dreaminess' of the speech, especially as the movement's gains stalled and the violence continued. Hansen nicely captures the slightly radioactive nature of the speech among national politicians (many of whom were wary of King's alleged Communist sympathies) in the years before King's death and the cloyingly hagiographic tributes about King and the speech after 1968.

   Hansen shows how King's memory has been sanitized and rendered harmless by linking him exclusively with the "I Have a Dream" speech. In opposing the Jim Crow laws, a main (but not the only) point of the speech, King targeted a system that was abhorrent to Northern whites and a source of shame to many in the South. Getting rid of it was the relatively easy matter of making the abuses public. But King's next targets proved more difficult -- the hard work of eliminating more subtle forms of racism from American hearts on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. King's premature death allowed Americans to accept him as a national martyr and prophet, but ironically delayed the more difficult soul-searching about America's war plans in Vietnam, its endemic racism and the blind economic violence perpetrated against the poor and powerless.




4. I read "The Dream" in one sitting this weekend. The book vividly recaptures the spirit of the time during which Rev. King developed and delivered this inspiring and world-changing speech. At first I was afraid that the author's decomposition of the speech would diminish the power and effectiveness of the speech. On the contrary, his deep exploration into the speech itself and the events leading up to that day, together with fresh perspectives on the moment itself and the years following its delivery enhanced my admiration for both the speech and Rev. King. The author's inescapable conclusion is that there was much, much more at work than a man delivering a televised speech to a supportive crowd. This singular moment in Rev. King's life was the catalyst for much of the advancement that we all benefit from today. Yet this same event is also being used by some to impede further progress in the complete fulfillment of The Dream. This is a book I can wholeheartedly recommend for anyone who wants to learn about the history of that day and its subsequent impact over the next 40 years. It will also be of particular relevance to those with an interest in public speaking.



5. I've listened to King's famous speech dozens of times and read a number of books on King, but it wasn't until reading Hansen's captivating description and analysis of the speech that I realized how little I knew about this seminal event in American history. This book is unusual in that it is both hugely readable and phenomenally informative and insightful.

No comments about Jefferson And His Time.

2 comments about The Will to Win: The Life of General James A. Van Fleet.

1. Nothing wrong with an uncritical biography, but one should be cautious about using this rather one-sided volume in understand events where Van Fleet held a leadership role.
   
   The example of the Greek Civil War cited by a prior review is instructive. In fact Van Fleet serious misunderstood the conflict in Greece and current historians argue he probably prolonged the time it took to defeat the Greek communists. It is most likly that without US military aid, especially in the form of Van Fleet's absolute control of military strategy there, the conservative Greek govenrment would have defeeated the communist forces earlier and with much less bloodshed.
   
   This is especially important as the understanding, or misunderstanding, of events in Greece deeply informed U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine at strategic and tactical level. As many military historians attest, this lead to serious mistakes in the first few years of the war in Vietnam when the "Greek model" drove doctrine.
   
   There have been a number and conferences and publications through the US Army War College, especially following the opening of Soviet records, and the view now is that Van Fleet's consistent countermanding of the recommendations by the General Staff of Greece gave the communists constant reprieve. As Yugoslav and Soviet records now show the Greek Civil was more about Yugoslav involvement, and the bases in Yugoslavia are where all the serious Greek (and as it turns out Yugoslav) forces of merit maintained sanctuary. Van Fleet's failure to heed this on a strategic level was a serious blunder and is the root of the tactical failures and massive loss of civilian life that followed.
   
   Almost every counterinsurgency tactic saw a false depiction of success by his staff, and the (dis)informing doctrine that followed resulted in the exact same failures of in Vietnam.
   
   Van Fleet was a brave soldier, and deserves credit on many levels, but he also lies at the heart of a fallacies in counterinsurgency doctrine that dogged and hampered our efforts long for decades.



2. General Patton said that Van Fleet was a fighting fool. Van Fleet led one of the assault regiments on D-Day at Utah Beach. He was such an outstanding leader he was promoted 3 more times before the end of the war. First to assistant division commander, then to division commander and finally to command of a corps. It has been rumoured that Van Fleet wasn't promoted sooner because George C. Marshall confused his name with another officer who was an alcoholic. General Van Fleet was primarily responsible for the defeat of the communists in Greece , where he led the US mission. Van Fleet later commanded the 8th army in Korea and retired due to the lack of the will by our government.
   
   Van Fleet is also the best head football coach in the history of the University of Florida, which he coached for several years while serving as the Rotc instructor.

No comments about Ulysses S. Grant: Defender Of The Union (Civil War Generals).