5 comments about Cigars, Whiskey and Winning: Leadership Lessons from General Ulysses S. Grant.

1. This book is a quick read. I particularly enjoyed the author's focus on Grant's ability to react, adjust and adapt. Staying away from Grant's presidency was a good idea until the end. Even then, the author contrasts Grant's leadership style as a General to President and why he failed (at least historically) as a politician. What I didn't like about the book was the lack of reference to God. I understand that not everyone is firmly rooted in "the Word", but its absence leads to more questions...at least for me. Overall, thought provoking, mildly insightful and interesting. I heartily recommend Lee's Leadership Lessons. It is the best book of this style I have ever read.



2. I've never been a fan of "lessons" books and here is yet another. There are some interesting and informative quotes of/from Grant, but the lessons are, at best, better than average for such a book. -- Louis J Sheehan



3. Grant may have been a poor President, but he was a great General. This book expounds the leadership principles of his war years. Grant was not only decisive, but he could also admit to mistakes. His treatment of his fellow officers shows he was a born leader. In three years, he rose from being a store clerk to a four star general. He did this using his courage, common sense, and good decision making. Lincoln may have saved the Union through his political leadership, but U.S. Grant saved it militarily with his good leadership.
   
   This is a easy to read book. The book is in excess of three hundred pages, but most of the pages are not full. Some two hundred and fifty principles are detailed in the leadership of U.S. Grant. Too bad Grant did not use some of these principles in his Presidency.



4. Kaltman has done the research for you and put it all in a great lesson by lesson format. Any leader can refer to this book for day to day operations.



5. Very good read for anyone in management.
   Uses the Civil War memoires of U.S. Grant to illustrate management skills and practices.
   Very interesting. Excellent gift for men.

5 comments about Martha Washington: An American Life.

1. I thought this book was pretty well written. The author did a nice job telling the story of not only Martha but the Washington family without getting bogged down by too many details. I also learned a lot about day to day colonial life. The reason I give it 4 stars is because the author let her dislike of Thomas Jefferson show through. She mentioned that Jefferson didn't really think much of Martha but then later in the book took one paragragh and really threw Jefferson 'under the bus' so to speak. I found the paragraph out of charactor for the whole book and wondered why the editor kept it in.



2. This look at the life of Martha Washington was very interesting. She really seems to be a woman lost to history by her legendary husband's very large shadow but this book gives a look at her strength and intelligence and also at the time in which they lived. A must read for any woman with an interest in American History.



3. Martha was the best partly because she was the first- but she really set the best example of making the best of situations that were at times FAR from ideal.
   
   She loved her husband so much, as was so dedicated to his well-being she sacrificed her own happiness on many occasions to be with her husband- sometimes at the risk to her own health.
   
   This biography shows what Martha's daily life was like, shedding light on her life before she married George Washington, and giving depth into her character and how it determined her decisions regarding how she conducted herself as the very first First Lady. This is SO worth reading-and a great intro into Revolutionary War characters and events that created her motivations while being First Lady and how to conduct herself.
   
   Less than 300 pages, I found it woefully short, but VERY readable! If you are into the Revolution, this is a book to add to your library.



4. Rather than write a summary of the book, I would like to just cover a few main points. This was a wonderful book! While some may complain of too much detail, I found the descriptions of day -to-day life fascinating. Many times I felt like I was right there with Martha and George. I felt that this book made Martha into a "real" woman, completely relatable, not just some stuffy old historical figure(that barely gets a mention in History class). She and her husband were people of character that deserve the admiration of all Americans. This book deepened my admiration for her.



5. Martha Washington by Patricia Brady is a very detailed and in informative book about the life of our first first lady. Martha's was named after her grandmother, her great-grandmother and possibly even her great-great-grandmother. She was born to Frances Jones Dandridge and John Dandridge in 1731. Even though her parents were wealthy, Martha learned how to pluck fowl, can vegetables, garden, cook varieties of food, clean a household, dance and read. As well as all of the customary good manners of the day. This young lady grew into a very beautiful young women. Martha married Daniel Curtis, a very rich man, a couple weeks before her 19th birthday on May 15, 1750 and had four children with Daniel, Frances, John and Martha. Mrs. Curtis lost both Daniel and Martha shortly after birth. Martha was very happy with Daniel threw out their marriage, but Daniel was very much her senior, nine years older than her and died July 8, 1757 after only six years of happy marriage. The widow was now in a very prominent position, rich, young, beautiful, running her own plantations without any pesky relatives in her way. Then a new man came into her life: Colonel George Washington. George Washington was one year her senior and the two fell passionately in love with each other. They were married on January 6, 1759. The book goes on to explain how threw out their marriage it was Martha's job to be George's supporter, his emotional stability. Every winter threw the Revolutionary War, Martha would come from her safe, comfortable home in Mount Vernon to live with George in the winter camp. Her coming was a signal for other wives to join their husbands. Then after the war, Martha lived happily with George for only a short time. He was constantly called away to whatever business the new country needed him for. She felt that George and herself had given eight years of their lives to America and should be left comfortably in retirement. She actually didn't want George to become president, but went along anyways when he did. By now, her daughter had died of a terrible seizure and her son was also dead. Though her son, John, had married and had four children before he died. Martha was mortified when she realized that she had outlived all of her children. She and George ended up adopting two of their grand-children. They came home after George's second term on March 15, 1797. George Washington died in two years December 18, 1797. Martha tried to spend the rest of her life as peacefully as possible. She took care of her beloved grand-children until her death on May 22,1802. Where she was surrounded by family and was in her late seventies. This is a very detailed and informative book, it sometimes goes of on detours and talked about George Washington as much as it talked about Martha Washington. I think this book is fine for people who enjoy over informative books that often sidetrack and talks about other things than the main topic.
   
   
   I think that this book is very detailed and over informative. It constantly had long lists of items that Martha's husbands bought her, things like chairs and spoons. The book also goes into unneeded detail about Martha's family. It talked about Martha's great-aunt and uncle Unity and William Dandridge. Which as far as I can tell, had no impact on Martha's life at all, other than being a distant relative that she probably never met. The book also went into great detail about a infatuation George Washington had before and even after his marriage on a lady named Sally Cary Fairfax. I could see how this could be use in a biography about George Washington, but this book is a biography on Martha Washington.
   
   
   This book isn't very exciting. Maybe because it is a biography, but this book doesn't elaborate the greater events in Martha's life. The book talks more about the housing and packing that Martha did to go to winter camp, then what she did at the camps. Martha's greater accomplishments should of had more attention than what her husbands bought her and what packing she did. This way the book would focus more on Martha than anything else. All in all, I'll repeat, this book is fine for people who enjoy over informative books that often sidetrack and talks about other things than the main topic.
   
   
   
   
   written by C. Shipman

5 comments about Grand Central Winter.

1. Several reviewers criticize Stringer's Grand Central Winter for what they see as its lack of information about life on the streets as well as an absence of narrative cohesion. While I sympathize with both of these complaints, I also think they're misguided.
   
   In the first place, Stringer doesn't claim to be writing social commentary or advocating social reforms. His book is a memoir, pure and simple. His stories are from the street, as the book's subtitle announces, but not necessarily about the street. Obviously in describing his life on the streets, Stringer necessarily sheds some light on what street life in general is like. Just as obviously, he also has a few things to say in passing about public policy (he's especially bitter about the "antiseptic Good Samaritanism" of large-scale relief agencies). But the focus of his book is sharing his own experiences living on the street.
   
   And this takes us to the second point: Stringer's writes about selected experiences. He's not really trying to tell a neatly packaged story with a clear beginning, middle, and end. (Philosophers might describe his approach as "phenomenological.") I don't know why Stringer chose to write about the episodes in his life he did. Some of them are probably consciously chosen; others may've forced themselves onto the empty page. But the point is that they're vignettes, not sequential episodes that together tell a full-fledged story.
   
   For my money, the vignettes are wonderfully written. Their minimalist style sets an almost photographic tone: to the point, revelatory, unsentimental, sometimes grim. Stringer successfully resists the temptation to demonize or romanticize.



2. I encountered this book on a sale rack and didn't expect much from it. After all why would be so discounted?
   
   I was wrong. This was a chilling and real depiction of life on the streets as a crack addict. What it may lack in direction, it makes up for with hard-hitting writing.
   
   If you are looking for a nice breezy read, this is not the book for you. If you want some food for thought, then don't miss it.



3. This book is an autobiographical account of a time in the author's life, Lee Stringer. Mr.Stringer begins the book describing his life as a homeless, crack addict who finds a pencil he intends to use to clean his crack pipe with. Then he realizes that a pen can be a very powerful tool and he starts to write. He writes about the streets where the homeless are seen but so often overlooked and his eventual position as a writer for a newspaper.Stringer has realized in this book that "the pen is indeed mightier than the sword" as he goes about seeking Recovery and Redemption. This book is a very well written account of a man's struggle to free himself from a serious addiction.The reader will cheer for Mr. Stringer as he tries to regain his Life and his Dignity.



4. I stuck the book out for about 2/3 of it always hoping for some point to be made from the various unconnected stories he tells, but most have no point or real end...such as the story of the blonde hooker who becomes central to his life for many months or the even less understandable the defrocked Greek priest who wants to be in the newspaper.Very little of this book is about how it is to be homeless or to sleep under subway tunnels etc. It's mostly about his hustling newspapers and cans and taking drugs,but even that is surface level & not very detailed.



5. This was the worst book I ever read.I thought the story was going to be about the homeless in Grand Central.Yet all the
   main character Lee talks about is his work with a newspaper
   written by the homeless.The book drags on and on going nowhere.
   The characters Lee mentions in the book are as dull as the book
   itself.I was trully disappionted.The only thing this book is good
   for is putting you to sleep.

5 comments about Franklin Delano Roosevelt (The American Presidents).

1. This abridged version is read by Richard Rohan & he even tries his hand at FDR inflections. This is a pretty good overview of FDR's life,but you wouldn't expect much depth with 3.5 hrs. running time on a CD. Roy Jenkins died shortly after or maybe a little before this was completed. Arthur Schlesinger jr. edited. But the tone gets more reveverential towards the end. Not really Jenkins style so maybe Mr. Schlesinger finished. But there is no doubt that FDR was the most influential president of the 20th century. His impact is still very much with us.



2. The New Deal, Social Security, World War II. FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century. He was a polio victim with braces on his legs. Perhaps America needed such a leader to get it through the Depression and the war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. We have seen the video of FDR addressing Congress following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor: "December 7, 1941, a day which will live in infamy!" Americans volunteered for military service in droves. They fought the Japs island by island. Army engineers built the Alaska Highway, stretching 1500 miles from Dawson Creek, Canada to Fairbanks. After Pearl Harbor, the fear was that Japan might take Alaska. Japan bombed the two western-most Aleutian Islands. Roosevelt was president the same years Adolph Hitler was in power in Germany, 1933-45. Roosevelt and his staunch ally, Winston Churchill, proved tougher than Hitler. Roosevelt was elected 4 times as there was no two-term limit. Roosevelt's archrival, Hitler, was born in 1889 in the Austrian town of Braunau. In his youth, Hitler wanted to be an artist. He lived and struggled in Vienna. It was there that he came to hate Jews and Communists. He believed in an Aryan master race. He fought against Britain in World War I. He joined the Nazi Party and went to prison after a failed coup. Hitler dictated Mein Kampf (My Struggles) to Rudolf Hess in prison. After his release, he reorganized the Nazi Party and surrounded himself with men like Himmler, Goebbels and Goering. Hitler became German chancellor in 1933. World War II began when Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Germany occupied France, bombed London and attacked Russia. The United States entered the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Americans landed at Normandy Beach on the coast of France on D-Day, June 6, 1944, and drove the Germans back. They met their Russian allies, who poured in from the east to crush the Nazis. Hitler and his companion, Eva Braun, committed suicide. It came to light that 6 million Jews had been exterminated in what is now called the Holocaust. America helped to rebuild Europe with the Marshall plan. Donald Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" became a suburb of the U.S. in light of the Soviet threat. The time has come the United States to put itself first. If the U.S is going to police the world, the world must pay for that protection. Police cannot work for free. Government is about war and money. Too often, it is a gang of thugs terrorizing its own people. Government should exist to serve. Its best form is democratic, not totalitarian, neither fascist nor Communist. Government needs to foster education, promote arts and sciences and care for the aged and disabled. It must encourage agriculture and facilitate transportation and communication.



3. avoid books where the author's personality and florid prose obscure the subject. besides, what precisely does jenkins have against short sentences and one-dollar words?



4. The late Roy Jenkins, in assessing Roosevelt, rates him in the top three of all American Presidents, along with Washington and Lincoln. Whether you like FDR or whether you are one of his critics, it is hard to dispute Jenkins' conclusion. Jenkins believes that had FDR not run for a third term, he would have been one of the better, near great Presidents, but that it took WWII to make him the icon he became. Jenkins fails to point out that FDR did not create any appreciable number of private sector jobs prior to WWII and that, in fact, unemployment was almost as high as it was eight years earlier, when he took office. The reason may be that Jenkins had been a Labour Party member of the House of Commons, accordingly, his world view was that of a government interventionist. However, I ultimately agree that nontheless, FDR was, at least, a better than average President during the depression years, due to the great optimism that he conveyed.
   
   I believe that Jenkins is correct, that FDR became one of the greatest Presidents due to the war. He led the United States in a great mobilization effort. Certainly, responding to events can make one great and FDR's optimistic leadership during the war made him great. This does not mean that he is beyond criticism, and Jenkins offers very little of that. Again, as a Labour party menmber, he would not have been as staunchly anticommunist as a Conservative, such as Churchill or later, Thatcher. Therefore, he spares FDR of any criticism for Yalta. His view is that since the USSR already occupied Poland, there was nothing to give away.
   
   I must contrast this book with another book in the American Presidents series, Tom Wicker's biography of Eisenhower. Wicker could find almost nothing Ike did as President that did not deserve criticism. Jenkins, on the other hand, finds little, in FDR, to criticise. An example is his absolving FDR from any real criticism for not taking in more Jewish refugees during the holocaust.
   
   This series of books constitues short biographies, thus it is not possible for the authors to be comprehensive. However, Jenkins covers a lot of ground. He gives a lot of coverage to FDR's career prior to his presidency. This is something Wicker failed to do, in his biography of Eisenhower, regarding Eisenhower's prepresidential career. Still, there was much Jenkins could not cover. For example, FDR went to great legnths to hide his disability. In a television documentary, it was revealed that he always would hang on to the arm of either a secret service agent or one of his sons and, by pretty much thrusting his hips forward, would give the illusion of walking. The legnths FDR went to are certainly fascinating but, I recognize that this book was too short to cover it in depth.
   
   Perhaps this biography was a little too adoring. The fact that there is much to criticise does not detract from the fact, that ultimately, FDR was indeed one of the truly great Presidents. Still, Jenkins covers a lot of material and I highly recommend this short biography.



5. This is a very good brief introduction to Roosevelt, and I highly recommend it to anyone wanting a brief understanding of Roosevelt. It is very easy to read and suitable for high school students. Being written by a man from Britain, it also shows how the world views FDR - as one of the most important leaders in world history.
   
   You will not acquire a thorough understanding of FDR by reading this book. For that I would suggest the huge "Champion of Freedom" by Conrad Black.
   
   In response to Mister Syzek, my understanding the post-war settlement is that Stalin broke violated the Yalta agreement, which was quite favorable to the west. FDR achieved most of what he wanted, including the stipulation that Eastern Europe was to have elections. But Stalin broke his promises and controlled Poland despite the agreements that FDR was able to extract from Stalan. FDR got the deal in writing. Stalin did not abide by it.
   
   Stalin was determined to control Poland no matter what, so Poland was firmly in his grip, despite what the actual terms of the agreement said. Staling went so far as to say that it was "a matter of life or death."
   
   Franklin Roosevelt was a geopolitical realist, and the reality is that the Soviet armies controlled Eastern Europe and Poland, and the USSR would be willing to fight - and win - to stay. The American people had no enthusiasm for yet another world war againt Russia. They wanted their soldiers home. Maybe you should ask the American people why they were not willing to suffer 5 million killed for Poland. You see, in America you must deal with these pesky things called voters and democracy.
   
   To complicate the matter, the Soviet Union took the brunt of the war (17 million dead), and Stalin was rigidly determined to secure a buffer between Mother Russia and Western Europe. Stalin would not have budged on his goal.
   
   So what Roosevelt obtained from Stalin was the best he could obtain - firm promises from Stalin to hold elections. It was Stalin who broke his promises. That made the Soviet Union look like the bad guy.
   
   Truman then waged the Cold War (without the millions of dead from a hot war) leading to an eventual liberation of Eastern Europe. It's no surprise that Reagan was a huge fan of Roosevelt, voted for him four times, and attended his third inauguration (a moving event for Reagan). Reagan then brought an end to the Cold War without firing a shot.
   
   You may be able to criticize Truman for not liberating Eastern Europe while American had a monopoly on the atomic bomb... or Eisenhower. After all, USSR staged a coup in Czechoslovakia and then staged a brutal crushing of the revolt in Hunguary in which tens of thousands were killed. Clearly this was in violation of the agreement that FDR was able to extract from Stalin. It was the USSR that broke the agreement. FDR did not sell out anyone.
   
   Then again, maybe the path Truman took was wise. Maybe waging a long-term cold against USSR was better than a violent real war. Maybe FDR realized that no European-based power has ever conquered Russia. Remember Napolean? Remember Hitler? Could even USA have defeated USSR in 1945? Maybe Roosevelt would have done things differently. We will never know because he died.
   
   As this book says, FDR was clearly moving to a get-tough posture against USSR. Indeed, FDR moved closer to one of his advisors who was anti-USSR. I suggest you read this book.
   
   At the same time, Roosevelt was an idealist in the Wilsonian tradition when realistic. He believed in the free determination of free people, but he was also realistic. For example, he essentially pushed for an end to world colonialism in his design for the post-war world. Churchill opposed this but he could do nothing about it. The British empire was too weak.
   
   By the way, Poland was not even a country at the start of World War One and was viewed by some in a similar way to the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Should American have gone to war over the Baltic States?
   
   This fine little book is a fine introduction to Roosevelt. It is the best brief book on Roosevelt. Read it if you want an easy introduction to FDR.
   
   If you want a more detailed study of Roosevelt's foreign policy then read Robert Dallek's Bancroft Prize-winning "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy." My essay here pales in comparison. Or read Conrad Black's "Champion of Freedom."

5 comments about The Final Days.

1. The American body politic cuts the president a great deal of error slack. We witnessed that during the Watergate years of Richard Nixon and we see it again in the presidency of George W. Bush. Both instances also point out one major fact of the American political landscape. No matter what they achieve or how high their popularity, if a President does the wrong things, they can crash down with great force.
   This book is one of the greatest political chronicles of all time. So great that no fiction writer could possibly create a story with such dynamism, force and sheer magnitude. Woodward and Bernstein were the reporting team that kept the Watergate story alive and ultimately led to Nixon's resignation. In this book, they describe the final days of the Nixon presidency and how the people involved tried to salvage what value they could and move on to the next phase.
   The greatest message of the book is the demonstration of how powerful and resilient the American political system is. Despite the slow pace of discovery, tortuous maneuvers by the prosecution and countermoves by the Nixon defense team, the system worked and worked well. The highest government official in the United States was a party to criminal acts and was removed without a shot being fired. There are few countries in the world where that could have taken place. It is one more demonstration of how extraordinary the writers of the American constitution were. Despite all of the changes in how the world works, advances in technology and other marvels of the age, a system put in place nearly two hundred years earlier functioned to near perfection.



2. This is a fascinating book regardless of your political persuasion or feelings about Richard Nixon. The detailed account of the last days of the administration reveals the human side of the names and faces you saw on the news everyday back then or read about in other books since then.



3. This gripping narrative takes us inside the White House during the last days of the Nixon administration in 1974. From inside we see President Nixon, his advisors, family, and congressional allies trying to stave off his inevitable downfall from the Watergate scandal. Readers see how Nixon tried to claim executive privilege to avoid releasing the "smoking gun" tape that proved he'd ordered the cover-up. Even after he surrendered the tape (by Supreme Court order) Nixon refused to resign until his fast-deserting congressional allies warned him that his impeachment and conviction were now certain. The authors credit General Alexander Haig for holding the White House together as Nixon unraveled, but pay less attention to Vice President Gerald Ford, a non-participant except for later when he gave Nixon a questionable full pardon. There's also a review of the two-year scandal and the President's adversaries (Leon Jaworski, Sam Ervin, John Dean, etc.) but this narrative is based inside the White House. Readers see that Nixon was very capable but also a lying, crooked tax cheat, one whose administration was awash in payoffs, hush money, bribes, and political espionage.
   
   Authors Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein first uncovered the Watergate Scandal as reporters for the Washington Post in June of 1972. Having begun Nixon's downfall, perhaps it's fitting that they should chronicle that descent with this superb narrative, plus their earlier effort ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN.



4. I was absorbed by this book. It's story is so compelling and amazing, I couldn't put it down. I also appreciate the writing style that made difficult content easier to understand and follow. I consider this one of the best books I have ever read and an incredible insight into the Nixon mind.



5. 
   a good historical review of Nixon. Especially how tape crazy he was. A little tough reading in few pages but picks up after a while. It should be required reading for college to show what cn really happen in the White House.

1 comments about John Adams Movie Tie-In.

1. Don't get me wrong, this is a terrific book. David McCullough has written another winner. And Edward Herrmann is still my favorite narrator of audio books. But the engineers must have been on strike because all throughout this audio book you can hear Mr. Herrmann breathing through his nose, smacking his lips and exhaling.
   Still, I'm glad I purchased this audio book in spite of the strange recording. It's wonderful.

3 comments about Days on the Road: Crossing the Plains in 1865: The Diary of Sarah Raymond Herndon.

1. This diary is well written and thoughtful. The detail is really vivid.



2. I found this diary charming and informative. Having always had a fascination with the time period and wagon trains, I couldn't put this book down. By the end of the book, I was saddened by the fact that Sarah didn't continue recording her life in Montana. I felt as if I had known her personally and was touched by the whole accounting of her travels.



3. Enhanced with a Foreword by Mary Barmeyer O'Brien, Days On The Road: Crossing The Plains In 1865 is the personal diary of Sarah Raymond Herndon, a young pioneer woman who, as the dust from the Civil War settled, left the battle-scarred state of Missouri with her family and traveled overland to the Rocky Mountains in search of a new place to live and a new life to build. Sarah's daily insights, her depictions of life on the trail, her descriptions of the hardships, the triumphs, and the evocations of her memories, combine to form a vivid and accurate image of pioneer life through the words of a pioneer who headed west to escape the ravages of the American Civil War to start her life anew. Days On The Road is a welcome and strongly recommended addition to 19th Century American Studies reading lists and history collections.

5 comments about "Bayonet! Forward": My Civil War Reminiscences.

1. This book, written by Civil War hero Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, is an interesting first person look at his experiences in the war. While some of his passages are self-serving and do not necessarily reflect what actually happened (e.g., his and the 20th Maine's actions at Little Round Top during the battle at Gettysburg), this is a good rendering of one person's account of his experiences.
   
   The book provides a tour of Chamberlain's part in the War, beginning with his engagement at Fredericksburg, through the violence at Gettysburg, to the battle at Petersburg (where he was badly wounded), to White Oak Road and Five Forks (and his dramatic encounters with the fiery Phil Sheridan), to Appomattox. The book concludes with the story of the Army of the Potomac's grand review in Washington D. C. after hostilities had ended.
   
   It is written in the style of the times, which seems somewhat overblown and overstylized today. Nonetheless, it provides one soldier's perspective on the War.
   
   In addition, there are a series of Appendices that flesh out Chamberlain's story (such as his comments at the dedication of the 20th Maine's monument at Gettysburg in 1889, Chamberlain's report on his and the 20th Maine's role at Gettysburg, his rendering of the last salute of the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox. The volume ends with a memoriam to Chamberlain upon his death.
   
   All in all, a useful book to gain a sense of the perspective of an important soldier in the Union Army, although flawed to some extent by some self-serving discussion.



2. I became acquainted with the story of Joshua Chamberlain after reading Shaaras' "Killer Angels" and wanted to learn more about him. This book has been an overwhelming dissapointment. For a man who was present at a number of important and exciting events in US history and an authentic American hero, his narrative is plodding and dull. His battle decriptions and his attention to minor troop movements are confusing and essentially unreadable. The maps he provides are completely inadequate in providing a better understanding what took place. The maps can be excused by the fact that they are provided with 19th century technology, his muddled writing style cant be. If you're looking for an enjoyable reading experience that will help you learn more about Chamberlain, I suggest you look elsewhere.



3. An excellent read. Chamberlain brings himself to you for examination. He hides nothing while bringing you through some very vivid accounts of the Civil War. If this book is not in your library, you should consider getting your hands on it. Enjoy!



4. These United States of America have more pretenders to the title than genuine heroes. Revisionist historians often inform us that our idols have feet of clay. George Washington, the "father of our country," was too proud to shake the hand of ordinary American citizens. Thomas Jefferson, "author of the Declaration of Independence," held others in servitude. Abraham Lincoln was subject to deep bouts of depression. George Patton was a bully incapable of showing compassion for psychologically wounded soldiers. It is even whispered that "Ike," the very symbol of 1950s family stability, may have had an affair during WWII, while Mamie patiently waited at home for the return of her soldier. The list goes on.

   That on-going litany of real world disappointments is what makes Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain so important to the American story. In Chamberlain, we find one of the few genuine heroes, so far revealed in our short, national history.

   In this volume, we read Chamberlain's (mostly) post-war speechs and reports on some of the most critical actions of the Civil War. Despite his meteoric rise from Lieutenant Colonel to Major General in four, awful years, Chamberlain does not turn the spot light upon himself. Despite being awarded the Medal of Honor, Chamberlain does not see himself as special. Instead, in speech after speech, Chamberlain gives credit (by name) to his soldiers and to his God. Like Alvin York, another American hero who would follow him 50 years later, Chamberlain was truly humble, and in his humility could be found the seeds of his heroism.

   This book, like Chamberlain's other writings is a magnificent primer for those who would seek to give selfless service to their nation, their God, or both.




5. If you want to learn more about Joshua L. Chamberlain, what better way to do it than to read his first hand accounts and speeches. This book is a compilation of several articles he wrote for a magazine and a number of speeches he gave after the war. Bear in mind that the magazine articles were heavily edited by the editor of the magazine, much to the chagrin of Chamberlain, who was quite angry! One of his speeches at the dedication of the Gettysburg monuments very succinctly outlines his reasons for volunteering for the Union Army and the ideology that kept him going back to the field, even after a horrible wound that should have killed him. Chamberlain wrote very eloquently about his experiences and his speeches are extremely moving. A must read for any Chamberlain fan!

No comments about Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief.

No comments about Grant's Lieutenants: From Chattanooga to Appomattox (Modern War Studies).