4 comments about McClellan's War: The Failure of Moderation in the Struggle for the Union.

1. Sailing around the world, U.S. Grant sighed that George McClellan was one of the chief enigmas of the war. A century and a half later, most Civil War buffs would agree. McClellan's biographers either considered him a hero or, in the case of say Stephen Sears, a delusioned man who flirted with mental illness. Taking a page from the likes of Daniel Walker Howe, Ethan Rafuse argues that the key to understanding Little Mac is viewing him as an old line Whig of the Clay and Webster tradition who believed in self control, gentility, education and discipline. Rafuse goes into McClellan's prewar career and education and other influences (most importantly, Rafuse stresses how McClellan's jewel of a wife shaped his religious sentiments) and how they shaped his Civil War tenure. Readers may still view McClellan as a failed commander once they read Rafuse but at least they understand where he was coming from. As opposed to being plagued by psychological problems as Sears would have us believe, Rafuse shows that McClellan was man of his times who failed, in many ways, to grow with them. While Rafuse fails to provide a traditional narrative of military history, he provides an excellent political history of McClellan in 1861 and 1862. One wishes that Rafuse had taken his account to the 1864 election and McClellan's rather underappreciated political career after the war. Still, no other book truly offers such an interesting and insightful portrait of McClellan. If you want to understand the Union effort in the Civil War, you have to understand George McClellan's roller coaster ride in the high command. No other book does that as well as Rafuse's splendid "McClellan's War."



2. What a delightful rendering of General George B. McLellan from Ethan Rafuse. I don't know if this treatment will restore Little Mac from the severe wounds history has inflicted on him but it does help us understand why he behaved the way he did. Politicians always slather thick layers of patriotic ardor over the stark brutality of modern war in order to get the hostilities underway; the attendant death & destruction is never full anticipated & always pitifully underestimated. The radical Republicans wanted to unleash the dogs of war right at the Secesh throat not realising the South had hounds of their own. McLellan with his gentile family background & his Whig- Democratic political leanings & his West Point education got in the way. He was mauled nearly to death.
   
   This is an account of the life & generalship of McLellan from his triumphant processional into Washington & anointing up until his dismissal from command after Antietam (& the Emancipation Proclamation) in November, 1862. Rafuse focuses on the moderate political opposition to the radicals who ran Congress after the Whig party had been splintered into oblivion & the Southern Democrats had left the Republicans in a lopsided majority after Lincoln's election. This moderation is McLellan's raison d'etre.
   
   McLellan thought reasonable, unemotional (not radical) professionals should run the war. A decisive set-piece battle & then some mopping up would bring the South back to the Union with their traditions & way of life, including their peculiar institution, intact. Treat the Southerners in a conciliatory sort of way & they would reject the fire-eating slaveholders who brought on the war & return to the fold. How wrong he was. Six hundred thousand dead later & the Union was victorious & slavery was abolished. Victorious Grant became President & McLellan who had presidential aspirations of his own paled into obscurity, the anachronism he was. Little consolation that his scientific way of war with its fortifications & artillery abundance might have strangled the Confederacy in its cradle far quicker than Scott's Anaconda plan eventually did. His hamstrung Peninsula Campaign failed & the radicals took control. Conciliation was dead.
   
   Rafuse's account is a fine one indeed. The prose is a bit turgid to start but get McLellan on the Peninsula & the tale starts to flow. Maps are the windows into military history. The ones included are great. I never understood what McLellan's Urbanna plan was all about until I saw one of the maps & read again of Joseph E. Johnston's pull back from Manassas. All of the maps are pertinent, well done & , behold, contain all the place names mentioned in the text, a rare treat indeed.
   
   Abraham Lincoln comes across as the bewildered military neophyte he was at this stage of the war. McLellan has more spine with little emphasis on the sniveling he did about his estimation of the great multitude of the horde opposing him. He does get credit for his great organizational skills, training ability, & charisma. The Army of the Potomac was the instrument he created but never learned how to wield. Clausewitz was correct: the object of war is not to nick your opponent but to whack him so hard he won't get up again.



3. George Brinton McClellan's legacy since the Civil War has been largely criticized by historians and the general public. Hundreds of books generated notions that the Union high command prior to U.S. Grant's arrival was full of generals who could not win battles or take the initiative in destroying Robert E. Lee's army. McClellan served as the primary victim of these rants because he held the longest tenure as commander of the Army of Potomac. Even though McClellan had earned the respect of his men, he certainly did not get that same respect from Washington or from future historians. Thankfully, that has changed.
   
   Rafuse's book showcases a lot of the author's abilities as a historian and as a writer. Though military book in nature, Rafuse's insight into McClellan's political influence largely explains the behavior attributed on the battlefield. Perhaps no Civil War biographer has detailed his subject's political connections as Rafuse has shown. In the Civil War field, Rafuse is considered as one of the up and coming military historians of this generation. This only makes sense as Rafuse's advisor was the distinguished historian Herman Hattaway, whose book "How the North Was Won" is still considered a standard in this profession. Certainly, Rafuse has a bright career as a scholar, teacher, and writer.
   
   Finally, this biography explains the political influence that troubled the Union generals throughout the War. Recently, scholars have argued that Lincoln and his cabinet caused much of the disappointment in the war's first two years because of their inability to let the generals lead on their own. Certainly, it can be questioned that if McClellan was given the same freedoms as Robert E. Lee in the South, the "young Napoleon" may have ended this war a lot sooner.



4. Finding a general in American history with as bad a reputation as George B. McClellan is not an easy task. Few Civil War books have anything good to say about him, fewer still defend his actions in the field. His victory at Antietam is often listed as a draw or even a Confederate victory. This "victory" is because McClellan should have destroyed the Army of Northern Virginia and their survival is a "victory" for them. His problems with military intelligence and the chronic over estimation of numbers is a "character defect" that he used to keep from fighting the army he created and loved to much to use. When pressed, even his harshest critics, will admit that McClellan created the Army of the Potomac and that it was the premier Union army during the war. Finally, they will acknowledge that McClellan always obeyed orders from Washington, even when he disagreed with them and felt they hurt his army.
   This book covers McClellan's background and actions up to being removed from command for the last time in 1861. While not taking a position, each incident is completely covered and footnoted. This allows the reader to both check the author and to draw well founded conclusions from the text. For this reason, "McClellan's War" should become an important milestone in the evolving debate about his service. The amount of information packed into this book is staggering. While the book is so well written that, it reads like a good novel. The combination produces a very enjoyable and dynamic learning experience.
   Everything is here. All the questions about relations with Congress, Lincoln and Scott, are examined and both sides presented. Coverage of the question about reinforcements during the Peninsula Campaign is complete with attention to the critical sequence of events. McClellan's feelings about and support of Pope are fair and well documented as are his difficulties with Stanton. The Antietam Campaign is a major item in the book and very well covered. What McClellan did and did not do, how it influenced R.E. Lee's plans, and the subsequent events is very well done. The condition of McClellan's army, the problems he faced and the effect they have on the battle of Antietam is a revelation.
   The author takes the time to explain the theory of Conciliation and the political exchanges between its' supporters and the Abolitionist. The lucid discussion of the development of both these ideas and the background of the people that supported them is an important contribution to ACW this book makes. After reading this, I gained a much better understanding of the early war and how the policies developed as the war progressed.
   Over all stands Lincoln, literally towering over McClellan. The book details the pressure Lincoln is under and the changes in his attitude towards, the South, McClellan and the war in the first 18 months of the war. In addition, we come to understand how the two men, wanting the same victory, were unable to bridge the widening gulf between them. McClellan, with his background and beliefs, was unable to understand or respond to Lincoln's problems. Lincoln, forced to respond to pressure and discarding the policy of Conciliation, could not give McClellan the time and resources he needed. The strength of the book is we understand both sides and have sympathy for both men.
   In the emerging debate on McClellan, Ethan S. refuse has written his name along side Joseph L. Harsh as authors of "must read" books on the subject.

No comments about Thirty Years A Detective.

4 comments about The Campaigns Of General Nathan Bedford Forrest And Of Forrest's Cavalry.

1. This book delivers more details on the battles than what was available in Jack Hurst's book. It has little about Forrest's personal life (none after the war as it was written in 1866). At close to 700 pages it gets a little too detailed in places but is overall a very good book.



2. I have read many different books written by people that lived in the era of the War Between the States, and this one has to be one of the best that I have read on one of the most audacious leaders that came out of the war on either side. I THOROUGHLY enjoyed reading this book. There were plenty of maps, and since the book was written under the watchful care of Nathan himself from his notes during the war, I believe it is one of the most complete works of this nature. I highly recommend the book to anyone. It is not just another boring read!



3. A meticulous and detailed account of the military operations that Gen. Forrest was involved in, showing the skill he had in combat, and the man that he was. Also provides short insights into many of the men that served under him. At times, I wished there were more (and more detailed) maps, so that I could follow the movements of Forrest's Cavalry and their enemy more precisely. Provides fair treatment of analysis of both sides of the war, as well as some feelings and evidence that dispute some of the myth and legend surrounding Gen. Forrest. I would suggest re-reading the introduction after you finish reading the book, as it works as a good post-commentary. This book is excactly what I was looking for to learn about cavalry operations during the Civil War.



4. The book was written for the most part by a contemporary of General Forrest's, himself a Confederate general. Nathan Bedford Forrest read the proofs, suggested some changes, and approved of the product. It is easily read and gives great insight into this greatest of all cavalry wizards.

5 comments about Soul of the Lion: A Biography of General Joshua L. Chamberlain.

1. 
   
   This is the story of one of the most remarkable combat officers produced during the Civil War. Always leading from the front, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was always in the thick of battle. He had fourteen horses shot out from under him before he was finally so badly wounded, shot "clear through" from hip to hip, that he is set aside to die. Yet he recovers to fight again in the closing campaign of the War.
   
   Chamberlain is a hard man to dislike. Joining the Military from his position of Professor of Religion at Bowdoin College when the War breaks out, he saves the Union left at Gettysburg, earning the Medal of Honor, and is involved in most of the battles and major skirmishes fought by the Army of the Potomac in the Eastern Theater. Thought so highly of by Grant and Sheridan, he is appointed to receive the Confederate's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse where he again distinguishes himself by saluting Lee's Army of Northern Virginia during the surrender ceremonies.
   
   Four term Governor of the State of Maine, in 1880, unarmed and alone, he suppresses a mob in the State's capitol that threatened to kill him. He closed his life as President of Bowdoin College, his alma mater, and as acting Port Surveyor at Portland, Maine.
   
   The Civil War produced many genuine heroes on both sides. The State of Maine may have produced the most important one. For without Chamberlain at Gettysburg, the South could have won. As a result, the United States could be two separate nations today.



2. It has been several years since I read Soul of the Lion. However, although the Civil War years of Chamberlain are quite interesting and alive, the rest of the book is quite dull. Chamberlain's remaining days in Maine and Florida are just not very interesting reading. I attribute most of this to Wallace's weakness as a writer.



3. This is an excellent book by Willard M. Wallace that was first written in 1960. It begins with the family background of the Chamberlain family and its historical roots back in Europe and then goes to the birth of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and details his life story, in which many triumphs and tragedies happened. While this book was written in a "romantic glossy tone", it is an excellent resouce for material about this gallant soldier and his contribution to save the Union at Gettysburg and Petersburg

   A man of immense intellect Chamberlain spoke many languages and was a gifted writer and poet. His natural leadership abilities was an inspiration not only to the students at Bowdoin College in Maine, but also to the 20th Maine on the hard fought day of July 2, 1863. This man quite possibly saved the Battle and thus the Union with his suprising and daring charge down Little Round Top thus suprising the men of the 15th Alabama and the rest of Confederate General Evander Law's Brigade.

   A true leader, as the book points out, Chamberlain was elected Governor of Maine and in later life was a great speaker at many GAR Reunions.

   This is an excellent book and highly recommended to anyone who wants to know more about the brave and amazing Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.




4. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain is one of the greatest American military heroes of all time. He won the Congressional Medal of Honor for his courageous leadership of the 20th Maine Volunteer Regiment at the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863, thereby ensuring his place in history. "Soul of the Lion," by Willard M. Wallace, is a well written biography of Chamberlain. With clear and lively prose, Wallace chronicles Chamberlain's early life and career as a professor at Bowdoin College; his rise from command of the 20th Maine to general officer rank in the Union army; and his unfailingly heroic performance in some of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War, including Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, Petersburg, and Five Forks.

   Wallace also details Chamberlain's post-Civil War career as Governor of Maine (1867-1871); President of Bowdoin College (1871-1883); and unsuccessful businessman. Especially interesting was how Chamberlain, as commander of Maine's militia, saved the state from violent anarchy during the 1880 gubernatorial election.

   Despite being well written, "Soul of the Lion" doesn't quite approach the depth found in the best biographies of military leaders. I would have especially appreciated more detailed information concerning Chamberlain's relationships with his family members. This is only a minor reservation, however; "Soul of the Lion" is a good basic survey of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain's life, and a highly recommendable book about one of the great Americans of the 19th century.




5. Although John Pullen recently wrote a biography of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Willard Wallace's 1960 classic remains a highly readible and informative gem. This was an era of great writing about the Civil war, including Bruce Catton's Centenial trilogy and the first two volume's of Shelby Foote's masterpiece. Wallace's writing is equally lucid and his coverage is vast in scope. He devotes nealy as many pages to Chmaberlain's post war career as he does to his heroic years as the Colonel of the 20th Maine and later General. We all know of the heroics of Bowdoin professor (turned military leader) Chamberlain on Little Round Top but he also was instrumental in the final battles near Petersburg at Five Forks and Quaker Road. Despite being wounded (for what seems to be the umpteenth time) he went on to rally his troops. After the war he went on to serve a governor of Maine and President of Bowdoin College. His Presidency of Bowdoin was progressive but troubled. Quite simply, his innovations were ahead of their time thus opposed by many in the Bowdoin community. In politics, he was independent, answering to no bosses and as head of the Maine militia, he put down a near inserection, after a disputed election, without calling out his troops. This is a great book about a great American. I highly recommend it.

4 comments about Benjamin Banneker: Surveyor, Astronomer, Publisher, Patriot.

1. This biopic of Bejamin Banneker (Ben Bey) is very revealing and gives the reader a look inside of Banneker's personal life (even though some of it might be merely educated guess work regarding his intimate relationships). Some conjecture and innuendo is tossed around a bit irresponsibly but overall one of the best if not the best work on Ben Bey. This has to be one of the first books about Ben Bey that mentions his hereditary extraction (Malian & Fulani). I didn't know upon Banneker's expiration his house and most of all his works were burned to ashes by his racist enemies. Depriving the world of a first hand look into his accomplishments. Cerami also explains the close friendship of Ben Bey and Benjamin Franklin in detail. I believe Charles Cerami portrays Ben Bey and his scientific genius better than all the biographies before it.



2. Benjamin Banneker:Surveyor, Astronomer, Publisher, Patriot, by Charles A. Cerami has expanded our knowledge of this renowned 18th century African American. To those familiar with the contributions of blacks to American society, Benjamin Banneker's accomplishments are well known. He was a free black man, son of an African, his grandmother, an indentured servant from England. He built a wooden clock using a pocket watch as a guide. Later on in life, he parlayed his scientific and mathematical skills into the creation of an almanac. He then went on to become an integral part of the team that surveyed the area that was to become the nation's capitol. He wrote letters to Thomas Jefferson critical of the latter's racist views, and even received a response. The author covers this ground well. We are aware of how stunning Banneker's achievements are, given that he was a black man living in a nation where the vast majority of black people toiled in slavery. Even a free black was a degraded, stigmatized creature in white eyes. The author, however, lifts Banneker out of this limiting context to elevate him into the company of truly original thinkers. Thus, Banneker becomes more than a brilliant black man who rose above his station to live the life of the mind, a pursuit which, if he were white, would not have garnered much attention. Banneker made an assertion that no one had made up that point (at least not with his degree of logic). He speculated on the existence of life on other worlds. The author presents an excerpt from Banneker's writings as proof that this humble black farmer was far ahead of his time. Indeed, such a revolutionary thought would not be adopted by scientists as a credible theory until well into the 20th century. Charles Cerami's work is of monumental importance because now we have a new insight into the depth of Benjamin Banneker's intellect. Hopefully, this book will be so widely read that Banneker's role as the man who memorized the plans to Washington, D.C. will not be his ultimate achievement in the popular imagination. Hopefully, scientists, historians and lay enthusiasts will recognize the significance of Banneker's thinking in regard to the possibility of life beyond our precious, little world.



3. Benjamin Banneker:Surveyor, Astronomer, Publisher, Patriot, by Charles A. Cerami has expanded our knowledge of this renowned 18th century African American. To those familiar with the contributions of blacks to American society, Benjamin Banneker's accomplishments are well known. He was a free black man, son of an African, his grandmother, an indentured servant from England. He built a wooden clock using a pocket watch as a guide. Later on in life, he parlayed his scientific and mathematical skills into the creation of an almanac. He then went on to become an integral part of the team that surveyed the area that was to become the nation's capitol. He wrote letters to Thomas Jefferson critical of the latter's racist views, and even received a response. The author covers this ground well. We are aware of how stunning Banneker's achievements are, given that he was a black man living in a nation where the vast majority of black people toiled in slavery. Even a free black was a degraded, stigmatized creature in white eyes. The author, however, lifts Banneker out of this limiting context to elevate him into the company of truly original thinkers. Thus, Banneker becomes more than a brilliant black man who rose above his station to live the life of the mind, a pursuit which, if he were white, would not have garnered much attention. Banneker made an assertion that no one had made up that point (at least not with his degree of logic). He speculated on the existence of life on other worlds. The author presents an excerpt from Banneker's writings as proof that this humble black farmer was far ahead of his time. Indeed, such a revolutionary thought would not be adopted by scientists as a credible theory until well into the 20th century. Charles Cerami's work is of monumental importance because now we have a new insight into the depth of Benjamin Banneker's intellect. Hopefully, this book will be so widely read that Banneker's role as the man who memorized the plans to Washington, D.C. will not be his ultimate achievement in the popular imagination. Hopefully, scientists, historians and lay enthusiasts will recognize the significance of Banneker's thinking in regard to the possibility of life beyond our precious, little world.



4. I can't believe the genius of Benjamin Banneker, the man. I always knew his name through his famous letter to Thomas Jefferson. In the pages of this fascinating biography, I discovered his excellence in so many professions, especially astronomy. His speculations on light and stars were revolutionary and opened the door to modern astronomy. He is a true American hero.

4 comments about 101 Things You Didn't Know About Lincoln: Loves And Losses! Political Power Plays! White House Hauntings!.

1. One hundred and fifty years after his death, Abraham Lincoln continues to fascinate. It's fair to say that more books have been written on our 16th President than any other American historic figure; new titles appearing year after year. Dyed-in-the-wool Lincoln fans and newcomers alike will enjoy this new volume covering various aspects of Lincoln's life and times.
   
   Author Brian Thornton's goal is to separate the man from the myth. He takes us through Lincoln's life in 101 mini-chapters, examining Lincoln matters big and small - how Lincoln got Mary Todd to marry him, his changing views of abolition, Lincoln's relationship with his father, his brief military career, the impact of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, why he grew a beard, his personal relationships, how John Wilkes Booth's brother saved one of Lincoln's sons from death, his legacy and so on.
   
   There is a great deal of fascinating information packed in the book's 231 pages. One section I found especially interesting contained comparisons of Lincoln with Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Buchanan, Henry Clay, Stephen Douglas and Jefferson Davis.
   
   I have read a number of books on Lincoln but still found pleasures anew in this book from Adams Media. Nicely priced at $9.95, it's a great introduction to "father Abraham."



2. This book is small - 6"x6"x1" - but it packs a wallop. It covers the entirety of Abe Lincoln's life, providing fascinating glimpses into the forces that shaped his character and made him one of America's most effective and beloved presidents.
   
   Author Brian Thornton is not out to create hagiography. He lets us in on fascinating secrets of Lincoln's life, such as his distance from his father, his poison-pen pranking that landed him in a duel with an opponent, his tragic first love and his emotional aloofness from his high-strung wife, Mary Todd Lincoln. Along the way, Thornton addresses myths of Lincoln's supposed homosexuality (people, he just rented one side of a bed!) and his purported ownership of slaves. Lincoln's rise from abject poverty to fame as a litigator is laid out pretty well, as are the national crises (The Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision) that shaped his views and his destiny.
   
   "101 Things" is always fresh, always level-headed, and always informative. It's a book that is very hard to put down, and (inch for inch) is a great way to learn about the breadth of Lincoln's life and influence.



3. When I was given a copy of Brian Thornton's 101 Things You Didn't Know About Lincoln, I was pretty smug. I thought, I'll know just about everything in here. All modesty aside, I know lots about Abe. I know what the inscription is on the inside of Mary Todd Lincoln's ring. I know about his poetry. I know the quote about his ambition. I think the Gettysburg Address is nearly perfect.
   Once again, I was kicked in the shin, hard, by hubris. Did I know Lincoln? You bet. Did I know as much as Mr. Thornton? Not even close. His knowledge of Lincoln runs the gamut from A to Zed and back again. I would use the word `encyclopedic' except that, for me, encyclopedic denotes a rather dry recitation of fact, and this book is anything but dry.
   The format itself is interesting, and has set me a-ponderin'...by addressing faqs does one get a true, soul and elbows picture of Lincoln? After all, Mr. Thornton himself states that this is his intention, to make us see the man. Does he succeed? You bet, and how. But I still wonder if the format would work so completely without Mr. Thornton's obvious passion for the subject and his engaging, informative writing style. So I've asked a question I can't answer, because I'm smitten with the writing itself.
   But I suspect it does work. One can't answer discourse on subjects like Lincoln's shifting views of abolition ( #53), the South Carolina Secession Crisis (#73) or Congressional Spot Resolutions (#43) without going into detail. And in giving the reader all sorts of fascinating tidbits such as; was Mary Todd Lincoln crazy? Who was the other Mary in Abe's life? What was Abe's middle name? Abe Lincoln's patent, what was that? How did Abe's assassin's brother save Abe's son's life? , Brian Thornton fleshes out the rather iconic image we have branded in the forecourts of our brains.
   I never knew that Lincoln refused the governorship of the Oregon Territory. He refused because he thought that Oregon was not an ideal springboard for a leap onto the national political scene and he refused because he feared his son's weak chest might not survive such a move. He cited a third reason for his refusal. I found in this tidbit the quintessential Lincoln, the ambitious man who loved his family but who remained always, even inexplicably, private.
   Historians and writers of history often seem to feel that they are not doing their job unless they produce a thick, dense prose (no matter how slim the volume) that reminds this reader of slogging up a steep incline of mud, wearing ice skates. Mr. Thornton's words live on the page; they are lively, informative, and entertaining. I just lent this book to an eighteen year old college freshman who loved it, I just bought it for my eleven year old nephew. My husband is slated for it next. The point is, it is accessible to almost everyone, and yet scholarly enough to be taken seriously.
   I recommend it highly. If you like Lincoln, love Lincoln, or feel you should know something of the man who is arguably our greatest President, dive right in. You won't be sorry.



4. This book was a great read. I found that in nearly one of the 101 chapters (Thornton wrote a mini-chapter for each "thing you didn't know") I learned something new. It addresses nearly aspect of Lincoln's life, including his political savvy, his presidency, his life (including whether or not he was really born in a log cabin), as well as the much debated question of whether Lincoln was gay. It's a fun read, with a very readable style. Thornton has a good sense of humor, making this much better than some of the typical history tomes. I recommend it highly!

5 comments about Midnight Dreary: The Mysterious Death of Edgar Allan Poe.

1. While certainly an enjoyble read and very well researched,John Evangelist Walsh's book 'Midnight Dreary' does not present an utterly convincing case as to the cause of Edgar Allan Poe's death.
   I really did enjoy reading this book and it does present a nice picture of Poe's final days.The real problem is that Walsh's theory is really to dependant on a certain amount of speculation,and as another reviewer noted Walsh seems to bend the facts to make it fit his theory rather then the other way round,like assuming Poe's visit to John Sartain was in fact in October instead of July of 1849 as Sartain said.Well its obvious a certain amount of speculation is needed to come up with any idea as to how Poe died as there are simply not enough established facts as to what occured during those 5 days that Poe was missing and the events surrounding it to say for certain what occured then.That being said the speculation in this book does go a bit over board and is based it seems on mainly cicrumstancial evidence.As for Walsh suggesting certain people in those times where in fact mistaken or lied about the dates that things happened,well thats just unacceptable.
   
   If you want a decent account of Poe's final days and another theory as to how the man died this book is worth reading however if what you seek is a book to put forth a truly convincing theory on Poe's death this book will be a bit of a disapointment



2. An interesting Poe murder theory.true Poe did make alot of enemies and even if it is gossip it can still hurt a persons reputation,especially if the gossipers themselves are socially prominent,"In my opinion of course Mr.Poe is a(gold digging,womanizing,drunkard-personally i respect the mans' works but can't stand him as a person)"The book spends some time going over alot of these rumours that even if untrue do seem to stick.Silverman in his book suggested that Poe may have been impotent,but this work turns him into a probable lecher(all rumour however)I am convinced that he was engaged to Elmira Shelton(a wealthy widow and childhood sweetheart of Poe) at the time of his Baltimore/Richmond/ Philly mishaps.Poe's ego would make him feel justified in such a high stake game for after all as poe would remind one,"I wrote "The Raven" .The book strongly suggests that Ms. Shelton"s 3 brothers were anything but impressed with Mr. Poe and may have engineered his unfortunate mishaps resulting in his demise.The Shelton brothers and both of Elmira Sheltons'adult children wanted nothing to do with Poe and may have seen his engagement as an attempt by Poe to "land a cash cow" for his pet projects.It's all speculation but it could fit as logically as the bunk about the election day "cooping" which the author proves false to at least my satisfaction.the pictures in the book all relate to this detective story. Is the stern face of Elmira Shelton the result of a stern Puritanic faith or is she hiding a terrible secret?Kissinger always said "even the true paranoic has real enemies",and Poe would definitely have made headlines for todays tabloids.Remember he married his 13 year old first cousin and then the rumours of alcohol and opiates not to mention the harsh criticisms of other writers that could be studied by those wishing to give "the perfect insult"..I always theorized that maybe Poe had a diabetic episode in Baltimore that left him at the mercy of urban predators who stole his clothes,then beat and robbed him.It never entered my mind before reading this book that maybe someone was hired for the job and Poe became only too aware of it.DT's have little to nothing to do with this book.It is a detective story that Poe himself would have been proud to write.



3. What kills John E. Walsh's book is that he spends the first half of his book debunking others for their half-cooked theories on Poe's death and their basis on speculation rather than evidence. The second half of the book is Walsh's own half-cooked theory on Poe's death based on speculation rather than evidence. What does save this book is that it does give a fairly good overview of the wide spectrum of theories on Poe's death. Stop about halfway through, and it's a fairly decent, readable book.
   
   And to the "doc" who posted: many doctors have considered this case over the past 150 years and each has come up with a different final answer. His alcoholism is not a fact and is in wide dispute, and he may have been sober for at least a year before his death. Case closed...? If so, we wouldn't have entire books, like this one, trying to solve the case.



4. Those who take issue with John Evangelist Walsh's "Midnight Dreary" are, I think, missing the point. Certainly, there is truth to the suggestion that this is two books, one, a detailed recreation of the last days of Poe and two, the author's attempt to make sense of the random data and form a reasonable explanation.

   In the first instance, Walsh succeeds beyond one's expectations. I ahve read dozens of biographies of Poe and have not come across a good deal of this material. Letters, journal entries, recollections of personal interviews - Walsh succeeds in bringing extant material to light.

   In the second endeavor, Walsh has not been as successful. In my opinion, he falls into every theorists greatest trap - attempting to bend the facts to fit his hypothesis. In several cases, Walsh accuses his subjects of faulty memory and/or outright embellishment. "Such and such can not have occurred on this date, but if we assume that the wrier was incorrect and it actually occurred on blah-blah date, then it all makes sense." No. No and no. As observers of history, we do not have the luxury of assuming those who lived it were forgetful liars.

   Nonetheless, this IS an interesting book and it is a treasure trove of data for those interested in Poe's death. Additionally, it is written in an interesting, conversational style that I found quite readable. I enjoyed this book, as a reader and as an historian.




5. John Walsh's book is certainly a good read and the only people who seem to have trouble with it are people who don't understand that all the pieces of the puzzle aren't available and never will be. In situations like that, good investigative work has to be used--along with a good understanding of your subject and the times to make up situations not known. John Walsh certainly has both. I was thoroughly enthralled by his storytelling and even more impressed by his deductions and his careful telling of where he got his information. Of course, there are some things he doesn't know so he deduced them based on the knowledge at hand. If done intelligently (as done here), it will convince the reader. I think Edgar Allen Poe would rest easy knowing someone finally straightened out his last days.

No comments about Thomas ap Catesby Jones: Commodore of Manifest Destiny (Library of Naval Biography Series).

No comments about Ridgway: A Biography of One of America's Greatest Generals.

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.