4 comments about The Imprisoned Guest: Samuel Howe and Laura Bridgman, The Original Deaf-Blind Girl.

1. I have read quite a lot about Helen Keller and Annie Sullivan over the years, and I have read a bit about Laura Bridgman. I have read enough to know that "rescue from darkness" comes at a cost and is often not done for the greatest good of the "victim". In Helen and Annie's case, Helen's world was infinitely enriched by Annie's total dedication to her pupil. In return, Annie created a family and garnered recognition for herself. Unfortunately, in Laura's situation, the trade-off was not as well balanced.
   
   Samuel Gridley Howe was a man on a mission to achieve recognition and status among the liberal Boston elite in the early 1800s. His goal was to find and educate an intelligent blind and deaf child and thereby establish himself as a distinguished philanthropist and expert in education and the social sciences. He believed that Laura was a means to that end.
   
   While educating a blind deaf girl may have sounded like an unselfish project in 1837, the horror of Laura's reality is clear today. Laura was often isolated from other children and adults to help make Howe's experiments in education "pure." When Howe felt that he had no more to gain from her, he left her with very limited companionship. So, unlike Helen, her education and socialization, and hence her maturation, stopped when Howe lost interest. As a result, she suffered great loneliness and depression.
   
   Gitter provides a great deal of information about Howe that seems to indicate that he had a narcissistic personality. Her revelations about Laura show that she had great potential for learning and growing that was left untapped as a result of her unnecessary and cruel seclusion from the world.
   
   This book is very well written and clearly reveals the historical and social context of the lives of Laura and Howe. I highly recommend this book for anyone who has even the slightest interest in the subject area.



2. Great read packed with info. I've always wanted to know more about her, not just the vague references made in books about Keller and Sullivan.



3. The long-forgotten story of Laura Bridgman is riveting: She was the first deaf, blind and mute American to learn English and she did so through the ingenious efforts of Samuel Howe. If author Elisabeth Gitter had done nothing more than reintroduce this story to the world, her book would have been worthwhile. But Gitter does much more. Both Bridgman and Howe were enormously complicated, infinitely fascinating characters and their relationship was unprecedented in human experience (quite a statement, but it's true!). It is incredible, and in many ways, heart-wrenching, to watch their storybook relationship develop and devolve. Gitter wisely tells the story without literary flourishes; it's so remarkable, it doesn't need any. The author is also scrupulously fair to her subjects (few characters in history go from appealling to detestable, and back again, more quickly than Howe) and provides just the right degree of historical background--enough to inform the reader, but not enough to slow down the narrative. A nearly perfect book!



4. Elisabeth Gitter has introduced the 21st Century reader to Laura Bridgman, "the original deaf-blind girl" in her well written and sensitive portrayal of "this pitiful little girl" who "became the most celebrated child in (19th Century) America." Along with her teacher and mentor, Samuel Howe, founder of the first school for the blind in America, Laura became an inspiration for the indominability of the human spirit. Yet, as Gitter wisely and perceptively shows, the multi-faceted character behind Laura's public persona was often overlooked by Howe in his zeal to show the world that, in his words, "obstacles are things to be overcome", and that Laura Bridgman was the prime example of the veracity of his statement. With her extraordinary knowledge of the Victorian era in which the story takes place, and her exceptional command of the written word, Gitter has brought Laura Bridgman the honor and dignity she was often denied her life.

5 comments about Streets: A Memoir of the Lower East Side (The Helen Rose Scheuer Jewish Women's Series).

1. this is my favorite book. if anyone has similar taste to me then i highly recommend them to read it.

   i'm going to describe it as a story of a girl growing into a women on the streets of the lower east side of manhattan. she tells of different jobs and the boarders that her and her mother board to help pay the rent. its very hard for me to describe becuase of 2 reasons 1) you can't describe it you have to read it 2)i read it a year ago.

   i was getting so into reading it that i never wanted it to end. to last forever. so i tried to do so by reading a limit of pages each day. i live in NYC and by reading the book i had grown a stronger love for the city and thats another reason i loved the book. i also loved the stories she has of her childhood. the down fall of the book? well, it was and made me sad. it was kinda a depressing book. you now. like a heart-acher.

   it was indeed a pleasure to read and in the future, if you do read it, i hope you enjoy.

   thats my review! i hope i helped!




2. this is my favorite book. if anyone has similar taste to me then i highly recommend them to read it. i was getting so into reading it that i never wanted it to end. to last forever. so i tried to do so by reading a limit of pages each day. i live in NYC and by reading the book i had grown a stronger love for the city and thats another reason i loved the book. the down fall of the book? well, it was and made me sad. it was kinda a depressing book. you now. like a heart-acher.

   it was indeed a pleasure to read and in the future, if you do read it, i hope you injoy.

   thats my review! i hope i helped!




3. Streets: Memoir Of The Lower East Side was written in 1922 and published for the first time in 1955. This remarkable memoir of a young Jewish girl's coming of age in the tenement slums of New York's Lower East Side is gritty, candid, vivid, engaging, sensitive, and streetsmart. Bella Spewack overcame obstacles of gender, background, and religious discriminations to succeed as a celebrated journalist, playwright, and screenwriter. Streets is highly recommended, articulate reading and will prove of special interest to students of American Jewish history, Women's Studies, and biographies reflecting the triumph of the human spirit over social and cultural barriers.



4. This is a coming of age story depicting the harrowing early life of an extraordinary talent. Told with an amazing eye for detail and a highly developed sense of humor, this is one of the most moving autobiographies I have read. Bella Spewack writes of her thirst for knowledge and determination. In later life Bella invented the Girl Scout cookie, became a noted journalist and wrote successful plays and movies. Streets tells of the difficult circumstances of her childhood.



5. This book was written by a very eloquent author in 1922. At 23years of age, she carefully details her struggles of growing up inpoverty on the lower east side of Manhattan. This is one of a few books that deals with the difficulties faced by immigrants of to New York around the turn of the century. Her battles are those of a poor, Jewish girl growing up without a father in tenement housing. I thouroughly recommend this book to Jews, feminists and historians.

No comments about Becoming King: Martin Luther King Jr. and the Making of a National Leader (Civil Rights and the Struggle for Black Equality in the Twentieth Century).

5 comments about The Best Little Boy in the World Grows Up.

1. I found "The Best Little Boy in the World Grows Up" well-written, insightful and inspiring. I am a straight female and don't usually read a lot of material about gay men, nor do I read a lot of biographies (boring). So why did I read this in the first place? Actually, because I liked "The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need" so much.
   
   The investment guide was invaluable to me when I inherited some money and had no clue what to do next. That book transformed me rather rapidly from someone who felt like she needed help but was not even sure where to turn, to feeling that I could handle things just fine on my own, and it's working out very well for me. In addition to being useful, I found that book so well-written and just plain entertaining that I have re-read it several times and started looking for other things he had written.
   
   I tried "My Vast Fortune" but it didn't grab me for some reason, and I liked "The Best Little Boy in the World" better. But I felt this follow-up book about his adult life is extraordinary. I have known quite a few gay folks in my life, but I have to admit this book still made me more aware of their issues than I had been. I'm not very political, and if the book were preachy, I would have tossed it. But Tobias makes his points with deft humor and a variety of fascinating anecdotes. It is quite entertaining as well as emotionally gripping. I highly recommend it.



2. I'm not going to reiterate the negative reviews here, mostly because they're right on the mark. This book is boring, unnecessary, grandiose, and lacking in any editorial judgement. I read his first book many years ago, enjoyed it, and thought that its follow-up would be equally entertaining. Boy was I wrong. I bought it back in '98, tried to read it, and gave up. I recently moved and found the book in a box. I thought I'd give it another try, and it was just as insipid as it was eight years ago. If you want a good memoir, go elsewhere.



3. pretty much useless. for much better memoirs, i would say go look at paul monette, edmund white, or augusten burroughs, all of which are way superior to this narcissistic and charmless writer whose name i won't even bother mentioning. waste of bucks.



4. I've just read this wonderful book and cannot understand how some of the other reviewers here can call Mr. Tobias self-absorbed. I saw him as merely human and in fact found that he was often self-deprecating--and also it is a book about HIM, so what did the other readers here expect him to write about, his mother? Make no mistake, Andrew Tobias is not a saint, and neither is any of us. His writing reflects his very human experience.
   
   Name dropping? Please. Did some of the other reviewers here expect Andrew Tobias to indulge in navel gazing or something? In any case, I found his experiences to be inspiring. His descriptions of how significant others in his life managed later on in life was to me a great way to vicariously learn some of the lessons of life. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone. I have in fact read this book before I read TBLBITW because I felt that it would be more relevant to present times.



5. What a shock! The Best Little Boy in the World was one of those formative books I read when I was coming out in the 70's. I naturally assumed this was going to be a powerful follow-up to that volume. It was anything but that. Mr. Tobias tells us all about the wonderful, glamorous, rich and political un-gay and then gay-gay life he has had. With references to that book. If not for the fact that the book was cheap, I would've been furious. As it was, I just threw it away when I was done with it.

1 comments about William Randolph Hearst: The Early Years, 1863-1910.

1. This is a good book! Well researched! Smoothly written! But after a while, just reading about Hearst's frantic life, his manic style of newspapering, got a little tiring... (or tiresome!) Still, if you're looking for an account of the man's early years, YOU COULD DEFINITELY DO WORSE!!!

2 comments about Black Power White Blood.

1. I have met Johnny and talked with him at length. It's difficult to reconcile this story with the person that I know. He is the least bitter person I have ever met and he works tirelessly for a common good. He is a very bright spark in our world.



2. Former Panthers and the academics that write about them are starting to seriously realize that the Panthers were never just about race alone. Biographies by Elaine Brown and Assata Shakur deal with gender and the Panthers. Edmund White's biography of Jean Genet discusses how the Panthers dealt with a gay, white, foreign supporter. Now, in this book about an Afro-European Panther named Johnny Spain, Andrews looks at how a mixed-race individual was affected by the Party. Andrews writes in a simple style that would make this biography accessible to almost any reader. By moving from the stereotyped tragic mulatto to becoming a "bridge person" and cross-racial activist, this book is about redemption. I can imagine it influencing mixed-race men in the same way that Malcolm X's autobiography has influenced monoracial black men (though X was one-quarter white). One major theme of this book is how inhumanely prisoners are treated in American jails. This book should be appreciated by prisoners' rights activists regardless of race and multiracial activists regardless of their views on prisoners. ... Finally, there is a book that works against this tide. I would strongly encourage every mixed man in the US to read this book.

1 comments about Faces of Discord: The Civil War Era at the National Portrait Gallery.

1. I found this 300 page volume of portraits and information on many Civil War persons englightening because there are pictures of the Famous and not so famous people who I have read and written about. I will treasure this volume for many years

5 comments about The Hemingway Women.

1. Update after second reading: Author obtained primary material from the subjects themselves; this may be the most important "new" biography of Hemingway to date. Highly recommend it after you've read earlier biographies of Hemingway; this can be read as first bio of Hemingway, but I think you will enjoy it more if you've read others first.
   
   Earlier review: This book will save you the trouble of reading the autobiographies, the biographies, and selected letters of Ernest Hemingway and these five women (his mother and four wives).
   
   But you will enjoy reading the autobiographies and selected letters first, and then coming back to this book to fill in the gaps.
   
   The writing is stilted -- often reads like a PowerPoint presentation -- compared to the writing actually done by its subjects. Specifically, "How It Was" by Mary Welsh Hemingway is a joy to read, and I recommend that before reading "Hemingway Women."
   
   As a reference to fill in the gaps, this is an important book for the Hemingway fan(atic).



2. This is as much fun to read as a great novel and has all the ingredients of a great read, as they say: love, hate, success, adventure, etc. For the most part, Ernest Hemingway is remembered as a mans's man, an adventurer who loved bullfights, safaris, hunting, shooting, fishing. But at heart he was a man who needed to be taken care of, but resented every woman who tried. All of his wives were from the same basic mold: adverturers and writers (was Hadley a writer?) and all of them wanted nothing more than to be with this exciting man who loved and adored her. That is, until they got married. Then the fun for him was over and he resented being taken care of by a woman who he thought of as a sex object, and he couldn't fathom that they might be able to cohabit the same body. In his letters he pleads for his women to always love him and take care of him, but in reality he resented them for doing just that. He admired Martha Gellhorn, the wife with by far the most spunk, for being a good journalist, until they were married. He wanted her to stay home with him, but she resisted his control. So what does he do? He meets another journalist, Mary Welsh, and immediately, on first sight, falls in love with her and begs for her to take care of him and to always love him. Which she did. And he immediately hated her for it. And it destroyed her.
   
   It is so ironic that the man who professed to hate his father for committing suicide (albeit blaming his mother for it) would in the end take his own life. Of course, by that time he was a shell of the adventurer/writer/lover, and was beset by illness, both psychiatric and otherwise, none of which he would allow treatment for.
   
   Although Hemingway lived and loved in the early to mid 1900s, it seems a long time ago; the world has changed so much! No longer do we see artists and writers living as paupers in France, as expats and proud of it! It was a different time and place, to be sure. But it's fun to read about.
   
   I have not read a lot of Hemingway's novels (The Old Man and the Sea enthralled me when I first read it), but you don't have to be familiar with his writing to love the man and this book. This book, like no other biography I have read, shows the man through the eyes of the women he loved, and resented, and ultimately betrayed, beginning with his mother and continuing on through four wives and several beautiful women who he chased and wooed but for various reasons never made lasting connections with. Please read this book. It is important and entertaining and scholarly all at once.



3. This is a brilliant biography of a man whose name is, to many, synonymous with all things deeply, simply, brutally mannish. By telling the stories of Hemingway's relationships with women throughout his life- mother, wives, girlfriends, colleagues- Bernice Kert reveals the true smallness of the man with heartbreaking clarity. Yet, make no mistake, this is a thoroughly romantic book, albeit in all the saddest ways possible. Kert is not trying to smash the Hemingway legend,though after reading this book you will never see a Hemingway novel in quite the same way. Some people have commented that the individual stories of these women are insignificant because they did not lead notable lives "of their own", but any fan of Hemingway himself would be fascinated to see how much of these women and their lives were taken by Hemingway and retold in his most famous stories, always casting himself in a favorable light while reducing the woman to a fantasy of sexuality or revenge .... he being the famous author, whose story will we read? Whose myth will we believe? And how tragically familiar is the tale of one who gives up their "own life" to stand by their husband's side, only to see themself 'immortalized' with such coldness and cruelty?



4. I listened to the audio of this book and I really enjoyed it. Honestly, I am not a fan of Hemingway's books and stories but he sure was a complex man. For some reason, I find fascinating the events of the first half of the 20th Century. Living in Miami and having been to the Key West and the Hemingway House several times, made this book so real. If we ever end the ridiculous travel ban to Cuba, I would love to see his house there. This book flows well and the audio narration works.



5. Bernice Kert has given me my first true understanding of who Hemingway was and why he did the things he did. His choice of women, more so the women he married and the woman who gave birth to him are phsycoanalysis at it best. I now see the "Peter Pan" in Hemingway, not the masculine adventurer,hunter and "man's man". I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this book and recommend it highly.

5 comments about Theodosia Burr Alston: Portrait of a Prodigy.

1. 
   I first heard about Theodosia Burr while visiting Charleston, SC, earlier this year. The tour guide mentioned she was Aaron Burr's daughter, a woman educated like a man and raised to be future Empress of Mexico, who disappeared at sea and was rumored to be stolen away by pirates. I was fascinated and determined to learn more. When I looked up Theodosia on Amazon, Richard N. Cote's book came up. I bought it immediately.
   
   I was not disappointed. The biography "Theodosia Burr Alston: Portrait of a Prodigy" by Richard N. Cote was a fun ride through history. While the book could use more editing, the story itself was intriguing. A Revolutionary War hero and infamous duelist, Aaron Burr raised his only child to be female version of himself: a sophisticated, intelligent, free-thinking prodigy who socialized with French nobility, Native American Chiefs, and quite a few famous Americans, including President George Washington and Dolly Madison.
   
   What I discovered reading this, however, was that Theodosia herself did not interest me as much as her father. In fact, something about her turned me off. I found myself skimming sections about her to learn more about her charismatic father, Aaron Burr, whose mercurial career in politics and wild scheme to conquer Mexico made for a much more interesting story.
   
   All in all, "Theodosia" was a great book in terms of history. I learned quite a bit about our Founding Fathers and what life was like after the War in the newly formed US. I also enjoyed satisfying my curiosity about Theodosia's education and death, as it is an interesting footnote in history. But more importantly to me, I was pleased to learn so much about Aaron Burr, the third Vice President of the US. He is the true hero of this book.



2. I entirely disagree with the reader below me. (Everyone owned slaves back then, except for, notably, Alexander Hamilton, who hated slavery, and yes, he wasn't the only one. But still, the focus of the book was Theodosia, not Aaron.)

   I came across Theodosia while I was watching the PBS Home Video "The Duel" (which I recommend if you are interested in Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, the duel itself, or politics in that time period). I wanted to know more about her and purchased this book. I'm glad I did! This biography seems more like a novel because of the incredible, fast-paced journey it leads you on into the past. I especially liked the last few chapters, when the author explored Theodosia's possible fates and the "mystery of the Nag's Head portrait." This whole book never had a boring moment, so if you are interested in this great yet unknown woman or her infamous father, read this book ASAP!




3. I hate to rain on the parade of all these glowing reviews, but this book is a product of shoddy, lazy, amateurish research. A full 59% of the footnotes are based on secondary sources, & a full 25% of those are from one source alone which the author himself admits is unreliable. The section on Aaron Burr's mother is based on a "source" well-known for decades to be [untrue]. The discussion of Burr as a "slave-owner" is totally misleading, based on assumptions for which there is no evidence, & completely overlooks Burr's well known anti-slavery record. I could go on & on, but you get the picture. The book is full of factual errors, misleading assumptions, & faulty logic. Theodosia Burr Alston needs a good biography, but this isn't it.



4. What an in depth and at times riveting account of Theodosia, the beautiful and very gifted daughter of Vice President and scheming traitor, Aaron Burr. This is a story that has been told before but never brilliantly as in Mr. Cote's sweeping tale. The author brings to life the romantic and tragic heroine, Theodosia, so vividly that the reader truly feels her joys and pain. From her privileged upbringing by a father who was a brilliant but flawed man to her marriage into South Carolina's wealthiest family and eventually to her mysterious death at age 28, this is a story that carries us through the ballrooms and political intrigue of the 18th and early 19th Century. Theodosia, the most well educated woman of her time, was destined by her ambitious father to be empress of Mexico in a scheme both treasonous and ultimately ruinous. Theodosia vanished at sea in 1812 leaving behind a haunting portrait that washed up on a North Carolina beach and a story so intriguing that it lingers in the heart and mind long after the book is finished.



5. There is little doubt that Vice President Aaron Burr was the single, most important person in the world to this young, and impressionable young woman: and why not? He was, after all, her father, the person most likely to offer her his best nurturing protection, validate her worth, and interpret the world as he would like her to see it, educating her for what he perceived it to be, in its complexity as well as its simplicity. As his most unconditional admirer, she apparently did the same for him, and as his trusted confidant, the author spectacularly preserves and presents their special relationship of father and daughter with reasonable success despite the number of rumors, accusations, and hype that usually accompanies infamous figures in history, allowing us to appreciate the complexities of political environments, personal relations, and complex events in a very readable and eloquent fashion, in today's conjecture of thought and reason as best he can from a 200 year old antique history. An insightful account of a very colorful period of American history. While certain presumptions may well be far fetched, certainly the inquiry is a valuable contribution to what can only be called one of the very few accounts of the importance of females in the lives of historical figures.

5 comments about George B. Mcclellan: The Young Napoleon.

1. Has anyone of so much purported skill and promise failed so spectacularly at such a critical moment in American history as General George B. McClellan? If there is, I can't imagine who it would be. Douglas MacArthur comes to mind as a possible analogue (indeed, Harry Truman turned to Lincoln's dealing with McClellan for inspiration in dealing with MacArthur), but at least MacArthur ultimately prevailed in the Pacific in WWII and can at least point to Inchon as a moment of triumph.
   
   This biography is heralded as scrupulously balanced and fair. If so, few actors on such a large stage have had so few redeeming qualities, the fascist and communist dictators of the twentieth century included. The man that Stephen Sears describes is incorrigible - there is no other word for it. Sears paints a portrait of a fool. Several Union generals matched wits and nerve with Robert E. Lee and suffered humiliating defeat, but such men as Ambrose Burnside were, at least, self-aware. They recognized the enormity of their task, felt inadequate, but pressed ahead to the greatest of their ability to fulfill their duty. McClellan, as Sears portrays him, was delusional. His arrogance and conceit were colossal. As he stumbled from one miscue to the next - and the Lincoln administration fretted over how to prod their field general into action - McClellan was convinced that history would confirm his genius and place him in the pantheon of military greats. Not American military greats, mind you, but alongside the likes of Napoleon, Caesar, and Hannibal.
   
   The only positive things that Sears has to say about McClellan is that he was not disloyal to the Union (he was committed to seeing re-union as a precondition to peace with the South, but disagreed vehemently with the Emancipation Proclamation), he never intentionally contributed to the defeat of another Union general, such as Pope at Second Manassas, and he had a loving and tender relationship with his wife. Beyond that, this biography is essentially an indictment of McClellan's military conduct at the head of the Army of the Potomac and his character as a military officer and human being.
   
   What this biography fails to do is explain why so many people - from the front ranks of business, politics and the military - thought so highly of McClellan, so consistently and for so long. McClellan was one of the highest paid railroad executives in the country while in his early 30s. He received the vigorous patronage, as Sears describes it, of Jefferson Davis when he was secretary of war in the Pierce administration and Salmon Chase when he was secretary of the treasury in the Lincoln administration, but Sears never describes how or why those relationships developed or why those men had such confidence in McClellan. When the Civil War broke out, the governors of the three largest states in the Union - New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio - all turned to McClellan as their first pick to lead their state militias. McClellan clearly had the ability to impress intelligent and experienced men - the type of men one would expect to be good judges of talent and character - yet the reader gets no sense of this from the Sears biography. Moreover, for all of the failure and hardship endured by the Army of the Potomac while under McClellan's command, the rank-and-file largely remained loyal to the general, often enthusiastically so.
   
   Sears emphasizes several themes throughout the biography. First, McClellan had utter disdain for civilian control of the military and the performance of non-regulars in the army, an opinion that emerged during his early days of service in Mexico and that he carried, unaltered, through the Civil War and to his grave. Second, McClellan harbored a personal animus against his superior, Abraham Lincoln. He felt that Lincoln was his social and intellectual inferior (McClellan regularly referred to Lincoln as "the gorilla" in his correspondence with his wife), and resented the commander-in-chief's meddling in military matters. Third, Sears argues that McClellan was paralyzed by the unknown and unexpected. If a maneuver met with unanticipated resistance or a plan seemed to go awry, McClellan's impulse was to freeze and react to enemy movements. Sears frequently contrasts McClellan's timidity with Lee's flexibility in the face of regular surprises and setbacks. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Sears stresses how badly the Army of the Potomac intelligence apparatus, run by Allan Pinkerton, failed to understand the order of battle of the Confederate Army of Virginia. Throughout McClellan's tenure as commander, the general belief was that the Union troops were outnumbered by as much as two-to-one, when the reverse was usually the case. The catastrophic intelligence failure of the Union (and McClellan's eagerness to believe the inflated numbers) raises the question: if McClellan had accurate intelligence on Confederate numbers, would it have changed his behavior and battle plans? Sears never addresses that question directly, but one can anticipate his response: no, it wouldn't have changed anything.
   
   Political scientists Eliot Cohen and John Gooch argue in "Military Misfortunes" that readers should be suspicious of the "man-in-the-dock" explanation to failure on the battlefield. In short, large scale military failure is rarely the result of one man's actions (or inactions). Yet, it seems to me that McClellan has been squarely put in the dock by history for the failures of the Union forces on the Peninsula and for not destroying the Army of Virginia at Antietam after receiving Special Order 191. Is that fair? This biography suggests that the answer is "yes," but I'm not convinced. I'm no fan of McClellan, but there had to be more to this man than Sears conveys here.



2. Stephen W. Sears proves once again that he is a master of Civil War histories. A must ead for students of America's greatest conflect.



3. Billed as neither an indictment nor an apologia, Sears makes it pretty plain that George B. McClellan was a failure as a military leader. Overly cautious, slow to act, seeing the worst in every situation, McC was probably his own worst enemy. It's easy to see why so many of the soldiers liked him, though: fighting with McC meant there was a good chance you wouldn't see much action and if you did it was with the utmost planning for the soldiers' safety and well-being. He always thought he was outnumbered by the enemy and let opportunities for victory slip quickly through his fingers. Sears makes the point that McC always planned his campaigns and battles as if facing an overwhelming enemy force, and in that regard they were superb plans. Unfortunately, that wasn't the way it was on the field. Antietam probably should have been McC's best chance to destroy Lee's army and perhaps end the war then and there, but he squandered every opportunity and left a third of his army in reserve. Even worse, and what surely makes the man detestable, was his tremendous ego and feelings of self-importance. Sears' biography covers McC's entire life, though 90% of it deals with the Civil War years. Well written and interesting.



4. History and historians have, on the whole, not been very kind to Major General George B. McClellan. Lately a trend, or better, the beginning of a trend, can be discerned in Civil War historiography towards a kinder view of McClellan. I'm referring to books like: "McClellan's War" by professor Ethan S. Rafuse, the book on McClellan by professor Thomas Rowland and to the 3 books on the Army of the Potomac by Russell Beatie.
   All these books are very good and offer many valuable insights.
   
   Yet I remain convinced that the reputation of George B. McClellan is quite beyond saving and that that there is only one man who comes in for the lion's share of blame for this: George B. McClellan.
   
   On the plus side, and this has to be acknowledgded, McClellan never got near enough credit for his greatest achievement: he MADE the Army of the Potomac. He really did, and it was a magnificent job, considering the time he had to do it in.
   So often we read about McClellan: "oh well he was a great organizer, but a very bad general" but that -unfairly- belittles his tremendous skills in that respect. So more kudos to McClellan for that. It is very, very hard to organize, to build, to equip arm, feed and clothe an army, and then to train and drill it in preparation for it's deadly work. Then of course there was another task: he had to select it's leaders, from the senior command level on down. Don't think to lightly about this. McClellan did so superbly. He gave men like John Gibbon, George Meade, Henry Hunt, Rufus Ingalls, John Buford, Winfield Scott Hancock, John Sedgewick, Charles Griffin and Andrew Humphreys their first commands on brigade level.
   
   He should never have led it out to fight himself, though, his beloved Army of the Potomac. He was distinctly unqualified for that. I think that deep down inside of him, he was aware of this, read his correspondance (also compiled in a magnificent book by Stephen Sears, buy it!!!): his letters offer a case-study of a man plagued by insecurities, complexes and paranoia.
   
   mr. Sears comes down hard on McClellan, very hard. But the points he argues are correct: McClellan was singularly unfit to lead an army.
   Yet he was so boastful and arrogant that he put himself first and the Union war effort second, as is witnessed by his behaviour during the interlude in august 1862, when Major General John Pope commanded half of MacClellan's army aginst Lee. McClellan preferred to let Pope (who possessed as annoying a personality and as large an ego as McClellan) be beaten by Lee than come to his aid.
   
   By then Lincoln was don with him: he let McClellan lead the army for the Antietam campaign, in order to drive Lee from Mary land, but when McClellan again started whining and dragging his feet he fired him.
   "Alas, my poor country"McClellan wrote his wife after his removal from command. Alas indeed: the war was to last another two and a half years, while he could have ended it in one day, had he not so utterly mismanaged the battle of Antietam.
   That is McClellan's enduring bequest to his country: two and a half more years of war.
   
   What baffles me is this: why wasn't he brought to account for this in his own time??? Instead he was honoured, admired and even nominated for the Presidency in 1864!!!
   McClellan lost the 1864 election to Lincoln, thank God. Had he won the world would not have been the same: maybe America would still be split in two countries: the USA and the CSA, or the Civil War would have restarted and be contested with even more bitterness and more ruinous consequences for the nations after his presidential term, or even terms.
   Why he was not impeached, tried or court-martialled after his inept campaign in september and october 1862 is a question I ask myself. Surely others must have too?
   
   Lincoln should have made McClellan Quartermaster-General in Chief of the Union army and put him in charge of supply, armament, recruitment, equipment and training. That was what he was good at. He would have been the Union's Lazare Carnot: "the Organizer of Victory" of the French Revolution. There is litle doubt in my mind he would have done a very good job.
   
   A solid biography on this remarkable man. Well done Stephen W. Sears!!! Keep 'em coming.



5. I'd like to knock some sense into this little brat General.
   
   Lee rules Dixie! Long Live the South.