"History has given Mary Custis Lee a bad rap," writes John Perry in the opening sentence of LADY OF ARLINGTON: THE LIFE OF MRS. ROBERT E. LEE. "I'm out to change that."

And change that he does. Perry rehabilitates Mary Custis Lee from a whining, neurotic invalid whose weakness and selfishness made everybody around her miserable and demonstrates that she was, in fact, a charming, attractive woman who turned heads in the Supreme Court chamber as a teenager and who almost certainly received a marriage proposal by no less a man than Sam Houston.

"Over her sixty-five years," writes Perry, "friends, relatives, and perfect strangers consistently described her as cheerful, smiling, welcoming, and industrious. She read Latin and Greek, and when she ordered a copy of LES MISERABLES, she wrote the bookseller to send it in either English or French, whichever was more readily available."

True, had not her great-grandfather been George Washington, and had she not have married Robert Edward Lee, the greatest of Confederate generals, we probably would never have heard of Mary Anne Custis. But Perry shows that she was a fascinating and inspiring woman in her own right.

Mary Custis Lee was an excellent painter, a published author, a legendary hostess, a tireless fund-raiser for charities, a devout Christian, staunch patriot, the mother who cared for seven children when their father was away from home for years at a time, and a devoted wife who nurtured her beloved husband's career even as arthritis crippled her body and the ravages of the Civil War drove her from the only home she had ever known.

Through diligent and dedicated research, John Perry has tracked down false rumors, half-truths, and conflicting claims about his subject and, by bringing the real Mary Custis Lee into the light, has set the record straight.

"Certainly the most exciting discover was Mary's prayer journal at the Virginia Historical Society in Richmond," writes the author. "As far as I can learn, none of it has ever been published or even examined before. Filled with her innermost thoughts, hopes, and fears, it casts new light on every word we have from her."

Was the discovery of Mary's prayer journal a blessing or a curse? Although some readers may rejoice in Mary's expression of religious emotions (concerning which Perry puzzlingly writes, "No one would ever read this"), others may find her diary to be overwrought, tedious, repetitious, and ultimately boring.

Be that as it may, Perry's diligent and dedicated research has tracked down false rumors, half-truths, and conflicting claims, and, by bringing the real Mary Custis Lee into the light, has set the record straight.

3.5 Stars

I was attracted to this book as a result of reading, "April 1865". I found General Robert E. Lee to be a particularly fascinating person, both militarily and in his personal life, and so a biography of his wife seemed to be an appropriate progression. I had never read material on this historical figure, so this books promise of the inclusion of her diary for the first time was also an attraction. The book was less than I had hoped for, while Mrs. Lee certainly held a unique place as a result of The Civil War and her relationship to George Washington, this book did not seem to justify its necessity.

Mrs. Lee like many women of the southern wealthy families lost virtually everything she ever called her own as the result of the war. She also was a beneficiary of the provision of a new home, and a more rapid return to a form of normalcy due to her husband's appointments, and then her son taking his father's place as a college president after the war. This was a return that was measurably longer for other families. The transition she did not make with her husband was the progressive acceptance of what had happened, and acknowledging the new reality that post war America would offer to those of the losing side of the conflict.

Mrs. Lee came from a family that was very progressive with regard to abolition and many other issues typically credited to The North. Unfortunately these thoughts did not carry through the war, and when compounded by her illness and the confiscation of the family homestead, she spent the balance of her life growing progressively angry. The US Government did return the title to her Arlington home after her death, and after it had thoroughly been destroyed as a family home. This home was also the site of many of George Washington's belongings, including the bed he had passed away in, his carriage, silver, literally rooms of possessions. This estate that had been the calling place of successive presidents and dignitaries like Lafayette was turned into a deforested piece of land, a squatter's village numbering several thousand people, and a national cemetery that encroached to the edge of her families graves.

The offerings from the diary are fairly slim in their variety and information they share. They are deeply personal notes of a devout Christian woman, however they do not offer great and original insight to her life.

This book is about much more than Mrs. Lee; it could have been called, The Families of Arlington. There is much that is of interest regarding her relations, and details of General Lee's correspondence, however she alone does not fill this book. Other work has been written about Mrs. Lee, and has received high praise; a reader might be better served to read other work prior to setting out with this offering by Mr. Perry.

I love everything about this book. They way it traces Mrs. Mary Custis Lee's family all the way back to George Washington and takes it forward from their. The way it describes the acquisition of Arlington. I have never seen a biography written better and keep my attention word for word till the end prior to this book.

To draw the most from this new book, you need to know already quite a bit about occupied France. The authors trace in detail academic perceptions of Vichy since 1945. Regime apologists tried to maintain in the 1950s that Petain had played a clever game in seeming to collaborate whilst plotting to maintain French independence. We now understand this was nonsense: Petain and Laval may have been interested in collaboration, but Hitler's only concern was booty. But equally in error was the Gaullist position that forty million Frenchmen supported the Resistance against a tiny number of traitors. The editors demonstrate that more recent research has shown how fragmented both the pro and anti Vichy groups were. For example, it was possible to be faithful to Petain whilst being anti nazi. Many ordinary French people, both in the cities and in the countryside, adopted an eclectic attitude according to "how the wind was blowing" in their area. The book suggests new lines for research on Vichy, especially a comparative approach with what was happening in other occupied countries such as Bulgaria and Hungary. The book is largely a tribute to Robert Paxton who wrote a ground breaking study of wartime France in the 1970s. This reviewer found the continuous adulation of Paxton, however merited, somewhat repetitive. You will enjoy this new volume if you really want to explore in depth the meaning of Vichy over the past sixty years. Given that France was still prosecuting men for war crimes in the late 1990s, Petain's regime is still a hotly debated topic in that country's academic establishment.

This book is an essential text for anyone interested in the history of of France during the Vichy regime. It offers a superlative compilation of the latest scholarship in the field, contributed by some of its most important writers, people like Michael Marrus, Jean-Pierre Azema, Henri Rousso, Stanley Hoffmann, Philippe Burrin, etc. etc. The introduction by Fishman and Smith is a thorough map of the entire contents of the book which, again, provides a rich collection of articles destined perhaps not for the general reader without any background on the subject, although the book itself is reader friendly....

I am a bit new to the Civil War history ranks, but I have read several books over the last few years. I just completed Grant's memoirs, and decided I needed more information about Lee, hence this book. I could not rate it higher, due to the apparent inaccuracies (too many to detail, primarily with regard to numbers in the ranks and casualties), and the racist attitude that prevails. Taylor was clearly a loyal soldier, and true to his cause, but his mis-guided attack on General Longstreet became tiresome.

Walter Taylor offers a great perspective into the charater of General Lee, the ability of his subordinates, and the fighting courage of the army itself. Taylor's book should be read by any Civil War buff since Taylor was actually there as Lee's adjutant general. While those critical of Lee may find Taylor to be too defensive and loyal to Lee, one can only continue to admire the Greatest General of the Civil War. I like to take in both sides of the issue concerning Lee, but I have found that Lee was an able, moral, and intelligent leader with weaknesses like every human. The only reason I didn't give this book a five is because of Taylor's subtle criticism of General Longstreet, while he does give him deserved credit.

Gary Gallagher has compiled 13 interesting essays on Robert E. Lee and his CSA Army and its generals. Each individual essay is very interesting, especially his concentration on Jubal Early and the development of the "Lost Cause" myth to explain the defeat of the CSA. Gallagher expertly details how Jubal Early and other early Civil War historians explicitly wanted to make sure that the soldiers of the CSA were portrayed in a positive light, sometimes, regardless of the facts.
Gallagher also attempts to rebuild the reputation of Early destroyed by his defeat in his campaign in the Valley. In doing so, Gallagher explains that a comparison between Early's lack of success and the success in the valley of "Stonewall" Jackson is inappropriate. Early inflicted as many casualties as he could on the forces opposing him, however he was faced with superior generals on the Union side than most of those that faced Jackson. In essance, Gallagher explains that Jackson's success must at least in part be attributed to the fact that he faced incompitent opponents, and Early did not.
There are a couple drawbacks to this book, and while they don't detract from the individual essays, they do detract a bit from the book in its entirety. First, much of the first third of the book, particularly the essays, "The Idol of His Soldiers and the Hope of His Country: Lee and the Confederate People" and "If the Enemy Is There, We Must Attack Him: Lee and the Second Day at Gettysburg" address larger issues than just Lee and his generals, they both seem to me they would have been more appropriately included in Gallagher's work "Lee and His Soldiers."
While the section on the "Lost Cause" and Jubal Early is very interesting, it also seems that it's misplaced in this book. It seems that it should belong in Gallagher and Nolan's book on the lost cause.
The last section in the book on "historical memory" which includes essays on Ken Burn's miniseries "The Civil War" as well as battlefields, seems also to be out of place in this book.
I'm not sure why Gallagher chose to title this work "Lee and His Generals in War and Memory" when so few of the essays included deal directly with the relationship between Lee and his lieutenants.
Another drawback is that the book doesn't have an epologue that attempts in any way to tie each essay together in a larger framework. Absent this, it really lacks a central focus as a book.

I bought this book based on the fact that I consider Gary Gallagher one of the premiere Civil War historians today. Luckily, he did not disappoint me with this effort. Through a series of 13 essays, Dr. Gallagher takes a detailed look at General Lee and his subordinates performance during the Civil War, and how they have been portrayed by historians. More speficially, he details how the "Lost Cause" writers created some of the myth and legends about the South's best and worst leaders. Additionally, he looks at more recent works (both books and video) about the Civil War, and whether or not these historians bring a more balanced and better pespective on the war.

I really enjoyed this book because it offers so much fresh material on many popular Civil War leaders, and topics (like Ken Burns video collection). Also, I think that Gary Gallagher brings a very balanced approach to his research and analysis. In other words, I trust his opinion because he always supports his thoughts with detailed research from the latest sources available. Therefore, he can successfully weave together both the battles and politics of the war, and paint accurate pictures of the Southern leaders discussed in this book.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who has a fundamental understanding of the Civil War, and is looking for resources to develop a deeper analysis of this complex war. Learn from someone who is at the forefront of current research, and willing to put in the extra time and effort to get the story right.

Too much psychoanalysis and too little factual information. Almost 140 years after the Civil War and Blount searchs for personality quirks to define a complex and interesting gentleman, general and leader.

I'm disappointed too in the general trend for many historians to ever search and highlight as much negative as they can about our historical figures, especially military leaders.

It's easy to second guess and use modern beliefs to define the past. Blount (or anyone else for that matter go lead men in battle for four years) and then write your book.

Blount helps us understand the real Lee for a change, not the "marble man" admired and revered by simple Civil War buffs. Those looking for yet another breathless account of the same old stories will be intellectually overmatched by the insightful, sensitive and illuminating portrait Blount presents. A real contribution to understanding Lee, the Civil War, and the mindset which led the nation to and through that disaster.

This is the fourth Penguin Lives title I've read (the other three being Auchincloss on Wilson, Keegan on Churchill, and Johnson on Napoleon), and for pure biography, this one is the best of the four. Other reviewers who criticize the relative superficiality of Blount's analysis need to recognize that the Penguin Lives are not intended to be comprehensive, ground-breaking studies. That just couldn't be done in under 200 pages.

No, these books -- essays, almost -- are introductions to, surveys of, key historical figures. The question shouldn't be, Did Blount give us all the answers about Lee? but rather, Has Blount painted a sharp enough portrait that we have a clear idea of who the man was, why he did what he did, and what impact his life had? I think the answer to that latter question is a decisive Yes.

Unlike Keegan and Johnson, Blount is not a professional historian. But he's done a fine job with a subject all biographers admit to be a man very difficult to get close to. This fact in itself forms part of Blount's theme, as he explores the roots of Lee's famous reserve and inapproachability. He largely avoids pop psychoanalysis -- when he wades into those waters, he tells us he's doing so -- and his insights seem to make sense.

I particularly appreciated the way Blount addressed the issue that defines (many, if not most) modern treatments of Lee: the question of whether he can justly be called a Great Man while having fought, if not explicitly for slavery itself, at least for a nation and a culture in which slavery played a central role. The fact that Blount sees nuances to the discussion, instead of making the absolute, unarguable, definitive statement "Lee = slavery = evil", may cause ideologues, or people who just don't know any better, to reject his reasonings entirely. But that would be their loss because this section, too, is rewarding reading.

I said this book is good pure biography. That's because Blount is an excellent writer and storyteller, as well as a fine presenter and interpreter of facts. As a "humorist," (I've always hated that term), he has a keen eye for the ridiculous, both in human behavior and in historians' more labored interpretations.

So, no, this isn't a scholarly, definitive, biography that will become the new gold standard in Civil War Studies. But as a highly readable thumbnail portrait of one of the most loved and reviled, admired, misunderstood, and dare I say, greatest, figures in American history, I think it will be hard to beat.

The Religion as the social concept and Transendental one, is probably discussed in the future. The Discussion is prefer use many disciplines and methodes, becaouse by this one, the re-thingking of the religion, especially Islam in this case, is merely quite right. Arkoun, although He was not the first man who preparing this concept of re-discus of religion, but He Was Gave the New paradigm of methodology.

In the context of a new reassertion and emergence of anti-intellectual fundamentalist groups within the fringes of Islamic thought who detest archival research and historical interpretation of Islam, Mouhammed Arkoun's contribution in seeking a new interpretation of Islam is a great achievement. Western orientalists and media-establishments have projected a badly tarnished image of Islam, essentially for their own objectives of demeaning and subjugating underdeveloped societies of the Islamic world. Powerful western governments have created a dangerous "other" in the form of Islam, which would destroy such universalist western values as democracy, liberalism and individualism. In fact, Islam is not a monolithic religion; rather it is a remarkable mosaic of diverse interpretations. Islamic societies do not comprise a unified system to pose a military, economic, political or even ideological threat to the west. So the need of the hour is to understand Islam in its totality both by the West and the Muslims themselves to seek a solution thata is not based on a zero-sum outcome. Arkoun's ideas precisely fill this need. Muslims need a rethinking of their faith, based on rationality and reason not on dogma, in order to create a progressive, modern Islamic world.

I believe this book is an excellent resource for anyone either familiar or unfamiliar with the discourse of Islam and its basic tenets. What makes it special is the 'fresh' and 'scientific' approach that Arkoun seeks to encourage for the study of Islam. As the book prgresses not only does the reader learn about Islam but is also forced to rethink their existing notions. Arkoun however suggests no solutions to the ills that he finds in Islamic thought. The best he can do is suggest his methodology and express full confidence that if followed, his suggested 'scientific' approach will lead to great conclusions from Muslim thinkers. In this sense the reader is left hanging. However, most modern dilemmas often cannot be solved in one big swoop and it would be somewhat unfair for us to expect that Arkoun should in one book, not only explain Islam, identify contentious issues and provide new methodologies but on top of that present new solutions as well. I think Arkoun still deserves credit for all that he still accomplishes within this book.

this book is not beautiful.

The pictures are poorly taken: they are snap shots that make the palms themselves look like giant weeds.

And the pictures are not large - there are 4 or more on every page.

The printing quality is poor to average - the printer was just going through the motions when producing this book.

To sum up - it may be a good reference if you're good at long latin names and cluttered, muddy photographs... but it is not in any way a beautifully made book.

This is one of the most complete reference guides for anyone who has ever wondered about palm trees. The scientific treatment of the subject is kept to a minimum while the use of palms in the landscape is emphasized. Here the enthusiasm of the authors shines through. The numerous color photographs underscore the point that nearly any landscape need can be satisfied with thoughtful use of palms.

The photographs are snapshot rendered, but in my opinion, any lapse of quality which results is more than compensated by the adequacy of detail.

Though the authors provide notes on seed germination, they avoid a more thorough discussion of propagation. The authors generously supply hints on cultivation of many species covered in the book, but they do not discuss diseases which afflict growing specimens.

There is no doubt that the book is worth the price paid.

There is no other comparable book on the market. It treats ALL 192 genera of palms currently known to science. The photos are excellent and are comparable to those of Riffle's award-winning first book, THE TROPICAL LOOK. The text is even better than the photos and includes observations and experiences from many long-time growers worldwide.

I don't understand the Canadian review which seems to fault the book because some of the palm species cannot be grown in much of the continental USA. Go far enough north and NONE of them can be grown! This is simply a fact of nature, not a fault of the book.

If I want to hear how good Director is, I'd go to the Macromedia web site. This book does not go into the specific. It tells you WHAT you can do with Director not actaully HOW to do it. The money I spent on this book does not worth the education I received from it. Oh well, Director 7 is coming out by the time you read this, lt's hope these guys would do a better job at actaully writing a reference book instead of a brouchure.

This book was the required text for my multimedia authoring class because no other Director 6 books were available at the time. It was so poorly laid out that after a few weeks my instructor gave up on teaching with the book. Now that I use Director at work, I've realized that it doesn't even cut it as a reference.

Inside Director tries to teach general multimedia rather than the fundamentals of Director. The book attempts to teach you how to create sound and digital movies in other programs(Which has nothing to do with learning Director), yet it severely lacks in explaining how to handle sound and movies in Director. The book also teaches you more about how to write HTML(Which also has nothing to do with learning Director), then how to create streaming shockwave movies with net Lingo.

Save your money and buy a different book.

Personally I would suggest every begginer or intermediate Director user to read this book. I think it explains what outher books didn`t!!

This book is useful in that it lists all of Nostradamus's prophecies and that's what I wanted. A cross-index by what Nostradamus actually SAID as opposed to what the interpreter THOUGHT would have been nice (i.e. how many prophecies referred to "the great one" (Jackie Gleason?)). However, I perceive no rhyme or reason as to how it is determined that this prophecy relates to WW II, that one relates to the 18th century, another one relates to the future, at that one over there relates to something in Nostradamus's own time. The words "clearly" and "obvious" are used with far too little justification. Single terms ("great one," "eagle", etc.) are identified as different parties in different prophecies. No pattern of literal or symbolic is evident. No hint as to why one prophecy talks about individuals while another one discusses nations. Quite honestly, the space that was used in printing the original French phrases (which were pretty much useless to me, anyway) could have been put to better discussion of the interpretations. If you're interested in Nostradamus in a casual way, like I am, this is a place to start, I guess, but it's certainly not of much use for any serious study.

Actually, for the text itself, I give it four stars, while I only give the commentary two.

First, Nostradamus-- I'll admit that I'm more or less uninterested in the prophecy side of the verses. I was interested in reading them for their historical value. As such, it's a great read. Through the verses, you get a look at the period's preoccupations-- who is named pope, the future of France, alchemy, and the desire to distinguish prophecy from astrology. Nostradamus has had an enduring impact on writing since he put his prophecies on paper, and you can trace that legacy here from the original verses.

The commentary-- Henry C. Robert's interpretation taught me more about World War II than anything else-- he seemed determined to prove that a disproportionate number of the verses referred to the second World War. Probably unsurprising, given that he first wrote his interpretations in 1947. However, he stretched so hard to fit the words to his ideas, that it unfortunately made me suspect his translation. I also could have done with more of an effort for establishing on what basis he was assigning some of the meanings (explanation of period symbolism, the alchemical references, etc.).

If I get a chance to buy another translation version and compare, I probably will.

I thought I was buying a biographical if not auto- biographical text on Nostradamus. It turns out that this is a compilation of quotations by Nostradamus with interpretation and translation into English.

As a Southerner whose ancestors fought for both the Confederacy AND the Union in the Civil War, I tend to disagree with both sides in the debate over "Lee Considered". I agree with those who argue that a more balanced and realistic view of Robert E Lee is long overdue, and that Nolan's book does offer some telling blows at the Lee mythology. But, I also don't believe that Nolan has made the "convincing" case against Lee that some of the posters on this board would have you to believe. Nolan, who is a lawyer and not an historian (a fact which should be borne in mind as you read this book), attempts to put the romantic, mythological Lee "on trial" and expose him for the flawed and decidedly unheroic person that Nolan believes him to be. Like a good lawyer, Nolan denies trying to "convict" Lee in the beginning of the book, and even states that he admires him in some ways, but the rest of the book reveals Nolan to be committed to "convicting" his target of several specific charges. Namely: 1)That Lee was privately far more supportive of slavery than the Lee myth would have it; 2)That Lee was far more supportive of secession and "breaking up the Union" than his myth reveals; 3)That Lee made numerous mistakes as a General that helped cause the South's defeat - mistakes such as pursuing an aggressive, "go get'em" strategy that led to the highest casualty rates of any Civil War General and bled his smaller army dry; and 4)That Lee prolonged the Civil War longer than was necessary by continuing to fight after Gettysburg, which Nolan argues "convinced" Lee that the South was doomed to defeat, and therefore he should have urged the Confederacy to surrender, or at least refused to fight or encourage his men to make useless sacrifices for a cause he privately knew was doomed. Nolan presents a good deal of "evidence" (much of it in Lee's own words), but like a good prosecutor he leaves out "evidence" which contradicts his theories, and he completely ignores the fact that Lee was a nineteenth-century man, not a late twentieth-century one. An historian would have put many of Lee's views into further context (without necessarily excusing them). Dr. James McPherson, the famed Civil War historian and author of "Battle Cry of Freedom", can hardly be called a "neo-Confederate" historian (if anything he's pro-Union), but even he has some problems with Nolan's book. A few years ago he wrote a criticism of "Lee Considered" in which he "judged" Nolan's "trial" of Lee, and while he found Lee to be "guilty" of being more pro-slavery than the Lee myth allows, he also found Lee to be "innocent" of prolonging the War (McPherson points out that the South still had a good chance of winning the war right up to Lincoln's reelection in November 1864), and that Nolan failed to "prove" many of his other charges, although McPherson argues that Nolan does raise some worthwhile questions about the accuracy of the traditional Lee myth. I fully agree with McPherson's views - this book is worth reading because it does offer a view of Lee that is in some ways more "realistic" than the Lee myth. However, Nolan fails to destroy Lee's reputation as a great general and one of the true "legends" of American military history. Overall, this book is quite a mixed bag, but it's still a thought-provoking, intellectually stimulating piece of work, even if Nolan is sometimes off-target.

Reading some of the other reviews of this book is proof enough that the Lost Cause orthodoxy is alive and well. It would be simple enough to ascribe this book to vile Yankee enmity for daring to challenge accepted assumptions about RE Lee.

That having been said, I am not totally satisfied with Nolan's approach. He rightfully criticizes various historians for drawing conclusions about Lee based on single statements or letters written by Lee (often after the fact). However, Nolan is often guilty of the same misdeed. While I suspect that the documentary record would tend support Nolan's thesis than undermine it, nonetheless the documentation Nolan provides is quite limited. Carefully selecting the evidence that supports your argument might work in a court of law, but not in a work of history.

I also think that Nolan at times indulges in unnecessary hair-splitting, such as in the 5-page Chapter 5, where he discusses Lee's feelings towards his adversaries. The chapter seemed to me to be totally superfluous and contributed nothing to the book overall.

Nolan, in an effort to discredit the dogma of the Lost Cause, at times goes overboard in his assumptions. When criticizing Lee for undermining the Confederacy's war effort by going too much on the offensive, Nolan states that the South actually had a realistic chance of winning the war. His argument is that if Lee had preserved his manpower more prudently, the South could have withstood the North's attempts at conquest. This is a valid argument, because it is obvious that Lee did a good job of wrecking his army from 1861-1863.

However, Nolan's larger argument rests on the supposition that the South was effectively managing its war effort elsewhere. Ironically, like many of the devotees of the Lost Cause, Nolan ignores the impact of the war in the Western Theatre while focusing on the Eastern Theatre. The reality was that in the Western Theatre, especially in the first two years of the war when North & South were more or less equally matched in the field, the South was steadily losing ground virtually from the beginning. This is due as much to the incompetent generalship of the Confederacy as anything else. Even if Lee had carefully husbanded his manpower, he could not have undone the damage caused by generals such as Polk & Bragg in the Western Theatre.

The best part of Nolan's book is the final chapter, where he discusses the overall effort by the South (with very willing collusion from the North) to turn the Civil War & the Antebellum period into some sort of idyllic fairy tale, due to the racist attitudes that both regions shared. He gives a convincing argument about century-long effort to change the very nature of the war, of which the Lee mythology is only one element.

While at times this book veers dangerously close to being a commonplace chop-job, overall it makes a decent contribution to the literature. If Nolan had provided more comprehensive documentation, its impact would be all the better. As it is, one cannot consider it the last word, but it has ushered in an honest debate on the subject.

No-one fought harder to destroy the Union than Robert E. Lee, so it's about time someone took him down a few pegs. Nolan puts Lee's reputation under a microscope and, point by point, convincingly refutes the myth created by Freeman and others. As Nolan shows, Lee's strategic blunders seriously weakened the Army of Virginia even as his tactical pyrotechnics dazzled such lightweight opponents as McClellan and Burnside. One wonders whether he would have been so successful against Grant (oh, that's right-he wasn't). This book, along with J.W. Cash's "The Mind of the South", is a welcome balance to the usual romantic folderol about Southern honor.