The book outlays every detail of the Indiana 19th's movement during the Gettysburg campaign all of the way down the graphic depictions of death scenes. It was difficult to gain an overview of the regiments role within the larger conflict (which I anticipated) due to lengthy explanations of specific individuals movements. The details were thouroughly researched and presented in a very logical manner, but the importance the 19th played in this pivotal battle was underscored by long-winded explanations of each death that occurred during the three year period being studied. Approximately 1/3 of the books contents were detailed footnotes and this made the reading somewhat difficult.

this is my uncle and its great to see that he can be seen by many other people here on the internet. Thanks jamie

Hard to put into words how I felt reading this book. It was so well written, and told us so much more about the 19th Indiana regiment than we had ever read or heard before. I have an epalet from Col. Samuel Williams uniform -- the one he was buried in. Would like to get in touch with the author if at all possible!

...if you can get thru the first hour of names, acronyms & unfamiliar agencies. Then the story picks up. Much in this story of friendly espionage is known to historians. Thomas Mahl pulls it together, fills in & adds some sordid new items. I recommend it to those interested in the mechinations of the British in the United States before our entry into the war. Franklin Roosevelt was up to his neck in conspiracy with the British to discredit isolationist by any means, legal or not. The British moved covertly on a scale that FDR & his administration could not have conceived of on their own. The Office of Strategic Services, the prototype of today's CIA was created by the British. They also installed their own man, but an American, Bill Donovan at its head. A federal investigation was launched against leading isolationist Congressman Hamilton Fish. Mr. Mahl shows how the British engineered it. When testifying at the trial of a German national, British agents perjured themselves. He had in his possession a map describing the invasion of South America by Germany. It was forged by the British secret service & planted on him. Their perjured testimony convicted him. The British attacked Standard Oil of New Jersey for their dealings with I. G. Farben a German company. They were accused of creating a cartel to drive up oil prices. This critism was found to have come from inside the U.S. Public opinion polls were just starting to come into their own. British intelligience was able to publish polls that showed American support for entering the war on Britain's side. This actually was never true, until perhaps when Germany declared war on the U.S. Very little could have been accomplished without the complicity of an interventionist press. Those writers were numerous and well known including Walter Lippman, Dorothy Thompson & James Reston. Marshall Fields founded the Chicago Sun-Times to counter the editorials of the isolationist Chicago Tribune. The Chapter I found utterly fascinating was the author's claim that the British, with FDR's connivance, co-opted the Republican National Covention in 1940. They were able to install the dark-horse canidate, Wendell Wilkie, as the GOP nominee against FDR. The thing is, he supported the president's views on extending the draft one more year & Lend Lease. The Repubicans in Congress & the Senate opposed both of these measures. But it is pretty difficult to oppose your party's standard bearer. The British got Lend Lease which was their goal. Wilkie was so well thought of by FDR & the British that he was for a short time considered for the vice-presidency by the Democrats in 1944. What a disaster that could have been! The sordid stories of beautiful female agents compromising prominent Americans was also an interesting sidelight. Are these stories true? Undeniably some are. But they all add up to a entertaining book & a well read audio-tape.

One of the clichés about Monticello is that few houses do so good a job revealing the personality of its builder. But clichés get to be such generally because there's truth to them, and that's definitely the case here. If Thomas Jefferson was one of the most interesting figures in American history (and I think that's unquestionably true), then Monticello may well be one of America's most interesting houses. And for this colorful book produced by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, we are guided through the house and grounds by people who know their stuff.

Specifically, the chapters of this title are written by Monticello's director of restoration, the curator, the director of gardens and grounds, and other experts associated with the Foundation. Large, colorful photos are accompanied by informed commentary and all the requisite history, as well as documentation of the decades of restoration work it has taken to get the house and grounds to its current condition. A book doesn't make up for a visit in person -- if anything, I wished for more photos of the interior, especially of the book room and "cabinet." But for a general overview of the house, grounds, and collection, and an insight into the man himself, this book is hard to beat. I recommend it as a souvenir, as well as a nice companion to a Jefferson biography.

While I enjoyed this book, I felt the title was deceptive. The author, T. Harry Williams, trys to convince us, that Lincoln was a master strategist, and it basically was his strategy that helped win the war. ( I HAD thought this book would be about Union Generals, as Douglass Freemans- Lee's Lt's was about his. That may have been my fault, for misunderstanding)

I read this book with an open mind, yet with a good knowledge of the Civil War, and of McClellen, Meade, Grant, Hooker, Burnside, Pope and McDowell. McClellen stated many times, that Lincoln could not hold on to a secret, and that was his reason for not keeping him informed. Also, many of the plans McClellen devised, were later used by Grant. Hooker built the Union Military up, and did a fantastic job of organization, from the bottom ranks up. Meade, did much of the work, that we give Grant credit for, ( though Meade did make the newspapers mad at him, and refused to name him)

Lincoln is a very interesting man, but I feel it is a stretch to call him a master military strategist.

If you enjoy reading someone elses view, or opinion of the Civil War, this is a really nice book. But, that is why I can only give it three stars, it is good, but too much of the authors opinion.

Williams notes in the preface of my 1952 edition that it is not about the Generals of the Union, but rather about Lincoln and his problems with the Union military commanders. While much of the text is dry details about this letter or that between Lincoln and his generals, the Williams does interject some bits of interesting facts and educated theories on why Lincoln often acted as he did. This is a well researched book, with most pages having between about 3 footnotes, and it is very helpful in understanding the political climate of the American Civil War.

This book is a wonderful look at Lincoln and his relationship with his generals and why he went through so many prior to finally appointing Grant, he just couldn't find one that would not when under pressure find all the reason they could not to attack.
The book also does an excellent job of detailing Lincoln's involvement in strategic policy for the Union armies. Surprisingly for a man who'd never held a high military rank, Lincoln displayed an incredible grasp of strategy and frequently understood things generals such as Meade did not. Williams also expands into how upon the appointment of Grant to general in chief, the Union high command evolved into a modern military command, the first of its kind in the world, even more advanced than anything seen in Europe until Moltke the Elder, with the Union army high command consisiting of Commander in Cheif, General in Chief, and a new office designed for Halleck and to keep Grant from having to be in Washington, Chief of Staff. Williams also makes clear the different military culture of the 19th century, in stark contrast to most instances today, a general who disagreed with Lincoln or thought his plan to have dissatisfied the president or simply disliked somone they were told to collaborate with in a battle, instead of trying to work out differences, asked to be relieved of command.
The one major drawback to this book is its lack of maps. There are no maps to follow the action along, so its advisable to have a Civil War atlas at hand in order to be able to place some of the places the battles take place. Also, if you're looking for a detailed "what happend" in the many battles, in most cases you won't get it with this book. This book is purely about the command and control structure of the Union army and how the players interacted with each other. My one final and biggest grip with Williams is that he at many points assumes too much in my opinion. There are many instances where the documentary record when he wrote the book did not state what happend, so Williams assumes that things "must have" or "certainly happend" a certain way without in some cases anything approaching a clear reason why he draws this conclusion.
Other than these few gripes, this is a wonderful book and should be read by anyone wishing to understand why Lincoln went through so many generals.

Though there are several good letters contained in this book, most are average at best. Trimble does not do a very good job as editor. The introduction and conclusion are poor--they contain very little information on the authors of the letters, and what information is provided is not presented well. Would also like to have seen the editor do a better job placing the letters in the greater context of the war.

William and Thomas Jones were Irish brothers who, with their sister Maggie, immigrated to the United States. Maggie was a schoolteacher in West Farms, New Jersey. William and Thomas served in the 48th New York Volunteer Regiment and saw front-line combat during the American Civil War. Brothers 'til Death is a collection of their letters, memoirs, and diary entries that provide today's reader with first-hand information on what they say and did, from the home front to the front lines. Their letters also present an immigrant's perspective on the conflict. Also included are letters from friends of the Jones siblings, thereby adding additional voices and views to the Irish-accented conversation about the war. Of special interest to Civil War historians are detailed aspects of the coastal campaign of the Carolinas and Georgia, including the assaults on Forts Pulaski, Fisher, and Wagner. Brothers 'til Death is enthusiastically recommended reading for all Civil War buffs and an outstanding contribution to academic and public library Civil War collections.

I closed the final chapter longing for more and feeling as though my friendships had been severed without saying good-bye... What a fine collection of letters to impose such feelings... Not only do we have the opportunity to learn more about this complicated era through their personal accounts, but we get the added dimension of their emotions through the beautifully expressive writing. John Fogarty's soulful poem written during the summer of 1864 underscores the tremendous eloquence of these "ordinary" people... Having had the privilege of reading some of Ellis Spear's journal entries as he set off with the 20th Maine, I can affirm the dedication of this teacher to his students and the labor of love the coordination of this project was. We are fortunate to reap what Richard Trimble has sown...

It is extremely racist for the author and other "liberals" to denounce William Hannibal Thomas for "betraying" his "race." Isn't "race" a fiction? A mulatto is not a Negro. Thomas was really no different from the average mulatto in his views regarding mulatto superiority and Negro inferiority. He was just more public about it. Even your mulatto "black" hero W.E.B. DuBois believed in mulatto superiority. What do you think his "Talented Tenth" was? Do you recall how DuBois described Marcus Garvey in the most perjorative racial terms because the latter was black and not mulatto?

If the liberal author condemns Thomas as a "race traitor," then he is indirectly endorsing the view of white supremacists who believe in white "race traitors." If "race" is not a biological fact, how can there be any "race traitors"?

In defense of Thomas and other Anglo mulattoes and mixed-whites who proudly reject the black stigma, may I ask why Latinos (also a mixed race, partially black group), Indians, Asians, etc. have never been condemned for the same "sins" of looking down on blacks and identifying more with whites? Mexican elites, for example, were willing to condemn blacks as inferior as long as Mexicans as a group could have the honored label of "white." Why don't they receive the condemnation and sneering that Anglos of mixed-race receive even when they just live their lives and make no statements on "race"? Why? Why don't liberals rejoice at THEIR misfortunes and proclaim that the uppity in-betweens had it coming to them?

Smith should condemn himself as a "racist" for promoting the "one drop" myth and forced hypodescent. As a liberal, he misleads people of good will into endorsing anti-mulatto racism as a defense of blacks. That is the source of the "race traitor" accusation against William Hannibal Thomas. He is being used as a scapegoat.

As a biracial, i'm compelled to say: You are a bigoted woman. Most mulattoes do not think they are superiour over blacks, they are not hateful like you. W.E.B Dubois was proud to be a negro, he help found the NAACP.

A thorough, detailed account of how William Hannibal Thomas transformed from an activist and advocate into someone who projected his own feelings of insecurity and inferiority onto his fellow African-Americans. The author does an excellent job of giving Thomas's changing perceptions historical context. All in all, a compelling book.

Gunner With Stonewall is a typical and valuable first hand account of life in wartime. Filled with intersting atecdotes and personal details, it is closer in perspective to Henry Kyd Douglas' "I Rode With Stonewall" than Foote's or Catton's histories on the same period. This lends and air of timelessness and similarity with WWII- and Vietnam-era first -hand accounts. Written many years after the fact, the book contains some minor innaccuracies ultimately clarified by the Editor. All in all, considering the dirth of books about Confederate Army Artillery, it is a good read that diserves a place on the historian's bookshelf.

Poague reminds me of Porter Alexander in his occasionally acerbic tone and his willingness to tell it like he thinks it is with regards to generals and their foibles. Maybe it's an artillery thing. Also like Alexander, he's refreshingly bloodthirsty -- no Gordon-esque blandishments about chivalry here. His account of the death of Federal Gen. Kearny contrasts interestingly with other accounts I've read, and his description of the surrender at Appomattox is particularly evocative.

I came across this book last summer when I was in Stratford, Ontario, attending their annual Shakespeare festival. I had just seen Henry V so this title caught my eye. A glance through the table of contents made me think this book might be a real eye-opener. Unfortunately, I ended up being a bit disappointed.

Sutherland and Watts take turns addressing what they call different "puzzles" in various Shakespearean plays. The problem is, except for the rare exception, most of these questions can be answered in various ways depending on how the play is performed. For example, is Malvolio vengeful or reconciled at the end of Twelfth Night? Or, does Bottom actually sleep with Titania in Midsummer Nights Dream? In both cases the ultimate answer is, it depends on how you play it. There is no one answer fixed in the text.

Even questions that seem like they should have a specific answer like, who killed Woodstock in Richard II?, are given waffling answers. There's simply no way to know. Again, the ultimate answer will lie in how the play is performed. Different companies will lead their audience to different answers depending on what they decide to focus.

Ultimately, this book has value in the sense that it points out what some of the issues are with various plays. On the other hand, the writing here is not very dynamic. The authors rarely take a position and, when they do, they approach it so weakly that they do not inspire a response in the reader. Perhaps the authors felt that they didn't want to provoke any controversy with their readers but, if they had, it might have made for a more readable book.

Shakespeare wrote plays that were to be seen only as performances before live audiences, running around two and a half hours, on a rather small stage. And he probably wrote pretty fast. Are the numerous inconsistencies (or apparent inconsistencies) one finds in the plays genuine errors of oversight, deliberate toying with the audience, unavoidable given the physical limitations of actors and stage, or part of some grand artistic design? For any given play, the answer can be any or all of the above.

The authors discuss about 30 such "glitches," and seem to derive most of their fun from summarizing how various Shakespearian commentators (few distinguished for intellect) have dealt with the glitches over the past 350 years. Sometimes, the authors appear to me to be deliberately obtuse about an issue, perhaps because they had some trouble finding as many as 30 genuinely puzzling glitches to comment upon.

One comment I have about the whole matter, which the authors do not make: Shakespeare's intellectual and artistic depths seem virtually boundless, and every seeming inconsistency might well have a reason for being other than carelessness or a schedule that didn't allow complete revision. The authors are aware of this, even when they don't state it explicitly.

Among the questions discussed: Why does Shakespeare's Henry V during the battle of Agincourt twice order all French prisoners to be slaughtered in cold blood, yet have "full fifteen hundred" prisoners "of good sort" left after the battle, not to mention a like number of "common men"?

Why does Juliet say, "Oh, Romeo, Romeo, wherefore (why) art thou Romeo," when the problem is that he is a Montague? Why do so many of the plays end with nothing resolved, everything hanging in suspension? [Notorious examples are Troilus and Cressida, and Love's Labour's Lost. The answer here is probably, oh say can you see, a sequel being demanded by audiences.] How is Desdemona able to deliver several lines of dialogue after being strangled or smothered by Othello? How can King Lear be more than 80 and Juliet only 13? And so on.

Some of the answers were fairly obvious to me, although apparently not so to the authors. Juliet falls in love with Romeo when they are both in disguise, and it is the revelation that he is who he is that is upsetting. He could be referred to as Romeo, Romeo Montague, or Montague, and the sense would be the same. The action of Richard II would cover 30 years or so in real time, yet the performers would have looked the same and worn the same costumes throughout the play, so Shakespeare has the characters proclaim themselves as "lusty, young" in the early scenes, and having "worn so many winters out" in the last scenes. Further tipoff to this necessary compression is that where ever the dialogue would naturally refer to "years," it instead refers to "minutes" and "hours." As the authors put it, Shakespeare has invented "Warp Time."

The book is a great pleasure to read, and will greatly deepen your knowledge of Shakespearean drama, and your viewing of any Shakespearean film. Highly recommended.

The documents are documents and they speak for themselves. However, the editors are revisionists and their explanation of the documents is very suspect. The editors put this collection together and based their commentary on the idea that United States foreign policy has always been evil, all the "dead white guys" who made these policies are evil, and everything we did during the cold war and Vietnam reflect that evil. I am not saying I agree with the Vietnam War. However, what I am saying is that if you are presenting documents present them fairly and in the proper context. The editors fail to do this. Their commentary reflects what they are trying to push: bad revisionist junk history. For an even handed look at the Vietnam War look at Karnow's Vietnam book. This book is dangerous in that if you don't have a background in the cold war or Vietnam, you might buy into this revisionist junk.

William Appleman Williams was a prolific and influential writer of a dozen revisionist books that challenged prevailing views of American history, deploring the United States as an imperialist power pressing its economic and ideological will around the globe. He was a professor at the University of Wisconsin from 1960 to 1968 and at Oregon State University from 1968 to 1986, when he retired with the title emeritus. The genially combative professor, who termed himself a radical and was often called the founder of the New Left school of American history, was particularly critical of America's role in the Cold War and in Vietnam. With passionate argument and complex analysis, he championed self-determination for all people and argued that a refusal by Americans to acknowledge a national desire for expansion and global hegemony has led to major errors and confusion over the nation's future.

This collection of documents is especially useful for documents not in the Pentagon Papers, including some amazing ones from the 1950s. It's concise and annotated, emphasizing the origins of the war; half of the documents are dated prior to 1960.

The same guy who talks about jet contrails carrying biological agents to control the population. Not only paranoid, but an astounding lack of understanding of basic science..

An interesting and informative book packed with information from the soldiers who came home sick, the families who have been infected, and the doctors who have investigated the problems. Not a book for people who think that ignorance is bliss or that the status quo is allways on the upside. A must read for soldiers experiencing health problems from the war who are not sure if their health problems are related to Gulf War Syndrome. It helped me understand my own ailments and gives helpful information that may assist in treatment.