This book starts off with a great and fair introduction to the two stories that are to be told by William Oates of the Confederacy and Frank Haskell of the Union. Written by Glenn LaFantasie the lengthy introduction writes about both Civil War authors Oates and Haskell. He is careful in explaining that each man's history, background and present situation which may have had an effect on their writing. After the introduction William Oates of the 15th Alabama structures his story first by giving an historical view of the army movments north and south as a prelude to the battle of Gettysburg. His writing of such a history could probably have been eliminated while his story of marching to Gettysburg and his role in the battle should have taken precedent. Oates offers his controversial view of the battle which is interesting in many ways. Not only does he tell his story but he tells it painted his way. Being a reader of many Gettysburg related books, it is easy to find fault with some of Oates' story. Though this is what makes this book interesting. We need to know what Oates considered and thought was how things went instead of guessing. We need something to stand on and his story though it may not be accurate is very descriptive and essential for understanding the battle.

While Oates offered his view of the 15th Alabama's fight to take Little Round Top, a great story is to follow written by Frank Haskell. Unfortunately, Haskell tends to waste the immediate structure of the battle like Oates had earlier. He tells the readers where such a corps was placed, who was advancing, etc. This boring non-relating story he tells doesn't tell about him or his action in the battle. After this quick and non essential tale of the battle of Gettysburg, Haskell finally gets to his involvement in the fight. This is where Haskell gets interesting. He is very fair on his descriptions and how he associates with other Generals during the conflict. His tale of Pickett's Charge and the carnage is excellent. I really liked Haskell's discipline in not reacting to telling about a battle on the field that he didn't take part in or had not witnessed. His graphic tale of Pickett's charge and the movements covered certainly placed myself right along with him on the field. He builds up Day #3 of Gettysburg very well and comes to a complete end to his story without dragging the reader.

For the novice reader of the battle of Gettysburg, I wouldn't recommend this book as it is not generalized enough to understand without reading more of the basic battles of the three day saga. For the advanced reader looking for more historical insight written by two soldiers that were actually there, this is an excellent book and I recommend it completely.

Gettysburg is a well written book by two soldiers who fought in the battle. COL William C. Oates fought for the Confederate side and LT Frank A. Haskell fought for the Union side. Each soldier captured his side of the battle in great detail. The stories are well written and easy to read. It is very interesting to read about the different viewpoints of the battle. COL Oates gives a great analysis of why the Confederates lost the battle and how they could have won it. I highly recommend this book for all fans of the Battle of Gettysburg.

In order to fully appreciate this minute by minute account you should first see the movie"gettysburg" and visit the national park. The detail of how the soldiers were placed comes to life and even more amazing is the recounting of how the soldiers felt, what they were thinking and the general's strategies in leading their men. I highly recommend the audio tapes of this book.... If you've been there, if you've studied the battle, you will be completely mesmerized!!!

Normally on the 26th of October, I view the 1957 movie
"Gunfight at the O. K. Corral" with Burt Lancaster and
Kirt Douglas. I know exactly what I am getting which is
entertainment.

This year I flipped through the Thom Ross book by the
same title and again I was entertained. The Preface said
History but my gut reaction said entertainment. The
history here is fast and loose. Like the movie this book
is FICTION and should be accepted as such.

Enjoy the exquisite paintings. but ignore the connection
between the paintings and the text. And between the text
and History because it isn't here. In fact ignore the text
altogether. Buy this book for the paintings.
and you have a bargain

I do not wish to list the many historical errors of the Ross
and Hutton book here. That might ruin your enjoyment of the
paintings. On this the 120th anniversary of the gunfight
between good and evil, stay focused on the main event.
Don't worry about desecration. Think consecration. History
can wait. this is the age of art and entertainment. If you
have to blame anyone, blame the proofreader. What does he
know?

Thom Ross knows his O.K. Corral history -- there's no doubt about that -- but it is the O.K. Corral myth that he really seeks to translate into the painting contained in this book. Whereas most Western American art is firmly realistic, often almost photographic in intent, Ross's art dares to venture into the realm of the abstract to better capture those elements of myth. In nearly fifty paintings, accompanied by his own text, Thom Ross tells the story of this most famous gunfight in history. I cannot think of another book which has ever sought to achieve such an end, so I believe that Ross deserves double praise for his creativity. If you don't know much about this event, then "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral" is not at all a bad place to begin learning. But even if you have read a dozen books about that day in Tombstone, Ross's book will still have a powerful impact. And after you close the covers of this slender volume, those images remain in your vision, haunting and somehow very alive.

This book is unique in that it provides essays on the numerous facets of Custer's life not only by the participants that knew him but from Custer himself including notable historians that know Custer best. It also covers fascinating facts such as Custer's First Stand at Trevillian Station, a Civil War Battle where Custer was surrounded by Confederate Calavary. Hutton, himself a notable Western Historian, is one of a number of well written essays on the Custer Myth including a critical look at how movies and art portrayed Custer over the years representing the pathos of the nation at that time. The change of view from Erol Flynn's "They Died with Their Boots On" to Richard Mulligan's portrayal in "Little Bighorn" takes a well versed explanation. One of my favorite parts of the book is an essay by Hutton where he explains why in movie director John Ford's "Fort Apache" version of Custer's last stand, John Wayne's character Captain York praises the gallant loss of Colonel Thursday (Custer,) who he actually hated, because York "realized that society understands little of the true motivation of heroes but still needs to idealize them as figures to emulate". This is just not an interesting read but a reflection of how changes in society change perceptions of men and history. By the way, its a fun read!

Phil Sheridan lacks a worthy biography, but this is the best around. It focuses on the post-Civil War period but ( I think)
could have done more to save the General's reputation from that of a 'bigot and Indian hater'.

For example, the unfair ascription of the so-called proverb 'The only good Indian is a dead Indian' is not challenged, I wonder when it ever will be. From my own limited research, I have found the first recorded public use of this phrase by a Montana politician in 1868, one year before Sheridan is supposed to have uttered similar words. Further, Sheridan's brother Mike also traces the phrase to Montana, saying 'some fool' ascribed the words to Sheridan. Finally, we only have the hearsay evidence
of a single witness (ie someone told someone else who wrote it down), written down 20 years later, that Sheridan used the words at all.

There is of course the larger accusation, that whatever Sheridan said, this is how he felt. Hutton effectively refutes that charge, I only wish he had come out and roundly stated it somewhere in the book. Sheridan shared the objectives of his contemporary humanitarian critics - he wanted Indians to settle down on reservations and adopt white ways, or just live of the bounty of the government. Where he differed was how he treated 'hostiles' or recalcritant Indians. Sheridan believed in waging war on the Indians just as he had made war in the Shenandoah Valley - devastate the enemy's resources, limit his power to make war by depriving him of supplies, with the added extra of rounding up families to be taken to where they white soldiers could watch them.

In essence, Sheridan was given a dirty job, and did in the only way he knew. But he had no especial hate for the Indians - he was not a Himmler figure, as some have made him out. He was fair to Indians who kept the peace. For example, he adjudicated in a dispute between Indians and cattlemen who had leased reservation land. Despite his personal feeling about development, he came down firmly on the Indian side, and thanks to him, the cattlemen were given 3 months to remove their herds, which humbered hundreds of thousands head of cattle.

Sheridan also sponsored early efforts to study Indian lore and customs, and was instrumental in preserving Yellowstone National Park for the nation.

In short this man was not a saint. He had glaring defects - for example, he aggressively defended subordinates even when they were in the wrong, he looked after cronies in the Army and outside. But he was totally uncorrupt in a corrupt age (his personal fortune was quite small at the end of his days, even though he could undoubtedly had many opportunities to enrich himself illicitly). Also, one feels that someone who said "If I owned Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas" can't be all bad! Right or wrong, he had a certain spirit, that Little Phil!

It is time we had books that celebrate the great HEROES of freedom like Grant Sherman Sheridan ect instead of the cowadly likes of Quantrill and his gutless backshooting ilk who would have run from a Blue Coat drummer boy or a Federal Army nurse!
It is about time that Americans honored those who stood and fought for freedom and WON. This book is a fine start.

Prof Hutton does an excellent job with the story of "Little Phil" Sheridan and the Army on the post-Civil War plains. This is well written and brings the reader along like a good historical novel -- Hutton is a good historian and a great writer.

This is a memoir with chapters written in and after the 1880's.

An interesting positivist take on the war--also interesting how politically conscious Kidd appears to have been. My general observation is that the Northern accounts seem to be more politicized, more likely to talk about politicians and political beliefs, than Southern.

Kidd started the war as captain of Troop E, 6th Michigan Cavalry, and ended up in command of the regiment. He spends a lot of time discussing recruiting and training, details fighting at Gettysburg and Williamsport, Trevilian Station, Third Winchester, et cetera. Kidd's admiration for Custer, his brigadier, is clear.

A useful account, but not an especially anecdotal or vivid one.

This reprint of the classic "Recollections of a Cavalryman" is a valuable addition to the military history of the nation. It also offers a view of Custer by someone who actually served with him in combat -- extensive combat. The view of Custer that emerges is not that penned by a fawning subordinate; Colonel Kidd simply recounts the battles and activities of the Michigan Cavalry Brigade in a straightforward manner. His later controversy notwithstanding, Custer was an exemplary cavalry commander and arguably the most successful and brilliant cavalry officer on either side in the conflict. This book opens a window on the past and is an excellently written account of the brutal battles fought by our ancestors. The book also offers an unintentional balance to Custer's historical legacy. It's unintentional because at the time it was written, Custer was still considered a national hero. This book explains why he was. Read it.

The book is set up as a series of accounts from numerous sources. Some are verified accounts and others are third-party accounts.

The oldest discovered accounts are at the front of the book and the newest discovered accounts are at the back. As you might imagine "history" changes over time so that the older accounts tend to be believed while the newer ones are mostly fiction.

Unfortunately this makes the reading after about a hundred pages irrelevant as the author believes the latter accounts to be false, which makes me wonder why I would want to read those accounts at all.

The other aspect is there is no summary of all the accounts to give a clear picture of what really happened. I know that the author's intent was to be unbiased, but he could give the accounts then make a summary based on his investigations. This would wrap up many loose ends, which would make the book complete.

What's most obvious, by its nature, can easily escape our attention. It may therefore be worth noting that the Alamo events of 1836 are long beyond the recall of any person alive today. Theoretically, there might now be some living centenarian whose grandfather could have known James Bowie, or at least been in his presence and spoken with him - but this is conceptual, and though conjecture is fruitless it's still fascinating. We can't talk with the defenders who perished at the Alamo or with the non-combatants who survived it, some of whom actually lived into the 20th century - but in this book by Bill Groneman, EYEWITNESS TO THE ALAMO, they operatively speak to us, if not in the literal sense, then surely effectively.

Gathering information is only one facet of a researcher's work. Finding what he seeks is one of the more time-consuming features of his job. What distinguishes this book from most others is its efficiency: it presents information which apparently can't be found elsewhere in a single book, thereby saving time and effort for both the historian and the knowledgeable reader.

By their immediacy, the accounts presented here - many first-person Alamo reports by those who were there - are as insightful as the very concept of offering them in one self-contained volume. Theoretically many could have compiled such a book, but no-one else did it. This collection of accounts can be a conspicuous blessing to those interested in Western history generally, in Texas history specifically, and in the Alamo in particular.

It seems no adobe brick was left unturned in the research for this work. It is, in a very real sense, a treasury of material taken wherever possible from primary sources. While the reports themselves sometimes contradict those of others - people witness events through their own eyes and relate them from viewpoints tinted by their own experience - we're offered accounts of Alamo events from those very people who endured them. Effectively there's no substitute for this.

This book also offers a balance many others don't: reports from both the American and Mexican sides. Some of the accounts were written down or told to others long after the siege, but those who were there were by definition closer to the scene than those who weren't. The collective discrepancies in their reports (people are in fact human) prevent us from knowing "precisely" what happened at the Alamo in 1836, but that these accounts were offered by those who literally lived through the events gives us not only a more immediate picture, but perhaps more importantly, bottom-line details. If the aggregate details don't resolve conjectures or provide explanations to unanswered (or unanswerable) questions, they are still details which shed more light on what transpired there more than a century and a half ago.

While other historians compile and try to present an amalgam of data, Groneman takes us into a courtroom and displays primary evidence unsullied by legendary gloss, the ghosts of myth, and the passage of 16 decades. He places before us, devoid of cosmetic veneer, the raw material from which we can form our own opinions and draw our own conclusions.

Walter Lord, author of A NIGHT TO REMEMBER and A TIME TO STAND, wrote about another Groneman book, ALAMO DEFENDERS, "...an indispensable tool for anyone working on the Alamo... I wish I had it when I was doing my research" - an ultimate compliment, and the same sentiment can be applied to EYEWITNESS TO THE ALAMO. Interested in the Alamo? Get this book. Have no interest in the Alamo? This book can get you interested.

JEFFREY DANE

By compiling all known first-hand accounts of the siege of the Alamo (including some with a debatable authenticity, duly noted by the author), Bill Groneman has produced an excellent, handy resource for studying this famous incident. Going back to the original sources is always the best way to gain a sense of what really happened, and "Eyewitness to the Alamo" lets the reader do this with a minimum of trouble. Groneman's comments about the various source documents are a helpful guide to their reliability, although of course not everyone would necessarily agree with his every assessment (I have particularly in mind the De la Pena "Diary"). This book makes a great companion to Alan Huffines "Blood of Noble Men" in which Huffines arranges excerpts from many of these accounts into chronological order to tell the Alamo story.