The book does what is says, but beware!
At first I was very excited to see a book on the topic. It is generally interesting, but hard to read and unevenly researched. It is centered mostly on the southern states and nearly ignores actions along the coast north of Maryland. The book is a constant jab and bash at the militia system to the point of boredom. I don't believe anyone expected a militia system that trained 4 days a year to be anything but a speed bump to veteran British regiments. The system did what it was supposed to do and countered local raids and was the 'first' line of defense against invasion.
The book spends alot of time on the political troubles of the system and explains it well in a somewhat chaotic manner. Many first hand sources are used, but sometimes takes the author to the same incorrect conclusion as others before him. Modern studies that discount old myths seem to be ignored.
A couple of chapters that let me down were the 'Militia Organization' and 'The Atlantic Front..'. The first boils down to two paragraghs that give very general details of organization. I was shocked that artillery and cavalry were left out. No mention of the French military influence or the basics of 'standing militia', 'elite militia (lights, rifles, artillery and cavalry)' and 'volunteers'. The second chapters covers New England in two paragraphs that are poorly researched. Both are primary sources that are biased and inaccurate. Maine was actually invaded and occupied until well after the war with the intent to adding it to Canada. The New England states did not perform any better, however they were better organized and equipped than most.
The militia battle in Stonington/New London, CT mentioned on p. 130. barely gets a paragraph, but a positve chapter would counter the book's theme.
Sadly the author ignores the 'Laws of War' at that time which generally stated 'armed resistence of a city would forfeit it'. A key consideration for local militia and their homes and shops.
The fault was not with the militia, most countries had such systems, it is that the US depended too much on it.

When the Founding father's drafted the Constitution, the showed a fear of a standing military and a belief in local civilian soldiers called the "militia." The history of this debate have gotten lost in the sands of time so that now the relevant parts of the Constitution are ignored or misquoted. The War of 1812 happened a mere 25 years after the Constitution was drafted and debated. The federal government had been charged with "organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia" under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution had done what the Anti-federalists had feared (despite the Second Amendment guarantees) of ignoring the militia in favor of a standing federal military. The militia was poorly armed and did not know how to use the weapons they were provided. The professional soldiers could not tolerate the lack of disciplne of the militia. The problem is that the language of the Constitutional debates no longer is understood; however, the United States had to live with the institution of the militia as its first line of defence. The author more than suppports his main argument: "[The War of 1812 showed that] the militia was an unreliable main defense force" for the multitude of reasons. This book is less about militiary history and very useful for Constitutional scholars.

The War of 1812 was a watershed for the United States; it was the first time we declared war on another nation. So, how did we do? For one, we gained recognition as a member of the world community. But more importantly, we relied on the militia to prosecute the war and learned some hard facts about their utility as a main defense force. This is the focus of Professor C. Edward Skeen. CITIZEN SOLDIERS seeks to describe the federal use of the militia to augment the regular army; survey the militia's performance in general; and review the operational aspects of militia participation at the state level (p. 1).

The fifty-five delegates of the Constitutional Convention believed state governments should provide a counterbalance to the national government. State sovereignty and individual liberty were paramount when the time came to provide for the common defense. This resulted in the militia system of national defense, which had its flaws. Although the federal government provided for "organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia" during wartime and could mobilize state militias to "execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," states reserved the right to regulate the militia and appoint their own officers (p. 5). Thus, the federal government wrote the regulations for the militia while state governments regulated the militia.

Six of the author's ten chapters are devoted to federal-state relations and the organization and mobilization of the militia. The other four chapters are the meat of the book; they evaluate the combat performance of the militia and support Skeen's main treatise: Although the minutemen fought well under the right circumstances, the War of 1812 proved that America could not rely on the militia to serve as its first line of defense.

Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry bested the British on Lake Erie in 1813. This enabled General William Henry Harrison to destroy Tecumseh and break the back of the Indian confederacy. Skeen concludes that the outcome of these campaigns "were attributable to the militia" (p. 95), even if their record in combat was undistinguished.

Meanwhile along the Niagara, General Peter B. Porter of New York rallied the militia and routed the British at Battle of Black Rock. Skeen singles out Porter as the quintessential militia leader of the war: "[Porter] demonstrated persuasively that militiamen, capably led, were effective fighters" (p. 107).

Along the eastern seaboard, the Royal Navy sailed into Chesapeake Bay, put troops ashore at Benedict on 18 August, and invested Washington during the Battle of Bladensburg in 1814. According to Skeen, "The Battle of Bladensburg represented probably the worst example of militia performance in the war. It illustrated in microcosm all of the things wrong with the militia in the War of 1812" (p. 138). They were poorly organized and equipped and they lacked unit cohesion and leadership.

The outnumbered British were opposed by 7,000 Americans led by Brigadier General William Winder, whose "chief qualification [to command] was that he was a nephew of Levin Winder, governor of Maryland" (p. 130). Although Winder's force was predominantly militia, which Winder himself blamed for the eventual outcome of the battle--it was the leadership, not the composition of the American force that led to their defeat. Simply put, Winder was incompetent.

The British withdrew from Baltimore and the Chesapeake Bay area in September 1814 and shifted their focus to the southern theater along the Gulf of Mexico. Fortunately--for the sake of the militia--the militiamen in the South performed better than their brothers did along the eastern seaboard. Andrew Jackson's dramatic victory at New Orleans was the major battle in the Southern theater and the capstone of the War of 1812. Skeen believes Jackson's leadership of the militia "showed once again that, under the right circumstances, given proper leadership, discipline, training, and arms and equipment, American militiamen were capable of fighting" (p. 174).

CITIZEN SOLDIERS is at its best refereeing the arguments over the militia between the states and the federal government. For example, the New England states believed their governors reserved the right to decide when the militia should be mobilized, not President James Madison. They questioned the federal government's declaration of war and balked at mobilizing their militia because, they claimed, the war was unconstitutional (pp. 65-72). In fact, many of the militiamen that did fight still refused to cross the Canadian border because they believed it "unconstitutional."

Unfortunately, CITIZEN SOLDIERS assumes a working knowledge of the War of 1812. Although Skeen gives enough coverage of each theater of operations to support his arguments, he does not offer enough depth for his book to stand alone as a history of the war.

In closing, I don't think CITIZEN SOLDIERS has broken any new ground. Donald R. Hickey has already produced the definitive history of the war with his WAR OF 1812: A FORGOTTEN CONFLICT (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1989). Likewise, John K. Mahon has already told us all there is to know about citizen soldiers and the militia with his HISTORY OF THE MILITIA AND THE NATIONAL GUARD (New York: Macmillan, 1983) and THE AMERICAN MILITIA: DECADE OF DECISION, 1789-1800 (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1960). Yet, thanks to a Herculean research effort, Citizen Soldiers is a winner. Skeen's endnotes and bibliographic essay evidence his extensive documentary research in state and federal archives. He has done well in marshalling evidence from primary and secondary sources and carries his main argument: "[The War of 1812 showed that] the militia was an unreliable main defense force" (p. 3).

JoLayne Lucks lives in Grange, Florida, a town famous for its so-called miracles (the weeping fiberglass Madonna that cries "real" tears scented with Charlie perfume and the famous Road-Stain Jesus). Now there's Lady Luck, for JoLayne has just won the Florida Lotto and plans to save a rare piece of Florida wildlife from being bulldozed into another useless strip mall. Problem: there's a second winner to split the $28 million jackpot. Bodean Gazzer and his sidekick, known only as Chub, are eager to start their own underground militia "before NATO troops invade America." $14 million certainly isn't enough for these guys. They beat up JoLayne and swipe her winning ticket. Reporter Tom Krome, who initially is sent to Grange for an interview with "Lady Lucks," offers his help to track down the ticket swipers. The never-ending chase of Lucky You is a typical Carl Hiaasen ride including kidnapping, blackmail, arson, murder, adultery, even a Hooter's waitress. This is my 4th Hiaasen book and one of the better ones. I'm not a huge fan. Let's just say I'm a Florida resident who "appreciates" his work.

How unlucky I was to read this book. Even more unfortunate was that Carl Hiaasen wrote it. I have enjoyed his books in the past, with their quips about the encroaching forces from the North that are constantly eroding our beautiful Florida environment. However, this book starts off slow with an unbelievably wild string of events and just gets stranger.

Hiaasen has never been known for down-to-earth writing, but this one just gets a little too fantastic - and BORING! His deification of the newspaper business is out of hand. The characters, while wild as usual, don't quite make sense. I kept expecting fun and exciting to happen - all the way to the disappointing end.

Why 3 stars?:
There are much better action/adventure books out there about South Florida and its crooked politicians. Most can only be appreciated by those who live "South of the Lake" and most were written by Carl Hiaasen himself. This book lacks the coherent quality of writing that I search for in a good novel. If I were you I would pass. Still, it is entertaining on a lower level, it would be much better to read a few chapters and put aside - there's no complicated plot line to forget so you'll be alright.

As an Elmore Leonard fan, I was recommended Carl Hiaasen as a writer that I might enjoy. I can see why, both write in a similar genre that includes interesting, sometimes offbeat, criminals and heroes. They are often characterized as writers of crime fiction.

Lucky You is the first novel by Hiaasen that I have read. Unlike the majority of Leonard's novels, Lucky You seems to follow the more traditional approach to novel writing. Hiaasen tends to tie up loose ends and answer more questions at the end of Lucky You than Leonard, who tends to leave things hanging after he has hit the "punch line" of his novels. That being said, I enjoy the work of both writers immensely.

Lucky You tells the story of Tom Krome, a newspaper columnist, that can't get his wife to divorce him. It is also the story of JoLayne Lucks, who has won half of the $28 million Florida State Lottery. The problem is, the winners of the other half are a pair of red-neck thugs that want to start their own militia. They can't stomach the thought of sharing the winnings with a black woman, and steal her ticket from her. After being assigned to write a story on JoLayne, Krome gets caught up in helping her retrieve her ticket, while at the same time evading the wrath of a judge, whose wife Krome had an affair with. Add a kidnapping of a blond waitress from Hooters that one of the milita members has a crush on, and the story takes off on several entertaining plot lines.

Some of the best humor in the novel comes from the ineptness of the wannabe militia men. Bo Gazer, the brains of the militia, has concocted theory after theory as to how the United States Government has fallen into the hands of Jews, Blacks, and homosexuals, bent on the fall of the Christian White Man. The deliberate absurdness of the theories, which include a consipiracy in which the United Nations will conquer America from the Bahamas, and his partners reaction is some of the most entertaining bickering I have read in a long time.

In addition to the satire of militias, Hiaasen hits religious zealots over the head with jokes and parodies. Road stains images of Jesus, crying statues of the Virgin Mother, and image of the disciples on turtle shells attract 'pilgrims' from far and wide to the city of Grange (JoLayne's home town). The owner of each attraction diligently stakes out their territory in an attempt to secure the largest chunk of the donations shelled out by the pilgrims. Hiaasen treats these practices with about as much absurdity as he does the militia.

By the end of the novel, the various plot lines reach their satisfactory conclusions. You feel happy for the good guys, and content that the bad guys got what they deserved, and there isn't much of a question as to who was who (unlike many Leonard novels). Lucky You is a great "crime" adventure with plenty of laughs, and I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the crime fiction genre.

This is just another attempt to make money off of the unBiblical "Creation Science" that has divided churches, made people lose their faith, and made Christianity a laughing stock among the intellectasia of the Western world. To this generation of Christians: please, please, please do not repeat the mistakes of previous generations. The earth is more than 10,000 years old - the Bible says so. The OT prophets called the earth "ancient," comparing the earth's age to the eternity of God. Jesus and Paul said the last era of history - now 2,000 years long - are "the last days" compared to the entire scope of history. Genesis 2:4 in the more literal translations say that the "days" of creations are symbolic of the "generations" of heaven and earth.

If you believe, as Baugh suggests, that the early Genesis account is absolutely literal in all details, with no symbolism despite what later Bible passages indicate, then you must accept these other beliefs:

- Man fell due to a talking Snake, not Satan, since it is later Biblical passages that make it clear the Snake was symbolic of Satan. - The earth is flat and covered with a metallic dome, since the Bible talks about "four corners" of the Earth and the "firament" of the sky. - Worst of all, you have to accept that God doesn't know the future and is able to make mistakes. The early portion of Genesis says on several occasions that God "repented," that he changed his mind, that he "learned," that he "went down to see what was happening," etc. But the Bible later gives us a fuller picture where we see that God is eternal and beyond change - just like the Bible later tells us that the earth is much more than 10,000 years old.

Young Earth Creationism has devestated churches, ruined the lives of faithful Christians, and contributed no good to God's people. In fact, it was started by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Its leading proponent, Henry Morris, has recently joined with a cult group that denies that Jesus is the eternally begotten Son of God and teaches that God "re-wrote" the Bible in 1611. Jesus said we'd know them by their fruits. Young Earth Creationism is bitter fruit indeed.

Once you get past words like "Extrapolate" and "radioisotope", this is the most intelligent book I have ever read on the subject of Creation. Baugh thoroughly reinforces all of his claims with both Biblical and scientific evidence. If you have ever wondered about the theory of evolution, you need to read this book!

The reviewer from Providence has to be joking. Henry Morris is not part fo the 7th Day Adventist church as the context of his last paragraph implies. He does not believe anything whatsoever about his false statements about Jesus or the Bible. He is obviously a great example of people who have truely divided the church.

I was given this book as a gift by a friend who knows that I like to know every side to each story. I have read this book and many others on both sides of the Evolution vs. Creation debate. This book and three others by this author left me wondering where this individual comes from! I found so many passages of failed logic, contradiction, and out-right lies, it wasn't funny! After forcing myself to read the last 3/4 of the book I was left wanting the time I had spent reading this garbage back. If you aren't brain-washed, you'll want to throw this book in the trash after the first few chapters.

This man, Carl Baugh, is simply a huxter looking to suck money from the wallets of the unsuspecting public. Please, don't let yourself be fooled by this book if you chose to read it. Afterwards, I suggest you purchase a book by Stephen Jay Gould. Though he uses very complex English, if you take the time, you'll get much more appreciation for the validties and errors of both sides of the arguement.

This book makes no attempt at presenting "facts" in a non-biased, scientific fashion.

The reason I gave it four stars instead of five is because it's a bit hard to read: the scientific things are well done, but some of them can be a bit hard for a non-scientist to get into.

The pictures are excellent, (photos), the documentation is relentless... all in all a good resource for people interested in Creationism or dinosaurs. There's clear documentation of the human and dinosaur footprints being together -- even overlapping. It's a fascinating book, even though the writing is scholarly and occasionally inaccesible. Extremely well-documented.

Especially intriguing were the things about giant footprints... I wish they'd talked even more about these!

If you're interested in this subject at all, you should probably check it out.

Very inciteful book! This isn't for just Christians. Presents clear FACTS that dinosaurs and man walked together. It's a must read!

I just can't fully explain how silly this book really is. For the most part, if the disorganized format won't annoy you, then the use of "scholarly jargon" certainly will. You know what that is. That's where some nerd wants to make himself sound prolific so he writes an entire paragraph where a couple of sentences would've worked just as well.
Other nonsense includes the amount of/lack of pages spent on certain topics like rhythm and meter for example (9 pages? THAT'S IT?! Huh...I would think the major difference between Western music and all else deserved more then THAT). At any rate, without going into too many details, this book is simply bad. It's just going to confuse the beginner. There's no need for that.
...I would say that the most 'user friendly' is called Tonal Harmony by Payne, Schindler, and Kostka (ISBN #0-07-035874-5). It's easy to understand; it has a FABULOUS format and its cheaper then the above dribble. The authors defiantly understand that the reader will most likely be a BEGINNER and so it is written that way.

I've never found an undergraduate theory text book that I didn't have some problems with, but this one isn't bad. This text has a good table of contents, indices of terms and musical examples, and an appendix of keyboard progressions. There is a fundamentals section suitable for review, but not for teaching. Curiously, after the fundamentals section, rhythm and meter are never discussed, except in relation to harmonic rhythm and dissonance placement.

Harmony and Voice Leading takes a Schenkerian approach, concentrating on harmonic function. There is no introduction to post-tonal music, although there are sections on chromatic voice leading techniques and equal subdivision of the octave. There is also no discussion of form.

The strengths of this book are (1) the order of the concepts; and (2) the comprehensiveness of exposition of the topics. Harmonic topics are presented in logical order according to the functional approach of the text: first root position dominants, then embellishing dominants, structural pre-dominants, then less common pre-dominant chords. There is also an excellent section on diatonic sequences. Each topic is presented in an extremely detailed manner. The authors have determined that students can handle a large number of rules, examples and exceptions for each harmonic entity they present. The only danger is that the students may be overwhelmed by the level of detail. Thankfully, however, the broadest principles for each concept are presented at the outset, and finer detail is added as the chapter progresses.

The primary shortcoming of the text is the use of all-capital roman numerals for harmonic analysis (instead of capital and lower-case roman numerals that reveal the quality of the chords they symbolize as well as their root and function). Obviously, this is a result of the Schenkerian perspective that dominates the book.

This book is outstanding! I was a beginning student, and this book really really helped! I would recomend this to anyone who wants to study theory! The only catch is that this book explains things so completly, that if you are a total beginner, and have no instruction, it can be a bit confusing! But treat it like the bible or somthing else that you would read small portions at a time and re-read alot! I belive that once you understand the concepts, that this book explains things very well, in an extremly coherant manner...the only drawback being that if you are a bit confused, reading further doesnt end your confusion, just brings more stuff to the table! Buy this book and take a class or get an instructor or tutor!!!! THIS BOOK IS A MUST HAVE FOR ANYONE THAT IS SERIOUS ABOUT LEARNING BASIC THEORY!!!!!!

Jablonski and Stewart have done diligent research and this is a very useful compendium of data, but they are too much invested in a kind of sycophantic worship to present a truly incisive or analytic sense of this immensely creative duo. Stewart's contribution as Ira Gershwin's one-time assistant is especially problematic for its lack of objectivity. And the writing throughout is quite pedestrian.

This workbook presents very practical theory and voice leading problems in order to help you practice the theories outlined in the textbook, unfortunately there are no answers contained in the workbook. Unless you have someone who can correct your work it is not a particularly useful book- especially if you are working on your own.

he's NOT an acredited scientist, his degrees are dubious, at best. his theories are absurd. His lack of proof is highly disturbing. To take this book seriously would be a severe mistake. He is avoided by all who wish to be taken seriosly, in the field of creationism.
I read it for a laugh, but ended up being very afraid that a man this disturbed could have an influence on others.

This book is like similar ones written that should be confined to the garbage. It is sheer nonsense, and like the author leads one into nothingness. His words are meaningless, and harps on others,throwing names around like thistle seeds in the wind!

I read this book when it first became available and found it to be absolutely one of the best books written on Biblical Creation. It destroys evolution by solid, concrete evidence that cannot be answered with anything from evolutionists other than more of there theory and none of the facts. How can an evolutionist explain away human footprints inside dinosaur foot prints that have been independently tested and verified as real? This is a must read for anybody who is looking for truth!

The "human" footprints the authors allude to in these books are actually the prints of velocoraptors. I live within miles of the site, and I have seen the prints myself. They are three-toed dinosaur prints, not human prints. Carl Baugh has shamed himself not only as a sloppy, unoriginal thinker (others have used this argument before), but as a liar. Young Earth Creationists lie to honest, sincere Christians who seek the truth.

I am a Bible-believing Christian - and the Bible teaches that the earth is OLD. Jesus and Paul taught that the Christian age - now at 2000 years - would be the "last days" compared to the sweep of human history. OT prophets called the earth "ancient" and used the age of the earth as a metaphor for the eternity of God. Genesis 2:4 in the more literal translations (the NRSV brings out the nuance wonderfully) says that the creation "days" were symbolic of the "generations of heaven and earth."

Young Earth Creationism is a product of the Seventh Day Adventist Church - the same folks who said Christ would return in 1844, spun off the Jehovah's Witnesses, and condemned Sunday worship as the mark of the Beast. It is utterly foreign to historical Biblical teaching. Its effect in groups like the BBFI and the PCA has been devestating - literally MILLIONS of people have been persuaded that the Gospel is false because modern science "disproves" the Bible. Churches have expelled honest, God-fearing people who wouldn't lie about their beliefs and about what the Bible really taught. All the while, people have laughed at and ridiculed Christians, assuming that evolution and atheism were true just because the earth was old.

Christian, you will know them by their fruits. Young Earth Creationism is bad fruit. If you want to dispute Darwin, read honest books like Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe or Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson. Steer clear of hucksters like Baugh.

This book makes no serious attempt to provide factual proof for any claim made within it. To find out the whole truth about this subject go to http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/paluxy.htm

To that other person who wrote the review, you probally belive all that science bull like carbon dating, but there is no way to prove carbon dating. How can something be dated over a million years old when we havent been arond a million years to prove it right or wrong. I remind you that science is a hypothesis (i know my spelling is off)it is a guess, nothing more, but the bible has been proven, a book of history, and this book Footprints and the stones of time, tells you what it was like before the flood (in noah's time, not after a so called ice age). He proves that man and dinosaur lived together and that is why man and dinosaur bones are in the same layer of rock, which proves science dating wrong, how could man and dinosaur be in the same layer of rock if they were millions of years apart? Read the book if you are a god fearing person. This book is a great read!