Customer Reviews:
A Must-Read for the U.S. History Student!.......2006-03-09
What a wonderful book! Teddy Roosevelt was brilliantly ressurected for us by George Grant in this comprehensive, yet easy-to-read work (because of the chapter lengths). Section 1 is a biography of his life; Section 2 contains short chapters on his character, and many sides to his life; Section 3 deals with his legacy.
This book gives the reader a good look a life in the U.S. during the last half of the 19th century, as well as one of the period's most beloved of heroes.
Biased -- Better Stuff Available.......2005-06-08
I just wanted a simple biography on Theodore Roosevelt, but this was pretty openly and obviously a book with an agenda. True, the basics about Theodore Roosevelt are here, but the emphasis is on spiritual faith and values. Since I read this book, I read Roosevlet's autobiography and came to realize that he is much more complex than this book suggests.
Carry A Big Stick.......2003-08-29
This is an incredible book, that truly gives you the insight of one of the greatest men that ever lived. Filled with many incredible principles to live by, you WILL enjoy this book and the excitement it brings to your life!
Errors galore in this Conservative Christian propaganda!.......2003-04-22
I've read 40+ plus books by or about TR and this is the worst, one-sided view of this complex, multi-facted man. This is as bad as the radical-left "Howard Zinn-ism" revisionist history of TR's foreign policies.
There are too many "blatant" errors to list in this mini-review, but just for starters:
1). TR did not, as the author claims, visit his mother's Georgia plantation "10 or more times". It is well documented that TR only visited Bulloch Hall twice -once as president and once post-White House. He did not have a very high opinion of most Southerners, despite the author's claims to the contrary. His wife abhorred most Southerners.
2). TR did not force his children, particulary Alice, to attend church every Sunday. Edith was the religious task master of the family and in her quiet manner usually rounded up all kids, except for Alice. Alice was a well-known, open atheist from her teen years until she died. TR and Edith had accepted the teenager's refusal to be confirmed in the Episcopal church or any other church. Their son Archie also grew up to be an agnostic.
3). TR most certainly did NOT shower Edith with flowers and jewels. He never even remembered her birthday (though he never forgot the date of their engagement and wedding anniversay). Edith hated receiving extravagent gifts from anyone, especially her husband. They did have a very happy marriage and home life but he also known for taking off on 3-month hunting trips soon after Edith would deliver another baby.
4). TR most certainly did like to attend parties and was a professional social butterfly because he knew he would probably end up as the main attraction - just what his ego needed. The author paints TR as a man who shunned social gatherings to be with his family 24/7. Definitely not true. He LOVED being around people of all and any type, though his wife certainly like to stoke the home fires more than making the social rounds.
5). TR never made any speeches about abortion. Abortion was not on the radar screen in his time. The author uses quotes that TR said about women not wanting to get married and raise families to make it seem as though TR were speaking direcly on the subject of abortion.
6). TR believed in and preached on the separation of Church and State. He wanted to remove "In God We Trust" from the US coinnage and even pushed one of the leading artists of that time, Grant LaFarge, to create a new design. The "religious right" of his time went ballistic over this decision and he later backed down. He made many speeches proclaiming that the Church stay out of the affairs of the State. Indeed, he was a strong, "old school" Christian who did preach to the citizens the value of religion, a happy home life, and following the morals one teaches to his/her children. However, he also thought a country would head down the dangerous path if a certain religion or belief were forced upon its citizens.
I would not recommend this book on TR to ANYONE.
My, wasn't that just bully!.......2003-04-20
George Grant has written a delightful book about a delightful man.
From the Publisher
Winston Churchill is one of the most extraordinary leaders the tumultuous twentieth century produced. Why did he see so clearly when those around him acted so blindly? What enabled him to stand steadfastly when those around him vacillated? How was he able to inspire whole nations to endure the unendurable and to achieve the unachievable when those around him surrendered all hope? In this remarkable new study of Churchill's legacy, Stephen Mansfield addresses these questions and shows us what lay at the core of Churchill's extraordinary character. The result is an inspiring portrait of a truly great leader.
Customer Reviews:
Nicely done.......2007-07-31
Mr. Mansfield has done a very nice job. He writes with the presupposition that history is the outworking of the providence and plan of God, a presupposition I accept, and which I believe is overwhelmingly confirmed by history itself. We all view the world through our presuppositions, and none of us can claim "neutrality." Those who "ding" Mansfield for his Christianity or for illuminating the Christian faith of his subject miss the point of the book. Would you have us all live in the ghetto where the only view allowed is secular humanism? Thankfully, we still live in a country where one is allowed to have Christian presuppositions. It was Mansfield's purpose to write from this point of view. If you "ding" him for having that purpose, then are you not saying that there should no freedom to express opinions different from your own? I am most amused by the reviewer who implies that Mansfield cannot understand England because of that country's current spiritual condition. Surely Churchill's England was different from today's England. England's decline (and our own here in America) can be directly traced to abandoning the Author of our lives and freedoms. Mansfield makes the point that Churchill understood England's place in preserving the freedoms of its Christian heritage, not only for itself but also for the western civilization, against the Nazi threats (definitely not the forces of goodness and light).
This history is written by a Christian (Mansfield) about a Christian (Churchill). If Churchill was, indeed, someone who experienced true conversion to Christianity, then his faith would have permeated all that he was and did. It would and did give him the necessary heart and spirit to persevere under severe trial. Conversion is not a matter which has no impact upon the personal and professional life of a man - it will govern all that he is - his thinking and life.
What a great little book! I am also delighted to discover that Churchill, when asked whom he should like to be if he could not be himself, thought about it and answered "Mrs. Churchill's second husband." All of his manly achievements notwithstanding, that aspect of his character put him over the top in my estimation.
Riveting biography and writing.......2007-05-13
I'd recommend this book not "only" because of the great information on Churchill's life struggles and events. I'm recommending this book mainly due to the writer's superb writing. I never thought I'd read a biography in one sit. You just can't stop reading, your eyes roll through the text with so much ease and pleasure. You feel Churchill's hardships, his courage, his character. Great book.
provoking, intelligent, and sophisticated........2007-02-10
This book challenges you and tests your knowledge and paradigms.
I found it thought provoking, intelligent, and sophisticated.
This should be a must read for everyone who seeks truth and meaning.
Way to go Mr. Mansfield!!!
Diamonds Refined.......2005-12-04
Delight is an expected find when reading works on or about Winston Spencer Churchill. Joy is a confirmation when these works attain to the stature and measure of the man. Refreshment is the derivative when joy and delight meet in a polished offering such as 'Never Give In.'
Stephen Mansfield has once again done well and served all parties equally in dispensing this gleaned narrative of the Twentieth Century's self-recognized 'Great Man.'
A man's man for all seasons, highlights of the legendary Churchill are brought forth in a parade of honed chapters refined like glistening diamonds. Those seeking heavyweight analysis will even so finish the book satisfied, while newcomers will be impressed especially in these breathtaking times.
Mr. Mansfield wisely moves through Churchill's life subject by subject, examining deftly moments which shaped the Character that so helped weld the first half of this century just gone. Superlatives tax the description of this work that may, in the field of Churchillian retrospectives, become the essential tome for both those initiating study, as well as we who yearn for one more look at a superb man under fire.
The most excellent aspect of the work is Mansfield's examination of Churchill's testimony regarding Jesus, a subject far too long neglected. As is the practice learned from the Master, the best is always saved till last.
TL Farley,
author,
When Now Becomes Too Late {prophecy}
Distant Reaches {adventure}
For Leaders, not avid Historians.......2004-05-31
In reading the reviews under this section, I find that a reader either loves this book or hates it - there is very little middle ground.
I believe those who discount this book are looking for an objective work on the history of Churchill. While this is a very fascinating subject, the market is saturated with such works, so if that is what you are looking for, go elsewhere...
Those who love the book don't seem to place such emphasis on its historical precision; rather on the value of the information as it pertains to their own lives and leadership styles.
I found this book to contain many great nuggets of wisdom and my highlighter saw much action as I poured through the pages.
I recommend this book to anyone who wants to improve their leadership qualities. If you are looking for a historical masterpiece, this isn't it nor did the author intend it to be...
Customer Reviews:
Where's Anne?.......2007-09-26
I originally thought this book was of Anne's poetry, with a mere introduction by Douglas Wilson. Instead, it is a study of her life by him. Unfortunetly, I must agree with the first reviewer: rather than making this a moving tribute, Douglas Wilson has merely attempted to turn it into a testimony of his own views of womanhood.
Apparently, there's some disagreement about how Anne viewed womanhood. Feminists believe she saw more of womanhood than many of her time, whereas people like Wilson prefer to see her as a woman who "knew her place." Wilson harps on and on about how Anne let the men rule like a good little girl and didn't try to compete with them. The book basically turns into an anti-feminist, pro-submissive book rather than an appreciation of a brilliant poet.
Wilson spends a good deal of time explaining how spiritually unhealthy feminists are and how lovely Anne Bradstreet was. He fills pages with how modern women today would be horrified by Anne's "true" leadership because we're too jaded by feminism and how Anne herself would be horrified by how women today are not complimenting manhood the way we should. The only thing I found more humorous than Wilson's thinly disguised anti-feminist tirade is how grossly he and so many of his ilk simply don't get feminism! Once again, his faulty understanding of feminists keeps him from realizing what power Anne really had. Wilson claims that feminists today would see Anne's influential leadership as secondary and not good enough, but he couldn't be more wrong, at least as far as I'm concerned. As a feminist, I greatly appreciate the tendency of historical women to lead by influence since there were few times that they could do anything else. Indeed, this has always been one of women's greatest strengths, today and back then! Many a historical woman held the upper hand because they led in such a way that men couldn't even tell the scope of their influence, or see the changes they were making and the power that they had. As a feminist and an advocate for gender equality, I very much admire Anne Bradstreet's power of leadership, as well as the men in her life who were gracious and secure enough to celebrate it.
At one point, Wilson attempts to prove that Anne Bradstreet was opposed to feminism by sharing a line of her poetry in which she spoke of a woman usurping her husband's place as king. She said this of the woman:
"like a brave virago she played the rex, and was both shame and glory of her sex."
(Lord, does that beautiful line give me chills!) Douglas Wilson apparently thinks this line alone proves that Anne would have hated feminism, and I had to wonder if he was serious. Anne admitted that the woman in question was shame AND glory of her sex; this sounds to me like Anne was referring to the fact that the woman merely shamed the stereotype of what her sex was supposed to be and, in so doing, broke free of the restrictions of her gender and became a glory unto herself even as she was considered a shame by other women. Indeed, I too would wish to be a shame to the narrow mold of womanhood that people of the time held and that people like Douglas Wilson still hold.
The belief of feminists such as myself is simply that women can be as powerful in both leadership and in person as men can. This is exactly what Anne Bradstreet was, and I couldn't care less whether she did this as a warrior queen or a quietly instructional woman. The point is, she was formidable, strong, and a leader; to say that she didn't share feminist beliefs to ANY extent is as erroneous and ridiculous as claiming that Mark Twain didn't really believe in racial equality.
In fact, an unbiased critic of a body of Anne's work confirmed that she did, indeed, see her sex as something far greater than the narrow mold that the Douglas Wilsons of the time wished to put her in. She not only scorned those who told her that needlework was more suitable than writing, but "masked her true intentions" by appearing to flatter male writers and acknowledge them as superior! Apparently, Douglas Wilson bought her flattery hook, line and sinker just like some of the men of her time, because he actually claims in the book that she realized male writers were superior! I had to laugh at that. Once again, he proves himself the cuckold in gender matters by not only underestimating a woman's strength, but her knowledge of her own power.
If you're looking for a fine work dedicated to Anne Bradstreet, I suggest you look elsewhere. I myself plan to get Nichols' book, "Anne Bradstreet: A guided Tour". Nichols' book contains the lady's actual poetry and only brief outside notes. I'll write a review when I've looked through it.
Puritan Femininity.......2006-08-08
This book is part of the Leaders in Action series, which means it is not a typical biography. These books are usually written in three parts, each one focusing on the life, the character, and the legacy of the subject, in this case, Anne Bradstreet.
The book does describe her life, but more importantly, her views on life. Anne was a Puritan, through and through, and she was a beautiful woman in whose footsteps the women of today would do well to follow. She knew her place, and delighted in her role as a woman. She lived with passion, and the book describes those things, people, and ideas about which she was passionate. I look to Anne as an ideal of a Godly woman, a woman whose many virtues I would like to mirror.
Wilson makes the point that Anne was a typical Puritan in her beliefs and views. She does not conform to the Puritan stereotype, which is not Puritan at all, but more like a grim Victorian outlook. The Puritans were sober but not grim. They valued their women, and their education. They were passionate about life.
I recommend the book to those who want a better understanding of Anne's character, and that of her times, and those who want to see the life of an exemplary Christian woman.
The Poet Got Left Behind.......2003-05-18
The author seems unable to stay on topic for very long. In his determination to associate Anne Bradstreet with all of his views, he abandons any chance to help us understand and appreciate her worthwhile body of work.
Wilson constantly harps and carps about the bad rap given to the Puritans. Even when I agree that certain common statements about the Puritans are unfair and incorrect, I am put off by his pompous tone.
Skip this one. Go straight to "The Works of Anne Bradstreet" (Harvard University Press) to get a good dose of a fine poet.
Book Description
Dubbed "Stonewall" following the battle of First Manassas in July 1861, Thomas Jackson has long been revered as a brilliant military leader and tactician and as one of the most adroit Confederate commanders. The man himself is a study in contrasts: justifiably feared by his enemies and completely beloved by his men.
J. Steven Wilkins examines the life and character of Jackson. His research reveals a man humble and sincere in his Christian faith, which stands in stark contrast with the general's reputation as a ferocious warrior.
Shortly after his graduation from West Point in 1846, Jackson served in the Mexican War in 1848, where he became one of the most decorated heroes of the conflict and received promotion to the brevetted rank of major. He left the army in 1851 to accept a teaching position at the Virginia Military Institute, resigning his commission in the army a year later. In 1859 he led a contingent of cadets to maintain order during the trial and ensuing execution of John Brown. When Jackson departed VMI in 1861 to join the Confederate army, he was immediately commissioned a colonel and within months was promoted to the rank of brigadier general. Mortally wounded by friendly fire in May 1863, he "more than anyone else, personified the compelling and the virtuous in what the subsequent generation would label `The Lost Cause'"—James I. Robertson Jr.
Customer Reviews:
Great book within a great series........2007-03-14
First let me say that the "Leaders in Action" series is tremendous (check the rest of them out--Robert E. Lee, Winston Churchill, Teddy Roosevelt, William Wilberforce and more). They are biographies which deal not only with facts, but also with the character and faith of historical figures. Every school age child should read these books and take these role models to heart.
The great thing about this book is that it gives a solid summary of Stonewall Jackson's life and history as well as a thorough examination of his faith and values. If you can believe it, I was almost brought to tears by the account of his death. Especially for Civil War buffs--this is a must read.
Stonewall Jackson and his personal relationship with God.......2006-01-09
This is an excellent look inside the life of Thomas Johnathan "Stonewall" Jackson.
Reverend Wilkins does an excellent job of researching first-hand accounts of the important events that occurred during Jackson's life and how they refined him into the man that God made him.
Book Description
Perhaps no other Union commanders reputation has been the subject of as much controversy as McClellans. He has emerged as the complex general who, though gifted with administrative and organizational skills, was unable and unwilling to fight with the splendid army he had created. In this book, Rowland presents a framework in which early Civil War command can be viewed without direct comparison to the final two years of the war. Only by understanding how very different was the context and nature of the war facing McClellan, as opposed to Grant and Sherman, can one discard the traditional good general-bad general approach to command performance.
Customer Reviews:
"Little Mac": a reassessment.......2006-04-05
I am in two minds about this book. On the one hand: history has not been kind to "Little Mac", and it was about time somebody stood up for McClellan. Mr. Rowland has picked up the gauntlet. Lately, it seems to me, one can detect a bit of a trend towards that end. Mr. Rowland and other authors have reexamined and reassessed the General's personality and actions. Mr. Ethan S. Rafuse's book on McClellan ("McClellan's War") is another example of a fresh look at McClellan.
To do so and fly in the face of the "communis opinio" (the widely held view) of McClellan is in itself commendable.
On the other hand: I don't think that there is much purpose to this excercise. As I see it, and I'm pretty sure in that many other ACW scholars, buffs and aficionados, share this point of view, no matter how fresh or objective one tries to look at George Brinton McClellan, one reaches the same conclusions again and again: that the General was a deeply flawed man, to say the least, vain and boastful, and yet (or perhaps even because of this) also extremely cautious, highly insecure and frankly, paranoid. I've read of people, in his own time already, not just smart-mouth Amazon book-reviewers like yours truly, referring to him as a crackpot. I even think it was Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. Well, we know that Secretary Stanton was no great friend of McClellan and that he was quite stern in his opinions about the Generals he had to deal with, but in this case his ususally hot-headed judgement is not necessarily a wrong one.
Is it time for some revisionist history concerning McClellan? Is this necessary? Are the commonly held views of McClellan subject to debate, are these views thought to be untrue, unjust, unfair or even unhistorical by a growing number of ACW scholars, students and buffs? No, of course they are not. Because the general view of McClellan is born out of something "Little Mac" himself so conspicuously lacked: common sense.
Major General George Brinton McClellan had it all when he was called to Washington in 1861. He had a towering reputation (which was undeserved, after his successfull but minor campaign in Western Virginia, but the Union was elated to have a military success at last), he was hailed as the savior of the Union and he was given command of the Union's most important field army. The President and the cabinet trusted him, deferred to his judgement and put themselves at his disposition in stead of the other way round. He soon succeeded in ousting Winfield Scott, the venerable US Army Chief, and became General in Chief of all Union armies. McClellan, catapulted into this position of enormous power, then started to believe the adulation and the flattery of the people, the press and the politicians himself. He seemed to need it more and more, because as his influence and power increased, so did his insecurities, his doubts, his paranoia and his unbalance.
Well, we don't need to make to much of McClellan's flaws, after all, who of is isn't flawed in some, or even many, ways. Mr. Rowland correctly makes that point. McClellan wasn't more or less flawed than Grant and or Sherman. The thing is, however, that Grant and Sherman overcame their flaws, faced their demons and learned to function adequately if not superbly in command.
McClellan did not succeed in ridding himself of his fears or in learning to control them, nor in curbing his insecurities and his paranoid tendencies, and as such he was definitely not the right man to command the Army of the Potomac in the field.
Also there is cause to question his moral and indeed even his physical courage: McClellan stayed well away from the field of fight during any action. And there are more instances of behavior which justify this question mark against "Little Mac"'s honor of than the often cited episode of McClellan sailing away on a gunboat just after the beginning of the battle of Malvern Hill. An "unforgivable act of pusillanimity", as was said by some at the time, for which McClellan never offered an adequate explanation. Well, surely he was not prepared to get down to the level of his accusers and react to such slander, mr Rowland says. Yeah, right. That is the way in which people like McClellan usually respond to such considerations. I think, as do many others, that there remains a reasonable doubt as to McClellan's courage, based on his actions.
As to his judgment, well, let's name an aspect of this that puts a different light on the General's fitness for command. I'm talking of course of McClellan's tendency to systematically overestimate the number of enemy troops opposing him. He did this from day one in command and kept it up to right after Antietam, when he was finally relieved, in october 1862.
Why oh why did he do this? How did he come by those incredibly fantastic figures of hundreds of thousands of rebels opposing him and his poor little army? Was it all Pinkerton's fault? The great detective, after all, supplied the figures to McClellan. Pinkerton later said that he and his operatives had always given McClellan true numbers to the best of their knowledge. He also stated that they had not supplied McClellan with data which would support the exaggerated numbers of troops McClellan claimed Johnston and after him Lee had arrayed against him. In other words: McClellan took what Pinkerton gave him and then did some calculating of his own. He tailored the facts to fit his opinions and impressions, a professional hazard for a General, made all the more probable by McClellan's psychological make-up.
Whatever the psychological reasons; his inability to admit mistakes is one of the least attractive traits of McClellan's character.
After the war, indeed even during it, it became clear that Johnston and Lee had never commanded anything near the numbers of men that McClellan had claimed in his frantic cries for reinforcements and on which he had based his overcautious strategies.
After doing some maths it must have dawned on the people of the North that the war, which had gone on for four bloody years, could have ended in 1862. It could have ended with McClellan taking Richmond in june 1862 or with McClellan crushing Lee's badly outnumbered army at Antietam. In those days McClellan had acted too cautiously because he had convinced himself he was outnumbered. Even McClellan must have known, pretty soon after the war, that he had been tricked, by the rebels and by his own mind. But he never made any comment on the question!
He never apologized (well, that would have been impossible for a man like him) but neither did he ever explain his behavior. He never said on what he had he had based his now manifestly wrong actions in the Peninsula and Antietam campaigns!
What I even less understand, why weren't the people of the Union states furious with him for failing to win the war in 1862? He dawdled, faltered and failed and in doing so wasted the opportunities to end the war out of weakness, lack of resolve, moral cowardice and pig-headedness! He had Lee's battleplans in his possession just prior to Antietam, for Pete's sakes!! Why wasn't there more of an outcry against him? The war lasted two more years thanks to him! Why was he not dragged before congress or before a court-martial? In my view there was every reason to do so.
Now to the plus side. McClellan made the Army of the Potomac. He built it from the masses of raw volunteers that came to Washington in 1861. He trained these men, and selected their commanders, and he made some inspired choices in this regard (men like Gibbon, Hancock, and Hunt, for instance). He drilled the army, organized it and fed, clothed and housed it. He kept the army in good health an kept it supplied.
The fine performance of the men of the Army of the Potomac, especially that of the infantry and the gunners, owed a very great deal to the rigourous training programme to which McClellan subjected them. The General turned out to possess an enormous talent for organization and training. He honed the skills of the army and prepared it to an excellent degree for it's task. The credit for this is largely due to McClellan. Maybe this was part of the problem: McClellan built the army and knew it's strengths and it's weaknesses. After having made this huge army he was reluctant to commit it to action. They were all so green! There were so few regulars! He could not do what the French had done in 1793 when they fused the professional Royal Army with the new volunteer army, made up of inexperienced national guardsmen. They amalgamated the two types of soldiers in a new army: they put one regular army batallion in a demi-brigade with two batallions of volunteers. In this way the old sweats showed the rookies the ropes of soldiering and infused old-fashioned discipline while in turn the volunteers were an example and an inspiration of revolutionary elan to the old soldiers.
McClellan could not do this: there were only some 17.000 regular soldiers in the US Army in 1861. He felt he had to use his army very very carefully and cautiously, if he lost it, he would lose the war, and the Union with it. This realization, of which he convinced himself, eventually paralyzed him.
This is book that makes you think, and think again, on McClellan. Four stars for that!!!
I do not share Mr. Rowland's conclusions, though. In 1862 McClellan was not the best man for the job to command the Army of the Potomac.
It would have been for him and for his reputation had he continued in an organizing/facilitating capacity. Lincoln should have made him Chief of Staff in Washington, in fact, should have given "Little Mac" the job Henry Halleck got in 1862, or should have made him Quartermaster-General or even Secretary of War.
It would in all probability have meant that McClellan would have become the Lazare Carnot of the Union: "The Organizer of Victory" The man who supplied the tools that won the war for the Union. He could then have supervised the productions of arms and ammunition, the supplying of the army, it's transportation, the training of it's new recruits, and he would more than probably have done a great job. He was the born military organizer. He was not, alas, a great field commander. McClellan would have lived to great respect and glory and would not have died at 58, of a heart condition which probably stemmed from the stress of supreme command, and which after the war was aggravated by the constant stress of battling to keep his reputation intact. McClellan died a controversial figure, respected and yet partly tragic, partly ridiculous. But he had only himself to blame for this.
Disappointing in the Extreme.......2001-07-05
As an Amazon.com reviewer, I can see that I am going to be in the decided minority in my opinion on this book. Hopefully I can adequately point out my perceived problems with Mr. Rowland's work, and yet maintain the positives other reviewers have posted.
I have long been fascinated with George B. McClellan as not only a Civil War general, but as a Civil War personality as well. Here we have a man who should have been the one, single, Union military success - a man who had it all: brains, looks, youth, education, and family. And yet, there is no single Union general who managed to accomplish so little in over a year's time, with so much.
I hoped that Thomas J. Rowland's "George B. McClellan & Civil War History: In the Shadow of Grant and Sherman" would provide some insight into McClellan's flawed character that did not come forth from modern biographers such as Stephen Sears. Yet within Rowland's work, I was sorely disappointed.
Rowland sets forth to disprove Little Mac's critics by doing the one thing in Civil War writing that I abhor - rather than building up his subject, and letting McClellan's story stand on its own - he sets out to drag everyone else down. For some strange reason, there appears to be more and more of this going on in Civil War historiography of late, much to the detriment of our understanding of history.
Rowland sets out to outline the perceived problems with McClellan's personality and generalship, and rather than refute the contentions directly, often sets out to discredit others such as Grant, Sherman, and Edwin Stanton. If Rowland's guy cannot stand tall, then no one else will, as well. For example, we have on page 67 a typical statement of Rowland's: "The notion that McClellan was the butt of more embarrassing incidents than anyone else is greatly diminished by any extended review of the war's comical and tragic mistakes." And from there, rather than review Little Mac, Rowland sets out to review other participants on history's stage.
Rowland attempts to minimize McClellan's flaws by qualifying his admittance of such flaws throughout the book. Thus, we see Rowland admit, cautiously, that McClellan could be petty, vain, and vindictive "on occasion." In other places, his review of other historian's work is tinged with statements like "Unfortunately, that is not entirely true." The reader is left to try to ponder which portions are partially true, and partially not.
This book is not a comprehensive analysis of the life and times of General George B. McClellan, but a selected bibliography of truth and half-truth that uses only what the author wants the public to see about McClellan - and more importantly, anyone else held in higher esteem than the Young Napoleon that can be drawn down to the perceived level that history holds McClellan.
All in all, this was a very disappointing work. If you want to come to grips with the enigma that was McClellan, this book will leave you very short of your expectations.
George McClellan Revisited.......2001-06-22
The author, Thomas J. Rowland, develops his thesis that General George McClellan has been unfairly characterized by both contemporaries and historians. The first half of the book discusses the common criticisms of McClellan. In Chapter 2 the so called psychological profile on McClellan is reviewed stating that "Of all the reasons why McClellan may have been a gravely flawed commander, the exploitation of the psychological model is the most flawed itself...." He notes that both Grant and Sherman "....trailed a significant baggage of personality deficiencies into the Civil War" observing that "If anyone came close to experiencing a psychic episode during the Civil War it was Sherman in Kentucky."
In the chapter discussing McClellan's lesser faults, the author notes that both Grant and Sherman had similar faults, but they weren't judged by these faults nor should McClellan's strategic abilities be evaluated by his peccadilloes. Acknowledging that McClellan played a major role in his poor working relations with Lincoln, the author notes that "....the president was not frank about how military goals were to be shaped by the political dimensions of the rebellion." In addition, Stanton's dislike of McClellan did not help in the commander's poor relationship with the president. However, the author does not imply that McClellan was faultless noting "....his failure to delegate authority and his obstinate secrecy" Another fault was his unwillingness to take risks. The greatest question is whether he made the best use of the Army of the Potomac. Rowland concludes that "In any comparison with other Civil War commanders, particularly those to whom he is unfavorably compared, McClellan's personal shortcomings were not that remarkable."
Chapter 4's discussion of the early months of war provides valuable insight into the ultimate conduct of the war. The widely held Northern belief that most Southerners were not committed secessionists initially led to a limited war strategy. After the First Manassas McClellan recommended that to restore the Union in the shortest time, the North had to "crust the rebellion at one blow...." Rowland notes "McClellan's was....a well reasoned strategic proposal. His conservative views.... reflected....widespread appeal throughout the North at that time...." In support of this strategy, he launched the Peninsula Campaign which was undermined by Washington politics and lack of support. The book states
"....the half defeat on the Peninsula.... spelled the end of the conciliatory" strategy. For this campaign to succeed, joint operations were mandatory; and the author observes that in the early stages of the war, the inability of Federal armies to cooperate in joint operations contrasted sharply with the military situation Grant inherited in 1864.
The review of civilian leaders alarm regarding Washington's safety is noteworthy. Extraordinary concerns for the capital's safety contrasted with months of endless nagging McClellan to assume the offensive. However the troops needed for an offensive had to come from those providing the capital's defense. Both McClellan and Grant faced the problem of Washington's safety with McClellan trying to comply and Grant often giving only limited support. The book concludes "McClellan's Peninsula campaign, the first major Federal offensive in East, experienced problems uniquely its own, not the least....was the administration's failure to sustain plans they had.... agreed to support." During the first two war years, many Northerners believed the Confederates would be quickly defeated perhaps in one major campaign. When McClellan assumed command in 1861, he inherited an untrained and disorganized army. The author notes that McClellan implemented schools of instruction and all volunteers were given basic training directed by an experienced officer. In addition, he recognized the deficit in trained officers (several were political hacks) and arranged effective training. The book frequently notes, that the training and organizing of the army was a major contribution. Considering, the sheer folly of his predecessor's taking an unprepared army to defeat at the First Bull Run, McClellan's unwillingness to assume the offensive in 1861 with an untrained army was prudent and not excessive caution. Unfortunately, in 1862, politics and lack of support doomed his Peninsula campaign.
Rowland writes "....little attention is paid to the context in which McClellan dealt with the difficulties that faced the Federal army in the first fifteen months of the war. ....his early tenure deprived him of the advantage of leading mature and seasoned civilian soldiers, adapted to the demands of a new age of warfare...." As one historian noted, McClellan "suffered the frictions and frustrations of being first." The text notes that Sherman observed that Napoleon took three years to build an army and "....here it is expected in ninety days..." The author notes the irony that McClellan was relieved of command when "He had effectively divided Lee's army into widely separated halves, intending to drive between them. The celerity of those moves alarmed Lee...." This could have been a critical blow.
The text continues that McClellan might have been forgiven a multiple of failures had he kept his eye on the military objective, the destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia. However, McClellan's strategy to capture Richmond was not without merit as Richmond was a critical manufacturing, transportation and financial center. The Tredegar Iron Works alone justified the capture of Richmond. Richmond's fall during the first two war years would have been devastating to the Confederacy. Regarding Antietam, Rowland correctly notes that regardless of McClellan's shortcomings, Antietam was a Union victory. McClellan had stopped Lee from delivering a demoralizing blow on northern soil.
The book concludes, "McClellan's strategy, though reflective of the unrealistic war aims of the years 1861-62,was cogent, reasoned, and consistent with conventional military wisdom.... McClellan can scarcely be elevated to the ranks of the great captains of war, but he was hardly the worst that the conflict dragged into the center stage."
The book is somewhat repetitious and devotes too much space to comparing McClellan's faults with similar faults of Grant and Sherman. However, the book is worth reading for its discussion of Union military and political strategy during the first two years of the Civil War.
Were character flaws "peculiar to McClellan"?.......1999-04-17
Thomas J. Rowland set out to prove that, although George McClellan was not a great general, neither was he as bad as so many Civil War historians and writers have depicted him. I believe that he has succeeded. Having read Stephen Sears' classic biography on "Mac", I was certain that the definitive McClellan verdict was a fait accompli. How wrong I was! Historians T. Harry Williams, Kenneth P. Williams, and Bruce Catton were also cited for a less than even-handed assessment of McClellan. Still, one must add that Rowland did not maliciously criticize the intent of these historians. He merely pointed out that they needlessly made Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman--men who remain giants without anyone's help--larger than they should be, at McClellan's expense. After examining their records during the first two years of the war, each of these men showed less than a superlative level of performance, contrary to popular assumption. I think that Rowland's book is one of best buys I have ever made. A more superbly-written, well-argued, and illuminating book on George McClellan and his impact on the Civil War and its interpretation would be hard to find. It's great. Buy it!
Were character flaws "peculiar to McClellan"?.......1999-04-17
Thomas J. Rowland set out to prove that, although George McClellan was not a great general, neither was he as bad as so many Civil War historians and writers have depicted him. I believe that he has succeeded. Having read Stephen Sears' classic biography on "Mac", I was certain that the definitive McClellan verdict was a fait accompli. How wrong I was! Historians T. Harry Williams, Kenneth P. Williams, and Bruce Catton were also cited for a less than even-handed assessment of McClellan. Still, one must add that Rowland did not maliciously criticize the intent of these historians. He merely pointed out that they needlessly made Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman--men who remain giants without anyone's help--larger than they should be, at McClellan's expense. After examining their records during the first two years of the war, each of these men showed less than a superlative level of performance, contrary to popular assumption. I think that Rowland's book is one of best buys I have ever made. A more superbly-written, well-argued, and illuminating book on George McClellan and his impact on the Civil War and its interpretation would be hard to find. It's great. Buy it!
Customer Reviews:
More neo-Confederate idolotry.......2006-06-08
Upon graduating from West Point,a young Robert E. Lee put his left hand on the Bible, raised his right hand and swore he would bear true faith and allegiance to the United Stated of America. As an older, but not wiser man, he turned his back on the country he swore to defend and took up arms against it. So much for "sterling nobility." This book is the usual neo-Confederate claptrap that has been making the rounds ever since the war ended.
There's only one word for this book, and I can't say it here..........2006-05-07
This book was deceitful and misleading, like most Confederate propaganda. J. Steven Wilkins was cunning in his choice and presentation of facts. If someone with no knowledge of the Civil War read this book, he would be left with an absolutely incorrect perspective of Robert E. Lee, the institution of slavery, and the Civil War in general.
First, there are inconsistencies between "Call of Duty" and... "Call of Duty"! At one point in the book, Wilkins quotes Lee as saying, "If the slaves of the South were mine, I would surrender them all without a struggle, to avert this war." Later, Wilkins claims that Lee was offended and hurt that anyone thought slavery had anything to do with the war. So answer me this...how could freeing slaves avert a war that had nothing to do with slavery?
Another instance where the book contradicts itself is regarding race relations. Wilkins tries to sell the idea that Southern whites and Southern slaves lived in perfect harmony, respecting each other without the slightest presence of racism. Once again, later in the book this changes...Wilkins tells us of a church in Richmond whose attendees were shocked by a Negro who went up to take Communion! None of the churchgoers, except for Lee, as the story goes, wanted to be the first one to participate with a colored man. How is this possible in a society where racism is absent? Wilkins tries to blame this on Reconstruction, but I doubt a society could go from having no racism whatsoever to this degree of racism in such a short period of time.
The book also contradicts history...notably, regarding Robert Lee and slavery. The book says that Lee never seemed to have owned more than six slaves. This is not true. Wesley Norris, one of Lee's slaves, says in an account that almost 70 slaves were inherited by Lee upon the death of Lee's father-in-law.
Following in the said account, Wesley Norris tells the story of him and his sister Mary, who tried to escape the plantation after Lee inherited it. Upon being caught, Lee took it upon himself to "teach them a lesson they would never forget." He had them stripped to the waist, flogged, and thoroughly washed in brine. We see a little glimpse of Christian chivalry peeking out of Lee as he only had Mary receive twenty lashes, whereas Wesley received fifty. This is far from the compassionate Robert Wilkins would have us know! Wesley Norris's account can be found in "Slave Testimony: Two Centuries of Letters, Speeches, and Interviews, and Autobiographies".
The book also implies that Lee opposed slavery. However, the supposed "proof-text" for this actually tells us quite the opposite. In the text of a letter Lee sent to his wife, which is printed in "Call of Duty", Lee actually defends slavery. Lee tries to distort the gross institution of slavery into some kind of mission work. Slavery was Christianizing the Negroes, and preparing them for freedom, and to seek to free Negroes from the clutches of slavery was to shake your fist at God, or so Lee reasons. This is ridiculous, considering how many missionaries of all religions have successfully converted people without enslaving them, and yet it is the rationale used by Lee, Wilkins, and so many other Southern partisans who seek to defend the South by justifying slavery.
"Call of Duty" makes a god of Robert E. Lee, condemns the North, and justifies slavery with no regard for historical, logical, or moral facts. The Southern partisan will love it.
Ordered of the Lord..........2005-09-17
A great opportunity is afforded any reader introduced to the Leaders In Action Series, and the refined biography of Robert E. Lee serves as an excellent first choice.
Though written in a non-confrontational style, enough facts contradict the popular notions of Lee, the Civil War, {or the Southern appelation: The War between the States}, slavery, and the northern view of 'slavery and the South' to compel serious examination of the historical facts.
It is no secret in Christian circles that Lee was an ardent disciple of the Lord Jesus, striving his entire life to follow the way of the Lord. That the General was against slavery is not as well known.
Author J. Steven Wilkins' notation that Lincoln emancipated only the slaves in the enemy states held in rebellion, while leaving northern slaves to their chains is a topic that has layed untroubled since that President's proclamation of fame.
Lee's Christian character and military genius are well chronicled in this immaculately manicured biography. Easy reference searches are made a joy by the editor's finely outlined table of contents, chronology of Lee's life and additional study helps.
A historical work of value for the academic of a number of disciplines. A study of integrity unfolded into the Christian walk.
Well done to Pastor Wilkins, though his study undoubtedly made it's own reward. Acknowledgements to those savvy enough to see not only the need for such a series, but wise enough to include enough detail in each volume to demand further consideration.
"The steps of a good man are..."
TL Farley,
author,
When Now Becomes Too Late {prophecy}
Distant Reaches {adventure}
Hooray for Lee ! Boo for Wilkins ? :-(.......2001-08-26
Any accurate portrayal of Robert E. Lee, certainly one of our country's finest leaders, should definitely move anyone with an ounce of common sense to an enormous appreciation for this most outstanding human being. Lee's inspiring faith in God, his leadership by example, and lifelong message is one of love and honor. His own words and letters best exemplify this fact, and this author's liberal use of them brings it all home in this short, succinct work. However, be forewarned that Wilkins adds his own additional preaching far removed from the Gospels, most sadly detracting from an accurate historical perspective on Lee by adding his own self-serving distortions on slavery. The historical record is clear: Lee found slavery objectionable and looked forward to the day when it would end. None-the-less, Wilkins tries very hard to rationalize slavery as something good, as if his sad excuses are necessary in order to make Lee look acceptable.... so far from the truth! Wilkins does our great man, Lee, along with the rest of America, a dis-service by his disgusting blabberings. Let's hear it for Robert E. Lee, and not taint his image with such dribble. Most other Lee biographies will serve us more fairly and honorably.
If ever there was a man who followed Christ's example...........2001-08-09
If ever there was a man who followed Christ's example it was Robert E. Lee. This book illustrates such a man. It illustrates the strength of character that men lack in our society today....lacking even in our churches. This book is a must read for all men who are interested to know what a Christian gentleman is. Well done Reverend Wilkins. May Lee's example, which you have illustrated, set an example for others as it has for me and bring glory to God.
Average customer rating:
|
American Presidents Eminent Lives Boxed Set: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S. Grant
Paul Johnson ,
Christopher Hitchens , and
Michael Korda
Manufacturer: Eminent Lives
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
 General
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Political
| Leaders & Notable People
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Presidents & Heads of State
| Leaders & Notable People
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
General
| United States
| Historical
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Washington, George
| ( W )
| People, A-Z
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Jefferson, Thomas
| ( J )
| People, A-Z
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Grant, Ulysses S.
| ( G )
| People, A-Z
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
Biographies & Memoirs
| Boxed Sets
| Formats
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
Creators: From Chaucer and Durer to Picasso and Disney
-
Letters to a Young Contrarian
-
Beethoven: The Universal Composer (Eminent Lives)
-
History of Christianity
-
A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq
ASIN: 0060844760
Release Date: 2005-11-01 |
Book Description
Eminent Lives
In American Political History
A perfect gift for your favorite history huff, or for your own collection, this set from the acclaimed Eminent Lives series is a must for anyone interested in the story of America.
George Washington: The Founding Father
Celebrated journalist and historian Paul Johnson paints a vivid portrait of George Washington as a young entrepreneur, masterly commander-in-chief, patient Constitution maker, and wise president.
Thomas Jefferson: Author of America
Internationally renowned writer and political commentator Christopher Hitchens explores the life of Thomas Jefferson within the context of America's evolution, bringing him to life as both a man of his time and as a visionary who could see beyond it.
Ulysses S. Grant: The Unlikely Hero
Legendary editor and bestselling author Michael Korda provides a shrewd but sympathetic portrait of Ulysses S. Grant's successes and failures -- both military and political -- as he guided America through a crucial juncture in its history.
Customer Reviews:
Killer Angel.......2007-07-04
This is an excellent primer and succinct summary of the truth about the origins of "Planned Parenthood." Anyone who wants to know the truth about America's disgraceful abortion mills, should begin with this book. You can trust Grant to tell you the truth, in contrast to the communist propaganda we usually get fed! Thank you George!
Not much here.......2007-02-23
There's no original research here; as is clear from the footnotes, the author has just taken material from standard biographies of Sanger and used it to present her in the most negative light possible. Sanger did favor eugenics (as did most people in her era), and she was a socialist, and she had a rather unorthodox family life. There isn't much argument about the facts. But to use these facts to portray her as a monster of iniquity (and a worse murderer than Stalin or Hitler) is just silly, unless you regard a blastocyst as the moral equivalent of a human being.
Margaret Sanger the monster.......2006-11-02
Her views were just as monstrous as Hitler's, because they came from the same philosophical genetic line of thinking. Her own words condemn her. She indeed targeted the poor and down-trodden of society with the same views as the Third Reich. She saw the black community as hitler saw the disabled of Germany "useless eaters." Read this book to find out what she really believed. Don't just listen to the emotional-laden lies of Planned Parenthood and their misinformed rabble,[..]
I've never seen pro abortionists deal with the real facts concerning Margaret Sanger. The facts are presented in books like "Killer Angel," but they can't "handle" the facts. All they can do is appeal to the emotions-- "Oh the starving children..." etc. So... their solution is that the children are better off dead, than starving! Good argument!? No. Stupid argument -- just an appeal to the emotions. "Starving Children?" "Abused Children?" Why change the argument? No one said that anti-abortionists were pro starvation or pro abuse. What greater abuse can you have than the killing of innocent children? What you actually have is a promoting and philosophical acceptance of, and practice of genocide for convenience-sake. Shame on anyone who would try to defend what Margaret Sanger said and lived for. You may as well try to defend Hitler himself!
I load of crap.......2006-05-05
This author has no clue what he is taking about. He is continuing to spread a lie that is only confusing people. Margaret Sanger was a great woman who fought for other women to have the right to have control over their own body.
His rant on birth control is mind numbing. Birth control prevents abortions and Planned Parenthood wants to prevent abortions. Yes they provide abortions, but they also provide health services to uninsured women, fight for women to have a say to what happens to their bodies, and educates all on proper sex education. Margaret Sanger would be proud of what Planned Parenthood has become. There are much better and truthful books on Margaret then this one. I only gave this one star because it was the only way I could sumbit the review!
Just A Balance To Those Planned Parenthood Nitwits.......2003-04-09
Margaret Sanger's own words should sink the ship of Planned Parenthood. I'm glad that Grant wrote such a book. His writings are needed to balance out the Planned Parenthood [material] being rammed down the throat of society. Although I do agree with the...reviewer's notes who gave the book 4 stars out of 5, I thought that my review of 5 out of 5 is more fitting...
From the Publisher
"know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" These compelling words from a speech delivered by Patrick Henry in 1775 at the second Virginia Convention embody the spirit of American courage and patriotism. The speeches of the 'orator of liberty' fueled the fire of the struggle for American Independence. This insightful look at one of our country's most colorful and verbal forefathers will deepen every readers' appreciation for the leaders in our past and strengthen their understandimg that, even today, freedom isn't free.
Available in December.
Customer Reviews:
Thank you!.......2007-02-06
Thank you, Mr. Vaughan, for pointing out what many if not all public schools leave out of history... the fact that it was founded on Biblical principles by Christian men. I'm not saying that all the founding fathers were Bible believing or lived a moral live but that fact that Patrick Henry was such a HUGE part of it and he WAS a Christian and moral person was impactful to our nations birth.
My daughter enjoyed the humorous bits throughout the book and I enjoyed the fresh look at history.
The Cheering Section.......2003-07-05
In his biography of Partick Henry, Vaughan complains that previous biographers were unfair to the legendary statesman. Thus, he moves to correct this historical error by bringing forth a laundry list of glowing facts about Henry. While Vaughan does have a point about previous renderings of Henry's life, he does little to paint a more accurate picture of the orator. Rather, he glosses over Henry flaws, and presents us with a candy-coated version of the man. And Henry was a man--a good man, but a man nonetheless. Unfortunately, this biography fails to recognize that.
A Delightful Read.......2003-02-08
What a delightful read this book has been. The author displays a clear and deep admiration for his subject, but I find no fault in that. The book reads very easily without a lot of stilted verbiage, making it a wonderful introduction of the great orator to the student.
There is not a lot of detailed analysis here, but I don't believe that was the authors' intention. This work is meant to be an outline and introduction Henry, the Trumpet of the Revolution.
The work is actually presented as three separate volumes in one binding. Part 1 takes the reader from birth to death, touching on the momentous occasions, as well as a good bit of reference to the details of life which shaped the life of Henry. Part 2 gives Henry's views of some of life's virtues, such as Christianity, patriotism and duty and gives an insightful look at the character of this great American. Part 3 concludes with how Henry has been remembered by history, and how he should be remembered.
Overall, a delightful read which I highly recommend to students or anyone wishing to gain a basic insight to a great American patriot.
Monty Rainey
www.juntosociety.com
A "MUST READ" FOR LOVERS OF LIBERTY.......2002-04-27
It was wonderful to see Patrick Henry's Christian values and belief on the LORD JESUS CHRIST openly written about. I enjoyed it completely and would recommend it to any who enjoy studying the Revolutionary War. BUY IT!
Too didactic.......2002-03-31
I was somewhat disappointed with this short book. The author seems to have targeted the book to young people rather than older, more demanding readers. The book is comprised of very short, easy-to-read chapters written with too much moral heavy-handedness. The second half is nothing but a series of chapters on the moral lessons of his life with a decidedly religious take. A hagiography for early adolescents. This is not a book that takes much time to develop more complex themes of his life, times, and ideas.
Nevertheless, I finished the book with great admiration for Patrick Henry and an eagerness to read more about him and his ideas. I came to the book wanting to know more about the Anti-Federalists, as Henry was the most visible leader. I didn't get what I was searching for in this book. An okay book for young people but too simplistic and pat for others wanting a more intellectually demanding examination of the man.
Customer Reviews:
In the top three.......2007-07-30
I have read many, many books on leadership and this would definitely go in the top three. It does not beat around the bush about the fact that the root problem is really the home and the father's responsibility to raise his children to be leaders.
It is interesting, thought provoking, challenging and helpful. It is a MUST READ for anyone in a leadership role. This book is even great for dad's!
Stimulating Inspiration.......2000-04-29
This a truly great book about the integrity of various leaders. In a departure from the approach of most leadership literature, such as the corporate or political approach, Vaughan employs the biographical approach and studies the essence of leadership by examining the character traits of great leaders: Christopher Columbus, Patrick Henry, William Wilberforce, Robert E. Lee, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Kuyper, G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis and Winston Churuchill. The reader is inspired by the virtue of these great men. Pillars of Leadership is extensively documented, interesting and stimulating. This is a book for educators, statesmen, pastors and anyone else desiring to make a positive and lasting impact in the world.
Books:
- Cirque Du Freak #12: Sons of Destiny: Book 12 in the Saga of Darren Shan (Cirque Du Freak: the Saga of Darren Shan)
- Civil War On Sunday (Magic Tree House #21)
- Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy
- Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity
- Critique of Pure Reason
- Current Medical Diagnosis and Treatment 2007 (Current Medical Diagnosis & Treatment)
- Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, Revised Edition
- Experience And Education
- Fear and Trembling (Penguin Great Ideas)
- Finding the Right Woman for You: One Woman's Advice to Men (Hammond, Michelle Mckinney)
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- History: Fiction or Science
- Yaqui Deer Songs, Maso Bwikam: A Native American Poetry
- One Hundred Flowers
- The Culture Industry Revisited
- The Measure of a Man: A Spiritual Autobiography
- Winesburg, Ohio
- Thistle Greens and Mistletoe: Edible and Poisonous Plants of Northern California
- Real Life Notes: Reflections and Strategies for Life After Graduation
- Steel City: Entrepreneurship, Strategy, and Technology in Sheffield 1743-1993
- The Scribner Anthology of Contemporary Short Fiction: Fifty North American American Stories Since 19
Never Give In: The Extraordinary Character of Winston Churchill (Leaders in Action Series)
PASSION FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE, A
Abraham Lincoln's World, Expanded Edition
All Things for Good: The Steadfast Fidelity of Stonewall Jackson (Leaders in Action Series)
Of Courage Undaunted
