Most Helpful Customer Reviews
12 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Good writing trumped by Inaccurate History, December 4, 2004
This review is from: Lincoln's War: The Untold Story of America's Greatest President as Commander in Chief (Hardcover)
This is one of those books I wanted to be good, and was sorely disappointed when I read it and found it wasn't anywhere near as good as I hoped it would be. While the writing's good, the history is hopelessly inaccurate. This is one of my rules: if you catch errors, significant ones, in a book of history, then you must wonder if any of the facts that you accept are correct. Some may be: my knowledge of Civil War history is pretty good. But in some instances, I am not familiar with the anecdote Perret recounts, and since his accuracy is in doubt, I can't take anything the author says seriously. This makes the book essentially worthless.
To recount just a few of the errors: (for those who doubt) the Prince de Salm-Salm is identified as an Austrian (how did he get killed in the Franco-*Prussian* War, then?); O.O.Howard commanded the XII Corps (in reality the XI); and John Bell Hood wins the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain, only to see his army annhilated at the Battle of Franklin by George Thomas. If you don't see the inaccuracy of the last assertion, get yourself a copy of Battle Cry of Freedom, or something (anything) else on the Civil War.
I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone, and I think Perret needs to look into a new editor.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
12 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Perret's Accuracy in LINCOLN'S WAR Is Pathetic, July 27, 2004
This review is from: Lincoln's War: The Untold Story of America's Greatest President as Commander in Chief (Hardcover)
I have been studying Abraham Lincoln for nearly 40 years. I do not know what happened when Perret wrote this book about Lincoln since his books on three other presidents are fair or better, but Perret really "dropped the ball" on this one. A large amount of Perret's information is untrue, and LINCOLN'S WAR has a huge number of inaccuracies throughout it. Just a few examples are his information about the battle of Chancellorsville, the military importance of terrain and geography. He confuses rivers and direction of their flows and gets the specifics of some battles wrong, and then draws conclusions on this inaccurate information and lack of knowledge. He confuses some of the battles and has units in places they were not. Perret claims that Lincoln created his own currency for the Union which is not true. The Legal Tender Act was passed by Congress and Lincoln's participation was just to sign the bill since he was the president then. That act of Congress was constitutionally legal. Perret states that no black troops were raised in Kentucky when records show that 23,700 black troops were soldiers in Kentucky. Perret also writes that Lincoln was obsessed with the capture of the Confederate capitol, Richmond. Although capturing Richmond was one of Lincoln's overall three military strategies, the truth is that for at least a year Lincoln repeatedly told some of his generals that at least hurting or better yet, defeating Lee's army wherever it was engaged by Union military was his (Lincoln's) objective, not capturing Richmond. Perret also misunderstands Lincoln's strategy for emancipating slaves. In conclusion, Perret did shamefully sloppy research, and therefore his conclusions about Lincoln mean nothing since they are based on inaccurate information and the author's lack of knowledge of historical facts and realities during Lincoln's era. James M. McPherson who is considered by some to be America's most eminent Civil War historian, states that he found a minimum of 120 errors in Perret's book, LINCOLN'S WAR. If you want to read McPherson's review which is more detailed than my review, you can read McPherson's review at http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040614&c=1&s=mcpherson
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
14 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Enjoyable book, September 11, 2004
This review is from: Lincoln's War: The Untold Story of America's Greatest President as Commander in Chief (Hardcover)
Lincoln's War chronicles the leadership of America's greatest President during its gravest crisis. The author provides an account of how Abraham Lincoln held the Union together and led its military as commander-in-chief.
The book is neatly organized. There is a general progression from before the start of the war until its conclusion, but many-if not all-of the chapters are organized thematically. And these chapters are well written and highly engaging. Many readers and reviewers have complained about some historical inaccuracies concerning some of the details, how major battles and events are given little attention, or that the portrayal of U.S. Grant is all wrong. Perhaps they detractors are correct in those regard, but one has to keep in mind the book's overall focus upon Lincoln as Commander-in-Chief, and in that regard I believe this book succeeds. (Perhaps this book deserves 3.5 stars instead of four, but because the one-star ratings for this book are so undeserved, I'll stand by my four-star rating.)
Since much of Lincoln's time and energy was focused upon the Army of the Potomac and the struggle in the East, much of the book focuses upon that. However, ample attention is also paid to the war as it was fought in the West. A recurring theme (or assertion) throughout the book is that the Union's emphasis upon the East and marching the Army of the Potomac on the Confederate's capitol was misguided, and that more attention should have been paid to the Western front. This point is controversial, but at the very least the author does an adequate job in backing up this notion throughout the book.
The author's portrayal of Lincoln as a man and as a military leader comes across as very sympathetic and positive-quite deserved, in this reviewer's view. The war was a tragedy for the nation, and all of the death and destruction took a heavy, heavy toll on Lincoln. His struggles with intense pain and sadness are remarkable.
There was clearly a political dimension to Lincoln's role as Commander-in-Chief. After reading this book, I am further struck with how absolutely essential the political dimension was in prosecuting the war. Lincoln's political calculations were essential to keeping the borders states from joining the Confederacy and in keeping the voters of the North committed to candidates who supported the Union. One of the surest ways to dissolution would have been for the North to have elected a Democrat who would have sought a truce. Matters were further complicated by Lincoln's perpetual struggles with Union generals. The generalship problems appear to have persisted until near the end of the war.
A few chapters stand out in my mind, which I found personally insightful. One chapter was devoted to Gen. Winfield Scott's contribution to the Union cause while serving as General-in-Chief at the beginning of the war. Another chapter is devoted to the U.S.S. Monitor, and another focuses upon Lincoln's acute interest in military and weapons technology. (For some reason, I find the image of Lincoln wearing his stove-pipe hat and firing rifles rather amusing.)
I enjoyed reading this book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
