Stephen B. Oates Books

Got to read it for a term paper for a class on the Civil War. It was illuminating and is a treasure trove of references to other books to read and different directions to go in your study of the war. BUT as a reference for an 8-10 page essay...holy mother is it terrible. Please note I'm addressing the organization of the book and not the content/style.

The table of contents is only each year, even though the monologues are numbered. There is absolutely no "outsider" or "narrator" to recap what the heck everyone's talking about or even just alluding to. (Such as the 20-odd pages on Gettysburg/Longstreet; as someone who does not yet understand military jargon or what it even means to "take a hill," this and other instances caused my eyes to glaze over.)

In all fairness, a lot of things are spelled out while completely in keeping with the "voice." Abatis is defined by at least two different "characters," for example.

Perhaps my complaints with the book are simply the wages of my own ignorance--the book is about a war, and political agitations before the war are more my strong suit.

If you have a guy who can watch like, the military channel or understands war jargon and isn't surrounded by Civil War books already, this is an awesomely great book for him. And he'll love Sherman.

Oates's treatment of the Civil War through fictionalized statements by major participants is a notable achievement. It really is not a military history of the war, but a history of what these participants thought about the war as it progressed. There are some weaknesses to this approach, mostly that the author must choose one version of some events under debate by historians without being able to outline the debate, as might be done in a conventional history. Also, such fictionalization must remain conjectural, even though in Oates's case it is buttressed by great research, and Oates must necessarily limit himself to relatively few participants. Still, by taking seriously the thoughts and opinions of those involved, Oates gives us a much more "alive" picture of the war as it unfolded. Although it took me a few pages to become accustomed to the method, I was impressed by the overall effect.

I found this book tiresome compared to part one [Voices of the Storm] and his other biographies [Lincoln and Martin Luther King] which are outstanding and recommended. The vehicle he uses --e.g. 11 voices of historical figures from the War who alternate perspectives from chapter to chapter is contrived, of questionable authenticity in many segments and eventually, to me, distracting. In volume one this technique gave me a sense of political issues --it just was not as effective in this volume which focused mostly on military issues. A military history needs maps and diagrams to give the reader a sense of what was happening, where and when. The absence of such support weakened that aspect of the story. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom is a better source for information on the flow of the Civil War than this volume.

A good addition to the corpus of historical literature about America's most horrendous war and tragedy.

Oates' treatment of Lee, Longstreet, et al, at Gettysburg is solid and well-documented. To consider as a "popular Civil War myth" Longstreet's sulking, insubordinate, and ultimately devastating performance at Gettysburg, as another reviewer does, is an opinion, and an innacurate one at that--and if Glenn Tucker believes as such, he is misguided as well.

Our day is replete with "historians" who amass selective mountains of facts and figures to arrive at the pre-ordained, and often incorrect, conclusions they desire. Glenn Tucker, Alan Nolan, and Michael Shaara notwithstanding, "Old Pete" Longstreet demonstrated an obstinate lack of cooperation with and support for his commanding officer's orders at Gettysburg, as well as a half-hearted effort at positioning his First Corps for battle on the second day of that engagement--all the while urging Lee on to Longstreet's own course of action that Lee wisely considered and rejected.

Lee wanted an early morning attack on the second day--not the third. His mistake was in placing similar trust in lesser corps commanders like Longstreet and Ewell as he had in Stonewall Jackson. On the evening of the first day at Gettysburg, Lee said, with Longstreet present, "If the enemy is there in the morning, I mean to attack him." The enemy was there, Longstreet had abundant time to get his men there, and Stonewall Jackson would not have needed a picture drawn for him (Second Bull Run, Chancellorsville, etc.)--nor would he have rebelled against the authority over him.

The Confederates came within an eyelash of overruning the Federals on the second day at Gettysburg. Without the eight hours or so of additional preparation time provided Meade's army by Longstreet's foot-dragging, what do you think would have been the result?

"The Whirlwind of War" is a very well written book about the American Civil War, with an especially innovative approach. Author Stephen B. Oates interweaves imaginary first-person written accounts of eleven of the war's key figures - among them Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, U.S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, William T. Sherman, Mary Boykin Chesnut and Mary Livermore - to present the story of America's most tragic war a dramatic and compelling way.

Although the first-person soliloquies are fictional, they are based on obviously extensive and meticulous research, and are filled with historical facts which are detailed and accurate. Actually, Oates adds little in the way of new historical data or interpretation in this book, although the new information on John Wilkes Booth, and the descriptions of the Northern hospital camps by Cornelia Hancock make compelling reading. What I found most fascinating about "The Whirlwind of War" was how effectively Oates was able to bring the characters' personalities so much to life in their soliloquies. Oates doesn't pretend to try to write in the style of Lincoln, Davis, Grant, or the others; still, he allows their personalities to shine through completely. I felt I really got to know the tormented Abraham Lincoln, the laconic U.S. Grant, the profane, manic-depressive William T. Sherman, the reserved and dignified Robert E. Lee, and the bitter Jefferson Davis through their first-person accounts.

Oates' imaginative writing in "The Whirlwind of War" makes it an especially entertaining book, one which gives readers an accurate and reasonably detailed understanding of the people and events which made up America's bloodiest conflict. Highly recommended!

Having read this author's biography of Lincoln (Malice Toward None) I was so impressed with his writing style and story telling that I wanted to stick with him.

This book reads well. I recommend it. I enjoyed it. The book reads like a novel and seemed fairly comprehensive, thought it's under 400 pages and moves along at a comfortable pace. It provides plenty of food for thought about Brown. Having always heard that Brown was a mad-man, I was pleased to find that his story is much more than that.

As far as dismissing John Brown as a crazy, consider how many renowned people of his day he befriended and persuaded to back his endeavors! Were they all crazy too?

The book revealed for me the political / social / religious dynamics of those wild times in a meaningful way. If the issue of John Brown comes up for discussion, I now feel confident to participate.

There are a lot of books on Brown, for good reason. He is a fascinating figure, a sort of mythical creature. Many books dumb this aspect down through their soggy prose and endless fact-logging, but the prose in this book is not too bad. Oates doesn't relate too much worthless information, which is common in the social sciences. I remember reading one Brown biography that debated whether his cabin was made out of pine or oak. Many historians cannot understand that not all pieces of information were created equal.

Seriously though, the prose here is decent and the history seems fairly accurate. There are some passages that are poetic in their way, and I was affected by many aspects of Brown's personality and U.S. History that Oates managed to describe quite well. Times of revolution can make for excellent reading, especially when the world today seems very difficult to change. Brown tried to change it, and in the minds of many, he did. So, for those unfamiliar with Brown, he makes for a good story.

It is obvious at times that Oates is angling to not "alienate" the Southern reader. He talks about how Southerners "had a right to be scared" and makes the argument that slavery-accepting Southerners were not such bad people, etc. Racism was widespread, only slightly less so in the North, so this is partially reasonable. However, there is hardly any material about how disgusting slavery really was. There are good reasons that John Brown was violently opposed. Basically, Oates is trying to be "balanced." What that means is he is giving both sides of the argument, even when one of them has been proven to be self-evidently stronger. Slavery was wrong, and it died out, and good riddance to the Southerners who accepted and perpetuated it.

If you want to read about how nasty slavery really was, and I recommend that you do if you are open-minded about judging characters such as Brown, then you can start with some of the slave narratives, for example the narratives of Frederick Douglass and Mary Prince.

John Brown was one of the few people who doesn't just stand around and watch while injustices abound. He acts, and that is the reason that many cannot stand him. He is a profoundly moral person, and that is threatening to people who are not. They cannot understand that it is better to kill a thousand men then to let millions rot in slavery.

Highly recommended, just don't get thrown off by the "balance."

In the preface of his book, author Oates states it is not his intention to determine the mental capabilities of his subject, abolitionist John Brown. But, he certainly paints a vivid enough picture so the reader can determine for himself if Brown is a crazy old coot, a cold blooded murderer, or a man on a mighty mission or a combination of all three. I had just read Cloudsplitter by Russell Banks (a fictionalized version of Brown's life; see my review) and it made me want to read a real biography of Brown. If anything, this book made me appreciate Banks' immagination even more. To Purge This Land with Blood is a very detailed account of Brown's life, maybe too detailed. Every character, no matter how inconsequential, is named. And this sea of names and places can be mindboggling. I found much of the book slow going and already knowing the outcome of Brown's life didn't compel me to move on quickly. But, after reading the book, I now believe I now know Brown. And isn't that the purpose of biography?

If you were, like I was, taught that John Brown was not much more than a well-meaning madman then you don't know the John Brown of history. Oates does a great job of dispelling that myth as well as presenting for the first time the full picture, thoroughly footnoted, of the man who may have sparked the Civil War. I have small gripes with some of the text, but none worth mentioning here. Read it and be impressed.

Please note that the substance of the following review has been used in the review of W.B. Dubois's book on John Brown reviewed elsewhere. Both books offer a good prospective on the life of John Brown and can be profitably read together. Dubois's book is a decent historical narrative of Brown's life from an earlier time and in a more partisan perspective. Oates book reflects more modern academic methods of analysis and research and tackles the weaknesses in other interpretations. In that sense, Oates book is close to the definitive study of John Brown's life. Most importantly, both books reflect a Northern view of Brown exploits previously long absent from the historical record. My review reflects the need to study an important American fighter for justice and for today's generation to learn some lessons from his life.


I would like to make a few comments on the role of Captain John Brown and his struggle at Harper's Ferry in 1859 in the history of the black liberation struggle. This is appropriate as I am writing this review during Black History Month of 2006. Unfortunately John Brown continues to remain one of the very few white heroes of the revolutionary struggle for black liberation.

From fairly early in my youth I knew the name John Brown and was swept up by the romance surrounding his exploits at Harpers Ferry. For example, I knew that the great anthem of the Civil War -The Battle Hymn of the Republic had a prior existence as a tribute to John Brown. I, however, was then neither familiar with the import of his exploits for the black liberation struggle nor knew much about the specifics of the politics of the various tendencies in the struggle against slavery. I certainly knew nothing then of Brown's (and his sons) prior military exploits in the Kansas wars against the expansion of slavery. If one understands the ongoing nature of his commitment to struggle one can only conclude that his was indeed a man on a mission. Those exploits also render absurd a very convenient myth about his `madness'. This is a political man and to these eyes a very worthy one. In the context of the turmoil of the times he was only the most courageous and audacious revolutionary in the struggle against the abolition of slavery in America.

Whether or not John Brown knew that his strategy would, in the short term, be defeated is a matter of dispute. Reams of paper have been spent proving the military foolhardiness of his scheme at Harper's Ferry. This misses the essential political point that militant action- not continuing parliamentary maneuvering advocated by other abolitionists- had become necessary. What is not in dispute is that Brown considered himself a true Calvinist avenging angel in the struggle against slavery and more importantly acted on that belief. In short, he was committed to bring justice to the black masses. This is why his exploits and memory stay alive after over 150 years.

Brown and his small integrated band of brothers fought bravely and coolly against great odds. Ten of Brown's men were killed including two of his sons. Five were captured, tried and executed, including Brown. These results are almost inevitable when one takes up a revolutionary struggle against the old order and one is not victorious. One need only think of, for example, the fate of the defenders of the Paris Commune in 1871. One can fault Brown on this or that tactical maneuver. Nevertheless he and the others bore themselves bravely in defeat. As we are all too painfully familiar there are defeats of the oppressed that lead nowhere. One thinks of the defeat of the Chinese Revolution in the 1920's. There other defeats that galvanize others into action. This is how Brown's actions should be measured by history.

Militarily defeated at Harpers Ferry, Brown's political mission to destroy slavery by force of arms nevertheless continued to galvanize important elements in the North at the expense of the pacifistic non-resistant Garrisonian political program for struggle against slavery. Many writers on Brown who reduce his actions to that of a `madman' still cannot believe that his road proved more appropriate to end slavery than either non-resistance or gradualism. That alone makes short shrift of such theories. Historians and others have misinterpreted later events such as the Bolshevik strategy which led to Russian Revolution in October 1917. More recently, we saw this same incomprehension concerning the victory of the Vietnamese against overwhelming military superior forces. Needless to say, all these events continue to be revised by some historians to take the sting out of there proper political implications.

As an amateur genealogist I discovered that I was a sixth cousin, five times removed to President Abraham Lincoln through the Lincoln and Holmes families. On page 21 ( Abraham Lincoln, The man Behind The Myths ) Mr. Oates wrote that there was a mistaken belief that Thomas Lincoln was not Abraham's real father rather it was a Senator John C. Calhoun or a Henry Clay. If this was true it would mean that I was not related to President Abraham Lincoln. How would such a rumour start ? Is there any documented evidence that Nancy Lincoln had an affair with one of these men while being married to Thomas Lincoln. At the time I am trying to locate Stephen B. Oates so I can get this matter cleared up. Sincerely, Mr. Blair E. Bartlett, 87 Shillington Road, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada, E2J 4K7 1-506-696-6175

We invented Abraham Lincoln. Not the man, of course, but the myth, that solemn and statuesque giant memorialized eternally overlooking the Capitol mall. The power of that myth and the quiet dignity of its personage dwarfs us all. But the myth is not the man. Myths never are. Stephen Oates in his _Abraham Lincoln, The Man Behind the Myths_, does not seek to diminish the man but rather to clarify him, separating the mythos from the mortal. And it is not an undaunting task, it seems, for overly soon after Lincoln's tragic end the mills began to churn. The public's shredding of the White House interior for mementos while Mary Lincoln lay debilitated in the next room seems symbolic of the wolfpack mentality in Washington even today. And every new memoir published by another family acquaintance of the Lincoln's almost always got it wrong, and tore anew at the heart of the family. We may not have memorialized and glorified our modern-day tragic heroes to such an extent, for we have simultaneously tried to scandalize them. But the tabloid trade it seems has always been a yellow paper. Even Lincoln was vilified in his time and after. He was, Oates, reminds us, one of the most unpopular living presidents of our history. But though the legacy ballooned to heroic proportions after his passing, the man seems to have been lost in it all, remaining only in the hearts of the family leaving quietly and unattended down the steps of the White House never to return.

In this small but valuable volume, Oates explores the reality beyond the two sources of Lincoln myth: the primary myth of a saintly and folkloric Lincoln of Carl Sandburg and a secondary myth of the 'white honky' Lincoln of the 1970's revisionists. Oates emphasizes that Lincoln drew deeply upon the "spirit of his age", which was a profoundly revolutionary time across the world. Oates relates how Lincoln absorbed one of the core lessons of America from the example of Henry Clay: : "in this country one can scarcely be so poor, but that, if he will, he can acquire sufficient education to get through the world respectably".

That slavery was the cause of the Civil War is beyond all doubt. As Oates explains, however, the North did not go to war to free the slaves. In the standard phrasing, the North went to war to 'preserve the union'. Oates explores Lincoln's fears that the spread of slavery in the wake of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision would lead to the destruction of democratic society. The debate then still raged on the world stage whether a republican form of government could last. Lincoln rejected the "ingenious sophism" that states could freely leave the Union. "With rebellion thus sugar coated [southern leaders] have been drugging the public mind of their section for more than thirty years." Secession posed nothing less than a final challenge to popular government. If a minority could destroy the government any time it felt aggrieved, then no government could endure. Thus the war had to be fought to preserve not just the American Republic, but the possibility of republican government.

Lincoln did in fact oppose slavery from early on. His views on racial matters apart from slavery became more fully progressive over time. Lincoln, however, hoped that slavery would slowly melt away in a losing competition with free labor and that liberated slaves would resettle in Africa. It is part of Lincoln's greatness that he later gave up these views. Oates explores this evolution in his thinking. Oates debunks the notion that the Emancipation Proclamation was unimportant in liberating the slaves. Oates also refutes the notion that Lincoln would have favored an easy hand during Reconstruction. On the contrary, the evidence strongly suggests he would have led the so-called Radical Republicans.

Highly recommended for any reader with an interest in Lincoln, the Civil War era, or really pretty much any American.

A secondary source reader is a hugely valuable resource for teaching American History. Portrait of America is a fantastic supplement to any US History Survey. Each essay, written by a prominent historian, provides a sophisticated analysis of certain events and personalities in American History, in more depth and detail than any survey text provides. The variety of viewpoints taken by the authors also provide an excellent springboard to discussions of historiography. I use it as a supplemental reader, along with a survey text and a primary source reader, for teaching an Advanced Placement US History course. I have also used individual selections for teaching non-AP level US History courses to high school students.

I assigned this book to my AP and Dual Credit classes for outside reading. It has submissions from several authors which exposes students to different viewpoints and writing styles. The students got a lot out of each essay and were able to better understand the topics discusses in class. Highly recommended.

We use this in my US History AP course and it's an interesting supplement. We read one piece each week. Some are amazing, others are rather pointless, but the book does a nice job of introducing each piece, and I also like the glossary they have with terms used. Overall it's pretty good.

These ten previously published essays may pique the interest of prospective "life-writers," although a majority of these pieces tend toward the theoretical rather than the practical--a circumstance no doubt arising from the fact that six treat the lives of literary figures. Although the writing is at least solid and is sometimes lively, my own preference in a collection of essays about biographical writing is the more engaging (and nearly contemporary) collection, William Zinsser, ed., Extraordinary Lives: The Art and Craft of American Biography (New York: American Heritage, 1986).

Note: In my original review I gave this work 4 stars, but I would now drop it a notch to 3 (if Amazon's system would allow me to change it) because of some errors I found. I don't believe these were intentional misrepresentations or a sign of bias, but instead indicate that the author did not examine some post war accounts as critically as he should. In particular, Oates' coverage of Marmaduke's First Missouri Raid and battles of Springfield and Hartville are at odds with both CSA and US After Action reports in the Official Records.

Update of my review:
As the author warns in the preface this is a difficult work to classify (and therefore review) because of its unusual focus. It is devoted to an overview of CSA cavalry operations West of the Mississippi. The author states that this is an adaptation of his thesis work and is unnecessarily humble about the nature of the book. Being his earliest work, some errors and lack of familiarity with some details become apparent later.

The book is well written and largely in narrative form covers the development, actions, and demise of CSA cavalry in the Trans-Mississippi theatre. It is an entertaining read because it fluidly covers the war from beginning to end from the Trans-Mississippi cavalryman's perspective. The great raids in Missouri are reviewed in narrative form with campaign maps. While I don't sense direct bias by the author, he does accept some post-war Confederate accounts without the necessary critical fact checking.

Sprinkled throughout are useful reference tables of the number of regiments and men raised in cavalry service, the cost of equipment, and the supply of horses. Following that is a list of units by state with their various field grade officers. So while I selected this work to get a better sense of perspective, I also found that it has become a useful reference for a portion of the war that is otherwise poorly represented in the historical record.

I recommend this work to anyone interested in better understanding the nature of warfare in the Trans-Mississippi, and particularly those interested in the cavalry action/raids in Missouri and Arkansas. However, the reader is cautioned not to accept the battle accounts without cross checking details.

The book contains various writings about the time from Reconstruction to the end of the Cold War. The assembled multitude of capable scholars, from Eric Foner on Reconstruction, to Paul Fussell on the Great War, all combine clarity and brevity of text with insightful analysis to make this an enjoyable read. The questions at the end of each selection make this even more useful to a high school U.S. History teacher and his students. The range of topics also adds to the enjoyability of the book. The topics include Sitting Bull, Women's Suffrage and WWI, the Bomb, Vietnam, Betty Friedan and Richard Nixon, among many other people and events. It is well worth the read.

I teach AP and Dual Credit classes and inherited this book when I joined the district. I flipped through out of curiosity before school started and found it to be a typical high school text book. Getting into the year, my students came into tutoring with questions about the book, specifically the text. They couldn't understand it and after I started reading it closer, I realized I had trouble reading it. The text is confusing and overly complex. It is designed for AP students in high school, but it fails in its goal.

The book does cover several points very well (founding fathers, early republic), but it is narrow in scope and unimaginably biased for our country on many other points (Slavery, treatment of Native Americans). I assigned Howard Zinn in an effort to balance the textbook. According to the book, our country has never made a mistake and blames the world for everything that has gone wrong. The book also concentrates on New England and the Eastern states at the expense of the rest of the country. The original 13 colonies are glorified ad nauseum while the rest of the states are mentioned only when necessary.

This book misses the mark on several occasions, especially pivotal events such as the World Wars and more importantly, the Holocaust. I understand the AP exam is biased against war, but to understand what is occurring in America, both world wars must be discussed in more detail.

America and Americans do not live in a vacuum, as much as many or us think we do.

Although this textbook serves as a good introduction to US History, it is difficult to gather much actual information from the text. In an attempt to increase readability, the authors rarely mention dates or locations of important events, leading to confusion. A timeline at the end of each chapter helps to alleviate this problem, but it is nevertheless annoying. On the plus side, many small jokes are inserted throughout the chapters and help the reader to stay awake while reading about the especially boring parts of our country's history

I can honestly say that reading/learning this book thoroughly helped me get a 4 on the AP exam. It was easy to read too.

However, it was pretty annoying to sift through A LOT of useless information in the book. There was one chapter where they took up a fourth of a page to describe Andrew Jackson's HAIR COLOR and physical features.

In the chapter about the salem witch trials, they actually felt it necessary to tell you that 2 dogs died in the witch hunt.
etc.

I am using The American Pageant in my AP US History class and feel that my knowledge of history is not as good as it could be, and I am very underprepared for the AP test because of "Pageant" being my only source of the information.

The book is frustrating. It uses roundabout language instead of giving you the facts (for instance, saying "every elected occupant of the White House" instead of "every president"). It is very difficult to figure out what it is trying to tell you.

The book is very biased, and is trying to be something it cannot. I'd prefer something straightforward.

This is one of the worst textbooks i have ever used. The book uses lame metaphors. The style of writing is also horrible. It is very hard to understand and has a lot of "fluff" information. I do not suggest any AP US history students to read this for the AP exam.

I am being forced to read this book in AP History. It is one of the worst bigs I have ever read n my life. It is boring and the author is far too verbose for his own good. He often uses 50 words when 2 will do. Do not buys this book. It is horrible beyond belief the only book I can think that is wworse then this is Founding Brothers. I wish I could ahve given it zero stars.

This book generated controversy among Lincoln scholars. The general reading public, however, will probably enjoy both the book's prose and its story. Regardless of whether there is much, or anything, new in the volume, its account of Lincoln is told with flair. Points that disturbed some Lincoln scholars will probably not be noticed by general readers. I read the book before I knew about the dispute, and found the volume enchanting.

Well I needed to read this book for a history book report. The book was interesting but also boring for a 14 year old to read. All of the political stuff but it was still a great book about Lincoln. I learned a lot about him and and how much he must have been stressing while he was President. If you like to read then u might as well read this book.

With Malice Toward None is a well-written and informative look at Lincoln's life. I am very selective about the biographies that I spend my time reading because I consider the style of many to be suffocatingly boring. I looked over several on Lincoln, and selected this one. I was pleased with it through the end. The author does not waste space on finding the "flawed" man underneath the legend, which is popular in so many recent biographies. He explains Lincoln's life in a matter-of-fact and readable fashion. One of my favorite parts in the book is the explanation of how the Civil War proceeded and the absolutely essential role Lincoln played. It will give you an insightful look at the politics and history of the time, not to mention an appreciation for how much Lincoln endured before his triumph.

IT WAS INTERESTING BUT VERY LENGTHY IN DETAIL. I THOUGHT IT WAS UNNECESSARY TO HAVE ALL OF THE EXTRA STUFF. OVERALL I THOUGHT IT WAS OK.