Kansas Books

When a good friend died his wife gave me his collection of books on the Civil War. Over the years, I have ebayed most of them, but some how, I could not bring myself to auction this book off. During a recent move, as I was packing my library, I toss this book aside to read. Wow! What a good read. Although written ten years ago, this book is strangely appropriate for our times.

Lincoln has taken a hit from the politically correct revisionist historians on two accounts: First because of his early stance on resolving the race issue (colonization), and secondly because of the limited reach of the Emancipation Proclamation (freeing only slaves in the states in active rebellion against the Union). For these reasons, modern revisionist judge Lincoln according to modern liberal standards and find him guilty of racism. Unfortunately, history is not that simple. People, at least intelligent people as Lincoln certainly was, have complex and evolving views of the critical issues of their day. Lincoln certainly did not have the hindsight that today's historians do. He was a man of his time who struggled with the issues and whose changing views on race made him a great man. It is to Paludan's credit that he refuses to give simple answers to explain the life and views of a very complex man. He shows us a complex even contradictory personality.

Especially pertinent to the current news is Paludan's analysis of Lincoln and the Supreme Court. Lincoln believed that ultimate authority in the issues before the nation was the political process, not the Supreme Court (i.e., the Dred Scott decision). Social policy was not the realm of the court, but of the congress. Lincoln saw the court having authority only on parties to the suit and perhaps as a precedent in parallel cases. But "upon vital questions affecting the whole people" American citizens could not "resign their government into the hands of judges." The same issue faces us today. The fundamental question we are facing is the same Lincoln faced: Is the role of the court to adjudicate constitutional issues or to decide social policy?

Vital to Lincoln's perception of the role of the Supreme Court was his view of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. He saw the Declaration as the promise and the Constitution as the incomplete fulfillment of that promise. The inclusion of slavery into the Constitution was a political necessity to form the union (six slave states would not enter the union without it). Thus Dread Scott was the wrong decision, immoral as it were, even if the constitution included slavery. Why? Because the promise was given in the Declaration of Independence that all men were created equal. Hum . . . funny thing, when today's conservatives cite the Declaration of Independence in defense of a theistic basis for our nation, liberals are quick to point out that the Declaration is not a legal document and that the Constitution, as the ultimate authority, does not mention God at all. Just a thought.


Ok, I can't help it. I have to talk about the anti-war Democrats of Lincoln's day. Paludan points out again and again that the Democrats of Lincoln's day kept up a constant litany that the war could not be won, that it would bankrupt the county, and that civil liberties were threatened. The peace activist of that day saw nothing but failure and thought that recognizing that failure made better sense than perpetuating it. Um. . . sounds familiar doesn't it. I guess some things never change.

Well, I guess I said enough. This was a great book. I could hardly put it down. Good thing I did not ebay it.

Well, first of all, I must tell everyone that I probably have a negative bias towards this book's author. The best thing I can say of this book is that curling up with it is much more pleasant than being in the same county as the author and his enormous ego. His scholarship in the book is a lot sounder than his verbal musings in the classroom, many of which are non-sensical and poorly thought-out, and his modern political musings which are often inappropiate and non-germane. One of my fondest memories is of him being made a fool of by a freshman student when he lectured for an hour on why a funeral home is called a "home". In typical PS Paludan fashion, he constructed an elaborate 19th century socio-historical explanation for what was easily explained by the student. They are called "funeral homes" because they were in caretaker's houses! Yes, Philly has a way of making the simple hard. This man almost ruined me on the study of history. I obviously would never buy this book, as I wouldn't want to see a penny go to this conceited egotist. I had this guy for a course 2 years ago and the mention of his name still makes my blood boil.

Like one of the previous reviewers, I too have been a previous student of Professor Paluden at the University of Kansas. I count him as one of the instructors that have fueled a passion in me to study the civil war period. Unlike the previous reviewer, I have had the benefit of having read this book before offering an opinion. Prof. Paluden offers an extremely well researched account of the civil war presidency of Lincoln. This work includes statistics and facts you simply cannot get from documentaries or other accounts. He correctly paints Lincoln as a master politician and cuts through the mythology of the man. Was Lincoln morally opposed to slavery...yes. Was he willing to run on an abolitionist platform?? Hell no, not and get elected during that time period. Paluden's real gift is painting a picture of the period and making folks realize just how important politics was in the 19th Century to all Americans (80-90% voter turnout). Unlike the previous reviewer, I have never noted the negative side of Prof. Paluden. He does have an ego, but, like has been said of his subject "no great man was ever modest". Thanks for a wonderful book professor. (Jayhawk Class of 1995).

As the title indicates, this is not a biography of Abraham Lincoln. It is, instead, a narrow, but detailed and incisive study of Lincoln's exercise of executive power between his election in 1860 and his assassination in 1865. This is important because, as author Philip Shaw Paludan explains: "No president had larger challenges than Abraham Lincoln." And Paludan proceeds to state the obvious, that Lincoln was "responsible for two enormous accomplishments that are part of folk legend as well as fact. He saved the Union and he freed the slaves." No other president did so much in so little time, and Paludan explains why. As a result, within its limited confines, this book is excellent!

Paludan demonstrates in the chapter entitled "Assembling the Cast: Winter 1860-61," that Lincoln, as president-elect, was a shrewd politician. According to Paludan: "Lincoln could be effective only if he unified the six-year-old Republican party," so one of his first appointments was "his strongest party rival," William Seward, Senator from New York, as secretary of state. As political payback for delivering Pennsylvania to the Republicans in 1860, Lincoln was obliged to appoint the notoriously-corrupt Simon Cameron Secretary of War. To counter that stench, Lincoln named as his secretary of the navy Connecticut newspaper editor Gideon Welles, who "had a glowing reputation for honesty." Within a year, Cameron also proved to be incompetent, and, in 1862, Lincoln replaced him with Edwin Stanton, who proved to be not only a man of great integrity but a very capable manager as well. It proved to be one of the most talented cabinets in American history, although Paludan makes clear that its operations were not always harmonious, most notably during the "cabinet crisis" of December 1862.

With most of the executive departments in capable hands, Lincoln "involved himself actively in matters of strategy," claiming "`war power' authority to use his office to the limits." Lincoln's focus on military affairs was essential because the Civil War generally went badly for the Union for the first year. Paludan ably demonstrates that even while Lincoln struggled to find generals who had both the talents and temperament to be successful, the Union was "forging the resources of war," which eventually proved decisive. Gen. George McClellan was a brilliant military administrator but proved much too cautious in the field, appalled by the "mangled corpses and the poor suffering wounded. Lincoln eventually lost confidence in McClellan, and he had to be replaced. One of McClellan's eventual successors, Gen. George Meade, won the great victory at Gettysburg in July 1863, but the Union did fully gain the initiative in the field until Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, who won an equally great victory at Vicksburg, Mississippi almost on the same day, was appointed general in chief in March 1864.

Lincoln's original war aim was merely to restore the Union. But the costs, human and material, of the war's first two years, made eradication of slavery a necessity. Following the battle of Antietam in September 1862, which was a "tactical draw but a strategic victory" for the Union, Lincoln announced the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. The issue then became: What was to be done with the former slaves? In December, Lincoln proposed a constitutional amendment for the federal government to pay to colonize any blacks who wished to emigrate, but blacks "rejected it, abolitionists had condemned it," and this "doubtful solution" was beyond the practical realities of the time. Even while the war continued to rage, the prospective problems of reconstruction never were far from Lincoln's mind, and, according to Paludan, this difficult issue increasingly divided the president from radical Republicans.

Paludan writes that, while the radicals favored confiscation of land which had prospered from slave labor, Lincoln believed in "peaceful, gradual, compensated emancipation." Lincoln opposed the harsh remedy of confiscation and believed that the Constitution permitted him to free the slaves only "in places where war was being made." The Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 potentially freed 3 million slaves but did not mention colonization or compensated emancipation. Nevertheless, the emancipation issue proved controversial. Solidly Republican New England remained largely committed to the war, but, according to Paludan: "Especially in the regions of the Middle West settled from the South and in cities where job competition existed between the races, people resented the idea of fighting in order to free blacks."

Equally controversial was the Emancipation Proclamation's "arming of black freedom fighters." According to Paludan, "Lincoln and his party clearly were committed to Union and to emancipation and to the belief that the two were linked indissolubly by the need for black soldiers." Almost 180,000 black troops were serving in Union armies by the end of the war. Lincoln was very conscious of the importance of maintaining the national moral, and, in Paludan's view, northern whites increasingly recognized the benefits of having black soldiers defend the Union.

According to Paludan, the Union's victory was in large part a result of Lincoln's "devotion to and mastery of the political-constitutional institutions of his time." Some Civil War buffs and many general readers are likely to find this book rather dry because it focuses on the science of politics. But, as Paludan writes, the preservation of the Union "was achieved chiefly through an extraordinary outreach of national authority." This book is an exceptionally thoughtful account of the exercise of executive power during the most serious crisis in American history.

This is not a bad book, and in fact offers a solid description and assessment of the Lincoln Administration.

Paludan describes the working of Lincoln's government well, including the personalities and major policy issues they faced. He does a good job in explaining the manueverings between Salmon P. Chase and Lincoln for dominance of the Administration and later for the 1864 Repbulican Party nomination. Also described thoroughly is Lincoln's Louisianna reconstruction plan, which gives a pretty plausible map to what reconstruction could have looked like had Booth not intervened.

I found the writing average. While the book explains the subject well enough, the prose is more workmanlike. It didn't reach the level of engrossing style other chronicler's of Lincoln and his government have.

Overall, not bad.

Quoting Mark Twain, who felt that Hayes's presidency "would steadily rise into higher and higher prominence, as time & distance give it a right perspective, until at last it would stand out against the horizon of history in its true proportions," Ari Hoogenboom states that his purpose in writing this biography is "in the hope of fulfilling Twain's prediction ...." Thus from the beginning we are warned that Hoogenboom is out to cast his subject in as favorable a light as possible. He doesn't distort the facts to attain this goal, but his judgments at times seem overstraining and one-sided. For example, a pragmatist to a fault, Hayes compromised on a number of issues (black voting rights in the South, the Chinese Immigration Bill), seeing no use in a fight to perhaps capture the high ground, yet the author is able to dismiss these moves as politically prudent. Hoogenboom includes a 5-page Afterward that is one defense after another of Hayes and his actions as president; it's such a glowing explication of the man that the only thing missing is a standing ovation.

That doesn't mean Hayes was unworthy of any praise. His Civil War career was noteworthy, serving with and leading the 23rd Ohio in many engagements, including South Mountain in Maryland where he was severely wounded. As president, his stand on civil service reform was generally commendable, fighting unsuccessfully against Congress for a civil service commission, introducing the idea of competitive exams for appointments in some departments, and ordering that federal officers not be permitted to take part in political activities. Although hardly mentioned by Hoogenboom, the Hayes administration also did much to stop the wanton destruction of much of the national forest lands. Hayes also was the one who appointed the great Supreme Court justice John Marshall Harlan to the bench.

Of course, Hoogenboom describes in detail the "stolen" election that got Hayes into office. He also relates admirably the post-presidency years of Hayes, his great interest in education and prison reform. Hoogenboom is also a competent writer, and he sweeps the reader along laudably with his narrative. The biography is an informative and interesting account of the nineteenth president; it's just that the author's singular purpose in writing the book must be kept in mind while reading it.

One of my favorite biographies, Ari Hoogenboom's "Hayes" is a positive and incisive look at the 19th president. Hayes is the prototypical Midwesterner, successful, yet humble, proper and reform minded, but not priggish or censorious. Hayes had a genuine concern for humanity and America. Though limited in the lengths he would travel to enact social changes we would today deem necessary (or that he himself would wish for), Hayes should be better-remembered. Hoogenboom's work is quite thorough, covering both Hayes's political and personal life.
Hayes has been criticized for giving up on Reconstruction and thus dooming blacks to a century of repression, but Hayes had genuine concern for blacks. However, by 1877 Hayes was quite limited in what he could do politically to maintain Reconstruction. Hayes was traditionally criticized for doing little to address the growing inequalities of the American economy. But, although he did help put down nation-wide strikes, Hayes was more sympathetic to labor than any other late 19th century president. I was also surprised to read about the extensive post-presidency work of Hayes, comparable to Jimmy Carter.

Hayes had an interesting life and an active time in the Civil War. This book is aimed at presenting a favorable picture of him, and is written kind of like old-fashioned biographies. It pays excessive attention ro Hayes' diary, and contains considerable trivia. Some chapters are boring. The most interesting chapters are are, obviously, on 1876 and 1877 and the dramatic events around Hayes' election to the Presidency. And yes, the Republicans stole that election too!

Over the last few years I've read more than 30 presidential biographies, usually using Amazon to guide me to the best book on each president. Hoogenboom's biography of Hayes seemed the best, and I was not disappointed. Hayes comes off as a courageous man of good intentions, but also as a man who was unable to overcome the nation`s problems while he was president. His childhood story is told in detail, and it reminds us just how difficult it was to survive from day to day 200 years ago. He was a genuine Civil War hero. 1876 was certainly the US's most contentious national election. There were so many deals and chicaneries in determining the outcome in 1876 that no one will ever know who should have won.

As president Hayes lacked anything resembling a mandate, and the Republican Party was divided between spoils men and those who wanted reform. Reconstruction had failed, and it is beyond me to imagine what anyone could have done to develop a better outcome for African Americans or national unity. Suffice it to say Hayes didn't solve either problem, and although he could be criticized for not trying harder to bring out civil service reforms and to insure ensure voting rights, there simply was not enough support for these efforts. He did work to make the US economy sound after a stiff recession and he was probably the only president that cared a wit for treating Native Americans in a respectful manner.

To my surprise Hayes was genuinely a good man rather than just another Ohio politician who became a 19th century president. Hayes actually considered his world and shaped his beliefs and actions according to his synthesis of the truth, rather than going along with the crowd. His reactions to the temperance movement and organized religion are worthy of our respect. Hayes made a genuine commitment to education and was a catalyst for funding black universities and Ohio State. He was appalled at excessive wealth and championed redistribution of wealth. At his core he was a man of the people and a good husband. He simply cannot be compared to most politicos of his time.

Hoogenboom's narrative lays out Hayes and his times in readable detail. He is not a great biographer in terms of bringing his characters to life, but this biography is well organized. This is a better than average biography about a fascinating time in US history.

I have to give Professor Hoogenboom credit for giving it the old college try. He does his very best to portray Hayes as an effective politician and as a real reformer. Unfortunately, the case he makes is simply not convincing.

To be fair to Hayes, this is not to say that his life was uninteresting. This biography shows that Hayes was not just some non-entity that was tapped for the GOP nomination by the power-brokers of the party, but that he had a pretty interesting life (a Civil War record of real consequence, plus an impressive career in Ohio politics) prior to ascending to the presidency.

Unfortunately, the only reason we are reading a Hayes biography is because he became President, not because he was a Civil War general or a governor of Ohio. It is when dealing with Hayes' record as President that Hoogenboom fails to persuade the reader of Hayes' impact & commitment to reform.

For one thing, Hoogenboom pulls way too many punches when it comes to the 1876 elections. He equivocates; he is not willing to say that the elections were on the up-and-up, but neither is he willing to concede that Hayes was involved in what was a truly stolen election. Anyone who thinks the 2000 election was stolen ought to take a good look at 1876. Like it or not, Hayes was complicit in this, and his credibility was compromised from the very beginning of his term.

It really doesn't get any better from there. Was Hayes a dynamic, reform-minded president? Good luck trying to prove that --- the record simply does not support that contention, no matter how hard Hoogenboom tries accentuate the positive. Granted, Hayes' administration was not the embarrassment of scandals that typified Ulysses Grant's administration, and certainly corrupt Republicans like Roscoe Conkling & James Blaine make Hayes look quite pure, but this does not mean that Hayes had any genuine tendency towards reform. One only has to examine the not particularly comfortable relationship between Hayes and Secretary of the Interior Carl Schurz to see how Hayes felt about the movement supporting civil service reform, for example.

So we are left with a mixed bag. The only other Hayes biography I have read was written in the early 1930's and was so appallingly racist that I couldn't put it down fast enough. There has been precious little written on Hayes since then, so Hoogenboom has provided a great service. It is a well-written & well-researched biography, so there are no complaints in that regard. I simply do not feel that the author has convincingly made his case.

To begin, I need to note that if given the option I would have rated this book 3.5 stars. But since I wasn't given that option I felt this book was closer to a four star piece of work than a three star book.

Bailey's main point in this book is that the sexual revolution was about more than "free love", and in fact had its roots in seemingly unrelated trends, such as the advent of mass media, interstate highways, and the growth of federal government power. Bailey does a great job in illustrating how such trends led to an environment in which the sexual revolution was possible. Her articulation of how administrators (at KU and in the army, for example) shifted from morals to practical outcomes was also very convincing.

On the other hand, I do feel compelled to dock Bailey 1 (or 1.5) stars because her presentation was one-sided and often inaccurate in its portrayal of the "traditionalists". The bulk of her writing is dedicated to articulating and exploring the meaning of the various factions of the revolution. I certainly think doing this is important, especially for a book on this topic. However, Bailey fails to get into the ideology/philosophy/theology behind the "traditional" views, which causes her portrayals of those views to be simplistic and monolithic. She is too willing to accept the verdict that all of "traditional" society was oppressive to women, minorities, homosexuals, or even different world-views. I think Bailey could learn a lot from the likes of W. Bradford Wilcox or Timothy Keller, who demonstrate that most people of the "traditionalist" camp in mainstream society actually are perverting the meaning of Scripture.

One example, especially pertinent to this book, would be the issue of "female subordination", as Bailey puts it. Timothy Keller, in particular, would absolutely refute that the Bible supports the subordination or oppression of women, and in fact he places a high level of emphasis on the meaning of love when the Bible commands men to "love their wives" in Ephesians. To be clear, Keller is one of the "traditional" fundamentalist conservative Christians that Bailey groups in with the rest, and I find his view of male/female relations more liberating than the views that come out of the sexual revolution.

In any event, this was a valuable read that helped me put the sexual revolution in its proper historical context. For this reason I would recommend this book to those wanted to getting a better understanding of the sexual revolution, its foundations, and its principal actors.

This is an excellent book recommended to me by my history proffesor here at the University of Kansas. My main reason for writing this reveiw is to denounce the view of susan jordan "susan in hollywood." I cannot believe she says those things about boys from kansas. I myself am from western kansas and for someone to say that is very distrubing and really makes you wonder how she imagined such a thing being commonplace. some people should just stay in hollywood

For those looking for a very informational book about the sexual revolution from the 1940's to the 1970's, this would be a book for you to read. This book was about how the youth at this time was blogged by war, lonely because they were away from their families at college, and stressed from school work. So naturally much of the youth turned towards sex.
Beth Bailey provides the audience with a lot of factual information regarding the change in youth. Bailey did an excellent job proving that the sexual revolution of the youth wasn't just in the west or east coast. It occured in the midwest as well as small towns such as Lawrence, Kansas. As a resident of Kansas right now and a youth I found this book very interesting because my parents went through the sexual revoltuon and I had no idea. They went through the same struggles kids today go through with sex in our country. I found this book an easy read and recommend it to not just people who lived through the sexual revoltion but everyone.

This is a very accessible, well-written book which at the same time provides a complex analysis of American's changing attitudes and assumptions regarding sexual practices. While focusing on Lawrence, Kansas, (very useful for understanding how individuals and institutions reacted within a specific context), it says much about the country as a whole. It is refreshingly forthright without being unnecessarily salacious. And it manages to inform without taking all the fun out of the topic-quite a balancing act!

Having attended KU during the sexual revolution I really looked forward to reading this book. It is interesting to read about events you actually got to attend and to read about persons you knew at college. The writer has done a masterful job of research and certainly the book was entertaining, yet it does not capture what was going on. Young people want to have sex, and they will have sex as long as it is reasonably possible. The reason there seemed to be a sexual revolution in Lawrence at the end of the 1960s was because there were now so many more college students there. This fact, more than anything else, was the moving force behind the "revolution." As I remember college, it was a time of poverty, too much work, being away from home the first time, and loneliness and isolation. Perhaps in the fantasy world of the mass media all college students were having sex, but in the real world most of us were just trying to survive. There is sexual behavior going on everywhere, and there will be sexual behavior as long as we are human beings. But in Kansas many boys lose their virginity in whore houses in Junction City Kansas. Others utilize barnyard animals. (Sheep are best.) The fact that this dirty business is kept quiet does not mean that it does not occur. The presense of many homosexuals at KU could indicate the occurrance of a sexual revolution. It could also just as well indicate that the state itself is so repressive they flock to Lawrence for a chance to be free. I don't think the author understood this and I do not think that the book is all that intellectually significant. The kids who came up to Lawrence in 1968 and began having sex there would have been having sex had they come up in 1938. Similarly those who couldn't get laid in the 1960s would have done without at any time. Additionally the gay fringe and the counterculture were simply not representative of the student body and to compare or even discuss the two groups is to compare oranges with frogs.

Dr. Jessica Langford is the psychiatrist on a radio call-in show where listeners describe their fears. Jessie knows all about fears as she was kidnapped, raped, tortured, and buried alive at age 16 by the T&B serial killer; she was his sole surviving victim. One night on her call-in show, "Cameron" calls in and describes Jessie's fear of cemetaries ("Cameron" was the name on the gravesite she was buried) and it begins to appear that the T&B serial killer wants to finish the job he started many years ago. Jessie attempts to report this and several other harassing calls to the local police department and meets Detective Jake Merridan, the lead cop for the lily serial killer case. Neither guesses that there could be a connection between the current case and the cold case (the T&B serial killer was never caught), particularly since Jessie doesn't initially reveal her past to Jake. Meanwhile, Jessie has a mysterious new patient, Mark Smith, who ties into the entire scenario. I won't spoil things by revealing the identity of the killer but will say I was able to guess his identity prior to the ending. This was a pretty good book and worth reading if only for Carla Cassidy's style of drawing the reader into the story.

When Jessica was 16, she was abducted by the T&B (torture and burial) serial killer, but managed to escape death when some teenagers out for a party in the cemetery scared her assailant away. Now 18 years later, Jessica is a therapist and radio psychologist who specializes in helping patients deal with fears, while nursing her own fear of the dark. When her last caller of the night asks if she is afraid of the dark, she gets the eerie feeling that it is not just a prank.

Detective Jake Merridan has been assigned a new case, and all clues indicate it is related to another homicide and they just might have a serial killer on their hands. After Jessica starts getting freaky phone calls at home, she goes to the police and starts to tell her story to Jake, but chickens out on providing background. Both find themselves attracted to each other - having a lot in common - being divorced single parents - and start to see each other.

As their romance blossoms, neither realizes that the sadistic killer that Jake is trying to capture is the same one that abducted and altered Jessica's life. His MO might be different, but eventually his goal to get the one that got away will not be squelched. Will Jake identify the madman before his second chance for love is stolen from him? Will Jessica be able to share her physical and mental scars with Jake?

Cassidy is a master at creating diabolical killers and heart tugging romance. This one is not to be missed and will capture the reader's attention until the last paragraph.

Eighteen years ago, Jessica Langford was the sole survivor of the infamous T and B killer. In the intervening years, she has married, had a son, divorced, and built a successful counseling practice and radio show. Now, she has begun receiving eerily strange phone calls asking about her own fears. Yet, this crime seems fairly small to the police who are wrestling with another serial killer. However, one cop, Jake Merridan, takes notice of Jessica and when things get more serious, he is there for her. The T & B killer is back, and he wants to finish the job on Jessica.

*** The suspense builds slowly; you are almost unprepared for the fast paced ending. Jessica and Jake's romance is an extremely sweet one, of two needy souls finding each other. It's almost as if two books have melded into one; a tender love story and a murder mystery. ***


Amanda Killgore

In Kansas City, therapist Jessica Langford runs a two hour evening radio show, Are You Afraid of the Dark? That provides advice to those with phobias. However, a caller states that Jessica fears cemeteries. Her producer Chris Mathison asks if she is okay as Jessica goes pale. She thinks back to eighteen years ago as a teenager when the T&B serial killer buried her alive at Hillside Cemetery at Camerson Jackson' gravesite, but she was rescued; the perp was never caught.

Detective Jake Merridan investigates several recent homicides of young females. His failure to make progress, as a serial killer surfaces, frustrates him. Jessica knows who stalked her on the air as he is back but plans this time she plans to confront her fear and the T&B killer. Her efforts take her into the midst of Jake's inquiries and he soon sees a tie with the physical looks of the victims and the radio therapist. As they fall in love, he vows to keep her safe from a serial killer who is either a copy cat or the return of the T&B.

ARE YOU AFRAID? is an intriguing serial killer police procedural romance. Jake is a fascinating lead as he struggles with a case going nowhere until he meets Jessica and his frustration changes as he needs to keep his beloved safe. Jessica has come a long way from the frightened sixteen years old near victim, but answers affirmative to the title question. Though how T&B kept his obsession in check for so long yet now is obsessed to finish the job seems odd, fans of suspense thrillers will want to read Carla Cassidy's captivating novel.

Harriet Klausner

I really enjoyed this story of suspense and romance. I love the way Carla Cassidy writes. Dr. Jessica Langford was the only survivor of the T & B serial killer, a killer which has never been caught. Now 18 yrs. later Jessie is a phychiatrist helping others overcome fear and also has a radio show where callers can call to talk about their fears. All is well until the calls start coming again and she knows in her heart the killer is back and he's coming for her! Det. Jake Meridan is someone who worked the case all those years ago and is now a single parent working on another case when two women turn up dead and they realize another killer is on the loose. Jessica goes to the police about her calls and winds up talking to Jake who seems the only one to take an interest in her problem...and her. While trying to work on his own case he is concerned about Jessica and works on her strange calls etc. Romance and suspense and keeps you guessing. Carla Cassidy has a gift and her storys are always edge of the seat and never dissapoint.
If you like a good mystery mixed with romance this is the book for you! Enjoy.

The ever-resourceful and totally delightful eponymous hero and his charges were shot at, had fires set against them, faced stampedes of cattle and avalanches of rocks.

With a delicate and subtle touch, the author describes the beginning of mutual attraction between Calico (the dependable and solid cowboy) and Josh (a young man just emerging into manhood) . We also get to see how two sheltered and privileged soon to be eighteen year olds from

With economic and masterful use of words, Grey sets his scenes, One example being, "They broke camp shortly after dawn, while the air was still crisp enough to show their breath. A flat meadow of fog and mist spread out below them ..."

This book will be enjoyed by readers of romance, westerns and good old-fashioned mystery-thrillers. I have no hesitation in awarding it top marks.

Reviewed by Terry South for Reader Views (2/07)

"Calico" combines a multitude of genre's which includes romance, mystery, western, and adventure. Calico Ramsay is the protagonist and is a cowboy who happens to be gay. Calico has to escort two 17-year-old orphaned twins who are from Chicago, to their aunt after their uncle is killed just before he was to pick up the twins at the rail station. The twins are Sara and Josh, and Calico must protect them till he gets them to his Uncle Dan's sister, Rebecca, who lives in Bow Ridge, Colorado. Calico becomes aware of the dangers they are faced with when the first hotel they stay in goes up in flames. Calico realizes someone does not want them to reach their final destination. As their adventure continues, Calico begins to develop protective feelings for the twins and must safeguard them at all costs. Throughout their adventure the twins learn to adjust to the living out in the country while Calico is learning about himself.

The characters are believable and you develop feelings and a love for those characters. Not only is this a western but also a love story. Calico begins to fall for Josh and the love story begins to grow slowly as Josh returns those feelings.

The story contains action, mystery and adventure and fans of the genre of western and romance will enjoy this read. It contains a gay developing romance that is gentle, but may not be for everyone. You will have to decide for yourself based on your taste in stories.

The author describes this book, "Calico," as a "western/romance/adventure/mystery with a twist" - with the twist being that Calico Ramsay is a gay cowboy. Personally not the type of reading material I enjoy, but was a good read.

CALICO is a delightful, unique read, for seldom do we find a romantic mystery where the protagonist is a young man in the early west. CALICO is such a book. A coming-of-age novel in the truest sense, the author weaves the deep emotional feelings of the protagonist, with the young man's attempt to carry out his duty ensuring the safe delivery of orphaned twins to their aunt. The task develops into one not as easy as he had first thought. As danger and intrigue surround them, the reader gains insight into Calico's personal feelings about the boy and girl in his care, and empathy for Calico, a man not only comfortable in his skin, but also content with who is his.

Dorien Grey's title character, Calico, is a likable, seemingly average cowboy. When he finds himself in the care of two seventeen-year-old orphans from the city -- a handsome young man and beautiful young woman-- however, we discover that he is both more likable and less average than would appear.

By shortly into the story, we have learned that despite being an orphan himself, he was raised well by his adopted uncle; by the time we are into the heart of the story, Calico has become the one person we would want to have at our own side in rough circumstances.

This might be a spoiler to some, but adding to the sometimes calamatous adventure and mystery in the story is the fact that Calico starts to fall mutually in love with one of the orphans... the brother.

Many might consider this an adult topic, but the story is told in very innocent terms. There are no overt sex scenes and the characters' restraint is palpable, making the romantic and physical moments that much more eventful.

On the limited negative side of this review, I was a bit -- but only a bit -- distracted by two things:

First, I found myself at times curious about possible anachronisms; not being a huge fan of westerns, I have very little knowledge about what would or wouldn't be common in the old west. Suffice it to say that nothing I questioned as anachronistic while reading the story caused any serious pause in my reading or my enjoyment of the story.

Second, on the topic of the book's physical production, it took me some time to get used to the book's typeface, which I felt was very narrow and difficult to read, particularly at first. Still, I never wanted to stop reading due to this issue either.

So while there have probably been countless m/m cowboy stories in the adult/erotic arena, this is the first book in the genre I have read with a tasteful, even wistful romanticism.

I would definitely enjoy reading more stories about Calico Ramsey, and I very much look forward to my next chance to read a work by Dorien Grey.

This book is about a man named Calico who finds himself in the midst of a gunfight when his adopted uncle inherits his twin niece and nephew, just shy of being adults. Calico knows something is amiss when Uncle Dan gets killed just before he was to pick up the twins, Josh and Sara, from the train station in Hutchinson.
Calico takes charge of the city-bred twins from Chicago and takes them to
Uncle Dan's sister, Rebecca, who lives in Bow Ridge, Colorado with her
husband, Mike. Calico becomes aware of the danger lurking just around the
corner when the first hotel he and the twins stay in burns up in flames. He
feels protective over the twins as the four thugs continue to be just ahead of them prepared to causer them hard.

The book comes to life and I found myself drawn to the old West with
cowboys, wagons, gunfights and small town saloons. I was impressed with
Grey's vivid descriptions of the characters and backgrounds. The story spans
from Hutchinson to Bow Ridge, Colorado as Calico and the twins make their
way to Rebecca while avoiding and fighting off the thugs. During their
adventure, the twins learn to adjust to the harsh living out in the country
and Calico learns more about himself. This book is about a different kind of
romance, but it's the kind of romance that feels natural. I recommend this
book for those who like to read western and those who are open minded. The
twist in the plot will sure to surprise you!

Reviewed by, Gracia L. Mason for CCR

"Civil War in the Ozarks" by Phillip W. Steele is an excellent read, and is written for the average reader who wants to gain a comprehensive knowledge of the Civil War. I enjoyed this book!

Treats some of the stories of the Civil War in the west without explaining the larger issues. This is an inexpensive book, but not necessarily a good value.

A "must read" for anyone interested in the Civil War in general, and the Civil War in the Ozarks region in particular. I especially liked Steele's writing style. Steele has a talent for delivering a lot of historical information while keeping the reader turning the pages wanting to know more. A very good book!

This book is designed for the average guy or gal off the street (from high school age to adult)to learn the bare basics about Ozarks Civil War heritage. Elite scholars may find it too simple, but hey... history belongs to all our citizens, not just professors and other professionals.

Recommend your read this one and recommend you add it to your collection. This work covers aspects of the Civil War often times overlooked. I is a wonderful starting place for a study of the War in this part of the country. Needless to say, it does need to be supplemented with further reading, but it is certainly a good start. Highly recommend

This is the definative biography of Nathan Bedford Forrest. Although it is clear that the author admires his subject, he provides a fair and balanced account of Forrest's life. The book is well written and thoroughly researched. If you are going to read one book on Forrest, this should be it.

Any time a writer fails to use all available sources the end result is always worthless.

The 1871 Congressional hearings of Forrest chaired by William Tecumseh Sherman regarding both Ft. Pillow and the KKK failed to support the author's tired repetition of the 1864 "investigation." Why stick with the wartime 1864 propaganda hearing when the later hearing disputed virtually everything previously assumed?

At Ft. Pillow Forrest took 39 USCT prisoner and turned them over to his commanders. He turned over 14 of the most grievously wounded surviving USCT to the Acting Master of the U.S. Steamer Silver Cloud (Federal Official Records).

Hardly the acts of a "massacre."

Same old tiring retelling of second-hand propaganda when first-hand contemporaneous sources are actually available.

Your Obedient Servant,

Colonel Michael Kelley, (...)
"I came here as a friend...let us stand together. Although we differ in color, we should not differ in sentiment." - LT Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, CSA, Memphis, Tennessee - July, 1875

The Confederacy's Greatest Cavalryman : Nathan Bedford Forrest (Modern War Studies) by Brian Steel Wills is a fine biography of perhaps the most complicated and interesting leader of the Civil War. In describing Forrest it is difficult, if not impossible, to remain neutral. For those that love or hate him there is plenty of ammunition. However, Wills does a better than anticipated job taking the neutral course.

For those that view Forrest as the reincarnation of the Devil, there is plenty of evidence, and Wills covers most of it. Forrest was a crude, ruffian slave trader who would not think twice of killing a man who he believed showed him disrespect. As Willis writes, he was responsible for the massacre of Union troops at Fort Pillow. As a General he was brilliant when in independent command, but did not do well when working under someone elses command or part of a larger team. This failure limited his ability to have a greater impact on the course of the War. His failure to work with other Generals who he believed were inferior was part of the reason that the Union Army was able to escape destruction at Spring Hill.

On the other hand, Forrest was a brilliant tactician and a real leader of men. From leading his troops out of the encirclement at Fort Donaldson to his brilliant victory at Bryce Creek, Forrest was a fighter and a leader. Furthermore, if Hood had listened to Forrest after Spring Hill, and allowed Forrest to out flank the Union troops at Franklin, the battle of Franklin may have been a Confederate victory rather than a disaster.

Willis deftly moves between the several General Forrests. He seems not to have an agenda, giving the good with the bad. At least until the Civil War ends. While Wills does describe Forrest's contribution to the founding and growth of the Ku Klux Klan, he seems to hold his punches. However, that is a slight criticism. Al in all, this is a good book about one of the most interesting personalities in the Civil War.

I have read several biographies on Lee, Jackson, and Grant, but this is the first that I have read on N.B. Forrest. I thought the battle details were about right so as to instruct on what went on and to give insight to Forrest's great ability, but not so much as to bog down a reader who has not read much about warfare. I thought Wills was fair concerning the incident at Ft Pillow--he did not place the blame at Forrest's feet, but was sure that Forrest was not in total control of his men. I, personally, would liked to have had more detail about Forrest's deeds after the War Between the States. Some of Wills' comments seem to be a little vague, and at times he seemed to be jumping sides as to Forrest's involvement with the KKK. Overall, I did learn about this interesting man and am glad that I read this book. It was a good starting place for continued reading on General N.B. Forrest.

What I like about Wills book, besides the bio, is that it addresses why Forrest was often not in the main theater of operations during the crucial times of 1864. Forrest is well defined as a frontier planter whose strong belief in honor combined with an explosive action oriented temperament made him a ferocious opponent yet he was difficult as a subordinate except under the right conditions. In the case of the latter, Forrest literally offers to slap Braxton Bragg for his lack of action after Chickamauga and only fails to do so because in his estimation, Bragg was not a man thus not worthy of the challenge. Wills does an excellent compact bio of Forrest capturing the early life and his rise to success as a slave trader and planter to a private in the Confederate service to the immediate promotion of Colonel and on. All the daring raids are captured, aided by maps but aside from Shiloh and Chickamauga, the only truly large operation Forrest was involved with was Hood's march to Nashville where the inexplicable Spring Hill disaster is laid at Forrest's feet unfairly when Hood had responsibility of creating a sufficient force to stop Schofield's escape. The tremendous work ethic combined with his fearlessness and temper is described throughout the book including Forrest's post war life and business. Forrest does amazingly well defending his Mississippi, Tennessee and Alabama sector with a relative small force culminating in his great victory at Brices Crossroads. Wills includes Forrest's post war career with an example of Forrest's feared temper by describing a railroad meeting where one of Forrest's engineers starts the discussion with a loaded pistol on the table in case the company President, Forrest, intended a violent interruption. Although not captured in gross detail, Forrest's role at the infamous Fort Pillow is described in sufficient detail along with Forrest's post war role in the Ku Klux Klan. The role of the Klan is described as an attempt to maintain a retaliatory police force against over stepping radicals and to force former slaves into roles as cheap labor and as a channeled political force obviously through violence if deemed necessary. The association with Forrest seems quite clear but murky before congress. One thing is very clear in this bio, if Forrest was involved, he had to lead the action, or he otherwise was not interested. A most feared adversary, inventive, unpredictable and incredibly daring leading his men wherever he wanted them to go. As Wills points out, how unfortunate he rarely had a suitable commander to follow in larger campaigns and he was not used effectively during Sherman's initial march to Atlanta. If he was, Sherman would not have got there until at last 1865. The book is approximately 381 pages, maps and pictures and another 100 pages of notes and index. The book is endorsed by the late Emory M. Thomas (The Last cavalier), Dr. James I. Robertson, Jr. (Stonewall Jackson: The Man, the Soldier, the Legend) and William C. Davis (The Lost Cause).

KCBS has put together a great book here. Mostly for the beginning smoker however. It has wonderful recipes from the top bbq cookers around the circuit. These are proven award winning recipes and will help any wanna be bbq chef turn out a great product. If you follow the tips and tricks in this book it will help you avoid a lot of mistakes and headaches.

While this book may come from a barbecue society it mostly deals with grilling instead of smoking. In addition, quite a few of the recipes lacked critical details. The "Champion's" recipes were laughable. I was hoping for more than: Blue Ribbon Brisket: Ingredient list: 7-10 pound brisket trimmed, barbecue rub. Instructions: Season meat with rub, cook at 225 degrees until done. The side and dessert recipes were interesting, but that's not what I buy a barbecue book for

If you buy this book, you wont learn how to BBQ. It doesnt cover enough (or any) on selecting meat, selecting the BBQ smoker, proper cooking technique, etc. But what you do get, that makes this a worthwhile purchase, is a huge amount of great recipies. Where else can you be be looking for BBQ sidedishes like potato salad and coleslaw, and find multiple recipies of each?

This is a FANTASTIC BOOK. It has a great deal of useable recipes in it. Unlike alot of cookbooks that just have a few. I highly recomend this cookbook. Would give it 10 stars if i could.Happy Barbecueing. It's time to fire up the Weber Smokey Mountain Smoker.

An absolutely wonderful kitchen tool for anyone who likes rubs, sauces and BBQ. My husband and I use this book religiously at least once a week and everything is great! The sauces and seasonings work well with all types of meat! BBQ certainly isn't just for breakfast anymore!

Being a long time reader of California history the title of the book carried me into significant anticipation. Unfortunately, this is an unmitigated bad book. At the very least, duplicitous. The author claims write about the `evolution from Mexican outpost to...crown jewel of America's western empire." There's barely a mention let alone a description of such a cultural phenomenon.

Instead, the author spends a great deal of time on Chinatown and the Chinese culture. By this, you would think California and San Francisco was once a Chinese province rather than Mexico's northern most territory.

The author wholly fabricated California. Not worth a read.

Barbara Berglund's wonderful new book let's us see the kind of people who made San Francisco fun, as well as fascinating. She takes the standard histories of the City by the Bay, turns them upside down and gives us a way to look at San Francisco that has never been done before. An important book for any bookshelf devoted to the city's history.

At last, a new interpretation of the San Francisco history we all know and love! It was refreshing to see Ms. Berglund explain how the masculine, multi-cultural frontier town evolved into an American City. We often read about the dominant personages and the gold rush phenomenon, but this book looks at the every day activities of the boarding houses and restaurants, the fairs and amusements and explains how race, class and gender figured into our culture. Brava!

Just when you thought there was nothing new to be said about 19th and early 20th century San Francisco, along comes Barbara Berglund with this splendid and readable book. By examining how the city's social elites turned the cultural stew of the Gold Rush years into a stratified society more in keeping with national norms, Berglund changes the way we think about San Francisco and the stereotypes that still color its character. Using places of amusement, hotels, restaurants and other "cultural frontiers" as her guide, Berglund takes us on a fascinating ride through San Francisco history and brings us to the present with a greater understanding of one of the pivotal cities of the American West.

We all know (well, most of us) what today's city by the bay looks like and even feels like. For the story on how San Francisco got this way -- and you should want to know this, too -- you must read this wonderfully researched report. From brothels to museums, it's all here. And barely a century old!

I grew up in the Niagara Frontier but I only knew of these battles by the plaques on the side of the road or rare weekend visits to the old forts. This is a professional and thorough treatment of a history that was all around me, hidden no longer. Thanks for this book and the excellent work Dr. Barbuto.

I found Mr Barbuto's book well written and very easy reading.
He not only covers the personalities and strategies of the 1814 campaign but also reviews each engagement from both British and American points of very, opportunities lost, blunders as well as succesful strategies and places all in the context of the personalities involved.
The only shortfall may be alittle slowness to the beginning of the book as Mr Barbuto sets the stage and puts the action in context.

This is a reasonably well researched book on the 1814 Niagara campaign. It's good to see that the War of 1812 is finanlly beginning to receive some of the attention that the Revolution and the Civil War has always received in US History. Despite the reviews that state this is an unbiased account of the pivital campaign fought on the Niagara Peninsular in 1814, I found Mr. Barbuto's account suffered from pro-American sentiments, even if they are were more subtle than Elting's earlier work on the war.

Barbuto's main thesis seems to be that the American militia gave a better account of itself in the war than most historians give them credit for. Is this a valid point? He cites the battle of Chippewa as one example where Porter's militia roughly handled the British-lead Indians and Canadian Militia, but even still the US Militia broke when confronted by Pearson's Light companies. Scott had to use Jesup's 25th Infantry to cover his left flank during the battle after Porter's militia were streaming to the rear. Granted, the militia did better here, but they still could not stand up to regulars.

At Lundy's Lane Porter's 300 odd men from his brigade gave a pretty good account of themselves, but the were defending, always easier for militia to do, and in the end along with the rest of the US army they retired from the field giving Drummund's battered British regulars a hard fought victory.

Under Gaines at the sortie of Fort Erie the Militia did manage to overrun some British gun emplacements, but the battle becomes a confused affair in the rain, and the British reserves from the 6th & 82nd foot shatter the American militia with heavy vollies as they mill around in the captured British works. The fighting also took place in broken ground and was not a stand up fight, also more favorable circumstances for US militia. These facts are
not mentioned in Barbuto's work. The American militia can do adequately when properly lead, but even on these occasions they really can't stand up to British regulars, as much as Mr. Barbuto would like to make us think they could.

The book spends a lot of time going over the first two years of the war. I thought a bit too much time was used covering this background information which can be found in many of the other general histories on this conflict. Also, the author repeated information in this background study.

The main strength of this work is the operational perspective it provides on the Niagara campaign. Barbuto's work is basically a study of the campaign's background, preparation and exicution. As such it succeeds adequately. But those seeking a more detailed description on the major battles of Chippewa, Lundy's Lane and Fort Erie should read Donald Grave's work on these subjects. Where Mr. Barbuto excels is in his analysis of the battles and how they shaped the 1814 campaign. He provides cogent reasons for why certian decisions were made, and how they influenced events. This to me is the main strength of this book, which sets it apart from the geneal histories of the conflict.

Barbuto gives too much attention trying to prove that the American army was the equal to the British after Scott's intensive training. Again, the only clear-cut victory of the campaign in the open is at Chippewa, where Scott's spendid brigade bests the British in a fair firefight. At Fort Erie they do heavily repulse the British assult, but this is not a fair fight in the open. Fortunately Barbuto does not make the twin mistakes of claiming the British attacked in colume or that they
were routed at Chippewa. At Lundy's Lane the Americans fought hard, but in the end they retreated and give up the guns they captured from the British. Even at Fort Erie where Gaine's sortie makes initial progress, the attack bogs down and the British repulse the attack.

Given these circumstances it is difficult to support Mr. Barbuto's claim that after Chippewa American regulars and militia never gave ground again. In this regard the author allows his nationalism to unbalance his perspective somewhat.

Despite these drawbacks, this is still a worthwhile overview of the 1814 campaign. There is a lot of information about US regiments and leaders, while somewhat less on British units and their commanders. The perspective is mostly seen from the American side, with some attempts to describe what the British were doing. Probably for the most detailed and non-biased accounts of the battles of 1814 Donald Graves remains the best, but Barbuto has made a worthwhile effort. It would be nice if he or another author might do the same analysis on the 1812 or 1813 campagns, but few American historians want to study this embarrassing aspect of the war in any depth! Can we blame them!Deffinitely a good buy for War of 1812 fans if the slight pro-American bias is taken into account.

I can't rate this book because I haven't read it. However, in your introduction you state that Richard Barbuto is the first to write a comprehensive history of the War of 1812, which -- unless you really mean the first American writer to do so -- is not true. Pierre Berton, Canada's best-known writer of history, wrote a two-volume, comprehensive history of the war some 15-20 years ago. And he was resolutely neutral in his approach to the subject -- Mr. Barbuto would certainly have read that work in the course of his research and would probably agree with me.

I know that Pierre Berton approached a number of U.S. publishers after his work became a best seller in Canada. All turned him down because, they said, it did not take an American point of view; it was too neutral.

I'm not in any way trying to demean Mr. Barbuto or his work, just remind my American neighbors once again that we're part of this continent, too. We share with you both its history and the experience of living here. When we write about that experience, as we frequently do (and do so capably and conscienciously) we deserve to have our efforts recognized, even if your own book publishers don't think you'll appreciate our point of view.

Sincerely,

Jerry Lawton

RICH BARBUTO IS MY DAD. HE GAVE ME A COPY OF HIS BOOK FOR ONE OF MY SCHOOL BOOK REPORTS. THE FIRST SEVEN CHAPTERS PUT ME TO SLEEP. BUT AFTER THAT I COOULDNT PUT IT DOWN. AS ONE OF THE PUBLISHER'S REVIEWERS SAID " ANY PERSON INTERESTED IN THE WAR OF 1812 OR ANY MILITARY HISTORY REALLY SHOULD READ IT. IT WAS RATHER LONG FOR AGE, BUT I REALLY LOVED IT.

A.F. BARBUTO