North Carolina Books

Thesis: William Sherley "Old Bill" Williams, was one of the greatest mountain men and was not responsible for the failure of Fremont's 4th expedition in 1848 to California.

Content: After fighting in the Revolutionary War, Bill's father, Joseph Williams moved from the western mountains of North Carolina, across the Mississippi River to the area near St. Louis. There, Bill was raised near trading posts, becoming familiar with traders, mountain men and Indians, learning to live off of the land, hunt and trap. Early in adulthood he became a circuit preacher, becoming a self-appointed missionary to the near-by Osage tribe. The Osage, instead of being converted, did the converting and adopted Williams into the tribe where he married, and lived among them, as one of them. After his first wife died he and an old acquaintance, Paul Ballio, opened a trading post among the Osage. By the time this venture failed Williams had developed a reputation for understanding the native tribes, and more importantly, being trusted by them. He was recruited in 1825 to go on a government expedition to establish a trade route to Santa Fe from St. Louis. Arriving in Toas with the expedition, he was discharged from their services. Instead of returning to Missouri he stayed for many years in the Rocky Mountain west roaming from New Mexico as far north as what would become Idaho, Wyoming and Washington. During his time in the west he trapped and traded as a free trapper, never being employed by any of the fur companies of the period. Generally free-trappers worked in small groups through the trapping seasons of fall and early spring, coming to rendezvous in the summer, to sell their furs. Old Bill gained a reputation as a loner, earning the nickname of "Old Solitaire". He also worked from time to time leading trading expeditions to California and other destinations. As the fur trade became less lucrative Old Bill led trading expeditions more frequently. In August of 1845 John C. Fremont hired Old Bill to lead his Third Expedition to the Salt Lake country. In 1848 Fremont volunteered to locate a southerly route through the mountains for a railroad into California. Again, he hired Bill Williams to guide his expedition. On this trip, according to Favour, due to Fremont's ego and blind determination, of the thirty-two that entered the mountains that winter, only 21 came out alive. Most of the 11 dead either froze or starved. Those that survived were barely living when they walked out of the mountains. Shortly after surviving this debacle Old Bill was killed trying to retrieve goods abandoned on the expedition. He was 62. Fremont laid the blame for the failed expedition on Williams, who was dead by then and could not defend himself.

Critique: Favour is a sympathetic biographer going as far as to call Old Bill Williams the greatest mountain man. His sources are recorded in copious footnotes, but his arguments sound nostalgic, and many are family remembrances from then living descendants, giving the same credence to passed-down family legends as contemporary letters and diaries. Favour also seems to be guilty of creating dialogue, without citations, between characters, often containing details only an eyewitness would know.
B.L. Clark

My favorite book surrounding the history of the mountain men era was, up until this book, "Jedediah Smith and the Opening of the West. Dale Morgan's book is a classic by any standard and contains a detailed discussion of all the events which were coinciding with the actions and events of Jed's life. One of the minor complaints with his book is that at times you can loose track of where and what Jed is attempting. Alpheus Favour's book is presented in a similar fashion (although printed about 20 years earlier than Dale's book). Alpheus, however, condenses the surrounding history and brings Old Bill Williams more to the forefront. It's a wonderful account of Old Bill's life. He was one of the many unsung heroes of the West. In other books, you will find only scant descriptions of him. These books also seem to perpetuate without any new references the common misconceptions about Old Bill (blame for Fremont disaster, smallpox bio-warfare, etc.). These accusations are hard to verify and likewise, hard to reject. However, I think that Alpheus presents enough data to bring these accusations under further scrutiny and possibly promote the idea that these accusations be dropped. The life of the mountain man was not as PC as our "civilized" life today and we should not read the accounts of the mountain man through PC goggles. They fought and killed Native Americans and at the same time they lived with and intermarried with Native Americans. Their work as it were led to the near destruction of beaver and Buffalo yet their knowledge of the terrain was crucial for the passage of Americans to Oregon and California. In our eyes of today, yes we see that these men lived a bittersweet life. Old Bill was one the best and most restless. He was born in the foothills of North Carolina and died in the headwaters of Wannamaker Creek in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado. He was living proof that once the mountains enter your blood (Appalachian or Rockies), it is hard to get them out. Wandering spirits are never conquered.

Alpheus Favour is both accommodating and forthright in his treatise of Bill Williams' life and times. Since Williams did not leave behind any diaries or journals himself, the author extensively researches through other pertinent documentations of the day to establish his whereabouts and accomplishments. Examples would be:
Attempted preacher to the Osage Indians;
Guide to the Sibley Santa Fe road survey;
Trapper extraordinaire;
Friend to several Indian tribes;
With the 1833 Joseph Walker expedition to California;
Horse stealing adventures;
Indian battles;
Guide to Fremont's third and fourth expeditions.
A prominent figure of the early American West and oftentimes overlooked for his achievements.

The greatest tribute paid to a book of history is to reprint it several times; to honor its scholarship, judgment, and lasting contribution. Few books merit that tribute more than this one. Updated information may conflict with some of the author's details and certain of his generalizations, yet this work stands virtually unchallenged as the only true and complete biography of William Sherely Williams. Favour, an amateur historian, died in 1939, three years after the publication of Old Bill Williams, the only book he ever wrote. Favour can be proud of his achievement which ranks with the best of the fur trade books.

Williams was born in North Carolina in 1787, moved to the Missouri frontier, and began trapping while in his teens. He served in the War of 1812, was in Indian trader, an itinerant preacher, scout, explorer, and mountain man. Williams, as Favour points out, was the most noteworthy of the hundreds of mountain men in the Missouri River Country. Equally important is the revealing portrait of the mountain men and their lives. In Bill Williams, the author found those unique traits possessed by this singular group of men who led a young nation through uncharted lands to a rendezvous with the Pacific.

Bill Williams' image was unlike that of the typical hero. He was a study in contrasts. Williams was tall and redheaded, dirty and disheveled, had a knowledge of Greek, Latin, and comparative religion, and ate primitive frontier food including raw calf legs. Physical strength, ability to endure thirst, scanty rations, and fatigue counted for little unless a mountain man also had determination, courage, and fortitude. Williams and a few others possessed all of these traits yet the majority of mountain men, including Williams, died of disease, hunger, Indians, or exposure.

Williams emulated Indians in dress, deportment, speech, and conduct. If being taken for an Indian was the highest compliment a trapper could receive, it wasn't such for Old Bill Williams. Whether it was lifting a scalp, hunting buffalo, or stalking an enemy, Williams did it better than any Indian and was pround of his sobriquet - Master Trapper. Williams stood out from his contemporaries regardless of the method of comparison: bringing in the most fur, outfighting and outdrinking anyone, or simply living past his 61st birthday.

Williams' six decades of life spanned the fur trade era and through his eyes the author presents that adventurous time with clarity and understanding. Williams traversed the West, battled the Ute, Apache, and Blackfeet, wandered the great mountains and parks of Arizona and Colorado, and blazed new trails. His horse stealing excursions were a legitimate enterprise by fur trappers' standards. He excelled in this field and stole hundreds of horses from California to Mexico, including horses owned by unfriendly Indians.

As a guide to Fremont's fourth expedition, which sought a railroad route through the Southern Rockies. Williams' place in history is circumscribed. After this expedition, Fremont castigated Williams, blaming him for the failure to cross the Rockies in midwinter. Williams had warned Fremont that a crossing in winter was dangerous yet went with him anyway. Eleven men froze to death. Favour tends to whitewash Williams in this incident but any blame is needless as nature wouldn't permit a crossing by anyone that winter.

After that disaster, Williams continued to guide parties across the frontier. In March 1849, Williams and Benjamin Kern were murdered by Utes evidently seeking revenge for a previous attack on their village by a contingent of the U. S. Army. When the Utes discovered they had killed Old Bill, they gave him a chief's burial.

Old Bill's death was denied by many Indians. For years they told tales of a majestic mountain Elk, with a slash of red across its crown, serenely grazing in Colorado's South Park, stopping from time to time to gaze intently toward the Southwest - toward its namesake Arizona's Bill Williams Peak which stands alone on the skyline along the western boundary of a frontier long past.

Although never quite reaching the pantheon of Mountain Men, Old Bill Williams spent most of his life among the fur-trapping greats (including Jed Smith, Kit Carson, Tom Fitzpatrick, and Joseph Walker), traveling throughout most of the Rocky Mountain West from 1825-1849. He considered himself a master trapper, though his solitary ways limited what was known about him. Alpheus Favour's book on Williams was written 70 years ago and is still the only book-length study of his life; it's doubtful it could be improved upon.

Williams was born in North Carolina in 1787 but grew up near St. Louis. Unlike most Mountain Men he was educated and could read (a different source says he knew Greek and Latin, but Favour makes no mention of this) write, and keep accounts. A religious man, he first was an itinerant preacher and made an excursion to the Osage Indians to convert them, though they seem to have converted him. He lived and traded with them for a number of years, and then in 1825 served as an interpreter on the Sibley survey of the Santa Fe Trail. This was when his trapping days began and for the next two decades Williams trapped throughout the West, from the Yellowstone country to California to Taos, which might be considered his homebase, since it was the place he often returned to. He had a number of Indian wives and children by them, fought often with the Blackfeet, was a spectacle when drunk, went on horse-stealing expeditions, and cheated the Indians on occasion when trading with them. In other words, he was rather par-for-the-course as far as Mountain Man behavior went.

His most controversial act occurred in 1848 when John Fremont hired Williams to guide him across the Southern Rockies on his fourth expedition, conducted to find a railroad route through the mountains. It was a foolhardy dead-of-winter expedition, which everyone, including Williams, tried to talk Fremont out of attempting, but Williams went anyway. Why is a good question, though no answers are forthcoming. The expedition was a disaster, with huge snows and sub-zero temperatures, and 11 men died before the expedition escaped the mountains. Fremont, of course, blamed Williams. The charge was that Williams deliberately misguided the group, hoping to come back later to claim abandoned supplies for himself. A second charge against Williams was that he engaged in cannibalism when starvation threatened the party. Favour dismisses both charges. Shortly after Fremont and the remaining men made it back to Taos, Williams was sent with another member of the expedition, Dr. Benjamin Kern, back to the mountains to retrieve equipment left there; on their return they were attacked by Utes and killed.

Favour was a lawyer and a western enthusiast, and this was his only book (he also wrote a monograph on Arizona state laws). He has researched his subject deeply and writes with clarity and authority. He finds Williams appealing, but is not enamored by him. It's a good biography, a classic of the Old West.

My grandfather gave me a paperback edition of the "The Old Man and The Boy" when I was about twelve. I am thirty three now and this book has never left my side. I have since acquired "The Old Man's Boy Grows Older." This work has similiar flavour. For those sporting people who long for the days of ethics and morality in the field and in the home this book is a must read. You can virtually smell the campfire, hear the Quail calling and learn some important lessons on life and sport.

As a success in my field, I was questioned by my trade organization what management books I kept on my desk. Only one: The Old Man and the Boy.

My mother gave this to me to read when I was 8 or 9. I have since grown up to be an avid hunter with respect for my elders and the great outdoors. I now have a son who is approaching 19 who has also read the book. He has been fortunate to have an "Old Man" by his side.

My father and I have read this book over and over. Now that I live in a large city, reading "The Old Man and The Boy" reminds me of my childhood, life in a rural community and the satisfaction of learning proper etiquette in the outdoors from someone older and wiser than I.

I've owned this book for a number of years & I find it is DEFINITELY a "keeper". My wife can"t understand why I drag it out & re-read it every Fall. I'd read & enjoyed Ruark's fiction in my younger days, but when I stumbled across "The Old Man & The Boy" it reminded me of times in the woods & on the water with my own father & the life lessons I was taught at those times. Both books together are simply a double treasure.

"Collins shows how [Kahn] gave away money nearly as quickly as he earned it, his contributions to music, literature, theater, dance, painting and design establishing New York City as an international cultural mecca. . . . Essential details are expertly negotiated, and thornier questions on the reality of latent anti-Semitism among the heirs of the Gilded Age are explored in depth. . . . As Collins aptly demonstrates, this 'self-made aristocrat' mastered the East without losing his soul, and in the process, he ennobled the arts he loved."--Opera News

"a genuinely transnational biography and a model for those who wish to engage in that rapidly growing field of historical scholarship."(Michael Kammen, Cornell University)

"A considered and nuanced account of [the] early twentieth century American Medici. . . . Collins' accomplished biographical study profiles from the cinematic deftness with which she crosscuts facets of Kahn's life, an altogether appropriate technique in limning an existence so enamored of and beholden to modernity. Her use of the language of theater and film in interpretive contexts seamlessly brings his many worlds into a unified vision."--Aufbau

In his day, J.P. Morgan was the best-known head of an American financial house. But Otto Kahn was a close second. Today, Morgan enjoys immortality in the popular imagination, while Kahn is all but forgotten. Thankfully Theresa Collins ... has produced a biography of Kahn that illuminates his importance as a man who successfully combined modern business sensibilities with art patronage. (Review by Ian Drake, Philanthropy Magazine, May/June 2003)

In the early decades of the twentieth century, almost everyone in modern theater, literature, or film knew of Otto Kahn (1867-1934), and those who read the financial press or followed the news from Wall Street could scarcely have missed his name. A partner at one of America's premier private banks, he played a leading role in reorganizing the U.S. railroad system and supporting the Allied war effort in World War I. The German-Jewish Kahn was also perhaps the most influential patron of the arts the nation has ever seen: he helped finance the Metropolitan Opera, brought the Ballets Russes to America, and bankrolled such promising young talent as poet Hart Crane, the Provincetown Players, and the editors of the Little Review.

This book is the full-scale biography Kahn has long deserved. Theresa Collins chronicles Kahn's life and times and reveals his singular place at the intersection of capitalism and modernity. Drawing on research in private correspondence, congressional testimony, and other sources, she paints a fascinating portrait of the figure whose seemingly incongruous identities as benefactor and banker inspired the New York Times to dub him the "Man of Steel and Velvet."

"This rich and fascinating biography tells the remarkable story of a remarkable man who, combining the power of an international financier with the finesse of a patron of the arts, helped make New York City a world cultural capital."--Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

"Theresa Collins's Otto Kahn is a superb piece of biography and a major work of historical reclamation. This is history written in the grand manner--sweeping in scope, majestic in style. And it restores to us in all his grandeur and cultural consequence a remarkable figure from our past."--Martin Duberman, City University of New York

"This first full-length biography of Otto Kahn offers a compelling portrait of a major figure in the history of American finance and culture. The keen eye and vivid prose of Theresa Collins illuminate the many facets of this fascinating character and his world."--Maury Klein, University of Rhode Island

Review of A Place for Theodore by Prudence Steiner The writing of history is difficult. If you're writing about someone or something already well known you face a hoard of kibitzers who question every statement that doesn't fit their preconceptions of the case. If you're writing about something unknown, well, where do you begin? How do you know what to look for? How do you know you have found everything? And how do you know how to organize what you do have? George Williams, in A Place for Theodore, has confronted both problems. Well-known is Charles William Eliot, President of Harvard, notable New Englander from a notable family. Loyal Harvard alumni and conventional historians of higher education already "know" all about him. Virtually unknown is Theodore Parkman, chemist, soldier, who was killed and, literally, lost in a small and complicated Civil War battle at Whitehall, North Carolina in 1862. The intersection of these two lives, the process by which Williams has accounted for what is known to have happened, his speculations about what might have happened and why, form the substance of this paperback (Holly Two Leaves Paperback, ISBN 0-9656484-0-0). Don't expect a tidy narrative. That's not how historians work. Pieces--letters, photos, newspaper clippings, old bullets, public proclamations and private denials--swim into the net or are dredged up from murky corners in an unsystematic way. With each new piece, historians must revise their first ideas about what happened, their earlier interpretations of the causes. Most published histories appear after years of research and speculation have refined and polished them into coherence. Williams has chosen another method. For the most part the book brings us the raw materials in a very rough chronological order. Facing pages may include the author's narrative, original materials, photos or diagrams, in an assemblage of elements that is hard for the casual reader to follow but that accurately and vividly evokes the very process by which historians gather and sort out information. Williams' favorite typographical elements seem to be the question mark and the italic; hardly a page appears without several of both. Ordinarily these devices raise suspicion: how much of this book is true? Why is the writer so insistent? Is he right? But this is not an ordinary book; in the best sense, it is not even a finished book. Rather, it shows the process of writing history, and leaves us, the readers, with a sense of the materials and an eagerness to push on, to learn more about Theodore Parkman and why historians are still looking for him. As a former teacher of research techniques, I commend A Place for Theodore to other teachers as well as to Civil War buffs. You may be irritated, you may disagree with the author's tone and conclusions, but Williams's book will give you an unusual collection of materials as well as valuable insights into the slipperiness of "facts." 12 November 1997

Everyone is aware of friendly-fire and "collateral" deaths in war. The Mai Lai massacre in Viet Nam is the most famous. Incidents from the Gulf War are still in the news. Did a President of Harvard help cover-up the death of a Harvard student? Major George Williams has written an interesting tale using historical documents and the soldier's perspective of war. This book is a unique look at an overlooked incident during America's Civil War.

Everyone is aware of friendly-fire and "collateral" deaths in war. The Mai Lai massacre in Viet Nam is the most famous. Incidents from the Gulf War are still in the news. Did a President of Harvard help cover-up the death of a Harvard student? Major George Williams has written an interesting tale using historical documents and the soldier's perspective of war. This book is a unique look at an overlooked incident during America's Civil War.

A Place for Theodore won a Willie Parker Peace History Book Award from The North Carolina Society of Historians on Nov. 1, 1997. Mr. L.G. Williams also won two other awards for associated projects.

Very detailed description of this battle with very thorough documentation. All of the pages of this inexpensive book were used to the fullest. I felt like I had gotten my moneys worth.Just like being there and some thought provoking conclusions were presented.

I decided to read The Politics of American Religious Identity after reading a recommendation of it by Elder Oaks in his interview for the PBS documentary The Mormons (http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f11cb868474e3110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=9ae411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD).

Flake's book is a fantastic read of a very fascinating period in Church history. I was struck by her account of how the Church's leadership's understanding of what it meant to be "Mormon" and the Church's core beliefs in the nature of God, priesthood authority, and revelation really came into focus during this time. In her description of these events--from the view of what I assume is a non-Mormon scholar--one can see the divine hand of revelation as God worked through President Joseph F. Smith and the Quorum of the Twelve to refine the Church and its people.

That said, it is a wonderful piece of scholarship and a enjoyable read.

Highly recommended.

This is an excellent book by an expert historian on the events that began the integration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into American life. Kathleen Flake discusses in detail the three-year-long hearings to determine if Senator and LDS Apostle Reed Smoot should retain his senate seat.

This book is not only about Reed Smoot, but also about then Church President and Prophet Joseph F. Smith. Perhaps Smith is the most interesting person in the book. His 5-day testimony before the Senate committee shows the quandary of demonstrating that the church was no longer teaching polygamy without alienating church members who were then praciticing that doctrine, which many believed to be the crowning revelation of church founder Joseph Smith, Jr. Perhaps today's faithful may be surprised that the LDS presidency and quorum of the twelve performed plural marriages after the 1890 Manifesto. (An apologetic treatment of this era is located on the FAIR LDS web site under the title "Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication.") Despite his careful statements as a witness (to the point of deception), Smith satisfies no one: not the senate, not the American public, and not the Church membership.

The 1900-era LDS church is also an interesting element in this book. The tension between the pioneer generations and their offspring over polygamy and the 1890 Manifesto fits the enduring theme of generational conflict, but also the ability of the LDS church to evolve in response to changing societal conditions.

Joseph F. Smith ultimately led the church through the transition away from polygamy and into American Life by focusing on the First Vision of the church's founder, the Prophet Joseph (who was Joseph F. Smith's Uncle.) To understand why this was effective you will have to read the book. Flake's discussion of Joseph F. Smith's eventual success in this regard is insightful and was a new wrinkle to me. Not only did Joseph F. Smith lead the church away from polygamy but he also revitalized the church's European missions, changed the policy of the "gathering to Zion" into one of building an international church; and encouraged church members to reject their isolationism and engage with their fellow Americans. Joseph F. Smith's support of Smoot's senatorial service while Smoot retained his role as Apostle proves to be a stroke of genius and ranks as perhaps Joseph F. Smith's most daring and visionary act as the President of the LDS church.

Reed Smoot is shown to be a remarkable individual. His senate career was almost 30 years long and in that time he became one of the most powerful senators and an adviser to three presidents, all the while serving in the highest quorum of the LDS church. I would have welcomed more biographical information about Smoot. Indeed this is the one shortcoming of the book.

With regard to religious bigotry in America, this book is poignant. With the candidacy of Mitt Romney, a faithful Mormon, we see the same accusations that were raised 100 years ago against Smoot: Questions of allegiance to the United States, dark implications about sacred LDS temple ordinances, suggestions that the LDS church is a subversive organization that aims to undermine the U.S. government.

It is not surprising that these repeatedly discredited accusations are once again being made by Protestant Churches and individuals. Flake shows that the Smoot Hearings were initiated, articulated, and sponsored by the Protestant churches and leading ministers of the day. Such is the state we once again find ourselves in 2007.

The drive to unseat Smoot ultimately failed for a number of reasons, including a natural inclination of Americans to allow freedom of religion, a movement away from Polygamy by the LDS church (after which the accusations against Smoot changed to questioning his loyalty to the nation), and also by Smoot's engaging personality and exemplary service as a senator.

I would like to believe we have come a long way as a tolerant nation in the past 100 years. However, it appears that we have not.

I've grown up in the LDS church, served a mission, am married in the temple, but I never really knew much about church history past 1847 and the arrival of the saints in the Salt Lake valley. I've started to become more interested in how the isolated Rocky Mountain church has grown into the worldwide organization that it is. At the same time, I'm also interested in politics, having studied law. This book was a real eye-opener for me. I found the explanation about the church deciding to reach back east across the Rockies to find acceptance to be very interesting. I also learned a great deal about Joseph F. Smith. He realized that the controversy surrounding polygamy was so great that it was taking away from the mission of the church to continue to proselytise and grow the kingdom.

It was also interesting to see how members of the United States Senate were actually arguing that Mormons didn't deserve the basic rights of citizenship that we take for granted today. Even in today's heightened sensitivity to different religions of the world, I don't think anyone would suggest that non-Christians duly elected to public office should not be seated in the office to which they were elected. Yet many believed that Reed Smoot should have been ineligible to serve because he was Mormon. Ultimately he was seated due more to political pragmatism rather than because of a true belief in the First Amendment.

Kathleen Flake does an excellent job of presenting all sides of the issues, and provides a large amount of sources in the endnotes. I would definitely recommend this book to all members of the LDS church to help understand how today's worldwide church grew from that small group of "peculiar people" in 19th century Utah.

This is a superbly written book, and one of the few works of professional, objective history that examines 20th century Mormonism. Flake's central thesis is that pressure from the US Government in the form of the Smoot hearings forced the church to abandon polygamy once and for all. Faced with the loss of its most cogent identity marker, the Mormon hierarchy needed to find a way for the Latter-day Saints to distinguish themselves from other denominations. They did so by emphasizing the restoration message contained within Joseph Smith's 1838 account of his first vision. By pointing to the vision's statement that Mormonism was a unique restoration of primitive Christianity, the Saints were able to set aside the practice that had made them unique up to that point: polygamy. Flake's arguments are basically sound, but somewhat overstated. For instance, the first vision had been used for this purpose since at least the 1880s, and she selectively sorts through the existing scholarship on the vision to skirt this fact. She also places too much emphasis on the symbolic importance of the centennial of Joseph Smith's birth and the monument that commemorates it. Nevertheless, this book easily joins the pantheon of "must read" books in Mormon history, and no student of the early 20th century church can fail to grapple with Flake's conclusions. An excellent and highly recommended work.

This is a superb book.

The book brings history to life as it clearly and cleverly recounts a demanding and difficult time in Mormon and US history. It weaves together the social, political, and spiritual themes in an easy to read and engaging way. It offers remarkable insights on how religion and politics co-mingle. It brings to life Senator Smoot and his demanding role as senator and religious leader. It offers insights into the operations of the Mormon church as it dealt with a sensitive and important issue. It offers insights into the political process at the turn of the Century and how political processes are shaped by individuals. Dr. Flake has a unique ability to bring history to life and to help us learn from this history. This book is academically credible and yet easy to access.

I was fortunate enough to have Mark Powell as a English teacher in college. I deliberately never missed a class - his teaching methods are as captivating as his writing methods. It was difficult to put 'Prodigals' down. Each chapter left me anxious to read the next. In college, he always told me that my descriptive essays were good, but I know now that they were no comparison to his. His use of description really makes you feel as though you are right there in the moment, experiencing everything the character is. And being from Georgia, I also appreciate his description of the beauty of the south. If you can appreciate novels with southern dialect and intriguing mystery, you'll love this plot. Thank you, Mr. Powell, for a beautiful story!

I just finished this novel this week, and I find its message still haunting to me -- but wonderfully so. Powell's language is beautiful, and his sense of place is strong and clear. After reading the novel, I was forced to give more thought to the meaning of the word "prodigal" and to the meaning of this book and my life. Although the novel is set in the aftermath of World War II, this book is extremely relevant to our modern lives.

Mark Powell has written a haunting tale of life in World War II era South and North Carolina. After taking a course in Southern Lit at the University of South Carolina, I highly recommend Powell's work. He follows other southern writers in portraying life in the south but adds his own unique perspective. I found his work to be thought provoking. Anyone who has an interest in mystery or just wants to be challlenged to see life outside the normal box should read this work.

I have just finished one of the finest novels anyone will ever have the privilege to read. The author is Mark Powell. The novel is Prodigals. Powell is at once historian, folklorist, and theologian. After purchasing a copy of this book, you must put on some soup. Once the book comes and the soup is ready, sit down and fall into the clutches of Ernest Cobb, June Bug, and Jimmy Morgan. You won't put this novel down until your soup is cold.
Clayton

Mark Powell's ear for dialogue and for dialect is absolutely first class. His prose is a joy. I kept nudging my wife awake and reading passages to her. There's a delicious sadness to the writing, a texture both elegiac and wise, a sensibility whose roots lie in the depths of tradition, like the blues. This is the real deal, people. Prodigals is a gem.

I was given this book as a Christmas (2006) present by my wife. It took me about one week to read. Once I started I had a very hard time putting it down. It reads very well. The book answers two questions. The first and least important of the two questions is: Why did people join the Continental Army? The more important question is: Why did they stay in the Army and keep fighting?

The book answers those two questions in a chronological series. It answers both of them for each year of the conflict. Remember that this war was the second bloodiest ever fought by the USA and lasted for eight long years. The answers to the first question changes over time and the second question solidifies by the year of the hangman (1777).

It also provides an excellent picture of who these men were, and how they responded to issues and events. It discusses discipline and morale as well. The insights are as relevant then as now, reinforcing what du Piq observed about warriors/soldiers.

The sub-chapter on religion and religious motivation may surprise many readers who are not familiar with this era. In fact the three basic components of a typical Continental Army Chaplains sermon are equally effective in sermons today (I have used them as a framework in quite a few sermons and they still resonate). They are: You are part of a larger whole, How do you remember your forefathers? How do you want to be remembered? The thoughts and imagery relating to George Washington have been lost in the modern era. When the song lyrics describe him as "God like Washington" you will understand why. Serious stuff.

I highly recommend this book. I must admit here that during my last semester and a half of seminary I researched the Battle of Oriskany and worked up an outline for a book I hope to finish in the next three years, using this battle as a way to explain: Strategy, Operations, Tactics, Individual action. This book helped immensely in getting into the minds and actions of those involved.

This is not just for this interested in this conflict alone. It is an excellent read for those wishing to understand why men fight. It serves the casual and the serious reader well.

Charles Royster attempts to dispel some of the many myths and legends of the American Revolutionary War in his book, A Revolutionary People at War: The Continental Army and American Character, 1775 -1783. While many Americans were raised with the notion that the "Spirit of `76" was prevalent throughout the sixteen colonies at the start of the Revolution, Royster shows the reader there were many conflicts within the revolutionary movement itself, like lack of desire for a standing army; theft by, for, and in the name of the army; proper use of discipline and executions; and many others. The book's timeline covers the entire war, from its birth in 1775 to the war's end in 1781. The text details stories not read in many history books: the drudgery of the soldier's life, the animosity the general population held towards the military and some of their tactics, and the general malaise of the American people regarding the length of the war. A Revolutionary People at War is well researched with over 30 pages of artwork, including portraits of some of the key figures of the time period. It does lack a bibliography and list of other noted works, which would assist the reader wanting to do further research.

Early in the struggle for independence, the American people experienced what Royster referred to as "...Rage Militaire...[what] the French call a passion for arms..." This was the result of perceived British injustices long before the battles of Lexington and Concord when American militias began mobilizing and training. This training did not reflect a mere duplication of the British model of warfare with parade and ceremony, but a uniquely American style that was adapted from "...Lewis Nicola's Treatise of Military Exercise and Thomas Pickering's `easy' plan...[which] emphasized simplicity, not show..." Most Americans believed the Continental Army could defeat the British quickly through courage and the perception that right was on their side. While most of the populace held the belief of Rage Militaire, they still feared having a standing army to fight the war. The British Monarchy's army still loomed large in their minds. The tyranny associated with a dictator is what most Americans feared and is addressed thoroughly throughout the early chapters.

Interestingly, the seamier side of the war is explored in great detail. While the cause of the Revolution and the Continental Army was noble, many soldiers and private citizens alike used the "cause" for profit. Soldiers turned to theft for many reasons, "...[they] argued that, since property would soon fall under British control, they might as well take it." Of course, there was plenty of crime amongst the soldiers while in camp or on guard duty, with crimes that ranged from petty theft to assault. Moreover, there were those who donned something that resembled a uniform, and since "...the Continental Army used a wide variety of uniforms, and officers had theirs privately made....Consequently, no one was surprised to find [officers] in varied but impressive military dress, riding around the countryside making arrangements for the army..." These "officers" bought and sold provisions to the army and in the name of the army at high markups making huge profits. Not only was theft a problem, but so was the use of profanity, poor personal and camp-wide hygiene, relationships between officers and their men, and general relations with the local population. Further still, the debate raged regarding proper punishment. Flogging was popular (usually via the cat-o'-nine-tails), but the argument over how many lashes one received pitted George Washington against Congress. He believed the standard one-hundred lashes too lenient, and Congress asserted that Washington's recommendation of five-hundred too severe. Further, Washington resorted to execution for the most serious of offenses, like treason or desertion. The problem lay with Washington's ploy of granting last minute pardons, resulting in the death sentence losing much of its sting as a deterrent to crime.

Even with the surrender of British General John Burgoyne at the Battle of Saratoga, the Continental Army had few victories. The other major win, although not against the British directly, was the victory at Trenton on Christmas 1776. Throughout 1777, most Americans believed victory and the end of the war was near. Throughout the harsh winter at Valley Forge, after poor performances at the Battles of Brandywine and Germantown, the morale of the army was at an all-time low. Criticism of General Washington ran rampant and the Rage Militaire that possessed the country in 1775 was all but gone. Many believed if he had achieved victory like Horatio Gates did at Saratoga, the war might have already been won. Washington, of course, weathered the storm to bring the army out of Valley Forge better trained (with the help of Baron von Steuben) and faced 1778 with optimism.

Royster's text continues with an even more gloomy assessment of the war. "Between May and October 1780, the popular expectation of imminent victory received three sharp blows: the surrender of Charleston, South Carolina...; the rout of Horatio Gates' southern army at Camden, South Carolina...; and the defection of General Benedict Arnold..." These challenges were overcome, of course, beginning with the appointment of General Nathanael Greene to the position of commander of the southern army in early 1780. The defection and betrayal of Arnold was harder to swallow, especially amongst Washington and his general staff. As Greene lamented of him, "How black, how despised, loved by none, and hated by all. Once his Country's Idol [sic], now her horror." Despite these setbacks, the Continental Army did prevail, effectively ending the war at the Battle of Yorktown in 1781.

When the fighting ended, Royster's final chapter describes the feeling of exhilaration felt by most of the country. As John Murray, a Newburyport, Massachusetts preacher was quoted, "`Joy dances in every eye. Pleasure beams in every countenance; and every bosom beats high with the emotions...'" However, lest the reader thinks A Revolutionary People at War will have an uplifting ending, he goes on to describe many other pressing issues, like paying the army. "The prosperity that the soldiers hoped for did not begin with their receiving back pay or even current pay. Washington tried to get Robert Morris [Congress' wartime financier] to obtain three months' back pay..."

The author brings to light in A Revolutionary People at War: The Continental Army and American Character, 1775 -1783 the darker side of the war. He is successful in bringing into focus how desperate the war years were. Yet despite the hardships and turmoil associated with the period, the Continental Army still overcame a formidable opponent and cleared the way for a federation of independent states. The reader could be nonplussed by these negatives because the outcome is known. If this were a novel rather than an historic overview, the ending surely would be different. It was with the hope and the perseverance of those involved that victory was attained.

In A Revolutionary People at War: The Continental Army and American Character, historian Charles Royster searches for and analyzes the "American character prevalent during the War for Independence." (vii) Royster finds that with regard to the Continental Army specifically and the Revolutionary populace in general, "allegiance to the `American'...side in the War for Independence was the prevailing sentiment" in the United States, and that this allegiance was based primarily on what he terms "a national character." (viii) throughout the course of this book then, Royster chronicles the revolutionary character of America's soldiers, and how it changed markedly as the war progressed. One of his central questions concerns the "ideals espoused during the revolution," and how the patriots' actions measured up to them. By 1783, Royster finds that the gap between ideals and reality was often significant. Eight years of war, it seems, "severely tested American's dedication to independence." (3)
Royster uses a prologue to define his terms with a useful essay on the idea character. The war would test Americans, especially those in their country's uniforms, and determine if they were worthy of victory. Eventual victory would of course demonstrate that revolutionary soldiers had the necessary virtue and selflessness to be deserving of such good fortune. Soldiers were keenly aware that the eyes of world were on them, and that their sacrifices would be remembered throughout the ages by countless generations of their descendents. Royster shows that Continental soldiers were inspired by religious beliefs, knowing that God was on their side. These men also employed the language of slavery to describe their predicament-if they failed, they argued, Britain would not only enslave them, but their children as well. Thus, these men in arms had a sacred duty: "the struggle for independence was the greatest test of the chosen people. In it they bore the weight of both their heritage and God's promise for the future." (9)
In 1775, Americans began the war with high ideals in a period Royster denotes as the "Rage Militaire." The Continental army went about preparing to defend America in a uniquely American way, reflective of the national character. Royster points to simplified drill manuals, short-term enlistments, soldiers in hunting shirts and civilian control of the military establishment as evidence that Americans would wage a war based upon their own terms, not simply by mimicking the British. Yet by the end of 1776, the "contrasts between the ideals of 1775 and the conduct of the war" were apparent, in the form of battlefield defeats and Continental army's "lack of discipline and decorum." (58) Numerous desertions, for example, showed that not all American soldiers lived up to the ideals of patriotic sacrifice in the face of adversity. In fact, "not only did the Continental Army fall short of Americans' ideal of an army," Royster notes, but recruiting difficulties created "a network of evasion and corruption that spread far into the populace." (63) He asserts as well that as the virtues of the soldiers were called into question after reverses, desertions, and abuses, many revolutionaries distanced themselves from the army, and denied that it embodied the cause of liberty exclusively.
By early 1777, the army was not seen by Americans as virtuous. Many civilians began to associate active military duty with a class of people-the young, unattached, "shiftless" types who were more logically suited to the ardors of Continental service. This attitude greatly curtailed recruiting of army battalions to full strength. High enlistment bounties designed to encourage men to join the ranks attest to the fact that the spirit of sacrifice so widespread in 1775 was much reduced by the beginning of the campaign of 1777, as did unscrupulous recruiting officers, uncooperative civilians and unruly men in the ranks. Americans, Royster finds, were reluctant to rely upon a standing army to secure their liberties. They wanted "the moral miracle of a quick victory that came from [the] virtuous ardor of a chose people." (151) Too often, however, the army's behavior both on and off the battlefield did not live up to the expectation of those to whom they were charged to defend.
By the latter stages of the war, as Royster demonstrates, the differences between the ideals of virtue and common practice were in sharp contrast. As evidence, he cites the "extensive trade with the enemy" (272) in some areas of the colonies; excessive profiteering by suppliers of war materiel; graft among officers and men; and "the widespread failure to enlist." (276) Royster is clear to point out that these actions did not signify a weakening of desire for victory and independence, but a weariness and desperation instead. The bitter, internecine fighting in the Carolinas and the lower Hudson Valley demonstrated not a slackening desire for independence, but how far patriots had drifted from the ideals of the early days of the struggle.
What Royster finds in the end is that despite the inability of most Americans in and out of uniform to live up to the virtuous ideals of 1775, by the end of the war it matter little. Americans remembered the war as they wanted to, one in which men fought for liberty and won through sacrifice and honorable means. "The popular interpretation of victory in the Revolutionary War," he finds, "restored the citizens to their original and vital stature as the pillars of America's future glory." (360) While some readers may find his assertion that "the founding generation had left the country's strength, virtue and liberty intact" (366) a bit hyperbolic and subject to alternative interpretations, nevertheless Royster's story is one of ideals, trials, hardships, perseverance and undeniable victory. A Revolutionary People at War is a well-written, expertly researched analysis about character. Like the men described in its pages, the book succeeds remarkably well.

This is an excellent study of the Continental Army without which the Revolution would not have been won. Charles Royster is a first class historian and this is one of the best, if not the best, book he has written.

It is something of a social history and it gives a complete account of what the Continental army was like, its motivation, origins, and development, warts and all. I cannot think of another work that covers this topic as well as this one.

One of the most interesting facets of the book, though, is the appendix that covers statistics and the motivation of the Continentals. This gives a true and accurate picture of the Continentals and give them a human face. They weren't demigods, but soldiers who enlisted in an army that had a hard task ahead, and who sometimes failed, always endured, and finally won. In many ways it was the toughest, best army the US ever fielded. It definitely was the most enduring-no other American military force suffered from and finally overcame such an imposing set of obstacles. This book gives a much more accurate picture of the Continental Army than Charles Neimeter's American Goes To War. Charles Royster has a definite story to tell and he tells it with verve, panache, accuracy, and a definite empathy for his subject. This book is a definite must for any student of the American Revolution

This is one of the key questions Charles Royster seeks to understand in this important analysis of the American Revolution. Following a chronological approach, Royster probes the ideology of revolution, the rise of an effective fighting force to conduct that revolution, and the control of that spirit of revolution. He concentrates on the intellectual issues that arose in the context of fighting the British Empire. He believes that the men in the Continental Army not only rebelled against the perception of British tyranny but also against the issue of militarism. Americans rushed to join the army in 1775 because of what he called a "rage militaire" that represented a disavowal of British colonical policies and rule. This reaction might have been virtuous and patriotic, but that emotion did not sustain the Continental Army over the long haul of difficult battles and hardships. So what did?

Royster asserts that the Continental Army both shaped and tested the ideals of the American Revolution. He notes that the vision of liberty and independence, freedom and eqality, and the desire to create a new promised land outside the authority of a staid Europe motivated the men of the army. Morale went up and down depending on their fortunes, but their faith in this vision remained. Royster's key point seems to be: "in the eyes of the revolutionaries, war put to the trial the military ardor and skill as well as the moral assumptions on which they based their hopes for American independence. To fail as defenders of ideals was to fail as Americans, to succeed was to give the victors, their country, and its liberty the prospect of immortality" (p. 3).

The Continental Army, in Royster's estimation, was both loved and hated. It was needed for victory, but the ideals of the nation were non-militaristic and in many instances overtly pacifistic. There was a constant questioning of the role of the army in American society, especially after victory had been achieved. In spite of this, Royster believes generally remained a positive force precisely because of its leadership, patriotism, and professionalism. At the same time, there was always a suspicion that the army would act to subvert individual liberty. The tension was palpable. While the Continental Army won the war and ensured the creation of the American nation, it's role was never valued in the way that veterans believed appropriate.

The most interesting part of this book is the sense that the Continental Army embodied a national character or idealism. Did such a thing exist in 1775, 1776, 1783? If it did, it is a notoriously slippery concept, as it remains to the present. Without question, "A Revolutionary People at War" is a provocative statement of the role of the army in American life at the time of the founding of the republic. It may represent an overstatement of idealism, but it is an interesting one.

It is hard to believe that other people have not written about Richard Taylor, but they need not bother now that Parrish has written this book. This book on Taylor is engaging and interesting, but also very scholarly. Although Parrish's writing style can be dry at times, his topic does not allow the book to get mired in details or become boring. Instead, Taylor's life jumps off the pages and Taylor led such a life that we, the reader, get a great overview of pre-Civil War politics, the war in the Trans-Mississippi, and the Reconstruction Era. Normally, I find the pages on the time before and after the war somewhat boring, but this was not the case with this book. The whole book really kept my attention and was very interesting. Thinking back, I really cannot think of any criticisms of this work. Just a good, solid history book.

In my humble opinion, Parrish's is one of the best biographies I have ever read. Admittingly, the book is about a fascinating person: the son of a US President and Mexican War Hero who continues his family's military heritage by becoming a Lieutenant General in the Confederate Army without the benefit of a West Point education and becomes power in pre and post Civil War Louisiana. Writing a book about such a person should result in an interesting read!

Throughout the book, Parrish maintains an excellent balance in presenting Taylor's life, including: early life and pressures as the son of a famous hero, early indifference to formal education, success as a wealthy plantation owner, relationships with slaves, views of slavery, entrance into Louisiana politics, CSA military service eventually leading to the rank of lieutenant general, post Civil War years, and later years. Parrish does an excellent job of covering each area and as a result, the reader learns the many sides of a fascinating character.

Particularly interesting to me were the descriptions of Taylor's relationships with several noted Civil War personalities: Lee, Davis, Beauregard, Johnston, Jackson, Grant, Sibley, Smith, Forrest, Bragg, and others. With few exceptions, Taylor was able to get along with most of the people he encountered during the war - a rare accomplishment indeed. Parrish does an excellent job or summarizing Taylor's valuable service to the CSA and the book contains excellent maps of the battles Taylor participated in.

All in all, an excellent and highly recommended read of one of the Civil War's most fascinating personalities!

This is a highly readable yet scholarly treatment of an important nineteenth century Southerner. Dick Taylor, son of President Zachary Taylor, was a Yale-educated aristocrat and Louisiana sugar plantation owner when the Civil War broke out. By war's end he was a Lieutenant General. Although he had no pre-war military training, he became one of the Confederacy's most able commanders. Parrish expertly covers Taylor's entire life, but naturally focuses on the Civil War exploits. In addition to being an excellent strategist and tactician, Taylor was colorful, self-confident, oblivious to what others thought of him, and a lifelong practitioner of noblesse oblige. Parrish is clearly enamored of his subject, but this does not stop him from critically examining the contradictions and hypocrisies inherent in Taylor's worldview. The book is free of the anachronisms and politically correct jargon which mar so much recent American historical scholarship.

This is a highly readable yet scholarly treatment of an important nineteenth century Southerner. Dick Taylor, son of President Zachary Taylor, was a Yale-educated aristocrat and Louisiana sugar plantation owner when the Civil War broke out. By war's end he was a Lieutenant General. Although he had no pre-war military training, he became one of the Confederacy's most able commanders. Parrish expertly covers Taylor's entire life, but naturally focuses on the Civil War exploits. In addition to being an excellent strategist and tactician, Taylor was colorful, self-confident, oblivious to what others thought of him, and a lifelong practitioner of noblesse oblige. Parrish is clearly enamored of his subject, but this does not stop him from critically examining the contradictions and hypocrisies inherent in Taylor's worldview. The book is free of the anachronisms and politically correct jargon which mar so much recent American historical scholarship.

This is the best bio I have read to date of General Taylor, although sometimes one must wonder if Mr. Parrish had much sympathy for his subject, with his sometimes disparaging remarks about Southern patriarchy. Perhaps he was simply trying to be PC on the slavery issue, but this didn't add much to the book for me. Still, serious students of General Taylor's exploits and the Western theater of the war will find this book an excellent resource

This is an extremely insightful examination of the election that first put Grover Cleveland in the White House. The ways in which Summers analyzes the political process remind me of Holt's masterpiece, "The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party". (That is a much more massive book, as it covers a broader topic over a longer period). The use of political cartoons of the period to support the narrative is probably the best I've seen. The style is engaging, although occasionally I think Summers gets slightly carried away. For example, at least one discussion of the standard myths about the period goes on long enough to be somewhat disruptive. Also, while I don't detect any factual bias, there is a tendency to look at things more a Republican perspective. That is, issues (e.g., the role of the minor parties) are more often discussed in terms of problems facing the GOP and how well they did or did not deal with them. The outcome of the election is reported in language that seems rather wistful that Blaine lost. Again, this is only a matter of relative emphasis - there is excellent material on the complex relations between the Democrats at the national and state levels and the rival Democratic machines in New York City. Despite my minor quibbles, I highly recommend this book to anyone with a general interest in American political history, and it certainly must be read by anyone with a particular interest in this period.

The last half of the 19th century is a period that the historians generally give short shrift to. They dutifully plow through it in the obligatory chapter in their rush to get from the Civil War to Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and the Progressive Era. The campaign of Grover Cleveland against James Blaine for the presidency in 1884 is just about forgotten. This is too bad because what with the emphasis on character and values (accompanied by some really gross mudslinging), the extensive changes in technology and business, the factionalism and divided government, it was a period much like ours. Summers does an excellent job of dispelling the prevailing view of this period as a doldrum bookended by Lincoln and TR. In a comprehensive yet not overly long book, he shows that substantive issues like the tariff, the relationship of the national government to the states, morality in politics, substance abuse (ie prohibition), and other pressing matters really were at stake, he explores those issues and the men and women who had to face them. This book is one of the best treatments of the 1884 presidential campaign (or any other campaign for that matter) out there. Find a copy of this book and read about a time that is so much like ours.

As an undergraduate at the University of Kentucky some years ago, Professor Mark Summers changed my life and I eventually devoted my life to the study of history. His lectures made the past come alive and seem so fresh and real and vital. Anyone who has read any of his books can relate to the sense of excitement that I am describing, and his latest book is no exception. In fact, it is perhaps his best book yet. Lively, fast-paced, yet scholarly and thought-provoking, Summers' book is everything that his readers have come to expect. I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in nineteenth-century politics or U.S. history in general, or for those who consider history dry and boring and would like read a book where the past truly does come to life.

Anyone interested in politics or American history should love this book. The writing style is crisp and entertaining and the author strikes the right balance between explaining long ago and long forgotten events without drowning the reader in unnecesary details. The 1884 election itself was one of the most interesting of our history with sex scandals, charges of political corruption, party splits, and campaign blunders. The author brings the excitement to life and lets the reader understand not only what happened but why it occured and, even more interesting, what the participants had hoped to accomplish with their political strategies. The book succeeds in describing how late 19th century elections looked and felt to the participants. The human dynamic skillfully set out in this book (the cynical maneuverings, the overheated rhetoric, and the intense partisanship)are very familiar with what we experience in campaigns today-this very familiarity helps make Blaine and Cleveland seem real and not just sterile historical figures. Read this book!

Mark Summers is one of the great historians of mid-nineteenth century America. He is fully capable of taking subjects which have seemingly been worked to death and making them fresh with new material and original analysis. Rum Romanism and Rebellion does just that, making Blaine and Cleveland seem more vital and alive than the current occupants of the White House. The issues engage us, the political battle grips us. This is one of the author's best (to my mind, Mr. Summers best work is his two volume work on political corruption [neatly divided between ante-bellum crooks and post-war thieves]; let's hope that Mr. Summers has a trilogy in mind and next turns his attention to wartime corruption: from the transcontinental railroad to the supply of Union soldiers and the appointment of generals, that era was rife with corruption, yet very little has ever been written about it). Well done, Mr. Summers!

I had to read this book for my History of Slavery class, thought by the author. Dr. Morgan gave excellent insight in addition to his book. I would suggust this book to anyone for anytype of reading, pleasure and required.

Morgan's analysis will give anyone who wants to know more about slavery an immense amount of material. Comparing the Chesapeake and Lowcountry areas of the American colonies during the eighteenth century, Morgan discusses the economic and cultural sides of the different slave institutions and discusses black-white encounters. No matter how one may try to define slavery in one, distinct way, Morgan shows there is always an exception to that definition. I know Morgan worked for many years to produce this book and that this book is the culmination of an immense amount of research and analysis, but this book would make a larger impact if it was shorter. By the time I was done reading this mammoth book, I had a hard time remembering all the topics he brought up. For any history student, like me, it is worth reading, but make sure you give yourself plenty of time to understand it.

I had the pleasure of listening to this author lecture to in class during my senior year of college. Having the opportunity to discuss this book with the author made Slave Counterpoint come to life. Slave Counterpoint makes the topic of Antebellum slavery captivating for those interested in learning about the early days of slavery in the Cheasapeake Bay region. I strongly recommend this book to anyone who has a sharp curiosity about early colonial history and wishes to be engaged in an honest account of events(I would recommend reading this book a couple of chapeter at a time).

Philip D. Morgan's exhaustively researched and extremely detailed text seeks to compare and contrast the social structure and overall formation of the slave systems of the Chesapeake, VA and Lowcountry, SC regions during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Morgan does not adopt a narrative approach: he offers numerous discussions-all of which are deftly integrated into his descriptive analyses-of how black cultures changed over time. Morgan spends the 700-odd pages eschewing monolithic portrayals of black culture at almost every opportunity, preferring to investigate complexity and contradiction rather than to resort to pithy judgment. This is an excellent, important read.

I have read no better detailed study than this book. Long but worth it due to the rich detail.