|
 |
|
Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chiefx$14.30
  (39 reviews)
Best Price: $35.00 $14.30
James McPherson, a bestselling historian of the Civil War, illuminates how Lincoln worked with—and often against— his senior commanders to defeat the Confederacy and create the role of commander in chief as we know it.
Though Abraham Lincoln arrived at the White House with no previous military experience (apart from a couple of months spent soldiering in 1832), he quickly established himself as the greatest commander in chief in American history. James McPherson illuminates this often misunderstood and profoundly influential aspect of Lincoln’s legacy. In essence, Lincoln invented the idea of commander in chief, as neither the Constitution nor existing legislation specified how the president ought to declare war or dictate strategy. In fact, by assuming the powers we associate with the role of commander in chief, Lincoln often overstepped the narrow band of rights granted the president. Good thing too, because his strategic insight and will to fight changed the course of the war and saved the Union.
For most of the conflict, he constantly had to goad his reluctant generals toward battle, and he oversaw strategy and planning for major engagements with the enemy. Lincoln was a self-taught military strategist (as he was a self-taught lawyer), which makes his adroit conduct of the war seem almost miraculous. To be sure, the Union’s campaigns often went awry, sometimes horribly so, but McPherson makes clear how the missteps arose from the all-too-common moments when Lincoln could neither threaten nor cajole his commanders to follow his orders.
Because Lincoln’s war took place within our borders, the relationship between the front lines and the home front was especially close—and volatile. Here again, Lincoln faced enormous challenges in exemplary fashion. He was a masterly molder of public opinion, for instance, defining the war aims initially as preserving the Union and only later as ending slavery— when he sensed the public was at last ready to bear such a lofty burden.
As we approach the bicentennial of Lincoln’s birth in 2009, this book will be that rarest gift—a genuinely novel, even timely, view of the most-written-about figure in our history. Tried by War offers a revelatory portrait of leadership during the greatest crisis our nation has ever endured. How Lincoln overcame feckless generals, fickle public opinion, and his own paralyzing fears is a story at once suspenseful and inspiring.
|
Customer Reviews
|
A perceptive and persuasive volume by a superior Civil War historian
By A2MVUWT453QH61 on 2008-10-11
Many scholars have described Abraham Lincoln's legacy, but surprisingly few have chronicled his role as Commander-in-Chief. Arguably our premier Civil War historian, James McPherson, whose Battle Cry of Freedom won the Pulitzer Prize in 1998, brilliantly remedies this neglect.
"In his conception of military strategy," writes McPherson, "Lincoln was Clausewitzian. The Prussian theorist of war had written that 'the destruction of the enemy's military force is the leading principle of war,' and it "is principally effected only by means of the engagement' that is, by 'hard, tough fighting.'"
Lincoln was often frustrated by his generals' lethargy, especially by George McClellan, a pompous prima donna with a messianic complex who preened himself as being "The Young Napoleon." Strutting about like a bantam rooster, McClellan boasted that he, and he alone, was destined to save the Union. True, by means of seemingly endless formation drills, he whipped the Union army into a formidable fighting force, but then stubbornly refused to budge against the enemy. Whining and complaining, inaccurately, that the Confederate forces arrayed against him were at least twice the size of his Army of the Potomac, he postponed, time and again, an offensive campaign, to which cowardly inactivity Lincoln tartly retorted, "If you don't plan to use the army, may I borrow it for a while?"
Only in the last year of the war did Ulysses S. Grant, William Tecumseh Sherman, George Henry Thomas, and Philip Henry Sheridan grasp Lincoln's insight that the Union's concentration in time (simultaneous coordinated attacks) trumped the Confederate superiority in space (by using interior lines).
Tried by War is a fascinating narrative not only of Lincoln's prescient military leadership but also a bird's-eye view of the major military encounters of the Civil War. McPherson has written a perceptive and persuasive volume.
About the author: James M. McPherson is the George Henry Davis `86 Professor of History Emeritus at Princeton University, where he taught for three decades. He is the bestselling author of numerous books on the Civil War, including Battle Cry of Freedom (which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1998), For Cause and Comrades, which won the prestigious Lincoln Prize, and Crossroads of Freedom. He lives in Princeton, New Jersey.
"Stunningly Original"?
By AEFGAXZB71495 on 2008-10-27
Doris Kearns Goodwin's review claims that McPherson's new book, "Tried by War" is "stunningly orignal" but I fail to see how unless one takes into consideration McPherson's claim in his introduction that his latest book is the first, which is debatable, to exclusively deal with the subject of Lincoln as a war president.
I'd purchased "Tried by War" because of my long held admiration for Mr. McPherson writings - particularly his book,"Battlecry of Freedom", which is perhaps the finest one-volume history of the American civil war ever written - and to feed my continual hunger for orignal scholarship. Unfortunately,there is not a fact, story or theory in McPherson's latest work that has not been mentioned, rehashed or retold by any number of prominent Civil War historians, including Foote, Catton, Donald, Oates or even Kearns in her wonderful, "Team of Rivals".
Now having said that I will say "Tried by War" for a first time reader or someone who's just discovered the allure of American Civil War history is an excellent introduction to the subject.
An excellent account of Lincoln's leadership
By AD1PEPHBX4JH1 on 2008-10-11
McPherson has written an excellent account of how Lincoln managed his generals during the Civil War. According to McPherson, Lincoln wanted generals that would attack and destroy the Confederate army and also cooperate with each other on a broad front. Also this book is an account about how Lincoln embraced the abolition of slavery as a goal to be acheived at the end of the war. McPherson states Lincoln had two strategic concepts in mind which is to attack and destroy the rebel armies and that the Union army needs to attack on a broad front. Lincoln put up with Buell and McClellan because they were the best generals available but once the former failed at Perryville and the later at Antietam to destroy the Confederate army, Lincoln relieved them both. During this time period Lincoln kept Grant in the army, despite the protests by Halleck, because he attacks the enemy army. This desire to destroy the rebel army was one of the reasons why Linclon transfered a significant portion of McClellan's army to Shields and Fremont in the valley in order to destroy Jackson's army but they failed and Lincoln relieved them. After Hooker,Burnside, and Meade were unable to defeat the rebel army, Linclon found his general in Grant, who constantly attacked Lee and defeated the Army of Virginia at Five Forks. Sheridan and Thomas also extinguished two rebel armies as well. Finally Grant fulfilled Lincoln's strategic goal by attacking on a broad front with generals Grant and Sherman attacking at the same time.
This book is also about how Lincoln changed his attitude toward slavery during the war. When the war started Lincoln preserved slavery in the border states in order for them to remain in the Union. Lincoln's war goal at that time was just to keep the union in tact, but this changed in 1862 with the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln felt that freed slaves could be used against the Confederacy because they deprived it of manpower so he signed the Proclamation in 1862. Linclon soon allowed ex-slaves in to the Union army and once they were either killed or put back into slavery, Lincoln terminated future prisoner exchanges between the Union and the Confederacy. Ulitmately Lincoln would not listen to any Confederate peace offer until they gave into Union demands to abolish slavery.
Overall McPherson does a supberb job at telling why Lincoln was a excellent commander in chief, but he seems to skim over Linclon's suspending habeas corpus. McPherson's thesis about civilians like Lincoln having a greater strategic sense than their military counterparts is very similiar to the one that Eliot Cohen made in his book "Supreme Command." But unlike Cohen, McPherson makes a much stronger and detailed arguement about why Lincoln was better at conducting the war than some of his generals.
Disappointingly Superficial and Unoriginal
By AJ98YA4Y333BK on 2008-11-13
I admire McPherson's wonderful "Battle Cry of Freedom" and looked forward to this book as well as its emphasis on Lincoln's role as commander in chief. While the topic is not as "neglected" as claimed by McPherson, given that every study of Lincoln inevitably spends a good deal of time on the topic, it is a good subject for a full length work. But in the end, McPherson adds very little to the Lincoln literature. While well written, and while constituting a good introduction to the subject, the book is superficial.
McPherson had two basic choices in approach. He could have focused on the details of specific military decisions and relationships with generals and drawn broader conclusions therefrom. Or he could tell the narrative and fit it into his broader interpretations and analysis of the basic controversies fought over this subject. McPherson chooses the latter, but he short-changes the reader on the interpretation and analysis.
His best contribution is the notion that Lincoln grasped the advantage the Union had in "concentration in time" -- the ability to overwhelm the South by attacking on mulitple fronts at once. This trumped the South's advantage in "concentration is space." That is, Lee had the advantage of familiarity of terrain and interior lines of supply and communication. He seemed able to concentrate more men at focused points. In McPherson's estimation, Lincoln's generals (except for Grant) did not sufficiently appreciate this lesson and Lincoln was a better strategist than his generals.
McPherson is also effective in characterizing Lincoln as better grasping Clausewitz's principle that war was "politics by other means" and the need to appreciate war not as set piece battles but as a struggle to suppress the political movement in the South. He draws the familiar conclusions, which do seem supported: (1) McClellan was a poor commander who did not see the larger strategic issues; (2) the objective was Lee's army not Richmond; (3) Halleck was a huge disappointment; (4) Lincoln had to fire a lot of generals who deserved to be fired; and (5) Grant was a magnificent general who was appreciated and nurtured by Lincoln.
In the end, though, much of this was already argued, in some ways far more effectively and in more detail, by T. Harry Williams 50 years ago in "Lincoln and His Generals" -- which I highly recommend. Also, McPherson does not grapple with some of the most interesting controversies. Why is it that Lincoln had to fire so many generals -- why were they so bad? McPherson has some superficial stuff about the generals being disproportionately Democratic. And what did Lincoln do to define the role of Commander in Chief? McPherson's thesis is that Lincoln was the first to define the role in modern terms. But how and why? McPherson is so busy giving his narrative he loses sight of the primary reason for his book.
Some of the answers can be found in David Donald's brilliant essay in his book "Lincoln Reconsidered." This was, like Williams book, written 50 years ago, which proves that in Lincoln literature old books are not necessarily inferior books. Donald argues that the Generals were trained in Jomini's texts that were based on the Napoleonic experience. Jomini's tactical and strategic wisdom became obsolete with the technology that existed by 1861. Artillery and trenching favored defensive war; railroads sometimes allowed exterior lines of movement to be faster; repeating rifles could give the North the advantage in concentration in space; the objective was not the enemy's capitol, but the enemy's industrial/agricultural capacity and the enemy's army supplied by same. Lincoln and Grant were quicker to appreciate this than McClellan and his ilk.
This failure to move with the times explains why Lincoln had so many bad generals. And I suppose that Jefferson Davis had so many good ones because the Jomini training they all had tended to fit well with what the South had to do to win the war. But another reason for all the bad generals is that we did not yet have the experience of a nation fighting a major modern-style war. It's only because of what happened during the war that modern generals (except for MacArthur) appreciate the need to defer to civilian authority and the need to have the civilians direct the all important, overall political strategy.
If you can find Donald's and Williams' books, I highly recommend them. McPherson's book was a big disappointment.
Lincoln as never before
By A23US54A0OILE4 on 2008-10-10
James M. McPherson is, without any second thoughts, the premier author of the civil war, the battles, and the Generals that fought them. In Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief, McPherson surpasses even himself. His investigation and analysis of Lincoln's role as Commander in Chief in Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief is perhaps the only book of its type and certainly worth adding to your private library.
Most Americans aren't aware that the President's activities as head of the military was largely invented by Mr. Lincoln. He made it up as he went. With almost no military training Mr. Lincoln managed to pull the United States through our darkest years with almost a natural ability. He had to deal with generals that supposedly knew more than he did and had the egos to match. Most of the leading Union generals didn't think much of the President. McPherson merely demonstrates, through one example after another, just how unique Lincoln was, and what a great strategist he was.
Lincoln's ability to direct the energies of the United States after his inauguration, despite enormous self-doubts, has set a high bench mark by which all Presidents are measured. Not only did Lincoln alter the purpose of the war from one to save the Union to one to free the slaves, he managed to goad the Union generals into fighting his type of war; in the end that was a campaign of all out warfare waged even against civilians.
McPherson is a consummate researcher, always a requirement for a historian. What sets him apart is his ability to tell the story; delivering facts in a way that keeps the readers' attention and conveys the magnitude of the story he's telling. In Tried by War McPherson is really at his best which is saying something considering some of his other work: Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam; The Might Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil Way; For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil Way; and my favorite Hollowed Ground: A Walk at Gettysburg. There are others!
Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief is a book you'll definitely want to read as soon as you can.
- Lincoln is always right & the generals always wrong!
By A32B6XWNR55SRL on 2008-10-30
"James M. McPherson is, without any second thoughts, the premier author of the civil war, the battles, and the Generals that fought them." This is a quote from one of the Amazon reviews of McPherson's newest book Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief. This a widely held view of the author of Battle Cry of Freedom and one that a reviewer disputes at great peril. James McPherson has been doing basic Civil War history for some time now. His books are something we would expect from a graduate student or a gifted armature. I am not sure Professor McPherson would accept his last three books as a Doctoral Thesis from one of his students. This book, because of the subject and lack of coverage should have been a detailed scholarly treatment of Lincoln's growth into the role of Commander in Chief. The author has failed to provide any insight or to question the Lincoln is always right school of thought. In doing so, he accepts the role of the Radical Republicans and ignores all military considerations. This school of thought holds that brave men ably lead will triumph. Logistic, training, communications are all nonsense or of little consequences. The French in 1914 and the Americans in 1918 killed thousands unlearning this lesson.
Lincoln is always right! With the exception of US Grant, all the generals are wrong. These two ideas are never questioned and form the foundation of every event.
1) Lincoln's "all green together" statement to McDowell is passed off as an astute observation. This ignores the very real problems of moving a semi-trained mob from Washington to Manassas. First Bull Run may have been a close battle but the Union lost.
2) Jackson's Valley Campaign of 1862 contains no over reaction in Washington. Lincoln turned a defeat in a secondary theater into a major strategic victory. If you want a reasonable understanding of this, read Peter Cozzens or Gary Ecelbarger.
3) The appointment of General Pope, a darling of the Radicals, and removal of the Army of the Potomac from a secure base on the James River is not considered.
4) Burnside given command with the express understanding that he would attack. Washington was unable to support his movement, resulting in the Battle of Fredericksburg. Burnside continued trying to attack and the Mud March resulted. The book contains no discussion of logistics or supplying armies via wagons. Lincoln's February 1862 order to advance is considered a good idea destroyed by unwilling generals.
5) By 1863, Lincoln had established in the primary eastern army a lose a battle lose your job mindset. Little is said about this or the chilling effect it has on sr. commanders.
6) Nothing is said about Lincoln's unreasonable expectations for destroying the Army of Northern Virginia in September 1862 or July 1863. In both cases, McClellan and Meade are faulted for not meeting those expectations. However, no Civil War army is destroyed after one battle. Several managed to reorganize after a disaster defeat and even worse retreat. It took Grant almost a year of continuous contact to force Lee to surrender. The author says nothing about Lincoln have unreasonable expectations.
The book is firmly grounded in the interpretation of the American Civil War of the 1970s. The author writes very well and is easy to read. However, his ideas are dated, his conclusions questionable and his commitment to doing excellent work missing.
Hannibal Hamlin, Lincoln's first vice-president observed, "no man ever grew in the executive chair in his lifetime as Lincoln did." This book ignores and/or minimizes that growth.
- Conventional History Oblivious to Constitutional Facts
By A1S8AJIUIO6M9K on 2008-11-16
20081214 DEPARTED AMAZON WITH OUTRAGE OVER THE MANIPULATION OF VOTES.
I will not buy this book, nor should any citizen that actually wants to understand the truth of our history after 1860 when states' rights were unconstitutionally destroyed by force. They are emergent again, praise God.
Lincoln did not have the right to conscript forces or to wage war on those States that exercised their continuing right of secession. A "Civil War" is a war between two parties for the whole. The war was an illegal war by the North against the undiminished right of every state in the United STATES of America to secede, and that is why Dick Cheney loves Lincoln so much. Lincoln is the president that suspended habeas corpus, unleashed immoral capitalism on the south at a time when slavery was already on its way out (the South itself ended importation of slaves upon withdrawing), and needlessly slaughtered an entire generation of fighting men of honor on both sides, one side fighting for its honor, the other because they were incited and lied to for financial gain by the few.
The author is a distinguished historian, but he offers up conventional history that fails to actually inform the public. President-elect Obama would do well to read the books on secession I list below (or my reviews), in as much as he will be facing multiple crises of both nullification and secession in the near term at the same time that certain States sponsor referendums that demand that their Senators and Representatives refer all votes to public ballot in the home state--thus do we break the backs of the two criminal parties that have betrayed the public trust.
I made the same mistake as this author in my own (high school) advanced placement study of the causes of the "Civil War" which should more properly be called the War Against Secession. Below I offer up ten books, each of which has a summative review of mine offered in the public interest.
NEWS FLASH for Barack Obama: we are NOT "one nation" or even "one people. We are 50 sovereign states that signed a compact to create a federal corporation to administer services of common concern, and that enterprise is now corrupt to the core (dysfunctional and overstretech executive, Congress in violation of Article 1 and corrupt, judiciary clueless about our Constitutional legal roots and states rights) and run amok. I desire to keep the USA together and restore the Constitution as well as the effective representational balance of power among the three branches of the federal corporation, but no one, including "the one," can do that without three Deputy Vice Presidents (my own preferences in parenthesis):
DVP for Education, Intelligence, and Research (Colin Powell)
DVP for National Security (Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Sam Nunn)
DVP for Commonwealth (Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney)
and four reforms implemented immediately:
1) Electoral Reform
2) Governance Reform
3) Intelligence Reform
4) National Security Reform
For details see Election 2008: Lipstick on the Pig (Substance of Governance; Legitimate Grievances; Candidates on the Issues; Balanced Budget 101; Call to Arms: Fund We Not Them; Annotated Bibliography). As with all books I sponsor, it is also available free online.
It is time for every American to stop digesting and regurgitating pabulum, and begin thinking independently. CNN turned out to be hot air and low theater. They bluster and pretend, and not once did they challenge either candidate to produce a balanced budget, name a cabinet in advance, or address any of the ten threats or twelve polices with any coherence. All of our institutions are broken. Lincoln is an example of what NOT to do. I support the right of secession as a means of demanding truth and reconciliation. Our federal government is out of control. Leadership of genocide and slaughter and regional looting is not something we should be proud of, nor is it something to emulate today.
Books on secession relevant today:
Constitutional History of Secession
Is Secession Treason?
Secession: How Vermont and All the Other States Can Save Themselves from the Empire
One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution
Books on History Lost and Fogged:
Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth'
The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past
Fog Facts : Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin (Nation Books)
Books on Current Government and Two-Party Spoils System Corruption:
Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It
Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders
- Lincoln takes command
By AYCJSA9HR7TKO on 2008-10-20
I don't know that James McPherson's Tried by War is "stunningly original" as Doris Kearns Goodwin says in her rather over-the-top jacket blurb, but it IS an incredibly good book. Written with the fluidity and conciseness that's made McPherson the best stylist of all Civil War historians, admirable in its synoptic drawing of connections between events that at first glance might seem far flung, and comprehensive in its analysis of Lincoln as war president, Tried by War is quite likely to be the single best book on the Civil War to appear this year.
McPherson argues that as commander in chief, Lincoln had to keep an eye on five interrelated functions: national policy, national strategy, military strategy, operations, and tactics. Lincoln, as it turns out, became a pretty good strategist and operations man, trying to steer his generals towards a military approach--capturing armies rather than territory and simultaneous offenses on several fronts to counter the Confederate use of interior lines--that eventually, when embraced by Grant, won the war. But Lincoln was also flexible, a man who learned on the job, and so the five functions tended to be dynamic rather than static as the war progressed. Policy,strategy, and operations, for example, changed as military and political environments changed. Policy evolved from a restoration of the pre-Fort Sumter status quo to a reunified nation without slavery. Strategy eventually led to the recruiting of black troops, a move that Lincoln intially resisted. Operations evolved from loading down armies with materiel before they moved--a habit that led to sluggish troop movements--to a streamlining of materiel to make for a lighter and swifter army, thereby emphasizing Lincoln's strategic focus on concentration in time. (McPherson's discussion of time as a strategic factor is among the more interesting ones in the book.)
In weaving these five functions together, McPherson does a masterful job of underscoring his central claim that Lincoln's military decisions could never be divorced from his political responsibilities and commitments (see, e.g., pp 217 ff). As such, the book goes way beyond "just" exploring Lincoln's relationship with his generals, a topic that's truly been written to death. Instead, it offers us a synoptic vision of the balls Lincoln the wartime president had to keep in the air.
Highly recommended.
- Lincoln's On The Job Training
By A1YH0U6RSWKGLJ on 2008-10-30
February 12, 2009 marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States. Consequently, over the next year and a half, the average bookstore browser will be buried underneath an avalanche of new books on the most written about figure in all of American history.
"Tried By War: Abraham Lincoln As Commander In Chief," by James M. McPherson, noted Civil War historian & the George Henry Davis '86 Professor Emeritus of United States History at Princeton University, is among the newest in the crop of the Lincoln Bicentennial titles.
In "Tried By War" Dr. McPherson highlights how Abraham Lincoln came to understand and define the largely undefined role of commander in chief. He takes us through each phase of Lincoln's development into the role: from first deferring to General Winfield Scott, then to prodding George B. McClellan into action. After studying military tactics, Lincoln felt confident enough and wondered if he might borrow the army when McClellan fell ill with typhoid fever. In the end McClellan was a disappointment to Lincoln, as were Henry Halleck, Don Carlos Buell, John Pope, Ambrose Burnside, Joseph Hooker, William Rosecrans and George Meade. Through each successive general Lincoln learned and grew into the role of commander in chief, not largely because he wanted to, but because he had to. Finally, with Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman & Philip Sheridan, Lincoln found generals who understood the defeat of the Confederate armies and not the surrender of Richmond, the Confederate capital, would bring the rebellion to an end.
Sadly there is little, if anything, new in fact or interpretation in this book. Dr. McPherson seems to have relied on the tried and true. Most of the content between the covers of "Tried By War" can be found in a number of other books on Lincoln.
The Lincoln-McClellan relationship is complicated, and one worthy of a book of its own. Dr. McPherson seems to have "cherry picked" every negative word and action of McClellan's for inclusion in his book. To be fair, McClellan has served up these quotes and snubs toward Lincoln (not to mention his overestimates of Confederate troop strength, his constant pleas for more men and his apparent lack of will to send the Army of the Potomac into battle) on a silver platter for historians. But I think Dr. McPherson's diagnosis of McClellan's "messiah complex" goes a bit too far.
If anything, at 270 pages of text, the book is too short. It is a great survey of Lincoln as commander in chief, but an in depth review of the facts and analysis of them it is not. On its merits, the book it well researched, and well written. Dr. McPherson's narrative flows effortlessly from topic to topic and is easily read. Though "Tried By War" may not be the book for the well read student of the Civil War it would serve as a great introduction for some one just developing their interest in the subject.
- Why so much
By A23YMNOIXU946Y on 2008-10-23
Can someone tell me why this book retails for $35 ?
Its not quite 384 pages either as shown, there's about 30 or so pages of ref.material pages in the back of the book which take up many pages. I saw this at a book store and considered buying it but refuse to pay $35. Amazon seems to have a good proce but I'm still curious why this author's book costs so much when other exhaustive larger books on Lincoln and the Civil War are priced much less.
- Another McPherson Blockbuster
By A1T3UHOIJIAT1 on 2008-10-10
James McPherson strikes again with yet another well researched and exceptionally well written book on Lincoln and how lucky we, as a nation, were to have him at the helm during the civil war. It is such a pleasure to read since his prose flows effortlessly through mounds of historical data. The character study he presents of Lincoln is the best that I have seen. Reading this is a must for all Lincoln affecionados.
- Superb history with one important correction
By ATQ88KLEURHI7 on 2008-10-11
As usual J. McPherson has provided us another superior look into the events and politics of the Civil War. It is too bad the final editing did not make a correction as it will be confusing and misleading to new students of the Civil War.
Page 5 of the introduction. A quote from A. Lincoln regarding settling the issue of the break up of the government. The word in question is "majority" when clearly it should be minority. This should have been caught during the final editing of this superb work. While not so important for those who realize the error...it will make understanding Lincoln's position difficult for those who come new or uninformed of the statement. Subsequent printings should make this change.
- flawed execution
By A3UT2594HIX46N on 2008-11-24
my problems with this audibook, is the execution of it. It is NOT available in MP3 format; that would reduce the number discs from eight to one or two. My second probelm there is NO "change CD" audio, since I am 6 of 8 discs through this audiobook, and it bugs they can't add a beep or audio queue so I don't replay a portion of the CD. The packaging is cheap and does not protect the CDs. I am constantly fishing a CD out of the passender footwell of my truck. I have considered burning my own MP3 version which means this package is over priced.
- "General" discontent
By A2ZHB7E544QLLQ on 2008-10-31
"Tried By War", James McPherson's short book about the Commander-in-Chief aspect of Abraham Lincoln, centers on Lincoln's relationships with his many Union generals. The first half is devoted to General George McClellan, whose cautiousness is a well-known fact, with the second half covering the notable rise of Ulysses S. Grant. It's a solid endeavor by McPherson and the story is told well.
The incredible juggling act that Lincoln delivered almost every day of his presidency has given him a just legacy, and as McPherson points out, this part of our nation's history was the most tenuous. That the Union ever held on to achieve victory is remarkable in itself. Lincoln faced a countless number of generals who were good or even great in one area but lacking in others. His political skills kept him at arm's length from McClellan, one of the most overrated participants in the war. But what followed after McClellan's departure were men such as Burnside, Butler, Meade, Rosecrans and McClernand, each of whom stymied Lincoln and no doubt prolonged the war. When Grant entered the fray (and had some unique failures to show for himself early on) with Sheridan and Sherman, the Confederacy was doomed.
Much of this we know already, but McPherson's narrative is acute and dramatic. His addition of "peace" Democrat Clement Vallandigham is a bonus as this is not included in every study of the war. McPherson gives us a rich flavor as he quotes Horace Greeley's opinions and how they changed and how supercharged the newspapers of the day could be to wildly swinging daily and weekly public temperature. "Tried By War" offers a slightly different look at how Lincoln ran the war and in turn, his presidency. It's worth the read.
- Lincoln's Agony
By A31RSS76NL81BV on 2008-11-07
Since Lincoln was exceptionally cool, I've always enjoyed reading his biographies. My judgment of this book (as a casual reader and not as a scholar) is that it's not as engrossing as Goodwin's "Team of Rivals." Mainly because Lincoln's personality and those of his contemporaries aren't as vividly or sharply drawn. Yet, this is a sympathetic and readable account of Lincoln's agonizing frustration with his asinine and temperamental Generals and assorted Northern politicians--many of whom were basically unwilling to get off their duffs and fight a "hard war" by aggressively pursuing the secessionists. It really makes one wonder how the Union eventually managed to prevail.
- McPherson's Neglect
By AYDYALFBF8DK4 on 2008-11-19
Professor McPherson has written an elegant book about Lincoln as the strategist of the Civil War. He is wonderfully terse, reasonable, convincing, and clear in his opinions, only occasionally leaving out important events. (Grant's crossing the James River to attack Petersburg seems not to be mentioned for example, nor is the surrender of Joe Johnston to Sherman.) What this book is not about, however, is its subtitle "Abraham Lincoln, Commander in Chief".
The most important task of a commander is his choice of subordinates. The civil war is no exception in the South or the North. The choices of Lee, Johnston, Bragg, and Hood had decisive effects in the South. The choices of McClellan, Pope, Hooker, Burnside, Sherman, and Grant were just as important in the North.
McPherson's book has essentially no discussion of why Lincoln chose whom he did, why he did not interview junior officers who almost certainly would have done much better than their seniors (e.g., Reynolds or Hancock) as Sheridan did, despite their age. The central question is how can a man like Lincoln so revered for his way with people have not even tried to evaluate the talented younger general officers in the North?
- Sure to become a classic...
By A39ABKRS1MKFTW on 2008-10-27
James MacPherson is one of the true master-historians of the Civil War, and his new book, Tried By War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief is a unique look at the Civil War through the eyes of our 16th president. Most of what has been written about Lincoln has had a different focus. But MacPherson states that the saving of the Union was not necessarily due to his being president, but because of "how he performed his duties as commander in chief."
At the beginning of the war, Lincoln originally deferred to General Winfield Scott, his General-in-Chief. Scott proved to be a disappointment, as well as many of the generals who Lincoln depended on early in the war (including McClellan, Halleck, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, etc.). It didn't take Lincoln long to learn that "war was too important to be left to the generals." Lincoln was a self-taught man, and he worked hard to master any subject he wanted to learn. On becoming president, Lincoln had to take a crash course on military strategy. In doing so, it has been said that Lincoln became "a great war president, probably the greatest in our history."
McPherson explains how our original Constitution did not even provide directives for the president serving as a commander in chief. Much of what Lincoln did was determined by his own beliefs (such as the suspending of habeas corpus). The author takes us through the important battles, but spends much time defining the working relationship that Lincoln had with his generals. He also details the fine line that Lincoln had to walk between military vs. political decisions. "Grant learned that Lincoln's responsibilities as commander in chief included important political considerations that could never be fully divorced from questions of military command in a democracy--especially in an election year."
Tried By War is an engaging and fascinating look at Abraham Lincoln that will surely become a classic.
- More of a General Than His Generals
By A135Y35RRGHY3G on 2008-11-03
In his typical style---fluid, concise, insightful--- McPherson lays out how Lincoln discharged his duties as commander in chief. And, yet again, demonstrates Lincoln as a great leader. He never let his ego get in the way of doing the best thing for the country. Yes, it would have felt so good to Lincoln to sack McClennan, but to do so too soon would have harmed the war effort, not moved it forward. He was, in the best sense of the word, opportunistic. When Hooker submitted his resignation just three weeks before Gettysburg, Lincoln saw his window of opportunity and took it. And, when he was wrong, he said so. His note to Grant on the taking of Vickburg acknowledged that Lincoln's plan was flawed, Grant's was not, and thanked him for a job well done. Too many saw all this as weakness. It was not. Although in fairness to the generals who hesitated to fight, they may have sensed the carnage that a full blown war would bring. But it was only that, as Lincoln well understood, that would end the war and save the Republic.
- Excellent Condensed View of Lincoln as the War General
By A3CX9ZSEFCDXX4 on 2008-11-11
This book is a rather condensed view of Lincoln as a military leader during the Civil War as McPherson rightly states that he was often his own Commanding General and early on, Secretary of War. Individuals familiar with Stephen Sears's great books on the Army of the Potomac and General McClellan will find much of the book familiar but McPherson provides a grand overview of Lincoln's responsibilities for the west as well as the east. McPherson covers well Lincoln's burden of using politicians as generals to satisfy his precarious support for the war and the union for that matter often enduring poor performance long before he could make a move such as with Butler, Shields, Banks and Fremont. The high point of the book is McPherson's demonstrations of Lincoln becoming his own General in Chief due to incompetence of his ranking officers such as McClellan, who often failed to move, to Henry Halleck who often feared making a decision. Lincoln's political timing is also well written such as the military/political timing of the emancipation proclamation and its effect on the south. Also of note, is Lincoln's great disappointment with Meade in not following Lee closely and attacking him on the northern side of the Potomac. What is notable is Lincoln recognizing, as McPherson provides direct quotes, the Confederate invasions north as opportunities not as an object of fear. In addition, McPherson captures Lincoln's ability to be humble yet instructive to his generals such as the now famous letter of his to "Fighting Joe Hooker" that tells Hooker of his support while telling him bluntly that he is aware of Hooker's undercutting of his superiors in the past and his call for a dictatorship, but as Lincoln's tells him, he is willing to take a risk to support Hooker for the good of the union. With the emergence of Grant, Sherman and Sheridan along with the competence of Stanton, Lincoln is in a far better position in 1864 but as McPherson points out, only until their successes eclipse Lincoln's political vulnerability. One thing that was needed in the book, was a more descriptive contrast with Jefferson Davis' military leadership. Davis, in contrast to Lincoln, was a West Point Graduate, Secretary of War and Mexican War veteran. Yet, Davis would let personal squabbles become magnified such as with Johnson and Beauregard to the detriment of the Confederacy and appoint personal favorites, Albert Sidney Johnson and Braxton Bragg, versus more competent staff. He also was a micro manager where Lincoln managed only as a necessity. Lincoln's humility served a constructive purpose in contrast to Davis' pride. Excellent book, in heavy quality paper of the type reserved for a classic. The actually text is approximately 272 pages followed by 100 pages of notes and index.
- McPherson is great but this is just a warmed over work
By AIK7I9BYWV9Q1 on 2008-11-17
James McPherson is a great historian and writer and with out a doubt has written the greatest single volume history of the Civil War in "The Battle Cry of Freedom." Sadly this is not McPherson's best work and could probably be best described as a highlights of Battle Cry of Freedom. It doesn't really offer any new insights and aside from focusing on Lincoln's involvement in the war effort. The rest is well worn and well covered ground.
If you like James McPherson read this book for your own enjoyment. But be warned it's not among his best work and looks like he did this one for the advance.
- Commander in Chief
By A1ZD7A2J7TATUY on 2009-01-06
Where does the title and the job description for "Commander in Chief" come from? If you don't know and want an interesting analysis of how this important piece of work was added to President's job description, this is your book. Written clearly and succinctly, this book will give you an even greater appreciation of the greatness of Abraham Lincoln who had to manage the Civil War "on the fly." Learn by doing? You bet!
- General Overview
By AN4ZE5MO8Z1IU on 2008-11-01
A lucid, concise yet sweeping account of President Lincoln's appointment and oversight of the Union's battlefield leaders in the Civil War. This book provides a good introduction for someone seeking a broad overview of how President Lincoln handled and directed the various Union generals during the difficult progress made towards what proved to be final victory under U.S. Grant.
This is not new scholarship, but is the distilled thinking of a significant American historian in the twilight of his distinguished career. (If you have not read Dr. McPherson's great "Battle Cry of Freedom", please consider doing so.)
- Sound work on Lincoln as commander-in-chief
By AQQLWCMRNDFGI on 2008-11-02
This book, well written, is authored by the eminent historian James McPherson. The focus is plainly stated at the outset (Page xiv): "In the vast literature on our sixteenth president, however, the amount of attention devoted to his role as commander in chief is disproportionately smaller than the actual percentage of time he spent on that task."
Lincoln's own military experience was slender, his 1832 service in the militia. However, as McPherson puts it (Page 5), he was ". . .a more hands-on commander in chief than any other president." He assumed or presided over five war-making functions (in declining order of importance, as the author judges matters): policy, national strategy, military strategy, operations, and tactics.
McPherson observes that Lincoln read a great deal about military issues, to become more informed and to develop grounding in strategy and tactics. Indeed, as the book argues, he needed to, since so many of his military leaders were passive and did not "take charge." Thus, the thesis of this book makes sense, given the context of the times while Lincoln served as president.
The book covers the war, year by year, Lincoln's frustrations with his military commanders, his desire to find someone who had "it," the will and ability to triumph, to share Lincoln's vision of what had to be done. Of course, in the end, U. S. Grant and his subordinates, such as Sherman, Sheridan, and Thomas played that role, after the years of failure with the likes of Buell, Halleck, Rosecrans, Sigel, Banks, Butler, and so on.
For those not so familiar with the Civil War, this book will be most useful. For those steeped in the study of the Civil War, there is not a great deal that is new. However, what such readers know is put into useful context, as per the book's focus. So, in the end, this is a handy volume, especially for those who are not deeply read in the relevant works.
- Tried by War
By A1YWELM51FBNJ6 on 2008-11-16
A very good book, not as good as the Battle Cry of Freedom, but still very readable.
- Superb but short work on the greatness of Lincoln's role as commander in chief
By A3IBA6SK6DM3Z3 on 2008-11-22
A wonderful, brief look at how our nation's greatest President led the North's armed forces during the Civil War. Though it may cover territory other historians have mined in longer efforts, James M. McPherson's "Tried by War" is essential reading for those not extremely well versed in matters concerning the War Between the States.
Having not read any Civil War history in a number of years, I found myself engrossed from the first page, and thankful that author McPherson has given his many fans a fairly short work on President Lincoln's time as commander in chief of the nation's military.
Highly recommended for all readers.
- Can A Reader With A Limited Civil War Background Enjoy This Book? Yes!
By AXMKAXC0TR9AW on 2008-11-23
My background on the Civil War is pretty much limited to my three visits to the Gettysburg battlefield in Pennsylvania, and it took me a while to "get into" this book. However, for those readers who share my limited knowledge of the war I would recommend this book to you. President Abraham Lincoln learned on-the-job when being at the helm of this war, and he often expressed his frustrations with his "indifferent generals" for their "imbecility" and "inefficiency" in contrast to his "good, brave soldiers." Lincoln especially expressed his frustration with General George Meade who defeated Lee at Gettysburg, but then allowed Lee to escape across the Potomac. Ulysses Grant was named general-in-chief near the end of the war, but Lincoln allowed Meade to remain as commander of the Army of the Potomac with General Sherman in command of the West. Lincoln stressed that Lee's army, and not Richmond (the Confederate capital), is the goal. The Spencer seven shot repeating rifles turned out to be the best shoulder weapons of the last fifteen months of the war. I also found it interesting that Lincoln is the only president to have held a patent. In 1849 he patented a device for lifting steamboats over shoals. Not that the Civil War translates into the war in Iraq, but I do find that President Bush has tried to pattern himself after Lincoln's behavior in the Civil War. This book stresses Lincoln's role as commander of the Union army, so there is no lengthy descriptions of the various battles of the war. I learned about the Civil War from this book, and it held my interest despite my limited background. I would suggest other such readers would also enjoy it.
- Trial by War
By A3OTW38V1IDFF3 on 2008-12-06
We enjoyed the book, it giving a restricted view of Lincoln's administration. It helped to have read "Team of Rivals" and Shelby Foote's "Narative of the Civil War."
- You need to read this only if you find Battle Cry of Freedon a tad bit long
By A2LWBICINIGY96 on 2008-12-08
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (Oxford History of the United States)
If you find the earlier book a little bit long, read this one. I find that this book focuses on Lincoln(as it should) but sometimes the background information would place a more nuanced interpretation of events.
We find that President Lincoln seems to be presented as the most able general on the Union side. Maybe compared to McClennan he was, but his mistakes, the First Battle of Bull Run, were not detailed enough for us to understand the "trials" that made him a better executive.
This book on the whole, does a very good job in focusing on the subject but fails to engage me as much as the previous one.
- TRIED BY WAR
By A1ICXTE2PL1FXL on 2008-12-12
I got this book for my father who is a civil war history buff. When I asked him about the fact that I had given him another book about Lincoln, he told me that that he really liked the book. Had half of it done in just a day. Very well written.
- Old Abe
By A3OXL2BYK4QBZD on 2008-12-15
This book is for anyone who is interested in Abraham Lincoln's time as President of the United States during the Civil War. It is well written and very interesting.
|
|
You may also be interested in...
|
|
|
|
|
|
