T. Harry WilliamsRecensioni

Good basic Civil War history.

The only historian to look past Long's flamboyance and see the unparalleled genius who singlehandedly destroyed the best-entrenched political establishment in America and built a machine that outlasted his death by decades. Unafraid to grapple with the tough questions a figure like Long raises. Is the corruption of an alleged demagogue different in kind or degree from the corruption he seeks to uproot? Is there such a thing as a demagogue at all in American politics, or is its utterance the last refuge of a beaten incumbent? Does an earnest, heartfelt desire to help people justify cutthroat political praxis? Can a sufficiently strong political will overcome all barriers before it?

Harris not only has the guts to proffer his own answers to these questions but he boldly refuses to accept as a mystery the notion embraced by other historians that Long must remain forever an ideological and methodological enigma. He does not defy categorization, classification, and analysis. He was an American politician, only moreso. He had his own notions of things like the constitution, limits on government (which led him to oppose the NRA), and states' rights (which led him to oppose the manner in which the New Deal was being administered), although historians and contemporaries refused to take his ideas on these things seriously. Was a government run by Huey Long closer to or further from the intent of the founders than the modern two-party system? I wouldn't venture to guess. I think Harris would.

Harris backs down in his defenses of Long only once, in the matter which Harris must know best - university operations and academic freedom, when he seems to side with the Reveille staffers who resigned in protest over censorship more stridently than he ever did the Old Regulars or any other political operators who moved in arenas with which he was less familiar. That isn't the best indicator of his own consistency in applying judgment, but that doesn't mean he was wrong in the majority of his assessments either.

Worth re-reading.

I read this book years ago for a college course on the history of the South. I love this book. Just seeing the cover brings back memories. If you want to understand politics in the South read this book, then pick up and read Robert Penn Warren's "All The King's Men". When it comes to history in the South, William Faulkner was right.

The classic, oral history based biography of Louisiana's greatest - and most notorious - political leader.

The late Professor T. Harry Williams has provided a comprehensive history of American wars from the French and Indian War through World War I. His original intention to carry the history of American conflicts through the Vietnam War was halted by his death in 1979. Each war is given summary exposition along with interludes that cover military actions between wars. What is particularly informative of Williams's work here is the coverage of the political leadership, policies, strategies, military organization and financing that occurred prior to and during the conflicts. His discusses the development of weaponry and tactics that evolved over time. He gives concise but complete recapitulations of the campaigns conducted in each conflict.

For anyone looking for a overview of this long span of American military history this book is highly recommended. I purchased this at a used book store; it's likely to be no longer in print.

this collection of biographies are valuable command studies. though I found little new in them, yet they are useful basis for further studies of Union Commanders.
The thread certainly seems to indicate that the latter two commanders had to spend a great deal of their time undoing the work of Little Mac who had the wrong end of the stick in dealing with Southern intransigence. This is a book to be taught to the neo-Confederates, but they will happily continue to drift through their self induced neurosis about "Theh Wahr."

This whole series is an excellent survey of American history.

Another volume in the outstanding American history series from Time Life.

Read this years ago in hardcover when it came out, long before I started writing reviews. I remember it well. A real classic of biography.

Riveting

After reading this I was left curious about only a few things, which should give credit to the author for writing such a full biography. Where was the deduct-box hidden? That is a question for a treasure-hunter. What were his last words really? What we imagine is most likely better than the reality. Lastly, are the plumbing pipes in the governor's house in Louisiana inscribed to this day? I actually yearn for photographic proof.

This book is very detailed based with footnotes for every conversation Lincoln had or should have had, and debates the merits of each side that recalls each conversation. Very well documented for historical purposes. And it does explain to the modern mind, the reasons and personalities that caused the Union side of this vast conflict to be so mismanaged for so long.

What, I would have liked was more maps explaining the various points and routes of march and conflict. (Probably the same thing that the Generals in question would have liked.) I can't imagine trying to create a battle plan when most of the terrain wasn't mapped and documented like it is today.

Clearly Lincoln had a better sense of what the battle planning should have been all along, although I'm surprised that he put up with incompetent Generals for too long and at the cost of so many lives and effort.

In the end only the fractured Southern military structure was worse than the Union command structure. Robert E. Lee was caught up managing minor supply issues, when he should have been surrounded by lesser Generals planing the day to day issues, while he did the larger strategic planning. Also, the commanders of Corps, Brigades, etc, in the South, relied on the orders coming from each state's own command. I.E. Thus Robert E. Lee, could in some cases only suggest that the Georgia regiments attack, and not directly order them. Also, the numbers were against the South, as they could not begin to replenish troops, once they were lost, while the North was still taking in immigrants and signing them up in the streets of New York, some, soon after they embarked.

It would be a good comparison to do the same effort for the command structure of World War I, (with Black Jack Pershing commanding US Marines as well as US Army troops in France), and with the World War II command with Theatre of Operational commanders like Douglas McArthur and Dwight Eisenhower.

I'm afraid that the lessons we learn from historical conflicts, are only used to entrench the learned battle techniques into the next war, until they stop working, and we have to go back to the drawing board all over again.

Military secrets are the most fleeting of all secrets, and the tactics for one set of technology can be disastrious if used for the following conflict when the technology has seriously changed. See Pickett's charge which is regarded in some circles as the last Highland charge. Marching into well aimed rifle fire, and double canister fire from cannons, was just impossible. Doing the same years earlier, when smooth bore muskets had a wildly inaccurate firing pattern, was entirely possible.

Of course, some one may be writing a book now, on how the US military command structure of the Afghanistan conflict, is totally screwing up the ability of US troops to fight that war.½

Excellent! Surprising insights into 20th century American life are forthcoming from the life of this extraordinary Louisianan.

I grew up in Louisiana in the 50's and 60's. Long was still a legend then, but I never delved into his life. As you read Williams' Pulitzer Prize winning biography, it is hard to believe that a man such as this actually existed. I rarely take on a book of this length any more (800+ pages), but I raced through this one, laughing in amazement nearly all the way, saddened in the end that the nation and the world did not see how he would have turned out had a bullet not ended his life at the age of 42. I was inspired by Williams' research as much as by Long himself.

1058 Huey Long, by T. Harry Williams (read 5 Jul 1970) (Pulitzer Biography prize for 1970) (National Book Award history prize for 1970) This was an utterly absorbing book to read. The biography relies a lot on "oral history," that is, interviews with living persons. This is a technique which is unusual; but it is all right. The author is more sympathetic to Long than I would be--from what he tells it is clear that Huey made a complete shambles of democratic government in Louisiana. The accounts of how he ran the Louisiana Legislature in the last years of his life (when he was U.S. Senator) are simply unbelievable. It seems to me the Reichstag under Hitler was less thoroughly subjugated than was the Louisiana Legislature under Long. But Williams treats this all rather blandly and talks about the mistakes and exaggerations of the anti-Longites! Huey was born Aug 30, 1893, in a log house near Winfield, La., and was shot Sept 8, 1935, in the state Capitol building at Baton Rouge and died at 4:06 A.M. on Sept 10, 1935. His assassin was Carl Austin Weiss, a 29-year-old doctor and a son-in-law of an anti-Long judge whom Huey was about to gerrymander out of office. The career of Huey Long is of course fantastic: elected to the Railroad Commission in 1918, in 1924 he ran for Governor and lost. It was the last time. He was elected Governor in 1928, and U.S. Senator in 1930. Obviously he was a leftist and some things he did were good: just as one can find good things done by Mussolini and even Hitler. But his methods were evil and one can only conclude that his elimination was the elimination of an evil. I will have to read some in the Congressional Record from Jan 25, 1932, through Aug 26, 1935. He was certainly a wild man and colorful. I do not think the Senate has ever seen his like since. In my years in Washington Wild Bill Langer was the wildest man in Washington--but he never drew crowds like Huey. Joe McCarthy drew crowds, but he wasn't as funny as Huey or Wild Bill. This was one of the most enjoyable books I've read in a long time.½

A very dry read about the history of American Wars and the military. Reads like a textbook.

T. Harry Williams was a fine teacher and writer in the field of American History. He is probably best known for his extensive biography of Huey Long.
Mr. Williams book, '"Lincoln and His Generals", is an account of the difficulties President Lincoln went through with the generals who commanded The Army of the Potomac.
George McClellan was the first general who held the position commanding the Army of the Potomac for a lengthy period. He reorganized the Army after the First Battle of Bull Run and was extremely popular with the men. The relationship between McClellan and Lincoln was extremely difficult. McClellan was arrogant and distrustful and once went to bed while Lincoln was waiting to see him. McClellan always doubled the number of the army he was facing justifying his slowness in proceeding. He belittled Lincoln's attempts to understand strategy and tactics and constantly pestered Lincoln for supplies and reinforcements. Lincoln exercised a great deal of patience and diplomacy to no avail. McClellan was fired once and then reinstated. When he delayed pursuing Lee's army after the Battle of Antietam or Sharpsburg he was removed for the duration of the war. In 1864 McClellan was the Democratic nominee for president opposing Lincoln.
After McClellan came Ambrose Burnside who correctly doubted his qualifications for the position. He substantiated his doubts at the Battle of Fredericksburg and was relieved shortly after. Next Lincoln selected Joe Hooker. With his appointment Hooker received from Lincoln a personal letter plainly setting forth what Lincoln saw as Hooker's strengths and weaknesses. This letter was a unique event in communications between a President and a leading general and shows Lincoln's efforts to find and work with a general to lead the Army of the Potomac. Hooker worked diligently and moved to attack Lee's army with 120,000 men. He became the victim of Lee's superbly executed plan of battle at Chancellorsville. He was relieved shortly after Lee brought his army north in June of 1863.
George Meade won a defensive victory at Gettysburg but was criticized for his failure to pursue Lee's army as it moved back south. Then U. S. Grant was appointed to lead the Northern army. He established his headquarters with the Army of the Potomac and became the de facto commander of that army.
U.S. Grant was vastly different than his predecessor's. Lincoln had finally found a general who would lead the army without excuses or endless demands for more supplies or men. Grant did not require daily supervision or prodding to initiate action. Lincoln could concentrate on his duties as the President while Grant led the army.
This book is a well written detailed story of problems encountered in finding a competent commander for the North's most important army. This is one of the many reasons that the war dragged on so long before the victory of the North.

This is a decent college freshman level survey textbook. It is basic and without frills. It attempts to steer a middle course between conservative and liberal interpretations and succeeds fairly well. It is not my first choice as an instructor. I find there are several others that are superior in their coverage and detail.½

This is a good, solid survery for freshmen level college students. I found it to be middle of the road politically. Naturally a survey can only contain so much; judicious editing and discriminating selection must occur. But this book has worked well for me in the classroom.

Huey Long was one of the most fascinating characters in American history and T. Harry Williams tells his story better than anyone else. Long rose from absolutely abject poverty to become perhaps the most powerful political leader in Louisiana history and for a time, one of the most influential leaders in the US. This hick from the sticks went to the big city and made good.

The Kingfish was, of course, corrupt, but was genuinely populist. He fought for better education for the poor, the right to organize labor unions, and he pushed adult literacy, which mainly benefited African-Americans. His public works projects employed thousands and built hundreds of roads and bridges. He fought the entrenched and powerful interests in favor of the common man.

T. Harry Williams' work is simply the best on the man and the politician.

This is a remarkably balanced biography of the much-maligned Huey Long. It seems, that he was a progressive hero of sorts. He was not above a bit of chicanery from time to time, but he used it to benefit ordinary people, not the corporate elite.½

973.7

CWRT Folio