Rating: 
Summary: The Facts as presented
Review: A thoery that the author of this book menchend in a 1999 Dec. issue of Civil War Times the author states a theory that Chamberlain didn't do the right weel forward at Little Roundtop on July 2,1863. In Mark Nesbitt book about Chamberlain a report Chamberlain wrote whice was written on July 6,1863 gives insterctions that if you take step by step clearly comes out to a right weel forward. Chamberlain made that charge but didn't want to defend himself in 1884. He didn't have to if you are awarded the Medal of Honor you shouldn't have to defend yourself. I think the author should get the facts staright.
Rating:
Summary: Yes, a disappointing biography of Joshua L. Chamberlain
Review: After Michael Shaara's Pulitzer Prize winning novel "The Killer Angels" was made into the film "Gettysburg," I had to believe that a first-rate biography of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain would be forthcoming. Well, this book is not it. Edward Longacre is caught up with the idea that the real Chamberlain was "a human being" who "was much more complex and complicated than historians would have us believe." I would hate to argue with this sort of position, but the complexity of any human being's life is only going to be covered in a biography devoted to that person and not covered adequately by Catton, Foote or anybody else writing about the Civil War. "Joshua Chamberlain: The Solider and the Man" reads like a cut and paste job, linking together the primary source material with speculations by the author, which does not bother me as much as it does other reviewers, although I do grant that Longacre does come across as being overly impressed with his efforts at time. Other reveiws have already detailed specific charges in terms of the shortcomings of Lonqacre's scholarship. However, you can certainly flesh out Chamberlain's career in education, the military and politics in detail. Actually, the best part of this volume is the essay "Joshua Chamberlain: A Psychological Portrait" by psychologist Gary K. Leak. For those who want to read more about Chamberlain, John J. Pullen's "Joshua Chamberlain: A Hero's Life and Legacy" is a better choice.
Rating:
Summary: Yes, a disappointing biography of Joshua L. Chamberlain
Review: After Michael Shaara's Pulitzer Prize winning novel "The Killer Angels" was made into the film "Gettysburg," I had to believe that a first-rate biography of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain would be forthcoming. Well, this book is not it. Edward Longacre is caught up with the idea that the real Chamberlain was "a human being" who "was much more complex and complicated than historians would have us believe." I would hate to argue with this sort of position, but the complexity of any human being's life is only going to be covered in a biography devoted to that person and not covered adequately by Catton, Foote or anybody else writing about the Civil War. "Joshua Chamberlain: The Solider and the Man" reads like a cut and paste job, linking together the primary source material with speculations by the author, which does not bother me as much as it does other reviewers, although I do grant that Longacre does come across as being overly impressed with his efforts at time. Other reveiws have already detailed specific charges in terms of the shortcomings of Lonqacre's scholarship. However, you can certainly flesh out Chamberlain's career in education, the military and politics in detail. Actually, the best part of this volume is the essay "Joshua Chamberlain: A Psychological Portrait" by psychologist Gary K. Leak. For those who want to read more about Chamberlain, John J. Pullen's "Joshua Chamberlain: A Hero's Life and Legacy" is a better choice.
Rating: 
Summary: Full of interesting material
Review: Being a Civil War fanatic and scholar I had a tremendous interest in Joshua L. Chamberlain, and most of that interest is from the Killer Angels and the movie Gettysburg. I took this book from the perspective that I knew nothing of Chamberlain. I found Edward Longacre's biography well written and well researched even if his main source of material was Spears memoirs. Longacre dispels many myths of Chamberlain and presents facts to show perhaps a different perspective of the man's career. Sure, Longacre agrees that Chamberlain was a terrific and courageous soldier, arguably one of the best in the union army. But he also understands that JLC had his flaws and can be criticized for being selfish at times. I think the average reader plants the image of Chamberlain from "Gettysburg" or Killer Angels in their brain as they read the book, and that is whythe reviews are mostly poor ones. We must remember that anything Chamberlain wrote after 1865 about the War should be taken for some inaccuracies. Longacre is right that Chamberlain is a romanticizer and prefers the good story over the correct one. I assume Longacre made some mistakes and for that I took a star away but I truly enjoyed this book because it didn't portray Chamberlain as a godly hero but rather as an incredible human being.
Rating:
Summary: Full of interesting material
Review: Being a Civil War fanatic and scholar I had a tremendous interest in Joshua L. Chamberlain, and most of that interest is from the Killer Angels and the movie Gettysburg. I took this book from the perspective that I knew nothing of Chamberlain. I found Edward Longacre's biography well written and well researched even if his main source of material was Spears memoirs. Longacre dispels many myths of Chamberlain and presents facts to show perhaps a different perspective of the man's career. Sure, Longacre agrees that Chamberlain was a terrific and courageous soldier, arguably one of the best in the union army. But he also understands that JLC had his flaws and can be criticized for being selfish at times. I think the average reader plants the image of Chamberlain from "Gettysburg" or Killer Angels in their brain as they read the book, and that is whythe reviews are mostly poor ones. We must remember that anything Chamberlain wrote after 1865 about the War should be taken for some inaccuracies. Longacre is right that Chamberlain is a romanticizer and prefers the good story over the correct one. I assume Longacre made some mistakes and for that I took a star away but I truly enjoyed this book because it didn't portray Chamberlain as a godly hero but rather as an incredible human being.
Rating:
Summary: A Newspaper Rag ( The Enquirer) kind of review
Review: Having just finished this book I am compelled to review it because it strikes me as an attempt to blow holes in the reputation of an American hero who may need to be examined objectively, but not in such a bitter and tabloid fashion. I was constantly struck by how often the author used small comments from Chamberlin's own journals or from letters to make a stab at him. Some of the criticism is warranted, he was a man, not a saint, but he constant effort to point out that everything he did was for personal glory grated on me. What kind of leader is not our for some degree of personal glory? Certainly he wanted promotion, commands and credit and some degree of glory. I don't think his ambition was hurtful to anyone. Additionally, I think that the constant reminders that Chamberlin was a greater man in his own mind may be a true and correct criticism, but there can be no question that his actions in combat were always correct in the sense that he did what needed to be done, often putting himself at risk. Patton and MacArthur are two of our greatest generals and there can be no question that their thirst for glory drove them to push their names into the papers, but we still admire them. Chamberlin was no less great if it was because of the hunger for personal glory. I also dislike the constant reference to Ellis Spearn and his great bitterness about Chamberlin. It sounds to me like Spear was jealous of the credit that he did not receive and wanted to tear down his colonel to justify his bravery and search for credit. I am glad theat the only mention that he receives in the movie Gettysburg is the offer of a drink to honor his colonel after the charge. That is his legacy and maybe it is deserved. I would recommend this book from the standpoint that it is an excellent devils advocate source for history buffs. There is a great deal of truth, but the innuendo and snippy comments make it less than a great book. I would call it the National Enquirer of history.
Rating: 
Summary: Some interesting points, but below average overall
Review: I am a admirer of both Ellis Spear and Joshua Chamberlain. They were brave men who served their country well in a time of crisis. After the war it appears that Spear and Chamberlain had a falling out. Neither Spear or Chamberlain are without faults, no one is. However, the author has attempted to make mountains out of mole hills. This book is not without merit, but does not measure up to John Pullen's work.
Rating:
Summary: Some interesting points, but below average overall
Review: I am a admirer of both Ellis Spear and Joshua Chamberlain. They were brave men who served their country well in a time of crisis. After the war it appears that Spear and Chamberlain had a falling out. Neither Spear or Chamberlain are without faults, no one is. However, the author has attempted to make mountains out of mole hills. This book is not without merit, but does not measure up to John Pullen's work.
Rating: 
Summary: Well researched?
Review: I don't think the book is very good because of reading a 1999 Dec. issue of the author who gives his theory whice is basciley the same theory he writes inhis book. In Mark Nesbitt's book a report on what happend at Little Roundtop clearly states he made a right weel forward. Chamberlain later in 1884 stated he did do that. I think Cap. Ellis Spear an offecer got jeoles because Chamberlain got a lot of credit for the charge and he didn't and WANTED TO SUVATOG Chamberlain's crareer. Chamberlain would of have to defind himself in my mind because if your awarded The MEADLE of HONER you shouldn't have to defind yourself.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but flawed
Review: Longacre has a long history of producing civil war books which are compromised by gaffes and errors. This effort is no exception though the writing is superior to some of his earlier works. If you dislike it when an author interjects his own opinion into the arena, then avoid this book. Longacre continually puts his own spin on various events in Chamberlain's life, particularly JLC's long, sometimes tortured relationship with wife Fanny. It's interesting to read the author's take on the love letters exchanged by the enamored couple, especially those from the courtship years. He takes innocuous passages and turns them into (imagined) references to abortion, pre-marital sex and other "juicy" forays. The problem is, the letters are generally pedestrian and devoid of sexual content. No matter, Longacre insists on the tabloid version of historical events and this is the book's ultimate downfall. His descriptions of JLC's Petersburg wound and his lengthy convalescence are better sections, but he drops the ball with all the material post-1865. The years of Chamberlain's Governorship of Maine are especially tedious. If you aren't bothered by factual mistakes and the interjection of the author's own opinion, then this book is a reasonable effort. It's well-written and contains some new material. But if you are a serious student of Chamberlain or want a more complete analysis of the 20th Maine, you must consult other works.
|
