A profound and timely examination of the moral underpinnings of the War Between the States The Civil War was not only a war of armies but also a war of ideas; in which Union and Confederacy alike identified itself as a moral nation with God on its side. In this watershed book; Harry S. Stout measures the gap between those claims and the war’s actual conduct. Ranging from the home front to the trenches and drawing on a wealth of contemporary documents; Stout explores the lethal mix of propaganda and ideology that came to justify slaughter on and off the battlefield. At a time when our country is once again at war; Upon the Altar of the Nation is a deeply necessary book.
#341876 in Books Paul Johnson 2006-05-02 2006-05-02Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 7.14 x .57 x 5.10l; .34 #File Name: 0143037455208 pagesNapoleon A Life
Review
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful. Don't Do it...By Nicholas RobertsThis book was short; expensive and highly inaccurate. It is just not possible to cover Napoleon's life in 100 pages; but if you make the attempt make sure you got your facts straight and your figures correct. Just isn't worth it.3 of 3 people found the following review helpful. Another sloppy job by a British historian who dislikes the ...By M. BelmanAnother sloppy job by a British historian who dislikes the French. According to his Wikipedia bio; Johnson is a supporter of Pinochet and Franco; so one must ask why he dislikes Napoleon so fiercely. Other reviewers have listed the many factual errors that Johnson makes in this book; for me the silliest was his contention that Napoleon invented the secret police. As for his opinions; his equating Denon to Goebbels and Speer takes the cake.4 of 5 people found the following review helpful. Well-written; but the author clearly harbors and anti-Napoleon grudgeBy Mike VictorExcellent. I love Paul Johnson's plain; direct writing style. Napoleon is a complex character who continues to evoke passionate feelings of admiration or hatred (few are lukewarm about him). The line drawn from Napoleon to the events of 1917 and the mass murders of the 20th century seemed a bit tenuous; but Johnson makes the point well. Napoleon managed to tap; manipulate; and ride a lethal combination of transnational Utopian ideology and national self-determination; and once released; it was impossible to put back into the bottle. Johnson makes the point that nationalism; once unleashed; was the undoing of Napoleon ironically enough; and that it led to the collapse of empires and over the next century or two to the Europe we know today.Johnson clearly does not like Napoleon and this cheapens the writing a bit. He even gives us an image of his small genitalia from the autopsy performed by a British surgeon which I think was a bit gratuitous. Johnson repeatedly makes the point - valid in my opinion - that Napoleon's ambition led to the deaths of millions and the suffering of many more; but this point does not need the sniping comments of Napoleon's pathetic final days to make valid.The other difficulty with Napoleon is that English language histories; I have noticed; tend to have an Anglo-Saxon bias as he is seen through the spy glass of Wellington at Waterloo. French ones are more nuanced and emphasize his legal and administrative exploits (which although less remembered; displayed remarkable genius).Napoleon was a strange mix of revolutionary and latent monarch. Here was a man who began his career as a Jacobin but was deeply appalled at the excesses of an unrestrained mob as he witnessed them butcher the Swiss guards protecting Louis XVI. He would not forget that day as he opened up with artillery at point blank range on a Paris crowd when he next had the opportunity; ending the power of the sans culottes once and for all. Here was a man who approved of regicide who declared himself emperor; then; when that was not enough; married a teenage princess in an unsuccessful attempt to join the club of blue bloods. Johnson covers all this ground; all the complexity of the man; but yields to the temptation to resolve the complexity by explaining it too much.Napoleon was Napoleon. He was a unique man in history; and yes; if history had been a bit different one way or the other; if Napoleon had been born in a different time or place; we might not have heard of him; but he was more than the label we put on a historical wave as Tolstoy argued in War and Peace or a stage setter for Hitler and Stalin as Johnson seems to argue. I think we should let him be just who he was; a brilliant; troubling; and troubled man; who managed to lead a country - and Europe - kicking and screaming into the modern era. France would have a restoration; and his own behavior seems to undermine his republican values; but Napoleon not only rescued the revolution; but exported it; for better or worse; to the rest of Europe. All monarchs would be fighting a rear guard action for the next 100 years. Most would disappear. Those who survived would be constitutionally limited; in most cases titular. Napoleon did that.And he gave us Louisiana.
