I am retired and hate TV. I cut across a lot of different subjects. These were read in the past six months.
1. Iron Coffins by Werner. Author was a German Uboat commander. Great description of uboat warfare with tremendous insight to the loss of the war and the impact on civilians in Germany.
2. Washington by Chernow. Anything by Chernow is good. Recommend Titan and Hamilton.
3. Bloodlines by del Bosque. Rookie FBI agent trips across a money laundering scheme. Mexican drug lords buying quarter horses here in Texas. A couple of Aggies get mentioned a lot.
4.Killer of the Flower Moon by Grann. The Osage tribe was extremely wealthy in the 1920's. They kept showing up dead. Great but sad story.
5. Fallen Founder by Isenberg. Aaron Burr was such a rascal you just have to like him.
6. The Framing of a Legend by Holowchak. A scientific look at all the gossip surrounding Jefferson and Sally Hemings.
7. Charlemagne by Fried. Don't bother. It is a book in desperate need of an editor.

Just started Richard Nixon by Farrell.

Curious how you think 6 on your list was scientific? I found it exasperating and poorly argued.

Just finished Last Man Out by Bob Wilbanks. It's an amazing book following Glenn McDole and some of the other men who were able to escape the Palawan Massacre in WWII. I had previously read As Good As Dead by Stephen Moore regarding the Palawan Massacre. I would highly recommend both books for an amazing and little known story.

I am about to start Invasion Rabaul, the first of the Rabaul trilogy.

At least he understands some basic concepts concerning DNA. Annette Gordon Reed, a history prof and a lawyer did not have even a basic understanding of how DNA works and what conclusions could be drawn from it.

Gordon Reed should really be drummed out of the profession.TR wrote about thirty books on various historical topics. He said " True teachers of history must tell the facts of history. To learn anything from the past it is necessary to know, as near as may be, the exact truth. It is an absolute disqualification for a historianwhen it is once settled beyond doubt that he deliberately perverts the truth".

DNA eliminated four out of Sally's five kids. Could be 5 out of six, the point being there was only one kid that could have been shired by a Jefferson male and there were three or four possible Jefferson males with access to Sally...TJ being the least likely given the circumstances. Yet she assigns parentage to every child of Hemings.

To continue her"legacy" I understand she thinks Andrew Johnson also had a child by a slave. I have never heard of that but I am sure she will string together enough rumor, and gossip to be awarded a second Pulitzer Prize.

Given the circumstances, Jefferson is the most likely. Not the least. In the end, Jefferson either slept with his slave (essentially sexual assault), or allowed his relatives to sexually assault one of his slaves. And the DNA only eliminated the oldest child. Not 4 of 5. It doesn't work out well. The book in question was a bizarre jumble of screed and psychoanalysis. The DNA didn't even come into the picture until well into the book.

I am going to have to disagree. Gordon Reed's book was published in 1997. It was established that DNA could establish heritage and it could mathematically eliminate it. Gordon Reed, as a professor of law, should have a basic understanding of the rules and use of evidence. That wasn't her purpose. She used her book to make the argument that historians are racists and had given TJ a pass.

Sally Hermings had six children but only three lived to adulthood. To my knowledge, Eston, her youngest born in 1808 could have a Jefferson male as a father. The others have been eliminated.

There were 24 Jefferson males in Virginia in 1808. However, the only ones at Monticello we're TJ, his younger brother Randolph and his five sons, ranging in ages of mid teens to 27. So you have a one in six chance of TJ being the dad of Eston.

Randolph is the likely suspect. He was known to have fathered other children by slaves. He was younger. In an age where the average male died before the age of fifty, and there being no viagra, TJ at age 65 is the least likely. Plus, Randolph was known to socialize in the slave quarters. TJ did not. Randolph was at Monticello at the approximate time of Eston's Conception. He was not then married.

Eston's Oral history would indicate that his father was Randolph. It appears as such in the Monticello archives.

Trying to assign some responsibilities to TJ for the criminal acts of third parties is a leap that one thousand years of jurisprudence has not made. Of course, that even assumes that the actions rise to the level of a crime. The Hemings enjoyed a privilege status at Monticello. Sally was almost a certainty a half sister of TJ's wife.

Mathematically, TJ 's chance are one in six, assuming a 1808 source for viagra.

Sally didn't work in the fields or have much to do with the slave cabins. And Jefferson was not too old to sleep around. Franklin was notorious for his escapades at an advanced age. The only Jefferson around Hemings on a daily basis was Thomas Jefferson, so it's not a 1 in 6 chance. I'm not going to go much further on this in this thread, since it isn't the topic of the thread and I don't want to derail further, but Jefferson wouldn't be doing something unusual. A huge percentage of slave owners did the same thing. Including his father-in-law. The man was brilliant and should be celebrated for a lot of what he did, but his entire life was laced with hypocrisy and double standards. And when you look at the evidence and apply a little common sense, you can try and argue Thomas wasn't sleeping with Sally Hemmings, but it's not the logical conclusion.

Skinner98, all 3 of the Rabaul books are well worth your time IMHO

Reread the facts. The odds are one in six. As far as what percentage of slave owners slept with slaves, look at the 1850 census. After something less than 200 years of slavery, the census showed about ten percent of the slaves were mulatto. Of course, that may not fit your desired perception of the facts, but I don't find that number to be all that large. Personally, I never thought that the average southern woman was going to permit their husbands to just slip out to the slave quarters whenever they wanted.

A sexual comparison between TJ and BF is hardly scientific. Plus BF did not sire anyone late in life. Admittedly he was known to be a randy fellow....but no evidence....

Aquin said:

---

Reread the facts. The odds are one in six. As far as what percentage of slave owners slept with slaves, look at the 1850 census. After something less than 200 years of slavery, the census showed about ten percent of the slaves were mulatto. Of course, that may not fit your desired perception of the facts, but I don't find that number to be all that large. Personally, I never thought that the average southern woman was going to permit their husbands to just slip out to the slave quarters whenever they wanted.

A sexual comparison between TJ and BF is hardly scientific. Plus BF did not sire anyone late in life. Admittedly he was known to be a randy fellow....but no evidence....

---

Thomas Jefferson slept with his slave. I like Jefferson as much as the next guy, but I don't feel the need to try and find other explanations.

Dr. Watson said:

---

1 in 6 if you don't account for the reality of who lived where and when and how familiar they were with Sally Hemmings. That's not addressing the historical record, that's hoping for an outcome.

And 10% of a population is very large. That suggests that a very, very large percentage of skilled slaves and house slaves were mulatto. You know, the slaves in close daily contact with whites. Of course, this is more than just suggested, we know lighter skinned slaves were typically chosen for household roles or given more responsibility. And you can believe whatever you'd like about white Southern women, many of them had husbands with shadow slave families. We have accounts of white women beating and torturing the slave women their husbands slept with since they couldn't torture or beat their husbands. It was a terrible system.

---

Speaking of which, I am thinking of trying to read Yes Lord I Know the Road, A Documentary History of Slavery in South Carolina. I just heard a review of it and it sounds quite informative, though disturbing:

https://www.sc.edu/uscpress/books/2016/7731.html

Written by a Texas A&M author, I just read The Yankee Plague, Escaped Union Prisoners. I highly recommend it!


https://www.uncpress.org/book/9781469630557/the-yankee-plague/

Quote:

---

Given the circumstances, Jefferson is the most likely. Not the least. In the end, Jefferson either slept with his slave (essentially sexual assault), or allowed his relatives to sexually assault one of his slaves. And the DNA only eliminated the oldest child. Not 4 of 5. It doesn't work out well. The book in question was a bizarre jumble of screed and psychoanalysis. The DNA didn't even come into the picture until well into the book.

---

Do not fail to consider that Sally Hemmings was the half-sister to Jefferson's late wife. Sally was the product of a relationship between Martha Jefferson's father and a slave. This was news to no one in the family, and there is some evidence that she looked similar to Martha.

So you're Jefferson and when your wife was on her deathbed, you made a promise never to marry again, even though you're still young and virile. A few years later, you're in Paris and your daughter arrives with a slave who you last saw as a little girl (she's now 18 or so) and she looks a lot like your dead wife. You're in Paris where everyone you know is sleeping with random French women, sometimes with the knowledge of their husbands who don't care.

This was not simply Jefferson shacking up with a random slave. He picked Sally because she reminded him in a way of his late wife. The relationship was probably consensual, though what that really means for a slave is less likely love (though that is possible) than a belief that participating in the relationship guaranteed a higher standard of life than would otherwise have been possible.

VanZandt92 said:

---

I'm now reading Dunmore's War, The Last Conflict of America's Colonial Era.

---

This book got great reviews from historians, but it doesn't rank high in readability to me. Sooo mucn background info and this is from someone who has familiarity with the settlement of western Virginia and with the Allegheny region. It is going to be difficult to finish if I can't get past the treaties and such.

Read this one recently and I highly recommend it. It is quite readable and is all action:

I was not familiar with the Osage murders and just read about them. It is so disappointing to think people would do such a thing

You might enjoy Our Savage Neighbors, if you haven't read it before. Some of the acts by groups like the Paxton Boys and the Gnaddenhutten Massacre gives context to later acts like the Osage murders.

Trying to read Plutarch's Lives . Not succeeding .

Just finished "Killers of the Flower Moon". Good read about a horrific crime spree. On to "The Conquering Tide" to get back in to WWII.

Recently finished "The North Water", a great book about a polar whaling expedition and "Barkskins" which covered the trials and tribulations of woodsmen in Canada and the Northern US in the 16th and 17th century. Both are fiction, but really paint a nice historical picture.

I'm also reading this right now. Not precisely history, but not bad

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-08-18/features/9808180246_1_christopher-dickey-james-dickey-father-and-son

cmiller00 said:

---

Reading Grant by Ron Chernow.

Before that just finished the three part Churchill biography The Last Lion by William Manchester (and Paul Reid on the last one), Enemy at the Gates by William Craig and the Miracle of Dunkirk by Walter Lord.

Enjoyed them all but probably liked the Churchill books best.

---

Could you tell a big difference in the writing of the last Churchill book? I always thought that having someone step in to finish a series like that would be jarring. Praying that isn't going to be what happens to Caro's LBJ series

Just finished re-reading Escape From Davao by John Lukacs and The Pacific by Hugh Ambrose.

Just started Bolomen by Dominador Javellana III - a book published in the Philippines with the subtitle Stories of the Civilian Resistance in Wartime Ilocos. Interesting accounts of the guerilla activities against the Japanese in the Philippines.

Also in the middle of Corregidor by Eric Morris.

Finally finished Applebaum's 'The Gulag'; dense but a great history. Looking forward to her Red Famine about the famine in Ukraine whenever I get a copy.

Currently on Friedlander's The Years of Extermination; great chronological history of the Final Solution from 1939-1945.

Buddy Sorrell said:

---

cmiller00 said:

---

Reading Grant by Ron Chernow.

Before that just finished the three part Churchill biography The Last Lion by William Manchester (and Paul Reid on the last one), Enemy at the Gates by William Craig and the Miracle of Dunkirk by Walter Lord.

Enjoyed them all but probably liked the Churchill books best.

---

Could you tell a big difference in the writing of the last Churchill book? I always thought that having someone step in to finish a series like that would be jarring. Praying that isn't going to be what happens to Caro's LBJ series

---

Yes. It was good but not as good as the first two IMO . Reid also had some slightly different opinions on Churchill's habits and mindset.

Just started Russia's Last Gasp by Print Buttar.(WW1)
Only 30 pages in, it looks like a classic. Will be buying whatever else he's done

SRBS said:

---

Just started Russia's Last Gasp by Print Buttar.(WW1)
Only 30 pages in, it looks like a classic. Will be buying whatever else he's done

---

The Silk Roads by Peter Frankcopan.

Quote:

---

This Kind of War - T. R. Fehrenbach

---

always liked Fehrenbach's work, good south Texan

Consider following up with Eric Hammel's Chosin: Heroic Ordeal of the Korean War. Finished about a week ago,

Currently working on Wyeth's That Devil Forrest.

VanZandt92 said:

---

Written by a Texas A&M author, I just read The Yankee Plague, Escaped Union Prisoners. I highly recommend it!


https://www.uncpress.org/book/9781469630557/the-yankee-plague/

---

I just want to go back and bump this. Any student of the era and any Southerner will be fascinated.

This is what I am reading right now. So far so good. The author does add some historical fiction details so that one can fill in the gaps of what life might have been like for Rogers and colonial settlers on the frontier, but so far that has not detracted from the story of this important character.






The contemporary painting:

Rogers Rangers

I'd strongly disagree with this part of the blurb:

Quote:

---

Rogers learned to survive in New England's dark and deadly forests, grasping, as did few others, that a new world required new forms of warfare.

---

By Rogers' adulthood, the "skulking way of war" was common amongst whites. Scalp bounties were offered at the start of every conflict beginning with King William's War (1689), and any party that hoped to recover those bounties was required to have at least 2 whites with them. By Dummer's War (1722), you had an entire conflict fought by ranger parties with no major conventional military operations. Rogers was one of the best ranger leaders ever, but he was not unique or innovative.

I amended the above post as perhaps the blurb doesn't reflect reality of colonial warfare. I was just sticking it in so folks would see something about Rogers.

The depth of my knowledge in terms of colonial warfare extends to:

King Phillips War -
The French and Indian War
The Cherokee Wars - this one is quite important in my reading, though it is difficult to summarize
The Tuscarora War
Dunmore's War

It seems you have greater knowledge in some areas and how conflict was carried out . The thoughts are much appreciated.

Back on Rogers, what would be a few words you'd say about this individual? I picked up this book because in my reading I am continually running into this guy. He was all over and certainly had an effect on history during those decades. As far as what he innovated and did not, I don't know. Let's discuss this and other things, whether on this thread or others.