5 comments about The Devil Knows How To Ride: The True Story Of William Clarke Quantril And His Confederate Raiders.

1. ....and Colonel William Clarke Quantrill called in the debt. He sure as hell did. Hart was an assumed name that Quantrill used as a young man when he went west from Ohio seeking fame and fortune, or at least a living. Problem was, he landed right in the middle of the "Bleeding Kansas" mess that was especially hot along the Missouri-Kansas border. Quantrill worked as a teacher, and is said to have been a good one, but trouble was brewing...Charles Jennison and his Jayhawkers, John Brown and his murders of innocent whites....more than enough motivation for a young man to follow the South when war came.
   
   Missouri was even more deeply divided than the rest of the country; it really was brother against brother. The Confederate commander in Missouri was Major General Sterling Price, a fine and decent man, but not our best General. Initially, Quantrill served in the regular Confederate Army, but gradually broke away, with a band of followers, to form The Missouri Partisan Rangers, forerunner of the modern Special Forces, complete with proper Confederate commissions. At first, they played by regular rules...taking prisoners, giving paroles, etc. But when Jim Lane wantonly burned Osceola, and murdered civilians, the black flag came out...
   
   Quantrill's followers are the stuff of Legend...Captain Bloody Bill Anderson...Captain George Todd, who eventually supplanted Quantrill [I am married to a direct descendent of Captain Todd; our son will gladly tell you about it]...Archie Clement...Bill Gregg...Cole Younger...Frank James...Jesse James. Some died in the cause; others went on to fame after the war.
   
   Quantrill's Raiders lived off the countryside, and made things hot for the Yankees wherever they went. They even fought, and won, regular battles, like Baxter Springs. Finally, the Yankees imprisoned female relatives of the Raiders in a structurally unsafe jail in Kansas City...when it collapsed, five innocent girls, including Bill Anderson's sister and Cole Younger's cousin died...enough was enough, the bill was due, and Lawrence paid. When Ewing issued his infamous Order #11, clearing northwest Missouri of Southern civilians, resolve hardened.
   
   Eventually, Todd and Anderson were killed, and the war ended. Quantrill was mortally wounded in Kentucky in 1865. Or was he? He was seen alive as late as 1915...the ultimate legendary status...seen alive after death, joining such company as Jesse James [seen as late as 1951], Houdini, Elvis, and JFK. His skull was used as a prop in a college fraternity initiation for years; he finally received a military funeral, and Christian burial, in 1992. Surviving Raiders held reunions from 1898 till 1929; interestingly, there were two black Raiders at the reunions, though no one knows much about them.
   
   This is a well researched account of a little known aspect of our Civil War. "Quantrill's War" by Duane Schultz is more academic, but this is more readable...both get five stars.



2. As little as I heard about William Qunatrell and as much as I wanted to know about him, I found this book sadly lacking in any depth or insight. Even though the author writes an introduction about knowing a sociopath who massacred a dozen people in a McDonald's and how this led him to be interested in serial killers and the like, he falls back on narrative devices of the Gone with the Wind cliche.
   
   Whilst there is a fascinating story buried in this narrative about a man who took up guerrilla warfare and how he scared the hell out of Kansas and Missouri, the retelling sucks the life out of it. The author relies too heavily on the original histories and reports some of the hokiness bits of dialogue and fictions without comment. Sure, the guerrila bands MIGHT have been avenging their sisters and the good southern women, or that might have just been the melodramatic recreation. Sure, a man might have said "D-mn them. They are desecrating the flag" upon seeing a Lawrence raider dragging an American flag on horseback. Or he might have just been running for his life and thought up the story later on.
   
   Sadly, this is considered the classic of the historical accounts. So it will be many more years before a better book comes along - one that actually attempts psychological insight and historical accuracy and actually discusses the original texts instead of swallowing every bit of romanticized twaddle without question.



3. I am a history fanatic and I loved this book. It is about a time of which I did not have a lot of knowledge and this was so well done.
   I am sorry Mr. Leslie doesn't have more books as he is an excellant story teller.



4. Mild-mannered teacher. Mama's boy. Impressionable Army teamster. Professional gambler. Lady's man. Expert horseman. Cold-blooded killer.
   
   William Clarke Quantrill, the leader of the most feared group of guerrillas in American history, possessed all of these personas at one time or another in his short life. Tackling a subject of this complexity requires an author who is up to the task, and Edward Leslie proves that he is the man for the job in The Devil Knows How to Ride.
   
   Leslie does an admirable job transporting the reader back to a time when people's survival was day-to-day and the difference between life and death often depended on one's political sympathies. Leslie probably comes closer than any other author to understanding Quantrill the man and his motivations. This is all the more impressive when one considers that Quantrill, the most important figure in the story, died a month shy of his 28th birthday, leaving behind few correspondences and no memoirs.
   
   The book is thoroughly researched and meticulously detailed. Well-known events such as the Lawrence Massacre are covered. But so are little-known historical nuggets, such as the story of Quantrill escaping from the headquarters of a Confederate general who had placed him under arrest near Bonham, Texas. It seems that every raid ever undertaken by Quantrill's gang gets a mention, whether it be for one sentence or an entire chapter. Despite the book's great detail, its pulse-pounding pace is rarely compromised.
   
   Besides good research and an easy writing style, another of Leslie's hallmarks is that he brings objectivity to the subject of which he writes. He projects a balanced view that never resorts to "purple prose." Many of the more incendiary allegations against Quantrill are presented very carefully. For example, Leslie takes issue with stories of Quantrill gleefully abusing animals as a youth and attributes them to a single source who had reasons for disparaging his character. Perhaps because of Quantrill's fierce reputation, many such stories about him were taken at face value when they were first published.
   
   This book is ideal for readers with a basic knowledge of the Civil War who don't want to sift through long narratives of troop movements, flanking maneuvers, and the like. The irregular nature of guerrilla operations makes for interesting reading. The story is also interesting because guerrilla groups were small units compared with the regular Army. As a result, the participants in the story have related their experiences in very personal terms.
   
   Leslie's attention to detail and fresh perspective on Quantrill ensures that Civil War aficionados will appreciate the book as well.
   
   If you are looking for one book on Quantrill, or even one book on the Civil War in the West, you can't go wrong with The Devil Knows How to Ride.



5. You won't find a better, more up-to-date analysis of the border war and the guerillas and bushwackers. And now is a good time to bone up on the subject, as we are in the midst of the 150th anniversary of the Border War and the anniversary of Quantrills raid on Lawrence is just 5 years away. Lock and load, people.

5 comments about Last in Their Class: Custer, Pickett and the Goats of West Point.

1. This extremely well-written book tells the story of many of the men who were at the bottom of their graduating class from West Point: the Goats. Prime examples were Generals Pickett and Custer, among others. The theme of the book is to show that class rank does not necessarily translate into military success. Following the lives of several of these men was quite interesting, particularly the ones that are not so well known today. There is a breezy style of writing in this book, and it gives one pause to think about the current emphasis about class rank endemic all over the country. People should strive to be the best, but as this book reminds us, sometimes the best isn't what this country needs.



2. Just finished this book, and it was imho enthralling, very hard to put down..its takes us on a tour of West Point graduates ranked as "immortals" (those being the bottom 10 of their class) and the Goat, the last in their class.,..some famous names were goats or immortals; Heth, Pickett, Custer, Kirby Smith the Crittenden(s) Grant ( whose worst subject was..Infantry tactics go figure) among many others..... Great reading regards the Seminoles wars, Mexican-American War the Civil war......the trials and tribulations at West Point, their pranks and punishments etc....many great complimentary bios to be found here, Whistler, Poe et al...all wound up with stories of their military performance's and stories regards their paths criss-crossing in the Civil war etc....a comparative analysis as to why so many of the Immortals and Goats had an impact all out of proportion to the top 5 and their relative ranks, which in the end, means nothing...



3. I highly recommend this most inspirational literary work. The anecdotes of forgotten soldiers (officers and volunteers alike), men who shined but a moment on the pages of history, have touched me deeply. I empathize with their infamy at being named Last in their Class, yet these "rejects" rose to great heights of achievement due to other redeeming character traits. There's a lesson to be learned from these mini-biographies as one carefully reads each page, absorbing the intriguing stories line by line. This is a book to be savored, not rushed through. I am thoroughly enjoying my visit in the pages of this fine book. This seems to be the author's one and only work; here's wishing James S. Robbins future success in publishing.



4. "Last in Their Class" is easily one of the most accessible titles in the category of "Military History" that has ever been published. Having read numerous books on the Civil War, it is rare to find one that kept me interested from start to finish, AND that I would recommend to a casual reader of history without hesitation. Though much of the book centers around the proverbial Goats, it also dives deeply into the culture of West Point and life in 19th century America. Robbins engages the reader in tales of cadets sneaking out to the nearest bar, then deftly segues into the details of an obscure engagement on the western frontier, while never losing the narrative thread or the reader's attention. I would recommend this book to almost any reader; simply wonderful.



5. What an enlightening book! Fun, interesting and full of great trivia!
   
   This book gives proof that you don't have to be first to be great! Lots of great stories about West Point and its history.
   
   Makes a great gift for an Army officer or NCO.

3 comments about The Morning the Sun Went Down.

1. from "Kirkus Reviews" (starred review): A slim, modest, and altogether extraordinary memoir of rural Native American life. Wilson, a poet and scholar from the Achumawe and Atsugewi tribes of northeastern California, came into adolescence in the mid-1950s, when his people had all but disappeared through assimilation or extermination. Blame for part of that disappearance he lays squarely at the door of whites; but, he adds, "the neglect of our Elders to teach us our traditions was equally damaging." His own parents did their best to teach Wilson and his siblings something of the old ways: how to hunt deer, how to tame rattlesnakes, how to listen for mountain lions, lessons that he imparts to his readers with precision and grace- and not a little humor. But when his mother and younger brother were killed in a collision with a logging truck, Wilson was sent off to live with white foster parents among unfriendly neighbors (he remembers, touchingly, one young girl "who did not accuse me with her eyes or attitude," principally "because we were not enemies"). Whe it appeared that his foster parents wanted to strip away his Indian identity, Wilson rebelled, for which he was sent off to a boarding school where the young California Indian charges were locked in their rooms at nights and punished by day for minor infractions. Wilson recounts these horros matter-of-factly but doesn't dwell on them; instead, he celebrates a teacher who sagely corrected his compositions, encouraged him to improve himself, and urged him to become a writer. Readers have reason to be grateful to that teacher as well. Wilson is a careful and compassionate obeserver of his life and those of other young Indians, and his book is a fine addition to the growing library of Native American autobiography.



2. Every once in a while a book is written that changes everything. THE MORNING THE SUN WENT DOWN is one of those books. This autobiography written by Darryl Babe Wilson about his Achomawi/Atsugewi (Pit River) childhood in northeastern California is filled with wonder and lyrical beauty, and at the same time with painful tragedy and brutality. This is the masterful recounting of a personal journey that enfolds us warmly in a child eye's view of Wilson's family and tribal relations, as well as the intrinsic and permanent relationship with the land in its ancient and essential dimensions. This book is simultaneously literature, an autobiography and the history of a People. It is highly recommended.//This is a portion of the review by Susan Lobo that will appear in the journal NATIVE AMERICAS (Cornell)



3. Every once in a while a book is written that changes everything. This is one of those books. This autobiography written by Darryl Babe Wilson about his Achomawi/Atsugewi (Pit River) Indian childhood in northern California is filled with wonder and lyrical beauty, and at the same time with painful tragedy and brutality. This is the masterful recounting of a personal journey that enfolds us warmly in a child eye's view ofWilson'sfamily and tribal relations, as well as the intrinsic and permanent relationship with theland in its ancient and essential dimensions. This book is simultaneously literature, an autobiography and the history of a People. Thebook begins with a dream in which Wilson is tested and reminded by the Elders of his responsibility to his People. It combines observations both minute and practical with those that sweepinglyencompass infinate place and time, understood both by the heart and mind. We are deftly drawn into a world that is simultaneously rugged and sweet. The family tragedy, the death of his mother and baby brother, and the subsequent family separation are described in wrenching detail, mirroring and paralleling the descriptions of historic events resulting from the lethal coming of whites into his homeland following the discovery of gold in California. Wilson places us, as readers, in a spot that is at the same time ancient, historical and contemporary. This is a story of growingself-assurance and human understanding as Wilson matures and comes to see the world from a broader vision, as well as his place and potential role within that world. He says, "...we must seek a power or a series of powers outside of ourselves which we identify as 'helpers.' Helpers can be a tree or animals, rocks or mountains, stars or flowers, frogs or rainbows. Helpers come to us in our time of need, and they guide our dreams." This book is utlimately the story of strength and power. Near the end of the book, he says, "For it was a song, according to our narratives, that caused all of the universe to have a beginning. We must seek within ourselves the spiritual terrain from our watu/ah'lo (spiritual umbilical cord) to the Great Power, cultivating our personal power and creating wholesomeness with our thoughts and intentions...It is taught in our lessons and legends, and by our Elders, that The People are responsible for life upon earth. Honoring the lessons then becomes a mandate from Great Power/GReat Wonder/Great Spirit that we are bound to obey. All people must obey the Great Law, so the sweetness of life can continue."

5 comments about Harrison (Editors of Rolling Stone).

1. I must challege Candace Scott's remark in her review :
   
   "But it's a stretch, to put it mildly, to place Harrison in the same league as Lennon & McCartney as a songwriter. Ouch! I love George as much as anyone, but still expect truthful history to be written"
   
   I agree, George should not be placed in the same league as Lennon & McCartney because he was totally in his own league ! What is Candace making the comparison to here ? It was George, partially inspred by Pattie, his first wife, who led the other Beatles into the rich Vedic culture of spiritual India that inspired so many of their finest musical and lyrical masterpieces.
   
   So in that context, the "truthful history to be written", is that George was even partially responsible for some of the finest compopsitions of Lennon and McCartney.George gave great emphasis to the chanting of the Holy Names of the Lord, as in the chanting of the Hare Krishna maha-mantra, as found in "My Sweet Lord", and "It Is He ( Sri Krishna )", which is the ultimate function of music, according to the ancient wise sages, gurus and spiritual masters . This Krishna mantra has helped millions of people to give up harmful drugs, animal killing, etc...How many song-writers are doing that with their music today ? George was the innovator, to turn scripture into pop songs. He was divinely empowered and had the integrity to do this, not caring if he was "fab" to the eyes of the masses, unlike anyone before him.
   
   To minimize George's ability as a song writer in anyway only helps to disclose one's own superficiality, and lack of spiritual consciousness.
   
   George's songs overflow with essential messages of the futility and temporality of things material, such as "All Things Must Pass", the dangers of becoming too materially attached "Beware of Darkness" , the concern for living in harmony with this planet "Save The World", etc...
   
   In "Isn't It A Pity", George gives the essence of spirituality, by prompting us to develop equal vision and gratitude toward all beings, including animals :
   
   "Some things take so long
   
   But how do I explain
   
   When not too many people
   
   Can see we're all the same
   
   And because of all their tears
   
   Their eyes can't hope to see
   
   The beauty that surrounds them
   
   Isn't it a pity
   
   I was very disappointed by Candace Scott's inabiity to see that "beauty that surrounds her" and lack of gratitude towards the very substantial and deep contribution George made through his music in transforming the lives of millions of people. I went on to become a Hare Krishna monk over thirty years ago because of his music, and devoted the best years of my life to feeding free vegetarian meals to tens of thousands of people, helping others off drugs, and so many other volunteer activities.
   
   George Harrison is my first guru, and awareness of his contribution to the upliftment of the world will only increase as time goes by. Please read this book for it's deeper purpose.
   gaura_acbsp@yahoo.com



2. For the recent Birthday of Georgie Boy, I can review this item as the best way of remembering one of the best humans that have ever walked this earth.



3. Having been a "LLOG" (Lifetime Lover of George)I have read plenty about him. In general, his music is the best way to get to know George: it is unique, multi-textured, honest, witty, loving and spiritual. However, for reasons I certainly can't fathom, generally his post-Beatles work (with about two exceptions) got no respect!
   Of course I loved the photos, but in my opinion the written tributes from his wife, Olivia, and his friends/fellow musicians are what sets this book apart. Paul Simon's is particularly descriptive: I felt as though I was visiting Friar Park (the Harrison's home in England) right along with him; walking through George's beloved gardens, sitting in front of the fire, listening to an impromptu ukelele concert, receiving a thoughtful surprise upon returning home to the U.S. "He wasn't particularly quiet, he just didn't DEMAND to be heard." Beautifully put. (Note to Paul Simon: you just might have a second career there; I would buy your first novel!)
   This is also a great book for aspiring guitarists, as it gives mini-descriptions of particularly noteworthy ("Essential") Harrison performances, illustrating the subtleties and unusual but brilliant choices George made (at times even innovative or ground breaking) musically. People who previously believed that Lennon and McCartney were the ONLY geniuses in the Beatles will re-think that belief after reading this section particularly: they might even listen for certain passages in certain songs and think, "YEAH, WOW! That IS amazing!" They might give George's solo work (besides "All Things Must Pass") a listen and be pleasantly surprised. But we "LLOGs" have heard and appreciated the subtle brilliance of George Harrison all along.
   This book is a must-have for any George Harrison or Beatles fan, or any guitar or rock history aficionado.



4. Geroge is consider one of the quiet one in the band "i think" but not on the music, his talent surpass any
   other musician and is really sad not to have him anymore . In this book you'll find a great deal of pics since
   the Beginning and from his solo career , a must have book to put in your collection



5. This is a beautiful and lovingly produced book of George Harrison's life in pictures with comprehensive articles and tributes written about George and heaps of great photographs and more. George's wife, Olivia Harrison wrote a moving personal Foreword that brings tears to the eye and touches chords in hearts. No George Harrison fans should miss this much sought-after item. However, whether or not you are a George Harrison or Beatles fan, this is a great book to read and a wonderful gift to give.

5 comments about My Country Right or Left 1940-1943: The Collected Essays Journalism & Letters of George Orwell (Collected Essays Journalism and Letters of George Orwell).

1. This is a great collection of essays and other writers by one of the foremost socialist critics of totalitarianism and domination. It is also a great book for admires of writers such as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and Edward said, as all share the same overarching purpose: to be a tireless critic of power and domination wherever it may be found. It is ironic to the extreme that so many conservative revisionists attempt to claim Orwell as their own, which is due to the tragically myopic misreading of his writings, especailly 1984 and Animal Farm. Both books are condemnations of totalitarianism, and in the case of Animal farm, the final page attests to Orwell's repugnance of capitalism. Let it not be forgotten that Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War in the aid of the socialist-anarchists. This is truly a great collection, which should be required reading for those who may not be familar with Orwell's non-fiction work.



2. ...Country Right or Left is part of a four volume set of essays commissioned by Orwell's wife Sonia. Whatever the criticisms that have been made of her stewardship of Orwell's legacy, these four volumes contain much of the best of Orwell's essays, letters and diary excerpts. This volume covers the early war years and much of the writing is shaded by that war.

   This is Orwell at his finest, on one hand a confirmed socialist dedicated to fighting the right whether the Tory party or fascism; one the other hand an anti-Stalinist and critic of the left and always an anti-totalitarian.

   Contained within "My Country Right or Left" is some of Orwell's best writing. In "Pacifism and the War", a notorious piece at the time, he accuses pacifists of aiding the fascist cause. "The Art of Donald McGill" is an essay about, of all things, postcards that are popular among the middle and lower classes. The postcards themselves, Orwell argues, say much about England's political and social attitudes. It's actually a perceptive piece of pop art and social commentary. Among my favorites is the essay concerning Mark Twain (Mark Twain- Licensed Jester). Orwell, a great admirer of Twain's, is critical of him for not being forceful enough in his social criticism. He accusation is that Twain pulls his punches far too often. It's a great piece of criticism and is Orwell at his finest.

   What holds a large amount of this Volume together are the letters to the Partisan Review, a New York publication that contracted with Orwell to write commentary on England during this early war period. The issues vary from English politics, reflections on the clothing worn by the masses, attitudes towards democracy and so on. All well written, never dull and very often wrong in their predictions. There is much more here including excerpts from his diary, letters to other major figures of the day and reflections on the Spanish Civil War.

   This is some of the greatest essay writing in the English language. Even sixty years later the essay's read clearly and give insight to Orwell's thinking.




3. For years, I have been impressed by the quality of the essays in Dickens, Dali, and Others, Shooting an Elephant, and Such, Such Were the Joys. I was looking forward to reading more of Orwell's essays. I soon discovered, however, that Orwell's essays not published in book form shared all the faults of those that I had read, but few of the virtues.
   
   Many cite Orwell's honesty as his primary virtue, but these essays reveal a man who is, if not dishonest, then at least quite blind to his own experiences. He states, without any supporting evidence, that "only Socialist nations can fight effectively" (p. 67, from The Lion and the Unicorn), despite the fact that he served in an army organized along socialist lines (as narrated on p. 255), if not the army of a socialist nation, five years prior to the publication of this statement; the army was defeated decisively by Generalissimo Franco's decidedly non-socialist forces.
   
   Orwell also frequently resorts to name-calling. Those who disagree with him politically are almost invariably "reactionaries", "Fascists", or "pro-Fascist". Jack London is "not . . . a fully civilised man."; rather, he possesses a "streak of savagery". Any thought, expression, or even word of which Orwell disapproves is "vulgar", from the cartoon postcards of Donald McGill to Kipling's statement that "He travels the fastest who travels alone" to Yeats's use of the word (!) "loveliness" (Orwell also claims that "Yeats's tendency is Fascist." on p. 273).
   
   It is clear to me after reading this volume that the editors who selected pieces for the three volumes of essays published during Orwell's lifetime made the right choices; they show him at his best. The rest of the material here is hardly worth reading except as a window into the soul of a man who was incapable of viewing the world except through the distorting lens of a commitment to socialism.



4. This book is an anthology of Orwell's essays, literary criticism, letters to friends,and political criticism. Those who read this book can read some interesting letters that Orwell wrote to the editors of THE PARTISAN REVIEW on the fortunes of W.W. II involving the British. The book concludes with Orwell's diary of the war. While George Orwell (1903-1950)was a self admitted "leftist," he was not an ideologue. Orwell showed that he was a well read individual and knew very well that political labels conceal the desire for political power regardless of political titles and party affilations.
   
   Orwell was a master of literary criticism. Two examples are his review and comments on Hitler's MEIN KAMPF and Tolstoy's denounciation of Shakespear. Orwell commented that an English review of Mein Kampf favaored the German dictator. Orwell correctly predicted such praise would soon evaporate which it did. Orwell informed readers that praise for Hitler was not unusal. One must note that Churchill complimented Hitler in Churchill's book titled GREAT CONTEMPORARIES. Churchill also complimented Hitler in a speech to Parliament in November, 1938. Here Orwell shows not only his ability as a literary critic, but he informs younger readers that the political disapproval word,fascism, had a different connotation. Many Europeans including the British middle and upper classes had serious concerns of Big Communism with its record of mass murder and concentration camp brutality.
   
   Orwell showed himself again as a literary critic when Orwell critisized Tolstoy for the latter's condemnation of William Shakespear. Orwell correctly refuted Tolstoy on a couple of issues. First, Tolstoy read Shakespear in translation which may have tainted his understanding of Shakespear. Also Tolstoy tried to condemn Shakespear in lieu of Tolstoy's social philosophy. Orwell stated such criticism was useless because such criticism would have been incomprehensible to Shakespear and his English contemporaries in the 16th and early 17th centuries. Orwell also chided Tolstoy for his assumed superiority. Tolstoy could not understand why Shakespear literary work was so appealing and wrote that everyone should know that Shakespear was some sort of scoundral. Yet, Orwell wryly comments that Shakespear's literay work was available throughout the world while Orwell could not find Tolstoy's essay until he found it in a museum.
   
   The best part of this Orwell anthology are his political essays. Orwell noted that there was suppose to be a bitter political divide betwen Fascism and Big Communism. When the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in 1939 unhinged this concept and angered Communists and their fellow travellers. When asked about this unexpected turn of diplomatic events, Molotov (I believe it was Molotov) who said that the difference between Socialism (Bib Communism) and Fascism was a matter of taste. Approximately two years later when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, this view sure changed. Orwell stated that Stalin and his supporters would have called themselves Fascists if they thought such a label would enhance their power. Hitler and his supporters would have done the same. Orwell clearly indicated that men who have concentrated power will use whatever political labels to keep or enhance their complete hold on power.
   
   Orwell used the political chaos both inside the Soviet Union and in Europe to sound a serious warning that literature could be lost because of the rapid changes in political loyalties. The sudden changes in internal enemis in the Soviet Union serves as a classic example. The heros of the Workers' Paradise were concentration camp victims the next day because they could not stay current with ruling party's changing enemy's list. The Non-Aggtression Pact mentioned above is another good example. Orwell reflected that in previous centuries, literary men (an women)had "a frame of reference." Their political and religious loyalties were stable from cradle to grave. However, given the rapidly changing of enemies, literary figures had no such stability and writing could be dangerous especially in the Soveit Union where writers were either sent to concentration camps or committed suicide. Had Orwell lived longer, he would have been pleased to see such Soviet writers as Boris Pasternak (DR. ZHIVAGO) and Alexander Solzhenitsyn who surived the Soviet purges and yet were awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. In fact, Solzhenitsyn sent ten years in a Soviet concentration camp from which he emerged as a literary giant. Orwell did suggest that totalitarian thought control could not survive the spirit and soul of thoughtful men.
   
   Among Orwell's many talents was his ability to expose political hypocrisy. Many of the British leaders were demanding that Mussolini be charged for "war crimes." Orwell scoffed at this nonsense. Orwell cearly indicated to his readers that those British leaders who demanded such "war crimes" trials against Mussolini were exactly the same British leaders who ten years previously praised Mussoini for the acts they now wanted to charge as war crimes. Orwell had a solid memory, and when Mussolini moved against the Communists and aided Franco in the Spanish Civil War, many of the same British leaders who wanted to try Mussolini for "war crimes," praised him for his actions which they awkardly tried to define as war crimes ten years later. Among those who praised Mussolini in the 1920s-1930s included Churchill.
   
   In parts of the book Orwell showed himself as a military expert. When there were threats of a possible German invasion, Orwell had practical suggestions of arming the British citizen with the most practicle weapons. Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War and volunteered for W.W. II, but illness kept out of that conflict. Orwell also took pride in his position in the Home Guard.
   
   This reviewer has one criticism. Orwell's letters to the PARTISAN REVIEW, political essays, literary criticism, etc. should have been arranged by topic rather than by time sequence. This would enable readers to easily read the book. However, this reviewer could not have done nearly as good a job. Orwell simply enhanced his position as a great novelist, literary critic, political thinker, and excellent prose writer. Readers would to well to read this book to have a better understanding of the war years (W.W II) than is presented in badly written textbooks and popular accounts. This reviewer highly recommends this book.



5. This is my first volume of essays, articles and letters by Blair/Orwell, which I read thanks to Jim Egolf's recent review here. The man contradicts himself quite a bit, but I do not regret the time spent. Who wants to get bored by people that one always agrees with?
   The main theme of the book, due to the time of the sample, is England in war with totalitarianism/fascism/nazism. Though Orwell was in his heart a leftist, he had enough insight from own experience to understand the nature of totalitarianism, he was a dedicated anti-Stalinist, and he staid away from party politics.
   And yet: his long essay 'The Lion and the Unicorn', one of the core texts of this book, gives a political vision, that puzzles me. He displays a surprising naivete about the strength of economic planning in socialism. Of course, we have the benefit of hindsight, we know that a central planning bureaucracy can be the right approach for a short term effort, like for a war, but will be hopelessly lost in inefficiencies in 'normal' times. Orwell was deeply convinced that state capitalism or socialism was the future, there would be no return after the war.
   I have decided to ignore his political recipes, but to enjoy his social analyses: England is a rich man's paradise, but the ruling class is too stupid to run the country.
   One of his main contributions to our understanding of the confict of the time: his juxtaposition of the ideology of hedonism (which nearly led the West into the abyss) against the ideology of social sacrifice, which helped the Nazis to succeed, luckily only temporarily.
   I wonder if he fully understood the real antagonism of Hitler to the West or if he got deceived by the temporary diversion of the pact with Stalin. (I notice when I browse the reviews and comments in this neighborhood that there is a certain willingness to say, the West should have gone with Hitler against the Soviets. Oh my, what a misunderstanding.) Probably he did. In a nice remark after the German attack on Russia he says, had this happened before the Hitler-Stalin pact, there was a chance of serious political disturbance in Britain, because the ruling class might have wanted to join the attack on Germany's side.
   My favorite text in the collection is the essay on H.G.Wells' inability to understand Hitler. Wells was the man who envisaged scientific progress against reactionary societies earlier in the century. He was unable to understand that Hitler's essentially irrational and superstitious ideology was capable of an efficient alliance with the other side of science.

5 comments about Richard the Third.

1. This book is one of the few that succeeds in revising the historical profile of king Richard by giving him the place he deserves. For centuries Tudor historians, particularly More and Vergil (using all the heavy artillery of political propaganda on behalf of their masters the Tudor kings) had drawn a caricature of king Richard, making him a monster, the incarnation of evil, not to speak of Shakespeare's play, as brilliant as false. This book proves that king Richard was a wise ruler, an excellent warrior (he decisively contributes to the final Yorkist victory over the Lancastrians in the battles of Barnet and Tewksbury in 1471), loyal to his brother king Edward IV, tender to his wife, loved by the people (specially by Northerners, by the people of York, where he was almost adored, while Henry VII and Henry VIII, the first Tudor kings, were much hated, which explains the constant rebellions of Yorkshire under Tudor rule) The tragedy of king Richard III has nothing to do with Shakespearean plot; it is very unlikely that he ordered the death of Edward IV's sons (the book provides an interesting appendix on the matter) and, of course, he had no body deformity. His tragedy was both personal and political: a man who saw the death of his beloved wife, son and brothers, a king who tried to rule for the people against the barons and paid a terrible price, the price of being betrayed at Bosworth field in 1485; a ruler who tried to take control of the political turmoil, hopelessly, as he found himself trapped in the turmoil, overwhelmed and finally swept away. However, he set the foundations of modern Britain, creating a strong State by undermining the territorial rebellious powers of the old feudal peerage, which were the cancer that had consumed the nation since the Beauforts had made a puppet of Henry VI, the last Lancastrian king, and which degenerated into the open enmity between the dukes of Somerset and York and the subsequent civil strife. Apart from reading a fascinating period of the History of England, this book made me seriously think of how easy it is to falsify History. Richard III is somebody who definitely deserved rehabilitation. Well done, Paul!



2. It seems that you can find two camps comcerning Richard III - people who think that he was truly the deforemed monster portrayed by Shakespeare or those who think that he ought to be canonized. Paul Murray Kendall did an excellent job of rendering a portrait of King Richard III that does not revolve around the typical Tudor propoganda and at the same time doesn't clamour for sainthood to be bestowed upon him. Anyone who is looking for a relatively unbiased view of this misunderstood monarch should definitely look into this excellent source!



3. Paul Murray Kendall writes an objective biography of Richard III from his childhood to his death on Bosworth Field in 1485. He examines contemporary accounts with an emphasis on the reports of Dominic Mancini, who wrote from his own observations. He reviews pro-Richardian or revisionist theories as well as traditionalist viewpoints in an attempt to provide an objective narrative about the king's life.
   
   The book starts with the earliest known information (at about age 10) and continues through Edward IV's reign and into Richard's, ending with his death in 1485. Separate appendices deal with the disappearance of the princes Edward and Richard and Richard's character.
   
   In a nutshell, the author characterizes Richard III as a loyal, honorable, talented (military skills) leader as well as a devoted and religious family man. These strengths, however, were offset by inflexibility - a mind that saw black and white, but nothing in between - and political naivete.
   
   Kendall's analysis of the available information concerning the disappearance of the princes is objective and sensible. His conclusion: Richard probably knew what happened to them. If he sanctioned their deaths, he did so because that's what rulers did to deposed kings in medieval times. The times were cruel and Richard was a man of his times.
   
   Equally objective is Kendall's assessment of Richard's character.
   
   The book is an excellent introduction to the life of a fascinating man as well as the times in which he lived. Highly recommended. FYI, this edition is a reprint of the original work published in 1955.



4. This is a very readable biography of Richard III. While more recent research may have overtaken some of Mr Kendall's conclusions it by no means diminishes his scholarship.
   
   Richard III's life has been the subject of many works of historical fiction. Additionally, he appears in the works of Shakespeare, is dissected by Sir Thomas More and others writing during Tudor times. Variously lionized and demonized, he is considered by many to be either the tragic hero slain in battle at Bosworth Field or the murderer of the princes in the Tower of London.
   
   To see Richard solely as either a villain or a victim is to ignore the realities of the period in which he lived and the circumstances whereby he came to the throne.
   
   I recommend this biography to those who want to know more about the life and reign of Richard III or are seeking some historical background to some of the works of historical fiction in which he features.
   
   Jennifer Cameron-Smith



5. In 1955 this old biography of old Richard III was authored by Ohio University Ph.d Paul Murray Kendall. The book is still being published and is, arguably, the best introduction to the life and times of the last Yorkist monarch of England. Anyone interested in Richard III should add this well researched book to his or her shelf.
   Richard III was born in 1452. His father the Duke of Gloucester was executed for treason. Richard grew up amid the confusion and tumult of late fifteenth century British life. He was the brother of Edward IV. His father Edward III had been a great warrior king. When Edward IV died in 1483 Richard usurped the throne from the new 12 year old boy King Edward V. Richard hated Edward IV's greedy and power mad widow Elizabeth Woodville and her family. Edward V and his brother the Duke of York were murdered in the Tower of London. No one has proven conclusively who the murderer was. Many historians speculate that it was Richard III who ordered the murders or perhaps the foul deed was done by his henchman the Duke of Buckingham (who later led an unsuccessful revolt against Richard).
   Richard was involved in the battle of Barnet along with his brother Edward IV which led to the death of the rebellious Warwick. He also particpated in the Battle of Tewksbury in which the mad King Henry VI
   was killed.
   Richard was married to Anne Neville who was weak and died prior to his own bloody death. Richard was popular in the North of England and his Council of the North brough orderly government to this volatile region. Richard particpated in battle against the Scotch keeping the English marches relatively well governed.
   The greatest challenge to Richard's eighteen month reign as King of England came from Henry Tudor. At Bosworth Field in August, 1485 Richard died in battle against Henry. Henry became Henry VII beginning 119 years of Tudor monarchy. Kendall is critical of Henry VII and says he was a tyrant. This is disputed by many historians while others in the academic community support this contention. Richard III was the last English King to die in battle.
   Richard III was no saint. He was a violent man living in a violent age. He died at age 33 and may have become a good king despite his bloody record. Kendall says later Tudor mythology especially in the biographies of Richard III by Sir Thomas Moore and the chronicler Hall have portrayed Richard as a monster who was deformed. This was not true. Neither is the portrait painted of Richard limned by Shakespeare in his history play true to all the facts.
   Kendall writes in a dry academic style with countless names. This is confusing for a lay reader unfamiliar with the history and players of the period. He is to be commended for his research. Most helpful were the battle maps especially of Bosworth Field which the author visited in a successful attempt to paint an accurate portrait of the crucial battle.
   This book is a fine and famous history of Richard III well worth reading.

5 comments about The Nature of Alexander.

1. I'm one of the fortunate ones who have a hardback edition with the 4 page fold-out full color map of Alexander's travels (hehe).
   
   Mary Reneaul has Alexander down pat, as far as I'm concerned. I admit I'm an Alexander enthusiast (pro-Alexander as opposed to, say, Bosworth's or Green's anti-Alexander). If you're from the anti- camp, you won't enjoy this book.



2. Mary Renault has always had a thing for Alexander. With her lesbian background in mid-century UK I guess this is not surprising. We have her to thank for much of the current fascination with Alexander's alleged homosexualty and such. This is a compelling work nonetheless, and while the bias and emphasis are obvious and perhaps a bit annoying at times, we can forgive Ms. Renault for being a bit over zealous in her passions. What she tries to do is provide a rationale for some of Alexander's actions. Sometimes she can be faulted for reading too much into what limited information we have on him. Still, this is a passionate look at the man and his times. There are many Alexander's for us to ponder. Perhaps because he was so many things to so many different people, and because of the limited documentation many scholars are free to pursue their own views on what he might have been. Mary Renault is no exception in this regard. To me Alexander is primarily the Great Captain of history. He was never defeated in battle, his conquests ranged far and wide, and his tactical abilities were supreme. He should be remembered for this brilliance as opposed to his sexual proclivities which are important only for those who have certain aggendas to pursue. True Alexander had many different sides to his character it seems, and his short but full life is packed with all sorts of fascinating events. His conquests can be divided into many distinct phases toward his character. Was Alexander a liberalizing influnence who spread Hellenism for the benefit of mankind, or just a thuggish tyrant who ran amok in the decadent Persian Empire. The verdict shall remain open on this and many other questions involving his life. For sure this is a very pro-Alex bio. Renault can see little wrong with even some of his most controversial actions. But her writing style is grand and elegant, and even if slanted, is perhaps no more so than some of the revivisionist bios we encounter today. Alexander shall forever suffer from extreme view points. The nature of his life and achievements seems to make this so even in our own time. Renault is good at possibly reading into his thought processes at certain key moments of his life, and she paints a compelling portrait of his sense of mystery and pathos which ultimately contributed to his demise as much as anything else might have in the end.



3. This is one of the many outstanding books written by Ms.Renault.She depicted Alexander as all of us would imagine him.Handsome, loving, fierce,mercyful and great.Although so many books have been written about Alexander,all in all we will never know if as a person he really indeed was that Great.
   Nadia
   Maryland.



4. Where is Alexander when we need him...now!
   After reading the big-long bio of Howard Hughes I'm thinking he may have been a reincarnation of Alexander.
   Too bad the real story of this phenomenal person is not taught in schools, youth of today would be much inspired by the philosophy and life of Alexander. He was certainly one-of-a-kind. Compared to the vapid, lying, greedy "leaders" of today he truly was a "god".
   After reading the the two novels about him, also by Mary Renault, this was a fitting end to my quest to know more about the Alexander that piqued my interest when I happened on Oliver Stone's interview talking about making the movie.
   PS - anyone who sees the movie should watch the 'special feature' with Mr. Stone first, to really appreciate the scope of his endeavor and the importance of Alexander. Oh yeah...and read M.R.'s books too.



5. Mary Renault is an Alexander apologist. She didn't try to mitigate her fan mentality in this biography. Here, Alexander's life is presented thoroughly along with her analysis of his psychological evolution and her justifications. The title of this book, The Nature of Alexander, warns of an internal analysis. If you're an Alexander fan, you'll probably enjoy this imagination candy.
   
   One problem with any contemporary Alexander biography is the dearth of primary (eyewitness) source material resulting in a rehash of Arrian, Plutarch, and Curtius. If you're looking for more neutral historical material check out Arrian who had Ptolomy's now lost eyewitness accounts to work from.
   
   And another thing that i just can't let pass. Mary Renault was supposedly an English major. Her sentence structure was annoying for me. She wouldn't use just one semicolon if she could use three, even if it meant incomplete clauses. It took some getting used to.

5 comments about First Great Triumph: How Five Americans Made Their Country a World Power.

1. This book by a former U.S. Ambassador is an elegantly-written history of the Spanish-American War of 1898, when the United States acquired colonies in the Caribbean and the Pacific and emerged as a major world power. The nuanced, balanced narrative deals with "big picture" geopolitics and historical trends but never loses sight of the human factor or the role that ego and personal ambition played in America's rise to power. Zimmerman doesn't flinch from concluding that American troops committed atrocities in the Philippines or that our acquisition of Hawaii and the Panama canal zone was little more than theft. At the same time, he avoids ahistorical condemnations of turn-of-the-century imperialism. His book will leave leftwing revisionists and flag-waving rightists equally disappointed -- surely a sign of scholarly achievement.

   "First Great Tiumph" brims with insights into diplomacy and politics, based on Zimmerman's many years in the U.S. foreign service. Indeed, many parts of the book are eerily topical, such as the discussion of how war-lover Theodore Roosevelt seized on the sinking of the battleship Maine as a pretext for a war in Cuba. The book was published prior to the non-discovery of the much-hyped WMDs in Iraq but the parallels to current events are there for any intelligent reader to see. I gave the book four stars instead of five only because the "multi-biographical" approach is a bit contrived and results in the inclusion of much unnecessary biographical material in the first section of the book.




2. What do the above have in common? The answer is provided quite nicely in Warren Zimmerman's book "First Great Triumph". In it, he explains what 5 great Americans - John Hay, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Theodore Roosevelt, Hencry Cabot Lodge, and Elihu Root had to do with the forming of the American century (the 20th Century).
   
   Each of these men played his own role in creating Imperialistic America, starting in the late 19th century, and their contributions to American foreign policy continue through to this day.
   
   This is an important book for anyone that wants to understand the personalities of these five men and the actions that each took to make America the dominant player in world affairs that it has been during the last 100+ years.
   
   The book is divided into two sections; biographical sketches of each of these five men, and then a section on how America became an Imperalistic power, similar to Great Britain or any of a number of the European countries in earlier centuries. Starting with the Spanish American war, the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands, and pushing through to American intervention in World War I, this book does a fantastic job of explaining the events that occured and the personalities involved.
   
   I now understand why Zimmerman chose these five men to study in this book - when I first started to read it, I thought that perhaps others, such as William McKinley or William H. Seward should have been included in the biography section, but Seward's contributions were too early to be included in this study, and McKinley was too reserved to be included in a group of men that firmly believed in American expansion, much as earlier Americans had proclaimed "Mainfest Destiny".
   
   I enjoyed the book greatly, and would highly recommend it to anyone that is looking for a study of early American foreign policy, or an understanding of why America played such a big role in world events during the 20th century.



3. Empire building is not necessarily a bad thing. As such the First Great Triumph tries to force the reader to understand our nations obsession with empire and empire
   
   building. The book starts off by telling us about the west. Our nation was growing and the American people were driven to move across the country to carve out homes
   
   and states west of the Mississippi. Once our nation grew from sea to shining sea the energies behind empire building became global. We could no longer focus our
   
   energies on the continent of North America, so we had to look outward. This incredible drive to expand, and the passions behind it, became a central part of the American
   
   spirit.
   
   But in order to bring our manifest destiny to the global scale we had to become a force that would be strong enough to hold on to our gains. As such we needed to
   
   become a first rate power. One who could compete among the nations of old for dominancy in this brave new world.In order to gain such power we needed leadership to
   
   guide us. Theirfore the First Great Triumph is not only about empire building but about the figures who helped bring our nation into this new found power. The author
   
   concentrates on five powerful Americans. They are ; Theodore Roosevelt, Alfred T. Mahan, Henry Cabot Lodge, John Hay, and Elihu Root. All of which , our author feels,
   
   were instrumental in guiding our nation onto the world scene. The belief the author has is that without these five, our nation would not have risen to our present status of
   
   a world power. Let us examine why.
   
   The top of the pyramid was Theodore Roosevelt. It was his leadership that made our nation's stature as a world power possible. An influential man both as a states
   
   man and president. It was he who had the vision to build up America's naval power and turn it loose upon the world. The great white fleet was assembled and sent out
   
   under his guidence. The showing of such a fleet of ships was enough to prove to the world that we had become a first rate power. Under Theodore's leadership we gained
   
   influence in both Latin America and the Pacific. This was due to Theodore's timely usage of naval power. Theodore had also assembled a cast of first rate leaders around
   
   him and was able to use them to the best of his abilities. Theodore was able to delegate his many tasks among the two others to help establish American hegemony.
   
   Root was given the task of setting up the government of our conqured territories while Hay was given the task of handling our nations diplomacy with the other forgein
   
   powers. Both performed admirably and were able to give Theodore a stable base from which he could direct his energies upon the world.
   
   John Hay was the statesman from which all diplomacy flowed. He was pro-europe but also an American. As such his unique perspective allowed him to see problems
   
   and solutions from both sides. As such he was an excellent diplomat and arbitrator. Theodore would view him weak, but in reality Hay's greatest strength was his ability
   
   to have patience. His skills with diplomacy , when used, would help smooth out problems the U.S. was having and as a direct result Hay would win wars with words
   
   instead of bullets.
   
   But diplomacy and leadership are not the only tools one needs to run a country. You need beauraucrcy, that day to day grind that makes politics and government
   
   possible. For that we had Elihu Root. Root was instrumental in creating new ways of governing our new acquisitions. They were not perfect but they showed us what
   
   could work, and what could not work. As such Root would be able to show our government how to administer conquered territories. Root's ability to do this paved the way
   
   for our country's dealings with later nations and later wars.
   
   While Theodore's trio was able to expand the power of the executive branch, Lodge was able to channel the energies of the legislative branch to greatness. Lodge was
   
   not only an incredible intelectual but he was a man of vision. He dreamed of an imperial American, one that could rival Brittain in both power and strength. As such Lodge
   
   dedicated his abilities into keeping the pressure up on the legislative branch. His dedication to empire building left a stamp on congress and Lodge's actions helped sway
   
   several presidents towards the battle for empire. His observations of the dying world regime helped stir the American public into understanding their new role in the world.
   
   Spain was dying and Brittain was winding down. As such the American star was rising and a key to world dominance would be by gaining American soverignty over the
   
   area in the Pacific.
   
   All of these thoughts for empire stem from Alfred T. Mahan. It was his writtings on seaman ship and Naval power that got this entire ball rolling. In order for a nation to
   
   be great you had to be able to control the Oceans. Mahan had based his writtings on history and how the ancients giants, throught time, all had control of the seas
   
   (Oceans). He argued that the United States would always be considered a second rate power as long as their Navy was second rate. To build up the NAvy not only meant
   
   new ships. It also meant the training of a profesional class of sailors, new technologies, and refueling ports / way stations for the ships to be based at. Only by combining
   
   these three points would the U.S. gain dominancy in the world's seas and as a direct result gain dominancy on the world.
   
   But in order to understand history we sometimes have to look at how the author presents his material. What I found at in this book was that it is not an enjoyable read.
   
   The author has fallen in love with the big five and treats them like lovers. Their faults are glossed over and their actions are heightened to god like epics. As such you
   
   agree with the author. After all the author believes that these five mortal men changed the face of America. By their labors, and their labors alone, they turned our country
   
   into a first rate power. But the author is biased. It is his thesis after all that these men made America, so he will do anything and everything to back it up. Now the author
   
   never lies about the five, but he does seam to make them heroic. Never the devil, these five are always building our country up and never bringing it back down. They are
   
   the "Music Makers" after all and to attack any one of these idols would be an assault to the author. One he could not stand.
   
   The author wants you to feel sympathy for the five as both men and Gods. As such he imerses you into their past. Hopeing to gain your sympathy and trust the author
   
   instead disgusts and bores you. After all the book will speak of the historic events these men made, yet instead of completing the story, our author has decided to fill you
   
   in on the history of the "music Makers" while in the midst of the story. Instead of breaking down the history of the characters in an orderly fashion, you instead are given
   
   snippets of the character's personality. Once the personality is constructed you are then given the history of the person. But this history is given piece meal and while the
   
   author is narrating a story. As such the reader can become confused and bored while learning about these heros. It is also obvious that the book was written for an
   
   audience already familiar with the five. As such amusing incidents are placed , like Easter eggs, throught the entire book. Instead of amusing, I found them unapropriate.
   
   The detracted from the content of the book since I was out of the loop and unable to figure out the joke.
   
   The book is also a racist book. This is not to say it is a bad thing but the book has been written with the gloves off. Theirfore it is shocking to read about. Now I did
   
   enjoy the honesty the author wrote about. After all it is rare now adays to read a piece of work that has not been cleansed by the censors. The author's dealings about
   
   empire building stir strong emotions in people. His objective look at how race influenced empire building was refreshing. All to often we stay mute on race. It is a tender
   
   subject. But you can not deny how the concept of race has shaped our nation. Learning that our nation of the past felt so strongly about white America helped shed light
   
   on these topics. The conflict of civil rights has always been a sore spot in our nations history. Now, at last, you can understand some of the pettiness and even some of
   
   the injustices. To know that our nation had dificulty dealing with our black population is one thing. But to finally learn that our nation thought all races but the white man's
   
   were beneath his was fascinating. And these ideas were ones our nation was building it's empire on. Even with all the bias and hero worship in this book I still feel that it
   
   is a must read. Simply for the way the book reaches you about race relations and how the White man viewed his world back then.
   
   The First Great Triumph not only teaches you about the founding of modern day America and the people who helped create it but it also teaches you the reader about
   
   his own personal history with the United States. As such a bridge is formed between past and present and we can learn about our American heritage in all its being. That
   
   being both monstrous and glorious.



4. If you want to know how the United States became a great power this is the book to read. The United States quest for empire and manifest destiny can be summed up by the five men covered in this book: TR, Elihu Root, John Hay, Alfred Mahan and Henry Cabot Lodge. The book focuses on conquest in the Philippines, Cuba and Mexico as well as the importance of the Panama Canal. It is a very interesting read that offers a lot about the course of US Empire. Imperialism and Americanism can be seen as one in the same during this time period and these five people acting together set America on a course to become not only a great power but eventually a super power. A must have for anyone interested in America's imperial past.



5. Warren Zimmerman uses short but trenchant bios of five important American decision makers and opinion leaders to tell a story about the beginnings of the American empire.
   
   John Hay, Navy Capt. Alfred T. Mahan, Elihu Root, Henry Cabot Lodge and Theodore Roosevelt are the principal actors. These men provided the intellectual atmosphere and the institutional framework that enabled the United States to step away from her traditional isolationism, recognize her place in the world as a power of the first rank, and take up that role. In order for that to happen the American people first had to understand the dangers that expansionist European powers presented to their nation. Zimmerman weaves the various strands that these five men bring to this story as well as the reluctantance of President McKinley and the objections of actors like Mark Twain and former senator and newspaper editor Carl Shurz, into an exciting and thoughtful work. The book is worth the price for the bios of the principals alone but it is the story of this interaction, as skillfully told by Zimmerman, that makes this book so interesting and such a quick read.
   
   For those who believe that America is not an imperial power (though not quite cut in the mold of European imperialism) this book will provide much to think about. For those interested in knowing how we became a world power in such a short time, this book is invaluable.
   
   The author is a former foreign-service officer who obviously has experienced the mixed blessings of the nation's global responsibilities.

2 comments about Theodore Roosevelt: Letters and Speeches (Library of America).

1. Theodore Roosevelt was among the most literary men ever to occupy the White House. The author of over 40 books, he was also a prolific letter-writer and in the pre-"West Wing" age prepared his own speeches as well. Numerous collections of his writings have been published, with this volume being the latest of them. Edited by the author and Roosevelt biographer Louis Auchinloss, it offers a selection of some of the most illustrative writings from throughout Roosevelt's life and career.
   
   The result is somewhat disappointing. Though advertised as "Letters and Speeches," the volume is mostly comprised of the former rather than the latter; there are only four speeches tacked on at the end, almost as an afterthought. Nor do the letters published here offer anything new - all of them, in fact, are from the superb eight-volume collection edited by Elting Morison in the early 1950s, only with the excellent footnotes that provided the context relegated to the back of the book.
   
   These criticisms aside, the Library of America has produced a book of merit. Auchinloss has selected letters which offer a helpful peek into Roosevelt's life, providing almost an autobiographical presentation of Roosevelt's ideas and opinions. For readers interested in particular subjects, Auchinloss provides in the table of contents a brief subject line under each letter, which adds to the book's utility. The result is a nice, durable volume offering a useful sampling of some of Roosevelt's most important letters. While diehard fans of TR will probably prefer Morison's hard-to-find collection, for readers seeking a handy edition of his correspondence this is the book to own.



2. Most living today do not know the art of letter writing. Our lives are all phone calls and emails. We live in the instant and do not know the pleasures and benefits of taking time to form thoughts and writing in complete and coherent sentences let alone taking the time to construct paragraphs or a complete and persuasive argument. Another problem is that our communications today are perishable. There are fewer personal documents left for study and almost no drafts to give us insight into the process of composition. Sure, presidential libraries contain mountains of paper, but so much of it is from staff, is impersonal bureaucrat speak, and lacks the wit, sparkle, and insight of a practiced and skilled writer such as Theodore Roosevelt.
   
   TR published forty books, wrote more than 100,000 letters, and his collected speeches fill twenty volumes. All this in a too short sixty year life (Oct 1858 - Jan 1919). I find this productivity staggering, especially when one considers how actively he lived his life. He traveled, he climbed the Matterhorn, he ranched, went to war, fulfilled many public offices including Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Governor of New York, Vice-President, and President of the United States.
   
   We all owe a note of thanks to Louis Auchincloss for editing this volume and providing us with 367 of his letters, every one of them one kind of gem or another. We get observations of TR the Naturalist, the diplomat, the Rough Rider, Governor, President, Ex-President, and the private man. Actually, we get more sides of him than those, but those are the biggest and most notable gems. Four of his greatest and most noted speeches are also included. They all deserve to be read today and should be read by all students of American History.
   
   In my view, the greatest of them is his 1910 speech at the Sorbonne on "Citizenship in a Republic". "The Strenuous Life" is also a wonderful speech to read and contemplate. Both are calls to a responsible and fully lived life of duties and responsibilities to earn the rewards of freedom and wealth. He has no use for the empty life living off the sweat and blood of others. Magnificent sentiments that should inspire us today and will actually have the beneficial effect of making all, and I mean all, of our present leaders seem small in comparison let alone the indictment it makes on each one of us. If you do not want to hear a clear call to action, avoid these speeches. But you will avoid them to your own loss.
   
   This book deserves to be read and read more than once. It is that wonderful kind of book you can dip into for a short read over and over again. Each time you will come away feeling energized and inspired to do more and to do better.
   
   Hugely recommended. Thanks to the Library of America for producing this magnificent and beautifully done volume.
   
   Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI
   
   You might also want to consider:
   
   Theodore Roosevelt: The Rough Riders/An Autobiography (Library of America)

3 comments about By His Own Hand?: The Mysterious Death of Meriwether Lewis.

1. BY HIS OWN HAND? THE MYSTERIOUS DEATH OF MERIWETHER LEWIS surveys the evidence in the strange death of explorer Lewis, who was found dead from two gunshot wounds while staying at an inn in Tennessee. Who fired these shots may never be fully known, but BY HIS OWN HAND takes a healthy stab at a case with no eyewitnesses. Contributors here are all historians of the West and conduct investigations making the case for different results, with editor Guice dissecting the suicide argument and outlining inconsistencies in the theory.
   
   Diane C. Donovan
   California Bookwatch



2. You talk about true crime, this puts them all to shame. Or was it a crime? For almost two centuries scholars, criminologists, medical professionals and a host of other sleuths have tried to determine what caused the death of Meriwether Lewis of the famed Lewis and Clark Expedition. Was it a suicide, a homicide, or an accident? The shooting on October 11, 1809, in an Inn along the Natchez Trace in Tennessee has created much controversy, speculation, legends, and myths and yet the mystery has not been solved. Or has it? This book is the first to analyze the evidence and, within the full historical context, consider the murder-versus-suicide debate. Four historians outline the facts and present the evidentiary problems; make a case for suicide...and murder; assess the strengths and weaknesses of both arguments; and present a document section from which the reader can examine the available key evidence. What ultimately caused the death of Meriwether Lewis? YOU decide.



3. By His Own Hand? is a valuable addition to the Lewis and Clark literature. The centerpieces of this slim volume are two extended essays, one by James Holmberg of the Filson Historical Society in Louisville, the other by John D.W. Guice, professor of history emeritus at the University of Southern Mississippi.
   
   In "The Case for Suicide," Jim Holmberg does an excellent job of setting out the evidence that Meriwether Lewis committed suicide in the early morning hours of October 11, 1809. The strength of Holmberg's essay is the overwhelming support of documentary evidence that the people closest to Lewis, including William Clark and Thomas Jefferson, believed he was in a suicidal frame of mind. Holmberg also points out that the supposed tradition of murder did not begin until the 1840s, many decades after Lewis died, when the residents of the area formed Lewis County and began to embrace the legacy of their most famous, if deceased, resident. William Clark's son, Meriwether Lewis Clark, may have also played a role in attempting to rescue his namesake from the stigma of suicide.
   
   By contrast, those who believe Lewis was murdered have never been able to muster much evidence against any of the many suspects and rely heavily on the dubious supposition that Lewis simply wasn't the type to commit suicide. There are big holes in all the murder theories. Fictional accounts such as Frances Hunter's "To the Ends of the Earth: The Last Journey of Lewis and Clark" can fill in such gaps, but no documentary evidence exists that can do so in real life.
   
   Yet Guice's essay, "Why Not Murder?" is more valuable than the confused tales of murder in the night might suggest. Guice points out that, starting with Thomas Jefferson, there has been a long history of retrofitting Lewis's life and actions to point to a suicidal nature. Scholars often point to Lewis's 31st birthday journal entry. Written literally as the Expedition was poised to become the first Americans to cross the Continental Divide, Lewis seems to lament the fact that he's never accomplished a doggone thing in his life. But is this really evidence that Lewis was self-destructive or a raging depressive? And how about the missing journals, or Lewis's failures in politics after the Expedition? Might there be explanations other than mental illness?
   
   Guice does a good job of showing that when interpreted through the assumption of suicide, Lewis's foibles seem much more ominous than they would otherwise. He also points out that the suicide tradition is based largely on hearsay, and calls for an exhumation of Lewis's body to search for forensic evidence that might settle the question once and for all. He notes that over 200 Lewis relatives signed a petition asking the National Park Service for permission to examine the remains, but the NPS denied the request.
   
   I also appreciated Guice's defense of Vardis Fisher, whose Suicide or Murder? (1962) doesn't always get the respect it deserves. Fisher did yeoman's work in compiling the stories about Lewis's death, and his work on the subject remains the most complete on the subject.
   
   There are some good primary source documents included in By His Own Hand?, and an excellent round-up of the arguments by Jay Buckley of Brigham Young University. This anthology is highly readable and well-edited and will be enjoyed with anyone with an interest in Lewis's sad fate.