5 comments about 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and the War They Failed to See.

1. Why 1858? I found myself asking that question repeatedly the entire time I was reading this book. What made 1858 THE year to look at in regards to the coming of the Civil War. Author Bruce Chadwick tries (largely unsuccessfully, in my opinion) to argue that 1858 was the year slavery became THE main issue facing the United States and events which occurred in 1858 played a large role in bringing about the war. In his Foreword, Chadwick tells the reader he will attempt to accomplish this by weaving together seven stories of people and events, linking these disparate stories together with looks into James Buchanan's "spectacular failure" as President.
   
   1858 weaves together seven stories all (loosely) tied together by Buchanan's Presidency. These stories are, in no particular order:
   
   1. Jefferson Davis
   2. Robert E. Lee
   3. William T. Sherman
   4. The Oberlin-Wellington Slave Rescue
   5. William H. Seward
   6. John Brown
   7. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates
   
   At first, I was intrigued by the author's decision to abandon a traditional narrative and use what I thought would be an interesting change of pace. The idea works better in theory than in the pages of 1858, however. Stories are broken up into different chapters with little regard for continuity or chronological order. For readers new to the subject, this may very well be misleading as far as a time line of these events goes.
   
   As I stated in my introduction, my main and overriding question while reading the entire book was "Why 1858? What makes this year so special?" Unfortunately, although the author does claim he chose 1858 because it was THE year slavery became the overriding issue facing the United States, he doesn't give nearly enough reason WHY, and thus doesn't really answer my question. In essence, he argues FOR 1858, but he really gives no arguments AGAINST other years. To me, slavery had been THE issue for quite some time. A post concerning the Compromise of 1850 at Elektratig shows that slavery was very much at the forefront of the country's concerns as the 1850s opened, and that the Civil War may well have started a decade earlier had the Compromise of 1850 not happened. I can agree with the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the Oberlin-Wellington Slave rescue as two MAJOR events involving slavery and an acceleration towards war. However, other events outside of this year, especially John Brown's Harpers Ferry Raid in 1859 and obviously the Presidential Election of 1860 were major events which did much to hasten the Civil War. Chadwick does argue that the seeds were sewn for these events in 1858. He stresses that John Brown's raid into Missouri and successful escape with slaves into Canada in 1858 and the Lincoln-Douglas debates led to these other events. That may be true, but the MAIN events happened in years other than 1858. Without belaboring the point too much, I believe you simply cannot make a strong case that 1858 was any more important than many other years in causing the Civil War or having slavery become THE issue facing the country. Chadwick's failure too largely explain WHY or argue against other years only drives home the point for me.
   
   To me, deciding to include William T. Sherman was an odd choice other than to allow the author/publisher to get Ulysses S. Grant's name into the subtitle of the book. Grant is barely mentioned, and Sherman had hardly anything to do with the author's assertion that 1858 was the year slavery became the most important issue in the country. The only reason I can see to include Sherman is to show an example of a Northerner who had no strong feelings towards slavery, much like Robert E. Lee was personally opposed to slavery as a Southerner. In reading the chapters covering Sherman, I was puzzled as to what purpose his antebellum life story served to the narrative as a whole.
   
   The subtitle of the book is especially puzzling to me. U.S. Grant is listed and he is barely mentioned in the book, pretty much only in relation to the Sherman portion of the story. Putting a famous figure into your title or subtitle only to barely mention them isn't going to win points with this reviewer. Another issue I have with the subtitle is "The War They Failed to See." Huh? Lincoln's "House Divided" speech is mentioned. So is Jefferson Davis' ascension in late 1858 as the leader of the Secession Movement. John Brown not only saw war coming, he was determined to start it himself! And lastly, Seward's "Irrepressible Conflict" speech is also stressed. It seems to me these men at least had an inkling that war was at the very least very possible if not imminent if some drastic steps were not taken with regards to slavery. I don't want to pin this on the author at all. Marketing sells books, and the subtitle screams MARKETING from a tall building. Blame the publisher here folks.
   
   If you have lasted this long, you might believe I hated 1858. This is definitely not so. My policy is to get the bad out of the way first and move on to the good. Let's start with the author's style. Bruce Chadwick is definitely a good storyteller. Despite some continuity issues in his narrative choice as mentioned earlier, I read this 300 page book in only two sittings. I could not put it down.
   
   Chadwick's chapters on the gross ineptitude of James Buchanan's Presidency were my favorite portions of the book. Rather than focus on the slavery issue and try to resolve it in some way, Buchanan instead completely ignored slavery when possible and blinded himself to the enormity of the problem the rest of the time. His "Don Quixote-ish schemes", as Chadwick calls them, to annex portions of Central and South America by any means possible while ignoring slavery was just one issue. In addition, Buchanan chose to fight petty feuds with two powerful men, Senator Stephen Douglas and newspaper editor John Forney, and these feuds were disastrous for the Democratic party in the elections of 1858 and the Presidential election of 1860. More than any other man, Buchanan had the power to slow or even prevent radical developments with regards to the slavery situation. Instead, says Chadwick, he did nothing while radicals on both sides led the nation to the brink of war.
   
   I was also pleasantly surprised with the bibliography and notes. Chadwick uses a nice number of endnotes, including 747 in exactly 300 pages of text. He did use quite a few secondary sources, but for what was obviously to me a "pop history" book aimed more at the masses than to deep readers, Chadwick also looked at the papers of many of those involved in the events of the year 1858 and around 90 newspapers published at the time. A serviceable index rounds out the book.
   
   Bruce Chadwick's 1858 sets out to prove that year was the year slavery became THE issue in the United States, but was rather unsuccessful in this regard. His arguments for 1858 as the year were sparse and his arguments against other years were non-existent. The story's continuity suffered somewhat as a result of some conscious choices on the author's part. Despite these flaws, 1858 is an enjoyable read aimed at the masses which I would be happy to recommend to readers new to the subject. Deep readers will find this material covered elsewhere in much greater detail.



2. Reads like a novel, but its pure history and gives a perspective on the Civil War which has been lacking. The war wasn't about slavery in the south, but more so about slavery in the new states of the west....



3. I have to admit that I can't quite place this book. I would say on the one hand I was disappointed because while it did a good job of portraying the year 1858 it could have just as easily been 1856 or 1860, both of which would have been more interesting. The book spent a lot of time focusing on personal rivalries to the detriment of painting the national picture. Also certain figures who would rise to prominence in the Civil War were given great exposure yet others were barely mentioned. (Like Grant)
   
   So all in all if you like the period, there are worse reads out there but I still think that James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom does a much better job at portraying the period.



4. 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and The War They Failed to See, Bruce Chadwick , Sourcebooks Inc., 355 pp., notes, bibliography, index, 2008, $24.95
   
   1858 offers clear and concise descriptions of key political and social events that shoved the states into rebellion and resistance. Adventurous and even compelling at times, 1858 moves the reader through twelve months of political and social turmoil. Chadwick explores not the mundane but the exceptional.
   
   Not familiar to most Civil War readers is Jefferson Davis' 1858 visit to Maine in order to recuperate from herpes and build a coalition of Northern Democrats in a bid to establish a presidential candidacy in 1860. The Southern press pilloried him to the point that when he returned he retracted his statements. Ironically, these retractions put him into a position where he would be offered a presidency in 1861, that of the Confederate States of America.
   
   In one six page chapter, Chadwick offers a cogent and balanced description of the Dred Scott Decision, one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court event in U.S. history. His ability to put into place the origins, personalities, issues, and outcomes of this event is exceptional. As a Advance Placement U.S. History test reader, CWL reflected that this chapter would be a fine contribution to student resources.
   
   Though CWL is quite familiar with the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Oberlin Ohio Rescue and John Brown's escape with slaves from Missouri to Canada, Chadwick offers the essentials in a manner that captures the excitement and underscores their place in bringing the states to the brink of rebellion in 1860. After reading 1858, Civil War buffs may have a new appreciation for the events leading to the Secession Winter of 1860-1861. Some readers may need to keep in mind that all soldiers in the ranks had lived through and had argued over the events of 1858.
   
   Though a Pennsylvanian, CWL has not be able to work up any enthusiasm for James Buchanan, 15th president of the United States. Chadwick's 1858 covers the Buchanan presidency in nine chapters that fall between chapters on Davis, Lee, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Oberlin Rescue, Seward's Irrepressible Conflict speech, and John Brown's rescue of slaves from Missouri. Read consecutively the Buchanan White House chapters make the case for this Northern Democrat holding Southern Democrats' interest higher than his own section and possibly allowing the conflict to become truly irrepressible.
   
   Some quibbles: The subtitle is unclear; nine of 17 chapters deal with the Buchanan White House, two deal with Lincoln and Douglas, and single chapters deal with Lee, Davis, Seward, Sherman, The Dred Scott Decision, John Brown's Raid on Missouri and the Slaveholder's raid on Nicaragua. Mysteriously, U.S. Grant is mentioned only on four pages in the book but is in the subtitle. Buchanan has nine chapters but has no mention in the title at all.
   
   CWL suggests that the subtitle be changed for the paperback edition: 1858--The Year the Civil War Became Inevitable for Davis, Lee, Douglas, Lincoln, Seward, Sherman and John Brown. Or 1858--Blood Before The Civil War's Dawn: The Men Who Pulled the Trigger on the War.
   
   Chadwick assumes the reader has no detailed understanding of the period; 1858 is written for the general audience. For the paperback edition, a chronology for the year should be added as well as a brief chronology of the 1846-1860 era. A list of characters would also be helpful for the general audience. Also, the index needs some attention. The entry--Forney, John--lists 6 pages with three subtopics. John Forney has a whole chapter, Number Nine, pages 135-140 but these pages are not listed under the entry--Forney, John--in the index. Some proofreading needs to be done. Notes 159, 160 and 161 are the same font size as the text font; these note number should be the superscript font size, just like the other 744 notes.



5. I will confess straight away that I have not read the book, but I find the title so misleading that I feel compelled to comment. None of these figures 'failed to see' that the Civil War was a great threat and possibly inevitable. See The Impending Crisis by David Potter, The Road to Disunion by Freehing, or Michael Holt's books.

No comments about A Passion for Nature: The Life of John Muir.

2 comments about This Little Light of Mine: The Life of Fannie Lou Hamer (Civil Rights and the Struggle for Black Equality in the Twentieth Century).

1. A well writen documentary of an inspirational woman. This book gives life to significant events taking place in the fight for civil rights. In particular, reading about her Freedom Ride on a bus through the American South gave chilling reality to the ordeal. Fannie Lou Hamer is a pivotal figure in American history.



2. Mills' biography is a welcome addition to the growing body of literature on the civil rights movement. The well-documented work explores the life of Ms. Hamer, an important figure in the '60s Deep-South struggles whose name may be unfamiliar to some.

   Fannie Lou Hamer was a poorly educated woman who, like most of her contemporaries growing up in pre-Depression Mississippi and beyond, endured virtual apartheid for a good portion of her life. Voting rights were essentially unknown to African-Americans in the state, which was controlled for decades by opponents of civil rights locally and through the state's federal representatives, most notably James O. Eastland, a senator who consistently stalled civil rights legislation through his control of the Judiciary Committee.

   Ms. Hamer was among the first African-Americans to challenge Mississippi's voting registration practices, which were designed to bar blacks from voting. For her troubles, she was arrested, detained in a small-town jail and beaten so severely that she sustained injuries that eventually shortened her life.

   Mills paints a vivid picture of Ms. Hamer's indomitable spirit, which was symbolized by her powerful singing voice, frequently employed to boost the courage of her local comrades and of the black and white workers who came to Mississippi during the Freedom Summer of 1964 in an attempt to challenge the white supremacists who ran the state.

   Nowhere does her spirit come through more clearly than in Mills' account of the 1964 challenge Hamer and others leveled at the Democratic delegation sent to the presidential convention in Atlantic City. The challengers persuasively claimed that they represented thousands of disenfranchised African-Americans who had been denied their right to participate in the political process. The Democratic presidential candidate, Lyndon Johnson, and his running mate, Hubert Humphrey, Mills recounts, dragged their feet on addressing the challengers' claims, only belatedly offering a weak compromise that Hamer and some others fiercely opposed.

   "I question America," Hamer memorably said during hearings on her group's challenge of the white-only delegation. Mills is careful to explore the arguments and motivations of those within Hamer's delegation who argued in favor of accepting the compromise, but it is clear that her heart lies with Hamer's courageous stand.

   In the end, the 1964 challenge failed, but in 1968 another challenge succeeded and Hamer was seated, along with others, at that year's presidential convention. The victory, which deserves special mention in American history, was tempered and largely forgotten due to the street violence for which the 1968 convention is now largely remembered.

   Mills also does a fine job of relating Ms. Hamer's attention to the plight of the poor and her attempts to build political power for the impoverished. One gets a strong sense of the sacrifice that Hamer made to live a life committed to political struggle.

   It is only when Mills attempts to summarize the major events of the civil rights movement that the book's strength flags. I found the first couple of chapters negligible because I'm familiar with the big events of the movement and frankly they've been done better elsewhere.

   When she turns her attention to Ms. Hamer, however, Mills delivers a story worth telling in strong prose that reveals her admiration for her subject without sacrificing her critical judgment.

5 comments about Kerouac: A Biography.

1. Next to Greg Nicosia's book, this is probably the best biography we have on Kerouac. I'd recommend that you read both Charter's and Nicosia's.



2. Definitely a commendable effort by Ms. Charters... I could invision myself as an observer of Kerouac's life experiences...heck...I thought I was standing right beside him...I would recommend this book for anyone interested about Kerouac...after all...he taught us ..."the joy of life is on the road and that we'll all be the same in the end...."



3. Although Kerouac was quite an interesting character, Charters gives little justice to this literary genius. She gives merely a string of events, adding no story to his life at all. In addition to that, Mrs. Charters does not describe some situations at all. The reader is left to wonder what truly happened in some instances, and this gives little justice to Jack's life. There were a few sentences were the author attempted to write in Jack's style, and fails miserably. I'm sorry to detract so much from Mrs. Charters, but she is no Jack Kerouac. Overall, the book isn't bad, and if you're really interested in Kerouac, it's not a bad place to start, but if you really want to dive into Kerouac's psyche and true genius, this is not the place to do it.



4. While in college, I had to do a paper on "On The Road" and after reading it, I became absolutely fascinated with Jack Kerouac. I got this book out of the library one day. I think it is excellent. It documents Kerouac's whole life from birth to death and gives the reader a wonderul insight into the "real" Jack Kerouac. I literally could not put this down.



5. Ms. Charters did a commenable job putting together
   this book. I would rate it right up there with
   Nicosia's bio. The author certainly provided a lot
   of background info and did a compelling job of
   helping me get a better understanding of the social
   climate which Kerouac & friends had to contend with
   and conquer. My only complaint is that her writing style
   sometimes lapses into a style a little too closely allied
   with that of her subject, but given the subject matter, that is

   understandable. I would recommend this book for those of
   you who have found Kerouac's writings to be enjoyable.

2 comments about Equations of Motion: Adventure, Risk and Innovation.

1. Bill Milliken is the father of modern vehicle handling and a god among racing engineers. In "Equations of Motion" Milliken details his exploits in aviation, auto racing and fundamental vehicle research. Growing up in 1910's Maine, Milliken 'ginned up a variety of motorized machines ... He was one of the first test pilots to fly at 40,000 feet in a pressurized B-17 ... After the war he raced Bugattis and Millers up Pike's Peak and helped found modern auto racing at Watkins Glen, ending upside-down half the time, but all in service of his day job -- revolutionizing the dynamic design of aircraft and automobiles. Milliken -- 95 at the publication of this book -- is an inspiration. Unlike most autobiographies, even of people with a fraction of his accomplishments, Milliken never preens or puffs. Instead he just tells it (and shows it -- hundreds of fascinating illustrations) with characteristic Yankee modesty and understated humor.



2. The book is a wealth of information about Bill's life. The photos are good, and probably a number of ones never published. I was on a pit crew for him in 1958. He was truly remarkable then, and, as the book, says, still is remarkable.
   
   A must for the aviation and sports car buff.

1 comments about Memoirs of Duc de Saint-Simon, 1710-1715: The Bastards Triumphant.

1. I am the publisher. No kidding, I quit my job and started a publishing company so I could make The Memoirs of Duc de Saint-Simon readily available. As a lifetime reader, I was struck at how much this work reminded me of epic fiction. It has a great story line, opulant setting, bizzare characters, and one of the most compelling and funniest narrators you'll ever read...and it really happened!
   
   This is book two in the three book set, and if you've read book one, I can tell book two takes it up a notch. Now that the scene at the court of Louis XIV has been set, and the mesmerizing cast of characters have been introduced, you can't help but get sucked in to the corrupt and debauched world Saint-Simon lives in. You will not be disappointed.

5 comments about The Prophet Armed: Trotsky 1879-1921.

1. For nearly all its existence since Lenin's death in 1924 Trotsky (aka Lev Davidovich Bronstein) was Satan in the Bolshevik's manichean view of the world. Most of the purges of the 1930s were allegedly meant to cleanse Soviet society and its key institutions (the Communist Party, the unions, the Red Army, the intelligentsia) of the Trotskyte taint that, like some sort of Original Sin, pervaded the proletarian dictatorship. Stalin tried to erase Trotsky from the history of the Revolution. He even erased Trotsky's physical attributes, not just by killing him in 1940, half a world away, but by obliterating his likeness wherever it might have been found.
   
   This book, published fifty years ago, tried to counter the Stalinist plot against Trotsky by vindicating his key role in the 1905 and 1917 revolutions, in the Civil War and in the establishment of the Red Army and the Soviet state. The author partially succeeds. Here we see Trotsky in all his glory, as perhaps he would have liked to be remembered, as a child prodigy who from humble rural beginnings quickly found his way in the world, as a professional revolutionary, as a brilliant polemist and orator, who even as a young man was seen as worthy counterpart to Lenin, and far above the rest of the Party, as a good hearted man who tried to promote harmony within the Party and failed at it, as a cultured, civilized "westernizer", much more appealing than the brutal Stalin, who came straight from the "log cabin" of czarist barbarism. He also came up with many good ideas, such as Lenin's New Economic Policy. Deutscher also gives us some of the darker sides to Trotsky's scintillating personna. He was proud and haughty, but brittle. He was abusive to others, often unnecessarily. He often let abstractions and daydreams take the place of reality. And he came up with many bad ideas, such as War Communism and the Militarization of Labor.
   
   But, given Deutscher's profile (he was a Trotskyte) the book is often a competent whitewash. The author shares Trotsky's (and the Bolshevik's) worldview to a great extent, and sees the October Revolution as a worthy action. Mostly, he takes Trotskyte and Bolshevik motives as justification for their actions. He portrays opponents (such as the White Guards and nationalist Ukrainians and Poles) as illegitimate. Nowhere does the awfulness of Soviet rule, and the brutality of the Bolshevik leaders come through, except perhaps in their remarkably abusive writings. To find such bitchiness nowadays one would have to refer to the academic world, where the nastiness is commensurate to the irrelevance of that which is being discussed.
   
   Also, the book is often not very readable as history. The author will often refer to future or past events in a single page, without indication of the precise dates, which makes this a hard book to read for someone not familiar with the October Revolution.
   
   Having said this, a good reason to read this book is that it is beautifully written, and that the author really does get very close to his subject, which is mostly a negative in that he lacks perspective, but does bring the advantage of great liveliness which makes this a very good read. This reminds me of Preston's life of General Franco. Preston hated his subject and was unable utterly to develop any empathy with him, so the book was fairly arid and not insightful. Deutscher has the opposite defect: he gets too close, as perhaps does Nicholas Farrell to Mussolini. The ideal would be like Kershaw's Hitler or Short's Mao: far enough to look the monster in the eye, but not close enough to kiss him.
   
   At this book's end, Trotsky is at the apex of his power, from which he would begin to slip during Lenin's final year. But this is better left to volume II, which I also hope to review.
   
   So read the book, but don't take Deutscher at his word. Complement this with Volkogonov's Trotsky. And with Trotsky's own voluminous writings, which are often very amusing (particularly his biography of Stalin).



2. It is indeed odd to read the early life of Leon Trotsky up to 1920 now, fifteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union he saved from civil war 88 years ago. The reissue of this classic work, written right after WWII to vindicate the man who had done the most to give birth to the Soviet experiment and had been written out of its history by Stalin and his henchmen, is welcome. We are allowed to remember what we would rather forget, that despite our difficulties with Boshevism it did seek to right the wrong of Tsarism, one of the most backward, brutal, and desensitizing systems of oppression known to European man up to that time. Trotsky was unquestionably a genius, a hero, and of course also a man of weaknesses and ego who set the Soviet Union on a path which he could easily justify but which could also be used for more narrow and nefarious purposes by his old enemy, Joseph Stalin. Stalin in fact, while opposing Trotsky at almost every turn before and after Lenin's death, managed in the end to adopt Trotsky's economic policies with a ruthlessness which Trotsky would have approved had he not been forced to disapprove of it as a proscribed enemy of Stalinism.
   
   Trotsky demonstrates that a certain logic of history, in this case Russian history, a history half-European and half-Asiatic, forced the liberation of Russia to become its subjugation to a tyrrany more verbally benevolent but no less horrible than Tsarism. Trotsky was undoubtedly a more enlightened and humane man than the half-barbarian Stalin, but it is not clear that had he beaten Stalin he would have been able to do better than Stalin in two tasks: setting Russia on a path of industrialization and modernization and defeating Hitler. For Stalin, lest we forget because of his crimes, Stalin did these two important things and did them very well indeed.
   
   To relive the heroic days of the Russian Revolution is to be reminded that once Russian Socialism (including Bolshevism) deserved the respect of the onlooking world. The Cold War has distorted much about this history and hidden much from our eyes. We have allowed ourselves to adopt the counter-revolutionary ideology of the reactionary classes when it comes to the birth of Soviet Russia. Isaac Deutscher deserves praise for not only restoring our view of Trotsky but for having restored our view of the Russian revolutionary tradition.



3. Firstly, it's necessary to keep in mind that Deustscher was not trying to write a biography of Trotsky- if by that is meant an account of his life for its own sake- nor was he trying to write a history of the Russian Revolution and its leaders as a self-contained account. Deutscher's goals where twofold: to vindicate Trotsky's early opposition against Lenin's conception of the revolutionary party as well as his later opposition to Stalin's policies _in the long run_ and at the same time to acknowledge the necessity of Leninism and Stalinism _in the short run_. However objectionable such a view is today, Deutscher's political dialogue with Trotsky's ghost is superbly argued and documented, and anyone, no matter one's political views, will finish reading this work feeling one knows more about the subject than beforehand. In all the languages this work was translated (and I remember the ruckus produced in Brazil by the 1960s Portuguese trans.) it played havoc with accepted Left commonplaces.
   
   There are many faults in this new Verso edition: first, its paperback binding is atrocious (after a first read, I have already a couple of loose pages); secondly, there lacks an introduction that sets the work in perspective 50 years after its publication, as well as a glossary of unusual terms for today's conservative age (such as comissar, soviet, etc.) and, perhaps, some short biographies of the smaller characters,with dates of birth and decease, positions held, whereabouts, etc.However, the work can still be enjoyably read on its own, even if you miss some (admittedly small) points.



4. THIS YEAR MARKS THE 66TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ASSASSINATION OF LEON TROTSKY-ONE OF HISTORY'S GREAT REVOLUTIONARIES. IT IS THEREFORE FITTING TO REVIEW THE THREE VOLUME WORK OF HIS DEFINITIVE BIOGRAPHER, THE PROPHET ARMED, THE PROPHET UNARMED, THE OUTCAST.
   
   Isaac Deutscher's three-volume biography of the great Russian Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky although written over one half century ago remains the standard biography of the man. Although this writer disagrees , as I believe that Trotsky himself would have, about the appropriateness of the title of prophet and its underlying premise that a tragic hero had fallen defeated in a worthy cause, the vast sum of work produced and researched makes up for those basically literary differences. Deutscher, himself, became in the end an adversary of Trotsky's politics around his differing interpretation of the historic role of Stalinism and the fate of the Fourth International but he makes those differences clear and in general they does not mar the work. I do not believe even with the eventual full opening of all the old Soviet-era files any future biographer will dramatically increase our knowledge about Trotsky and his revolutionary struggles. Moreover, as I have mentioned elsewhere in other reviews while he has not been historically fully vindicated he is in no need of any certificate of revolutionary good conduct.
   
   At the beginning of the 21st century when the validity of socialist political programs as tools for change is in apparent decline or disregarded as utopian it may be hard to imagine the spirit that drove Trotsky to dedicate his whole life to the fight for a socialist society. However, at the beginning of the 20th century he represented only the one of the most consistent and audacious of a revolutionary generation of mainly Eastern Europeans and Russians who set out to change the history of the 20th century. It was as if the best and brightest of that generation were afraid, for better or worse, not to take part in the political struggles that would shape the modern world. As Trotsky noted elsewhere this element was missing, with the exceptions of Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and precious few others, in the Western labor movement. Deutscher using Trotsky's own experiences tells the story of the creation of this revolutionary cadre with care and generally proper proportions. Here are some highlights militant leftists should think about.
   
   On the face of it Trotsky's personal profile does not stand out as that of a born revolutionary. Born of a hard working, eventually prosperous Jewish farming family in the Ukraine (of all places) there is something anomalous about his eventual political occupation. Always a vociferous reader, good writer and top student under other circumstances he would have found easy success, as others did, in the bourgeois academy, if not in Russia then in Western Europe. But there is the rub; it was the intolerable and personally repellant political and cultural conditions of Czarist Russia in the late 19th century that eventually drove Trotsky to the revolutionary movement- first as a `ragtag' populist and then to his life long dedication to orthodox Marxism. As noted above, a glance at the biographies of Eastern European revolutionary leaders such as Lenin, Martov, Christian Rakovsky, Bukharin and others shows that Trotsky was hardly alone in his anger at the status quo. And the determination to something about it.
   
   For those who argue, as many did in the New Left in the 1960's, that the most oppressed are the most revolutionary the lives of the Russian and Eastern European revolutionaries provide a cautionary note. The most oppressed, those most in need of the benefits of socialist revolution, are mainly wrapped up in the sheer struggle for survival and do not enter the political arena until late, if at all. Even a quick glance at the biographies of the secondary leadership of various revolutionary movements, actual revolutionary workers who formed the links to the working class , generally show skilled or semi-skilled workers striving to better themselves rather than the most downtrodden lumpenproletarian elements. The sailors of Kronstadt and the Putilov workers in Saint Petersburg come to mind. The point is that `the wild boys and girls' of the street do not lead revolutions; they simply do not have the staying power. On this point, militants can also take Trotsky's biography as a case study of what it takes to stay the course in the difficult struggle to create a new social order. While the Russian revolutionary movement, like the later New Left mentioned above, had more than its share of dropouts, especially after the failure of the 1905 revolution, it is notably how many stayed with the movement under much more difficult circumstances than we ever faced. For better or worst, and I think for the better, that is how revolutions are made.
   
   Once Trotsky made the transition to Marxism he became embroiled in the struggles to create a unity Russian Social Democratic Party, a party of the whole class, or at least a party representing the historic interests of that class. This led him to participate in the famous Bolshevik/Menshevik struggle in 1903 which defined what the party would be, its program, its methods of work and who would qualify for membership. The shorthand for this fight can be stated as the battle between the `hards' (Bolsheviks, who stood for a party of professional revolutionaries) and the `softs' (Mensheviks, who stood for a looser conception of party membership) although those terms do not do full justice to these fights. Strangely, given his later attitudes, Trotsky stood with the `softs', the Mensheviks, in the initial fight in 1903. Although Trotsky almost immediately afterward broke from that faction I do not believe that his position in the 1903 fight contradicted the impulses he exhibited throughout his career- personally `libertarian', for lack of a better word , and politically hard in the clutch.
   
   Even a cursory glance at most of Trotsky's career indicates that it was not spent in organizational in-fighting, or at least not successfully. Trotsky stands out as the consummate free-lancer. More than one biographer has noted this condition, including his definitive biographer Isaac Deutscher. Let me make a couple of points to take the edge of this characterization though. In that 1903 fight mentioned above Trotsky did fight against Economism (the tendency to only fight over trade union issues and not fight overtly political struggles against the Czarist regime) and he did fight against Bundism (the tendency for one group, in this case the Jewish workers, to set the political agenda for that particular group). Moreover, he most certainly favored a centralized organization. These were the key issues at that time. Furthermore, the controversial organizational question did not preclude the very strong notion that a `big tent' unitary party was necessary. The `big tent' German Social Democratic model held very strong sway among the Russian revolutionaries for a long time, including Lenin's Bolsheviks. The long and short of it was that Trotsky was not an organization man, per se. He knew how to organize revolutions, armies, Internationals, economies and so on when he needed to but on a day to day basis no. Thus, to compare or contrast him to Lenin and his very different successes is unfair. Both have an honorable place in the revolutionary movement; it is just a different place.
   
   That said, Trotsky really comes into his own as a revolutionary leader in the Revolution of 1905 not only as a publicist but as the central leader of the Soviets (workers councils) which made their first appearance at that time. In a sense it is because he was a freelancer that he was able to lead the Petrograd Soviet during its short existence and etch upon the working class of Russia (and in a more limited way, internationally) the need for its own organizations to seize state power. All revolutionaries honor this experience, as we do the Paris Commune, as the harbingers of October, 1917. As Lenin and Trotsky both confirm, it was truly a `dress rehearsal' for that event. It is in 1905 that Trotsky first wins his stars by directing the struggle against the Czar at close quarters, in the streets and working class meeting halls. And later in his eloquent and `hard' defense of the experiment after it was crushed by the Czarism reaction. I believe that it was here in the heat of the struggle in 1905 where the contradiction between Trotsky's `soft' position in 1903 and his future `hard' Bolshevik position of 1917 and thereafter is resolved. Here was a professional revolutionary who one could depend on when the deal went down.
   
   No discussion of this period of Trotsky's life is complete without mentioning his very real contribution to Marxist theory- that is, the theory of Permanent Revolution. Although the theory is over one hundred years old it still retains its validity today in those countries that still have not had their bourgeois revolutions. This rather simple straightforward theory about the direction of the Russian revolution (and which Trotsky later in the 1920's, after the debacle of the Chinese Revolution, made applicable to what today are called "third world" countries) has been covered with so many falsehoods, epithets, and misconceptions that it deserves further explanation. Why? Militants today must address the ramifications of the question what kind of revolution is necessary as a matter of international revolutionary strategy. Trotsky, taking the specific historical development and the peculiarities of Russian economic development as part of the international capitalist order as a starting point argued that there was no `Chinese wall' between the bourgeois revolution Russian was in desperate need of and the tasks of the socialist revolution. In short, in the 20th century ( and by extension, now) the traditional leadership role of the bourgeois in the bourgeois revolution in a economically backward country, due to its subservience to the international capitalist powers and fear of its own working class and plebian masses, falls to the proletariat. The Russian Revolution of 1905 sharply demonstrated the outline of that tendency especially on the perfidious role of the Russian bourgeoisie. The unfolding of revolutionary events in 1917 graphically confirmed this. The history of revolutionary struggles since then, and not only in `third world' countries, gives added, if negative, confirmation of that analysis.
   
   World War I was a watershed for modern history in many ways. For the purposes of this review two points are important. First, the failure of the bulk of the European social democracy- representing the masses of their respective working classes- to not only not oppose their own ruling classes' plunges into war, which would be a minimal practical expectation, but to go over and directly support their own respective ruling classes in that war. This position was most famously demonstrated when the entire parliamentary fraction of the German Social Democratic party voted for the war credits for the Kaiser on August 4, 1914. This initially left the anti-war elements of international social democracy, including Lenin and Trotsky, almost totally isolated. As the carnage of that war mounted in endless and senseless slaughter on both sides it became clear that a new political alignment in the labor movement was necessary. The old, basically useless Second International, which in its time held some promise of bringing in the new socialist order, needed to give way to a new revolutionary International. That eventually occurred in 1919 with the foundation of the Communist International (also known as the Third International). Horror of horrors, particularly for reformists of all stripes, this meant that the international labor movement, one way or another, had to split into its reformist and revolutionary components. It is during the war that Trotsky and Lenin, not without some lingering differences, drew closer and begins the process of several years, only ended by Lenin's death, of close political collaboration.
   
   Secondly, World War I marks the definite (at least for Europe) end of the progressive role of international capitalist development. The outlines of imperialist aggression previously noted had definitely taken center stage. This theory of imperialism was most closely associated with Lenin in his master work Imperialism-The Highest Stage of Capitalism but one should note that Trotsky in all his later work up until his death fully subscribed to the theory. Although Lenin's work is in need of some updating to account for various technological changes and the extensions of globalization since that time holds up for political purposes. This analysis meant that a fundamental shift in the relationship of the working class to the ruling class was necessary. A reformist perspective for social change, although not specific reforms, was no longer tenable. Politically, as a general proposition, socialist revolution was on the immediate agenda. This is when Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution meets the Leninist conception of revolutionary organization. It proved to be a successful formula in Russia in October, 1917. Unfortunately, those lessons were not learned (or at least learned in time) by those who followed and the events of October, 1917 stand today as the only `pure' working class revolution in history.
   
   An argument can, and has, been made that the October Revolution could only have occurred under the specific condition of decimated, devastated war-weary Russia of 1917. This argument is generally made by those who were not well-wishers of revolution in Russia (or anywhere else, for that matter). It is rather a truism, indulged in by Marxists as well as by others, that war is the mother of revolution. That said, the October revolution was made then and there but only because of the convergence of enough revolutionary forces led by the Bolsheviks and additionally the forces closest to the Bolsheviks (including Trotsky's Inter-District Organization) who had prepared for these events by the entire pre-history of the revolution. This is the subjective factor in history. No, not substitutionalism, that was the program of the Social Revolutionary terrorists and the like, but if you like, revolutionary opportunism. I would be much more impressed by an argument that stated that the revolution would not have occurred without the presence of Lenin and Trotsky. That would be a subjective argument, par excellent. But, they were there.
   
   Again Trotsky in 1917, like in 1905, is in his element speaking seemingly everywhere, writing, organizing (when it counts, by the way). If not the brains of the revolution (that role is honorably conceded to Lenin) certainly the face of the Revolution. Here is a revolutionary moment in every great revolution when the fate of the revolution turned on a dime (the subjective factor). The dime turned. (See review dated April 18, 2006 for a review of Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution).
   
   One of the great lessons that militants can learn from all previous modern revolutions is that once the revolutionary forces seize power from the old regime an inevitable counterrevolutionary onslaught by elements of the old order (aided by some banished moderate but previously revolutionary elements, as a rule). The Russian revolution proved no exception. If anything the old regime, aided and abetted by numerous foreign powers and armies, was even more bloodthirsty. It fell to Trotsky to organize the defense of the revolution. Now, you might ask- What is a nice Jewish boy like Trotsky doing playing with guns? Fair enough. Well, Jewish or Gentile if you play the revolution game you better the hell be prepared to defend the revolution (and yourself). Here, again Trotsky organized, essentially from scratch, a Red Army from a defeated, demoralized former peasant army under the Czar. The ensuing civil war was to leave the country devastated but the Red Army defeated the Whites. Why? In the final analysis it was not only the heroism of the working class defending its own but the peasant wanting to hold on to the newly acquired land he just got and was in jeopardy of losing if the Whites won. But these masses needed to be organized. Trotsky was the man for the task.
   
   Both Lenin's and Trotsky's calculation for the success of socialist revolution in Russia (and ultimately its fate) was its, more or less, immediate extension to the capitalist heartland of Europe, particularly Germany. While in 1917 that was probably not the controlling single factor for going forward in Russia it did have to come into play at some point. The founding of the Communist International makes no sense otherwise. Unfortunately, for many historical, national and leadership-related reasons no Bolshevik-styled socialist revolutions followed then, or ever. If the premise for socialism is for plenty, and ultimately as a result of plenty to take the struggle for existence off the agenda and put other more creative pursues on the agenda, then Russia in the early 1920's was not the land of plenty. Neither Lenin, Trotsky nor Stalin, for that matter, could wish that fact away. The ideological underpinnings of that fight centered on the Stalinist concept of `socialism in one country', that is Russia going it alone versus the Trostskyist position of the absolutely necessary extension of the international revolution. In short, this is the fight that historically happens in great revolutions- the fight against Thermidor (from the overthrow of Robespierre in 1794 by more moderate Jacobins). What counts, in the final analysis, are their respective responses to the crisis of the isolation of the revolution. The word isolation is the key. Do you turn the revolution inward or push forward? We all know the result, and it wasn't pretty, then or now. That is the substance of the fight that Trotsky, if initially belatedly and hesitantly, led from about 1923 on under various conditions until the end of his life by assassination of a Stalinist agent in 1940.
   
   Although there were earlier signs that the Russia revolution was going off course the long illness and death of Lenin in 1924, at the time the only truly authoritative leader the Bolshevik party, set off a power struggle in the leadership of the party. This fight had Trotsky and the `pretty boy' intellectuals of the party on one side and Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev (the so-called triumvirate).backed by the `gray boys' of the emerging bureaucracy on the other. This struggle occurred against the backdrop of the failed revolution in Germany in 1923 and which thereafter heralded the continued isolation, imperialist blockade and economic backwardness of the Soviet Union for the foreseeable future.
   
   While the disputes in the Russian party eventually had international ramifications in the Communist International, they were at this time fought out almost solely with the Russian Party. Trotsky was slow, very slow to take up the battle for power that had become obvious to many elements in the party. He made many mistakes and granted too many concessions to the triumvirate. But he did fight. Although later (in 1935) Trotsky recognized that the 1923 fight represented a fight against the Russian Thermidor and thus a decisive turning point for the revolution that was not clear to him (or anyone else on either side) then. Whatever the appropriate analogy might have been Leon Trotsky was in fact fighting a last ditch effort to retard the further degeneration of the revolution. After that defeat, the way the Soviet Union was ruled, who ruled it and for what purposes all changed. And not for the better.
   
   In a sense if the fight in 1923-24 is the decisive fight to save the Russian revolution (and ultimately a perspective of international revolution) then the 1926-27 fight which was a bloc between Trotsky's forces and the just defeated forces of Zinoviev and Kamenev, Stalin's previous allies was the last rearguard action to save that perspective. That it failed does not deny the importance of the fight. Yes, it was a political bloc with some serious differences especially over China and the Anglo-Russian Committee. But two things are important here One- did a perspective of a new party, which some elements were clamoring for, make sense at the time of the clear waning of the revolutionary ebbing the country. No. Besides the place to look was at the most politically conscious elements, granted against heavy odds, in the party where whatever was left of the class-conscious elements of the working class were. As I have noted elsewhere in discussing the 1923 fight- that "Lenin levy" of raw recruits, careerists and just plain thugs which enhanced the growing power of the Stalinist bureaucracy was the key element in any defeat. Still the fight was necessary. Hey, that is why we talk about it now. That was a fight to the finish. After that the left opposition or elements of it were forever more outside the party- either in exile, prison or dead. As we know Trotsky went from expulsion from the party in 1927 to internal exile in Alma Ata in 1928 to external exile to Turkey in 1929. From there he underwent further exiles in France, Norway, and Mexico when he was finally felled by a Stalinist assassin. But no matter when he went he continued to struggle for his perspective. Not bad for a Jewish farmer's son from the Ukraine.
   
   The last period of Trotsky's life spent in harrowing exiles and under constant threat from Stalinist and White Guard threats- in short, on the planet without a visa -was dedicated to the continued fight for the Leninist heritage. It was an unequal fight, to be sure but he waged it and was able to cohere a core of revolutionaries to form a new international, the Fourth International. That that effort was essentially militarily defeat by fascist or Stalinist forces during World War II does not take away from the grandeur of the attempt. He himself stated that he felt this was the most important work of his life- and who would challenge that assertion.
   
   But one could understand the frustrations, first the failure of his correct analysis of the German debacle then in France and Spain. Hell a lesser man would have given up. In fact, more than one biographer has argued that he should have retired from the political arena to, I assume , a comfortable country cottage to write I do not know what. But, please reader, have you been paying attention? Does this seem even remotely like the Trotsky career I have attempted to highlight here? Hell, no.
   
   Many of the events such as the disputes within the Russian revolutionary movement, the attempts by the Western Powers to overthrow the Bolsheviks in the Civil War after their seizure of power and the struggle of the various tendencies inside the Russian Communist Party and in the Communist International discussed in the book may not be familiar to today's audience. Nevertheless one can still learn something from the strength of Trotsky's commitment to his cause and the fight to preserve his personal and political integrity against overwhelming odds. As the organizer of the October Revolution, creator of the Red Army in the Civil War, orator, writer and fighter Trotsky he was one of the most feared men of the early 20th century to friend and foe alike. Nevertheless, I do not believe that he took his personal fall from power as a world historic tragedy. Moreover, he does not gloss over his political mistakes. Nor does Trotsky generally do personal injustice to his various political opponents although I would not want to have been subject to his rapier wit and pen. Politicians, revolutionary or otherwise, in our times should take note.
   
   REVISED JULY 25, 2006



5. This first of 3 volumes in Deutscher's biography is an astonishing and captivating achievement. Deutscher weaves together character study, drama, and historical narrative to give an authoritative account of Trotsky's life and the Russian Revolution from Trotsky's birth up through the quickening bureaucratization of Soviet Russia in 1921.
   
   Deutscher's deft handling of the facts, personalities, ideas, and situations of the time is simply unparallelled, and makes for a tremendously enjoyable and informative read.
   
   Essential material for anyone exploring the question of where socialism went wrong in the 20th century.

5 comments about Bitter Freedom: Memoirs of a Holocaust Survivor.

1. A very poignant and interesting memoir. You can never imagine what these poor people went through to survive and re-establish their lives. A worthwhile read.



2. This is an incredible story which while simply written,
   encompasses all of the best and worst of what humans are capable of. The unbelievable love between and mother and her child is the overwhelming power that pervades the narrative. A gift to anyone who needs to understand what that period of history was all about.
   Patti Sacher



3. Bitter Freedom
   Jafa Wallach
   Paperback: 209 pages
   Publisher: Hermitage Publishers; First edition (April 25, 2006)
   Language: English
   ISBN-10: 1557791570
   ISBN-13: 978-1557791573
   
   Although I have read many first-hand account books written by holocaust survivors, I found Bitter Freedom to be the most compelling story of it's kind since The Diaries of Anne Frank. The book moved me like no other.
   Bitter Freedom is written in straight-forward prose by a mother survivor (Jafa Wallach) who shortly after the WWll ended, sat down and wrote the personal history of her family's lucky and often miraculous survival of the Holocaust. In letter form to her daughter- (Rena Wallach Bernstein) too young at the time to know the adult horrors of in which they survived, Mrs. Wallach pens an incredibly honest and poignant memoir.
   "The years have gone by and yet the memory of how it all began remains vivid, fearfully close, as though it all happened yesterday. We were at home, apartment #3 Jagielonska Street in the town of Sanok Poland, listening to radio bulletins of Hitler's attack. You, my daughter, were just one year old. You looked up at our anxious faces, your father's and mine, but you could not have understood how deeply frightened we were. You repeated after us, in your baby lisp, "war, war"-the ugliest word in human speech. It wasn't long after that German planes began to pay their deadly visits to our little town of Sanok."
   
   The book transports you back in history allowing you a glimpse of what everyday families were seeing, feeling and experiencing during this horrific time of war. The Jews of conquered Europe were taken by surprise never dreaming that civilized man could do to their fellow human beings what was now being done to them. Terror and mayhem swept Europe, and so swiftly had Hitler come east and so complete was his control of the lands he occupied- there was literally no where to run-no where to hide. Those hunted were now trapped in their own villages.
   
   Escaping the terror was made especially difficult because many people of the Nazi controlled villages were deeply and historically ingrained with hate for certain groups of their fellow countrymen. The Nazis used this hate to their advantage by turning neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend. Christian against Jew. Those of the hated lucky enough to survive, did so only with the help of others who chose to put their own lives, and those of their families at risk to save their friends and neighbors. Very few were willing to take that risk.
   
   Fortunately for the Wallach family One Christian man- a mechanic named Jozef "Jozio" Zwonarz did choose to put his own life and family at risk to save five fellow human beings. As he concealed four adults under the very noses of the Gestapo, he desperately schemed to save the life of the fifth family member, a four year old child. (Rena Wallach)
   With parents and daughter now separated, the nightmare for this family was complete. There was nothing left for them to do. Their very lives were now in the hands of God and an auto mechanic named Jozio.
   
   Bitter Freedom is a touching memoir, a suspenseful thriller, and an accurate historical novel all in one. Although the story took place more than 60 years ago, Jafa Wallach's messages to the reader are timeless and wonderfully relevant in today's world where war is in the news every day.
   
   I predict that Bitter Freedom will eventually be on the top of every school's reading list. There are lessons here for all of us.
   A must read.
   
   
   
   



4. I just finished reading Bitter Memories, and this is a definite for everyone to share with their family. What this family saw and lived through is awe inspiring and will leave you looking at your own lives. It will make you appreciate where we live and gives a new look at what the Holocaust victims went through. There are so many who will deny that the Holocaust ever took place, but Mrs Wallach and her daughter will help you see through their memories just how horrible it truly was.



5. A very powerful story about the Holocaust that is well-written and gives intimate detail. It's marvelous that the mother wrote down her entire story in 1959 and then was able to live to see it published. I also enjoyed the Afterward, written by the daughter, giving her impressions and what she remembered from this utterly tragic period from which almost no Jew escaped. The fact that each town was carefully named, each incident described in detail, made the story come to life for the reader who could well imagine himself/herself there at the time. The copy-editing done on this book was excellent; I only found two tiny errors.

3 comments about The Jews of Sing Sing.

1. I have read many books about the various gangsters (Jewish or other) who served time in Sing Sing. What makes this particular book unique is that it is born out of Ron Aron's personal interest in this subject. The hook is that he unearths the dark secret in his own family that his grandfather served time at Sing Sing. His grandfather's story is revealed slowly by interspersing his story with chapters devoted to other Jewish prisoners. I admit I couldn't wait to find out the whole story and I read the three chapters devoted to Isaac Spier first.
   
   The book is painstakingly researched. The writing style is fluid and engaging.



2. As a former New Yorker, I thought I was pretty savvy; but I had no clue that there was such a vibrant Jewish criminal population. Ron Arons opened my eyes, big time! The book is a great read and I am glad that MY grandfathers are not in there.



3. Thanks to Ron, my grandfather's life has finally been told truthfully. The chapter on Dopey Benny Fein was fantastic as was the entire book. I'm glad I had the opportunity to help Ron with this chapter, and to meet him.

1 comments about Lincoln's Ladies: The Women in the Life of the Sixteenth President.

1. Now in a newly revised and expanded edition, Lincoln's Ladies is the eyebrow-raising true story of Abraham Lincoln's often troubled life and the women who influenced it. From his treasured first love, who unfortunately perished shortly after they became engaged, to his tumultuous relationship with his wife Mary Todd, who is documented as verbally abusing him (and the domestic help) on countless occassions and even chasing him with a broom, to numerous other women, not all of them romantic relationships, who came to speak with and know Lincoln in various ways, Lincoln's Ladies is a fascinating exploration of a great President's little-known private life. Written by an award-winning journalist, Lincoln's Ladies is a must-read for anyone curious about the nuances of history in general and Licoln's life in particular.