5 comments about The MAN WHO ONCE WAS WHIZZER WHITE: A PORTRAIT OF JUSTICE BYRON R WHITE.

1. This book was a disappointment. I think that with the recent comprehensive late 20th Century biographies, such as the recent ones about Rockefeller and Lindbergh and Nigel Hamilton's Reckless Youth, we have come to expect the biographer to do a thorough investigation and analysis of the circumstances that impacted the subject. While I do not expect a Freudian approach in every case (and would probably object to it if done expressly), I welcome gentle suggestions that link early events in the subject's life with the later, more well known, events. This analysis was missing from Whizzer (with the exception of the origins of his hatred for the press). The book reads as if it is a collection of on-line newspapers searches, ones that I could have done myself if NEXIS had newspapers dating back to the 30s. Didn't anybody keep a diary? Didn't anybody write letters? Didn't anybody have any introspective thoughts? To those who say that this type of analysis is not necessary for a judicial biography, I direct them to John Jeffrey's book about Powell, which I thought was very well done, and a good model for what a judicial biography can be.



2. Hutchinson has written a fascinating contemporary biography of Justice White who is almost unique in his continued insistence on his privacy and personal dignity. Although the author eschews speculation as to White's family or personal life, one still gets a good sense of the man--his intelligence, tenacity, and just plain decency. At least as interesting are the times he lived in, and few lawyers or judges have shared the action and passion of their times more fully than Justice White--first on the gridiron, then in the classroom, in the world of affairs, and on the court. White had his shortcomings as a communicator and legal theorist, as Hutchinson aptly illustrates with the oral and written record. But would that our society had more such self-effacing, dedicated and excellent lawyers and public servants!



3. Byron White began his long judicial career in dissent, resisting the rising tide of criminal procedure liberalism of the Warren Court, and ended it as the balance wheel of Rehnquist Court. In his 31 years on the Supreme Court, from 1962 to 1993, he was in the majority in 807 five-to-four decisions, more than any other justice in history, except for the wily William Brennan who served on the court for 34 years. White also has the signal distinction of being the only Democratic appointee to the Supreme Court since the end of World War II who profoundly disappointed his erstwhile partisan allies. Beyond the fact that White refused to "grow" his jurisprudence from its New Deal origins to accommodate the latest cultural avant-garde enthusiasms of the juridical left, little is known about White and his jurisprudence is widely misunderstood.

   The litany of White's accomplishments and his early rise to the court serve to obscure the lines of his jurisprudence, which he never made an attempt to clarify. Hutchinson's principal accomplishment is to discern from the mass of White's opinions a sound jurisprudential framework obscured by bulk of White's output (1,275 opinions in 31 years), and in doing so refute the assertion that White was unpredictable.

   Although White was popularly described as a conservative jurist, this confounds the term as it is used to describe a specific interpretive philosophy with the judicial tradition which White came to exemplify. Today judicial conservatism is virtually synonymous with "original meaning," the method of constitutional interpretation that holds that the Constitution means only what it was understood to mean by those whose assent made it law. This has certain implications, among them that the Congress's powers are limited to those enumerated, that the three branches of federal government and their powers are strictly separated, and that the states retain inviolable spheres of sovereignty. In this sense, White was not a conservative at all. Where, say, Justice Antonin Scalia would subscribe to these general notions, White would not. For instance, while Scalia believes that the law permitting the appointment of Independent Counsels violates the separation of powers doctrine (Morrison v. Olson), White sees it as a permissible experimentation with the form of government. And though Scalia believes that the powers of Congress are, however tangentially, limited (Lopez v. United States) and that the states retain areas of discretion where the Congress may not intrude (Printz v. United States), White views the powers of the Congress as essentially unlimited (Katzenbach v. McClung) and the states as retaining no sovereignty that the Congress is obliged to respect (Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Authority). Although Hutchinson views "New Deal liberal" and "pragmatist" as imperfect labels, his carefully wrought and insightful analysis of White's jurisprudence nonetheless establishes that they are fair and roughly approximate descriptions of Justice White.

   In it's judicial aspect the New Deal generally sought to eliminate restrictions on the exercise of federal power. These breaks on government power were exemplified early in this century by an activist libertarian Supreme Court's invocation of natural rights and non-textual notions of substantive due process to strike economic regulation. Lochner v. New York, where the court struck down regulations on the working hours of bakers as a violation of their liberty to contract their labor, is perhaps the most famous bugbear of New Dealers. But restrictions also came in the form of the enumerated powers doctrine and in the form of early criminal procedure cases which, as Professor Akhil Reed Amar of Yale has noted, invoked natural law and private property rights, and thus restricted the government's policing powers. All of these, in one way or another, restricted federal action. Judges of New Deal era, then, had a distinctly negative ambition: To remove the restrictions on the exercise of federal power so that the Congress, acting with the Executive, could enact social reform.

   The ambition of liberal judges changed, of course, with the rise of "the real Warren Court," which historian David P. Currie of the University of Chicago dates to the replacement of Justice Frankfurter by Arthur Goldberg late in 1962. "Willful judges," as Justice Scalia describes them, were no longer content with deferring to the overtly political branches, but were now eager to enact social reform themselves. The criminal procedure cases of the Warren Court were animated by the ideas that policing by the states was institutionally racist and that crime was a manifestation of disease, not evil, and should be addressed as a public health concern. Steeped in the New Deal idea of the judicial function, however, White largely dissented from Warren Court's innovations. He dissented from Miranda v Arizona, which mandated the now famous warnings to criminal suspects; prefiguring contemporary arguments, he wrote "there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity" because under Miranda some criminals will be returned to the street to repeat their crimes.. White would also labor to limit the scope of rule excluding from trial illegally obtained evidence, and would dissent from Robinson v. California, where the court struck down a California statute criminalizing narcotics addiction. The court said that the state could not punish a person's "status" as an addict, only his conduct; White, sensibly enough, pointed out that addiction accrues through continuous willful behavior.

   White was a pragmatist. He didn't believe that the provisions of the Bill of Rights had a "single meaning" or that constitutional provisions could be measured like the provisions of a deed, in "metes and bounds," but he was insistent that constitutional innovations be small and slow, and linked in a rational process. His father taught him that "You can't just stand on your rights all the time in a small town," and White had a lifetime aversion to "the angels of fashionable opinion," as Hutchinson memorably calls ideologues of various stripe. But White's contempt for philosophy could lead him astray. In Reitman v. Mulkey, White wrote the opinion of the court holding that California could not repeal a fair housing law because the repeal was motivated by animus toward minorities. In time, the case was precedent for the current Supreme Court's invalidation, in Romer v. Evans, of Colorado's attempt to deny homosexuals privileged legal status, and for a lower federal court to stay the implementation of California's Proposition 209, barring racial and sexual discrimination in state services. Pragmatism unguided by a philosophy lead White to judgments the long-term ill consequences of which he was not equipped to foresee.

   However, White's small-step pragmatism and disdain for ideological enthusiasms kept him from joining most of the Warren and Burger Court's radical social agenda. Although he was willing to recognize, in Griswold v. Connecticut, a non-textual right to privacy permitting married couples access to contraception and even was willing to extend the right to non-married couples in Eisenstadt v. Baird, White famously and vigorously dissented from Roe v. Wade, privately telling people that he thought it was the only illegitimate decision the court made during his tenure. Perhaps just as upsetting to the votaries of judicial activism was White's majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick, which held that Georgia could constitutionally prohibit homosexual sodomy. White briskly dismissed the argument that homosexual activity was constitutionally protected: "[T]o claim that a right to engage in such conduct is `deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition' or `implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' is, at best, facetious."

   In an sense, White was precisely the type of conservative -- one who slows progress, but does not reverse it; one who ratifies the past, whatever its content -- that liberals claim they want. Except for Roe, White would later vote to reaffirm precedent, on the basis of stare decisis, with which he had earlier disagreed. And yet, few modern justices -- except, perhaps, Justice Clarence Thomas -- have been the object of so much vitriol as White. When White retired in 1993, Jeffrey Rosen of the New Republic called White "a perfect cipher" and a "mediocrity," Bruce Ackerman of Yale said he was "out of his depth," and the New York Times' Tom Wicker called him the "bitterest legacy of the Kennedy Administration." The best Calvin Trillin, writing in The Nation, could say of White was "We count his loyalty to team a boon/The other side might well select a loon" -- this in backhanded praise that White retired during a Democratic administration. These facile slurs betray the mercurial enthusiasms of the age more than they carefully trace the lineaments of Justice White's jurisprudence and are therefore more reflective of their authors than White's jurisprudence.

   In many ways White is entirely alien to today's culture, popular and lega




4. Byron White intentionally did not leave much of a paper trail, as a man distrustful of the press, which is why this book has nowhere near the depth of Jeffries' Powell biography. White may well be most vilified and castigated justice in his own time, a fact which Hutchinson recounts in great detail, because he frequently ruled against the interests of the intelligensia-- frivolous First Amendment rights claimed by the media, and, of course, homosexuals, in Bowers, which won him the most profane attacks of all, from gay rights activists imbued with more passion than respect for the deliberative function of the Courts.
   
   White, though he is accused of "moving right" over the course of his career, was in fact remarkably consistent. The problem was that he was guided by a considerably more complex set of principles than most justices, another fact which Hutchinson brings out quite well. He had an extremely uptight view of electoral politics, disliked formalism in all of its forms, was always against categorically forclosing judicial review, and absolutely despised substantive due process, especially Roe v. Wade. Yet White was an extraordinarily fair-minded and scrupled man. He was the only justice to object to the Court's attempt to retire the debilitated Justice William O. Douglas on its own accord, was an aritculate opponent of formalistic separation-of-powers and federalism doctrine, and frequently came out on the side of the downtrodden (see his role in Jacobson v. U.S.). History should view White more kindly than most of his contemporaries-- he was a man totally without an sort of a political agenda, the type of fair-minded and intelligent person so lacking from our Courts today.
   
   There are some faults here: Hutchinson's forays into Constitutional commentary in the text are very opaque and inappropriate for the book. This book is generally well-written and well-researched, but its appeal will generally be to hardcore watchers of the Warren, Burger, and early Rehnquist courts or fans of White himself-- evidently a small group, as this book is now nearly out of print.



5. I first read this biography when it was published in 1998; because I am working with a former White clerk on a matter, I recently took another look--it has held up very well. The author, Dennis J. Hutchinson, long affiliated with the University of Chicago and its law school, had the advantage of having clerked for White. But this is no hagiography, and is quite critical in spots. Because White (1917-2002) has become all but invisible to current generations of Court watchers, and this is the major biography available on him, it is an important book. One measure of the author's thoroughness is that White does not make it onto the Court until page 335 (he served between 1962 and 1993)--the previous pages are devoted to a meticulous account of his prior life, and what a life it was: football All-American; Rhodes Scholar; graduate work at Oxford; then onto Yale Law School while playing in the NFL; valuable work during the war in Naval Intelligence; then clerking on the Court; followed up with a successful law practice and politics in Denver, including work on the JFK campaign in 1960; a stint as Deputy Attorney General under RFK and then appointment to the Court.
   
   Hutchinson does not follow the frequent practice of reviewing every major decision a subject made while on the Court; rather the picks out three terms (1971, 1981, and 1991) for extended analysis. He looks at such topics as White's opinion style, including his dissent format; his incremental approach; the problems some had with White's opinion style; his interaction with fellow Justices; and his views on such topics as affirmative action, abortion and finding "new" constitutional rights. Always central to the discussion is White's independence, as manifested for example in being the only Justice against taking away (in effect) Justice Douglas's vote due to his incapacity. The author also speculates as to the forces that did and did not shape (such as Yale legal realism) White's view. White's reputation for being a difficult and distant individual to deal with certainly is borne out by the book, although White clerks will tell you he was great to work for. Whatever, White is a fading figure, and it falls largely to this fine biography to keep his memory and accomplishments alive.

5 comments about Fallen Angel: The Unlikely Rise of Walter Stadnick and the Canadian Hells Angels.

1. This book provides a lot of information on Walter Stadnick and the Canadian Hells Angels along with information on lesser clubs in Canada. The author, Jerry Langton, however, has made numerous disturbing errors in reporting on certain aspects of the Hells Angels and other clubs. Langton reports on page 26 that prospective members (prospects) are awarded the top rocker (Hells Angels) along with the center patch. Langton then states that the prospects recive the bottom rocker which identifies the chapter's geographical location upon earning full membership. THE OPPISITE IS TRUE for the Hells Angels and ALL OTHER CLUBS! It is hard to believe that Lanfton could make such an obvious error in his writing.
   
   Langton goes on to say that newly minted members are forced to endure a ritualistic ceremony wherein [...] ect.... are spewed on the colors (patched vest) and that the new member is forbidden to wash it. This is absoulutely untrue. No Hells Angel would desecrate the patch and show such disrespect. The fact that Langton would believe and further this myth is a statement to his lack of knowledge.
   
   Also, on page 224, langton refers to the Outlaws patch having a Deaths Head center refered to as "Charlie." This is true of the Hells Angels. The Outlaws center patch is a pair of crossed pistons. I would suggest that the next time langton writes a book, he should have someone with knowledge of the subject matter proof-read his work.



2. The author have gone though a great deal to find the facts in hundreds of events during many years. He covers hundreds of people. Hundreds of crimes and killings. He could have picked a few events, clubs or people and written their full story. Instead the book hops between people and clubs, between centuries and continents like a school book. Theres no story, but namedropping enough to confuse anyone. Stadnik is one of hundreds of figures skidding though events, none of them with depth. People are shot and stabbed, but you find it difficult to care, since none is in the book for more than a page, and you dont get to know them. It feels disorganised. If it was in cronical order, or at least with chapter names reveiling what every chapter will cover it would be easier. Perhaps its interesting and understandable for the surviving few who were there. If your looking for facts its fine, but its too packed with facts for me. I need a story.



3. Not only is the author a bad writer.....jumping from timeline to time line...not able to tell a story in order.....he tries to pose the Hell's Angels as the bad guys. Anyone with a solid head on their shoulders will see thru his rhetoric and realize HA is a stand up orginization that takes care of business like any normal person would. The crimes they were accused of, weren't crimes at all......they were simply the exercising of human rights against agressors that would try to deny said so rights......in fact in the entire book, i found no fault with the Angel's actions, and applaud them for their efforts.



4. I knew Nurget and had the pleasure of riding with him in the mid 70's when I lived in Hamilton. He was a fun, smart and happy guy. I was surprised that he made such a name for himself. Langton seems to jump around throughout the whole book, leaving the reader confused at times. Perhaps he could have got some help writing the book from a real writer. It is obvious he sides with the police authorities, giving a very one sided view of the biker lifestyle. He has made several errors pertaining to the biker culture and some of the events that took place.



5. good book with great, little known info about the Angels and there members

1 comments about The Great Chief Justice: John Marshall and the Rule of Law (Modern War Studies).

1. John Marshall [1755-1835] was Chief Justice of the United States for the last 34 years of his life. During his long tenure, he turned the Supreme Court from an afterthought into a primary tool for the centralization of federal power; he defined America, though we can still debate whether he got the definition right. This book details how Marshall went about his task.....
   
   This is NOT a biography of John Marshall [see my other reviews]; it is a series of case studies which trace the expanding power of the Federal Judiciary...Marbury v. Madison established the principle of Judicial review of legislative decisions...Virginia v. Cohens asserted federal authority in state affairs...the National Bank...land titles...Indian treaties......there is still disagreement over some of Marshall's decisions, and there was hell to pay over some of them at the time. "John Marshall has made his decision; now let's see him enforce it"...the various ramifications of that statement {which Andrew Jackson MAY not have ever made} are mind boggling....
   
   Charles Hobson is editor of The John Marshall Papers, one of the 2 or 3 greatest living Marshall scholars, and a nice guy [as was Marshall]; he has written a five star book. Do I actually recommend it? Maybe. If you are an attorney or historian with an interest in the topic, it is an absolutely essential volume. Well written, well organized; for me, it was a page turner. For the casual reader, don't waste your money, or insult Mr. Hobson. You will need a good background in either Law [not me], or history [me] to understand it.

5 comments about Buffalo Bill's America: William Cody and the Wild West Show.

1. The Historians of today, especially those who have a different perspective of America instead of the "Good versus Evil" themes that folks like I grew up with like to shatter legends and myths.
   
   Not that a bit of reality is wrong. For example it is good to know what a virulent racist Nathan Bedford Forrest was, or how wrong it was to label the entire Abraham Lincoln Battalion as a bunch of "Commie Rats" (although with the release of much of the Moscow archives, it can be verified that up to almost 90% of them were either Communist Party or Young Communist League members - not the 40-60% as stated in past histories).
   
   It is however suspect when a Davey Crockett, long believed to have died swinging "Old Betsy" at the advancing Mexican soldiers at the Alamo, died, shot down as a captured prisoner, by Santa Anna's orders; or that the gallant Custer was a reckless fool.
   
   Which leads me to Dr. Warren's interesting biography of Buffalo Bill. Having got it as a holiday present I was at first enthralled by the depth and detail of this work which covered practically every aspect of this simple yet complex American hero.
   
   Then Dr. Warren had to spoil it all.
   
   First, he cast doubts on whether or not William Cody ever rode with the Pony Express. He cites available records, but admits Cody did ride for the Express parent company - Russell, Majors and Waddell.
   
   Secondly, he then claims Cody rode with Jennison's Jayhawkers instead of working as a Scout for the Union Army. In other words, Cody was involved in some of the ugliest savagery on the frontier as Unionists retaliated for the depravations of Quantrill, the James-Younger boys, Bloody Bill Anderson, and other Confederates. Yet, if that was the case, and with rosters of the 7th Kansas being available, why haven't Civil War historians made light of this in the past? Warren seems to imply that Cody was one of the 7th Kansas boys who faced down Bedford Forrest at Tupelo and Brice's Crossroads, but where is the evidence? (note: I do stand corrected as I have found another source on Cody's experiences in the 7th, and indeed they did fight Forrest in Tennessee and Mississippi, but were recalled to Missouri in time to help stop Sterling Price in the fall of 1864, a campaign where Cody and Bill Hickok fought practically side by side)
   
   Third, Warren also seems to claim that there was an almost unfriendly rivalry between George Custer and William Cody, and that outside of the celebrated Buffalo hunt with the Grand Duke Alexis of Russia, the two men rarely met or studiously avoided each other. Why? Because Libbie Custer only named Wild Bill Hickok as a Custer intimate, not Buffalo Bill. Furthermore, Warren also describes the Custer marriage as being as troubled as that of the Codys. He has even suggested that Libbie Custer had an affair with another (unnamed) cavalry officer - that's news to me as I'm sure it is to others who have read extensively of the Custers and their marriage. Custer jealous of Bill Cody? Hmmm. And why would Bill Cody present Custer as an all-hero in his future shows if he didn't feel a regard for the late soldier's heroism on the American Frontier?
   
   He then describes Cody as being benevolent and more open-minded towards Native Americans, yet almost a cruel overseer to those Indians who rode and worked with the Wild West Shows - try suggesting that to Sitting Bull. Oops, you can't because he's long dead. But then again, so is Buffalo Bill Cody.
   
   What is even more troublesome is Warren's wanting to put a societal spin to the life and times of Buffalo Bill. He pictures America of the late 19th Century as being a nation split between the "haves and have-nots" with another Civil War looming in the distance. He brings up the Haymarket Square Riots, and calls Albert Parsons, the former Confederate Soldier turned Radical leader the William Cody of the Confederacy, yet offers no evidence to prove this. For me, that was a major disappointment, because I would have liked to have seen where a young Confederate hero, having risked his life for the reactionary South, could change so drastically to push for the violent overthrow of bourgeois America. He also brings in the Johnson County War as if to suggest that Cody could easily play both sides down the middle - lionized by the proletariat Cowboy and loved by the intolerant landowners.
   
   In the end, with little or no commentary about those final, almost destitute years of Cody's life - including that poignant final year when after riding in a Wild West Show he had virtually no say in, with his kidneys shutting down, and being in constant pain, helped by his "son" Johnny Baker, Cody went home to die. Warren surprisingly makes little comment about this sad history, which is even more surprising when one sees how much he placed detail on irrelevances or suggested things that never have been proven before.
   
   Maybe it is because I like my biographies to be straightforward -and my Western History to be not simplistic but not mired down in complex issues either that this once promising work turned me off towards the end. That, and another unfortunate debunking of another real American hero. After all, Mr. Cody isn't around to say whether or not he exaggerated his life and\or career, or to refute or not some of Dr. Warren's more damaging charges.



2. William Cody was the most famous American of his times, renowned as a Pony Express rider, soldier, buffalo hunter and overall hero - but his creation of the Wild West show, a traveling company of cowboys and Indians which toured North American and Europe for over thirty years, solidified his importance and his name. BUFFALO BILL'S AMERICA: WILLIAM CODY AND THE WILD WEST SHOW provides the most detailed critical biography of Cody to appear in over forty years, considering his showmanship, his achievements, and the controversies which swirled around his life, both during time and into modern times. Chapters use source material references and quotes but maintain a lively style which lends to appeal by leisure audiences as well as students of American history.



3. I was quite pleased witht the speed of delivery on this book and it's excellent condtion. It was all I could have hoped for. 5 Stars!
   
   Don Gilmore



4. Great book from a great professor. Reading this was like sitting in Dr. Warren's class again. He can totally make history come alive and this book is no exception.



5. This book is a bore with minimal facts and an author with a wild imagination. Tries to tie many outside events whether real or imaginary to the theme and because of this he has been able to add 200 maybe 300 plus pages of fantasy.
   
   Don't waste your time like I did and try to find something a lot better.
   
   Sorry, I don't like to belittle authors but this was one of the worse books I have read in many years.

5 comments about The Words Lincoln Lived By: 52 Timeless Principles to Light Your Path.

1. Although it often quotes Lincoln, the theme is actually to inspire and motivate its readers to make an attempt to imitate the immortal Sixteenth President. In this, Prof. Griessman has done a superb job. His book is outstanding. Furthermore, he has identified the sources for the quotes utilized in each small chapter. All fifty-two units are named after one of Lincoln's noteworthy traits, such as "Determination," "Courage," "Honesty," etc. Not only does Griessman give us Lincoln quotes, but he also weaves each one into a little jewel of an essay on that particular subject. If a reader peruses a chapter a week, he or she will have a year's worth of inspiration.

   In addition, this small volume contains "Biographical Notes" on the main figures cited and also a Bibliography of the sources quoted. Dr. Griessman has utilized his background in speaking and teaching the fine art of motivation to write this particular book. He also impersonates Abraham Lincoln for large audiences and has authored numerous books and articles.

   In this entire treatise, this reviewer noted only one very minor error. On page 128, it is set down that Thomas Lincoln was born in either 1776 or 1778. There certainly is no doubt about the date of Thomas's natal day. Abraham Lincoln wrote down in his Father's own Bible the statement that Thomas was born January 6, 1778. (See Basler, Ed., "The Collected Works", II, 94. This fact is most difficult to discover since the index to "The Collected Works" does not carry this reference under the title "Bibles.")

   Wayne C. Temple, Illinois State Archives




2. There have been a small number of books published which attempt to collect in dictionary form the more noted words and remarks of Abraham Lincoln. Archer H. Shaw did "The Lincoln Encyclopedia" in 1950; Caroline Thomas Harnsberger collected "The Lincoln Treasury" in 1950; Ralph B. Winn wrote "A Concise Lincoln Dictionary" in 1959; Fred A. Kerner assembled "A Treasury of Lincoln Quotations" in 1965, reprinted in 1996; and Gabor S. Boritt published "Of the People, By the People, For the People" in 1996.

   All of those volumes are most helpful in locating a Lincoln quotation, and Don E. and Virginia Fehrenbacher have compiled "The Recollected Words of Abraham Lincoln" (1996). Of course, this latter study selects the more important spoken words of Lincoln as recalled by listeners who heard them.

   However, Gene Griessman has put together an entirely different publication. Although it often quotes Lincoln, the theme is actually to inspire and motivate its readers to make an attempt to imitate the immortal Sixteenth President. In this, Prof. Griessman has done a superb job. His book is outstanding. Furthermore, he has identified the sources for the quotes utilized in each small chapter. All fifty-two units are named after one of Lincoln's noteworthy traits, such as "Determination," "Courage," "Honesty," etc. Not only does Griessman give us Lincoln quotes, but he also weaves each one into a little jewel of an essay on that particular subject. If a reader peruses a chapter a week, he or she will have a year's worth of inspiration.

   In addition, this small volume contains "Biographical Notes" on the main figures cited and also a Bibliography of the sources quoted. Dr. Griessman has utilized his background in speaking and teaching the fine art of motivation to write this particular book. He also impersonates Abraham Lincoln for large audiences and has authored numerous books and articles.

   Wayne C. Temple, Illinois State Archives




3. Heard the taped version of Gene Griessman's THE WORDS
   LINCOLN LIVED BY . . . this is a short but moving
   compilation of quotations, followed by insightful commentary
   that provides historical context.

   In some respects, I wish I had read this . . . there was
   much that I wish I could have revisited . . . as it was, I
   kept pulling off the side of the road to jot down such
   items as the following (so as to be able to share it):

   [on diligence] "Half finished work generally proves to be
   work lost." No other principle comes closer to accounting
   for success than diligence.

   [on tenacity] "I expect to maintain this contest until
   successful or until I die or am conquered or until my term
   expires or until Congress or the country removes me." Lincoln
   believed that sticking to a decision once made would
   strengthen the individual.

   [on conviction] "The world shall know that I will keep my
   word to friends and enemies come what will."

   [on friendship] "The better part of one's life comes out of
   friendships." Lincoln knew how to make and keep them.
   He enjoyed companionship and knew how to attract
   people.




4. It's clear to the readers of this book that Lincolns difficult time in his early years provided him with his remarkable attitude to forge the ideas in this book. His thinking is clear and relevant and timely. It is helpful for the reader to keep in mind Lincoln probably refered to these pages many times throughout his life to remind himself of the correct choices to make. I think this book belongs in everyones library!



5. I purchased this book at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. and have relished the quotes and tidbits from Lincoln's life. Lincoln's attitude on everything from the importance of study, communication, focus, diligence, hard work, compassion, & justice ought to be read, remembered, and practiced. I marked many of the pages from this book and will refer to it frequently!

5 comments about John Hancock: Merchant King And American Patriot.

1. events leading to independence. After reading Unger's work, you would think that John Hancock single handedly brought this country to freedom. The author's extreme adulation for his subject constantly paints Hancock in positive light and ALWAYS as the victim of others, never at fault. Lame excuses are given for why Hancock did not receive this office or that praise. One of the most disturbing elements is the vindictive condemnation of Samuel Adams (probably the man most singularly responsible for influencing the Declaration of Independence) is incredibly overdone and grossly inaccurate. Speeches which were written by Adams (and some given by Adams) are credited to Hancock, a man who is overwhelmingly acknowledged as lacking the writing ability for such speeches. Hancock is instrumental in bringing about revolution but unfortunately, not in the way suggested by this author.



2. So John Hancock turns out to be a pretty interesting fellow, the millionaire head of a mercantile empire who initially gets dragged into revolutionary politics to prevent the revolutionaries from vandalizing his property, but converts and becomes a leading, if moderate, revolutionary voice. A vain man and one accustomed to luxury, he nevertheless gives very generously of both his money and his time to the revolutionary cause and to the governing of Massachusetts.

   His career includes stints as the president of the continental congress, member of the Massachusetts legislature and governor of the newly independent state of MA. His roles in the revolution and the adoption of the constitution are central: as president of congress, his is initially the only signature on the Declaration of Independence; he coordinates and equips the continental army, including large expenditures out of his own pocket; he turns the tide in Massachusetts in favor of ratification.

   So the biography is interesting because the man is interesting, even pivotal. It's also well-written, in the sense of being easy to read.

   But the book's also a little spiteful. Anyone who clashes with Hancock, ever, comes in for a little sting from the biographer's pen. Sam Adams, in particular, is described as a bloodthirsty, erratic and backstabbing radical, who undercuts and betrays Hancock at every turn. Even George Washington is painted as behaving irrationally, in contrast with Hancock's genteel polish, in respect of some offers of hospitality that Hancock extends to the general, and Unger seems incapable of mentioning John Adams without calling him "fat little John Adams".




3. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. My own ancestor Major Reuben Colburn, a patriot from Pittston, Maine was a close friend and business associate of Hancock. While his Maine dealings are only mentioned in passing by Mr. Unger, his research is impeccable and after all the story is, and has to be, told from Hancock's point of view. This is what he was doing during the formulation of our country in legal form. It was surprisingly anti-Adams but I believe this is normal in competition for fame, ideas and recognition both then and now.

   General Washington and Benedict Arnold employed Colburn to supply and lead a 1100-man army to capture Quebec City in 1775. The mission failed and Colburn was stuck with the bill. He died broke as did Hancock. John Hancock was beloved in New England and Unger portays this with great accuracy and flair. He was big in our family, staying at Colburn House when in Maine seeing to his landholdings. One of Colburn's few surviving letters is addressed to Hancock from Pittston in 1786.

   Hopefully my new book "Patriot On The Kennebec: Major Reuben Colburn and the March To Quebec 1775: His Life and Times," will join this one on a new mission to educate the public about our collective roots as Americans. Both men risked everything to start America, and to them we owe everything.




4. Perhaps my expectations were set too high by the biography I read on Benjamin Franklin by Walter Isaacson. I found Unger's book on John Hancock easy to read, interesting, but lacking of facts and objectivity. I got the impression that the author did not like any of the people involved in the American Revolution. Is this author a Tory? His descriptions of people and things were often shallow and repetitive. For example...Unger used the description of a livered carriage with four horses for Hancock throughout the book many, many times, but does not describe once what this really means. How many servants were working the carriage? Were they slaves? Were they in uniform? If so, what colors? How fancy? The book does not describe in much detail the relationships Hancock has with other founders other than Sam Adams whom he paints extremely negatively.
   
   Plus, Unger gets at least one important historical fact wrong. Here's what I got from Isaacson's book: John Hancock, declared at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "There must be no pulling different ways. We must all hang together." To which, Ben Franklin replied, "Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." In Unger's book, he attributes the first quote to Franklin not Hancock and omits the second quote all together - which is the famous line!
   
   It just seems to me the author was sloppy in research and lazy in writing this book. If you can't find anything else about Hancock, then the information is interesting - I did find out that the Declaration was signed by one person - Hancock for the first month of its existence and that they created 13 originals - one for each state. It's a very quick read, but don't rely on this book as the final answer on what went on during the Revolution.



5. His name is known to all, being a common part of the vernacular and synonymous with ones signature, yet, he remains largely unknown to history other than the placement of his signature upon our Declaration of Independence. The mysterious identity that is John Hancock is well presented here in JOHN HANCOCK: MERCHANT KING AND AMERICAN PATRIOT by Harlow Giles Unger. This is perhaps, singly, the most informative tome to date on Hancock's life and career, yet is not without criticism.
   
   Unger deftly replicates all the trappings of a good biography here, beginning with a good genealogy of the Hancock family and their path to prominence and prosperity, at least for parts of the family. The occurrences which set into motion, John Hancock's life being dramatically altered by being taken under the care of his childless and wealthy Uncle Thomas and Aunt Lydia, are well documented here. The book goes on to lend a credible chronicle of Hancock's life; his rise to wealth and prominence, his early involvement with the Sons of Liberty, his entrance and influence in the political spectrum, which covered the last three decades of his life and the many struggles, both politically and personally, of Hancock's life. Unger takes particular care to illustrate Hancock's benevolence to the less fortunate.
   
   Though I have a lot to say in favor of this book, there is also much to take exception with. For example, Unger, himself a correspondent for the London Times Herald and overtly unsympathetic to the Colonialists cause, states that Gen. Amherst's plan to send smallpox laden blankets to the Indians in 1863 was rejected, however, Amherst himself admitted in a private letter that infected blankets had indeed been a part of the British arsenal put into use against Pontiac and the Indians. Unger also continuously and viciously attacks revolutionary advocates such as James Otis, Patrick Henry and, in particular, Samuel Adams, who is the recipient of endless attacks of vitriolic banter throughout the book. Though the relationship between Hancock and Adams was strained, the authors' incessant loathing of Adams eventually detracts from the overall work.
   
   These shameless attacks diminish this otherwise valuable resource that accurately touches on an endless array of historically significant events, such as early disputes on the issue of slavery, Benjamin Church's betrayal of the patriot cause, and John Dickenson's invaluable dissertation on the Townsend Acts, just to name a few. Overall, I believe this a worthy read, accurate on most accounts, but would have been far better had Unger saddled his disdain for the patriot cause.
   
   John Hancock is certainly worthy of the praise of a grateful nation and a man we tend to know little about and often, overlook completely for his sacrifice and dedication to the liberty of the states. Perhaps in the near future, publishers will see fit to provide us with a more balanced biography on this great patriot, but until then, this book will have to suffice as the best source available.
   
   Monty Rainey
   www.juntosociety.com

5 comments about Every Farm Tells a Story: A Tale of Family Farm Values.

1. I have just come across a book you all should read: it is called EVERY FARM TELLS A STORY, A TALE OF FAMILY FARM VALUES, by JERRY APPS. it is published by Voyageur Press and is a wonderful story about growing up on a farm near Wild Rose Wisconsin in Washara County in the north central part of the state. As most of you know, Cousin Tom Larson and I spent a number of summers on the Bergum farm north of Wheeler in Dunn County; and almost everything that Jerry Apps describes in the book is something we did with Uncle Nelmer (who Tom and I still consider the greatest man in the world) and Aunt Selma (our second mother) and Kon and Stanley on that farm: threshing, making wood, cultivating, feeding chickens, stripping cows; old fashioned crank telephones, freeshows, feed mills--everything. The book is illustrated with period advertisments. This is a brilliant nostalgic journey. It's a neat
   companion to my own The Reunion. But all of you should take a trip in EVERY FARM. this is a story that speaks to those of us who have had anything to do with farm life. it's a wonderful book for all my cousins and for all of us.
   
   Steven Fortney
   Author of The Reunion.



2. Farm values and management can offer many lessons, especially when told through humor, as Jerry Apps demonstrates in Every Farm Tells A Story; A Tale Of Family Farm Values. Tucked into an inviting chronicle of changes in farming over the decades and resulting changes in values and methods, readers receive a fine blend of business savvy, history, and humor lending to light, easy reading.



3. I really injoyed this book, laughed out loud several times. I really enjoyed all the old farm ads also. Great picture of how farming used to be.



4. Jerry Apps magnificently captures the heart and soul of growing up on a small family farm in EVERY FARM TELLS A STORY. His youth was spent in rural central Wisconsin half-a-century ago, but the character of the culture he writes about was not unlike that of much of rural Middle America in those times. The book is based on his Ma's journal accounting of all the family's expenses and revenues through the years, but the anecdotes take you back to all the stories behind those numbers. Apps shares with us how all the entries were, indeed, more than just numbers - they had meaning and context in the bigger picture of what farm life was all about. In a comfortable and enjoyable style, he tells stories of family values, the hard times and good times, the honest dealings and fair play that caused most farm kids back then to grow up with integrity and a solid work ethic. EVERY FARM TELLS A STORY is a great read, but it's much more than just nostalgia. In a personal and sometimes almost poetic way, it documents a significant part of our country's historical heritage.



5. I loved this book on American farm life! It is well-written, interesting and one of the best on this subject, in my opinion. I have just ordered several other of Jerry Apps books.

3 comments about Crowned in a Far Country: Portraits of Eight Royal Brides.

1. Crowned in a Far Country contains seven chapters about eight royal brides, covering their life from childhood and family background through marriage to later years. It provides a number of interesting details about them.
   
   It reads well. The author is Princess Michael of Kent, who is herself a member of the British Royal Family and who probably has a different point of view on royal marriages than other authors of similar books.
   
   I can recommend it to anyone interested in the subject.



2. I found the book to be informative, easy to read yet the writing was somewhat simple, without depth. What I mean is, that the stories were interesting (to me or any other royal watcher) yet I wasn't captivated.
   It was a book which gave me information, but I can't say "I couldn't put it down"



3. image coming to new country to married someone you never met.dealing with person who is now your husband.this book show how each women find a place in new country ,husband world and the royal family.how they had to deal with court life.

1 comments about Henry VIII (Life and Times series) (Life and Times Series).

1. I am a newcomer to the life of this amazing English king, but this book has been truly fascinating. Well written, informative, and easy to read, I recommend Mrs. Fraser's book to anyone who wants to start learning about Henry. For an expert on the subject, this is probably too basic for you.

5 comments about Titanic: A Survivor's Story and the Sinking of the S.S. Titanic.

1. Two of the most poignant survivor accounts of the Titanic sinking. Mr. Gracie, an elderly man with many social ties to others on the ship and Mr. Thayer, the 17 year old son of a prominent businessman were both first class passengers. Both nearly drowned as the Titanic plunged to the bottom of the Atlantic; but found refuge on the upside down collapsible lifeboat B. Mr. Gracie lost his best friend and Mr. Thayer lost his father. The grief each feels still calls out to us.

   The style of each narrative is interesting to compare. Gracie, when describing his own experience or his impressions of the significance of the sinking, uses the flowing purple prose of the late 19th century (his style is more straightforward in his compilations of accounts of other passengers and he has even used their actual statements). Thayer, writing in 1940 about his own experience, is terser; but his reflection that the world seemed calm and his place in it assured before that night is poetic. Archibald Gracie died soon after he wrote his narrative. I'm unsure; but I believe Jack Thayer did not live long after he wrote his story. Since Mr. Thayer's account is not generally available in other sources, and Mr. Gracie was so thorough about who was in (or, in his case, on) each lifeboat, this book will be appreciated by any Titanic buff.




2. Originally published in 1913 as The Truth About the Titanic, Titanic: A Survivor's Story was the first book by an actual Titanic survivor to appear in print. Colonel Archibald Gracie, a military historian who is treated really brutally by James Cameron in his film, was not only a brave man but an indefatigable historian of the disaster. In the months remaining to him after the sinking (Colonel Gracie died in December 1912, possibly of aftereffects from his harrowing escape), Gracie tracked down other survivors and was the first to make an attempt at putting each survivor into the boat he or she escaped from. Written with period charm, this is an important book about the disaster and will dispell any remaining images of Cameron's doofy "Archie."



3. Colonel Archibald Gracie is one of the few people who actually went down with the Titanic and lived to tell about it. First published in 1913, "Titanic" is his detailed account of the last day he spent aboard ship, the evacuation of passengers on the port side of the ship, and of his incredible survival on an overturned lifeboat after being plunged into the frigid ocean when the Titanic finally completely submerged. The first 113 pages of the book are dedicated to Colonel Gracie's firsthand account. In the remaining approximately 200 pages, Col. Gracie has compiled testimony from as many other eyewitnesses as he could find. These firsthand accounts of passengers and crew are taken from the official inquiries in the United States and Great Britain, personal correspondence and interviews with Col. Gracie, and occasionally from firsthand accounts that were published in books and magazines of the day. Taken together, they render a very detailed picture of what went on that fateful night and why more people were not saved. Colonel Gracie died 8 months after the Titanic sank, of illness possibly related to the prolonged exposure to cold that he endured the night the Titanic went down.

   This is one of the most comprehensive and precise accounts of the Titanic disaster that you will find. Colonel Gracie is an engaging storyteller. I like his decision to organize the eyewitness accounts by lifeboat. The book also provides some interesting insights into the manners and social attitudes of the time.




4. Colonel Archibald Gracie was on board the Titanic when it sank. He was one of the lucky men who was able to cling to a capsized boat for survival. He details his account of the crossing, both before and after the iceberg. He mentions many people that he spoke with on the voyage, hoping to bring comfort to any families whose loved ones he encountered. The book seems to have been a form of therapy for the man and also an attempt to help those with questions after the sinking.
   
   The book is written in 1912 language, but it is still very readable and easy to understand. It is really an excellent resource for specific information; Gracie examines each lifeboat individually with passenger's names (except for the 3rd class) and relays incidents from each compiled from testimony from those in each boat. He uses official documents like the court trial transcripts for his book, making it very credible.
   
   Also included is a short account of John Thayer from the 40s. He was only 17 when the ship sank and lost his father of the same name in the tragedy. Thayer was another of the men clinging to the capsized boat that saved Gracie's life. His testimony enforces many of the things said by Gracie.



5. I have read Archibald Gracie's account of the sinking and while the tales of his survival and the aftermath are at times very interesting and useful, I feel that they pale in comparison to that of fellow Titanic passenger, Lawrence Beesley, a teacher by profession and a fine writer. Beesely's accounts are so well written and vividly drawn that you feel as if you are on the ship with him before and during the sinking, as well as in the lifeboats and later upon the Carpathia, heading for New York. His account of the entire Titanic tragedy is so complete that nearly 100 years later much of what he has written remains one of the most fact filled testimonies ever recorded. He writes with sensitivity and a gentileness; and he is masterful at describing visually what he and others saw and felt during that fateful night in April, 1912.
   
   But whether you prefer Gracie or Beesely, you can get both in the book "The Story of the Titanic As Told by Its Survivors". A great read which offers the writings of other Titanic survivors as well, all in one volume.