No comments about Cumberland Blood: Champ Ferguson's Civil War.

3 comments about Mastery, Tyranny, and Desire: Thomas Thistlewood and His Slaves in the Anglo-Jamaican World.

1. I recently read a thorough review for this book and can hardly wait to receive it now. I've read bits about Thistlewood before, but this book, based heavily on his diaries, seems like it will cover more on the man and his life in Jamaica.



2. This fascinating book is scrupulously researched and very well-written. It is also, in its fine-grained portrayal of the slave-holder Thomas Thistlewood, deeply disturbing. The paradox that Burnard explores is how Thistlewood, an amateur botanist and would-be student of the enlightenment, could also be a sadistic slave-holder in a viciously degrading society. It's extremely thought-provoking, and Burnard's own careful judgments seem consistently on the money. For me, this is an ideal work of academic history.



3. This is an absolutely brilliant book, and I do not use that word lightly. It is must reading for anyone interested (even tangentially) in Caribbean history or indeed in fascinating history in general.

2 comments about Land of the Spotted Eagle, New Edition.

1. This is the finest book I have read on the lifestyle of the Lakota (Sioux),people not only before European contact, but also how they dealt with their transformation into "civilized" members of the dominate society. It was originally written in 1933. Luther Standing Bear took his name after entering Carlisle Indian School. How sad that the newcomers to North America didn't take the time to learn the culture of the original inhabitants of this land. We would all be better off today if they had. This book gives much insight into why. Even at this late date, there is a lot that can be learned from "Native Wisdom." I highly suggest that anyone interested, read this book. It will touch your heart!



2. I am pleased to have this book to add to my Native American History collection.

5 comments about William Wilberforce: A Hero for Humanity.

1. I was truly unaware of who William Wilberforce was before reading "Amazing Grace" by Metaxes. Then I found "Real Christianity" by Wilberforce and now I am almost finished reading "William Wilberforce: A Hero for Humanity." The book, "William Wilberforce: A Hero for Humanity", is a can't put-it-down kind of read. It brings in notable contemporaries of Wilberforce which richly adds to the fiber of the text. Wilberforce's "Great Change" made him a mighty force for Biblical Christianity. I believe it should be a strongly suggested read for all politicians at every level of government (village, town, city, state, and federal). We need to see a moral turnaround in our beloved U.S.A. seen in the hearts of its citizens. Morality cannot be legislated. I give the book a five stars (thumbs) up.



2. This is a great introduction to the life and pursuits of William Wilberforce. His deep love and concern for humanity is fantastic.



3. This was a fabulously written and researched book. The depth of the original documents that were touched made it authoritative and the writing style was captivating. The descriptions of his personal and family life and how he related to his peers was particularly valuable to me. I also gained any insights into the reading list of Wiliam Wilberforce which is always a window into a man's soul. Highly recommended.



4. I read a lot of biographies, and have to say that while I am a fan of William Wilberforce and the movie Amazing Grace, this biography is not on my favorites list. Primarily, I disliked the structure of the book. It is written topically instead of chronologically having sections on his early life, his political life, his influence, his family life, etc. For example, the book has 10 chapters, and his marriage to Barbara Spooner isn't introduced until chapter 8! This made the book feel like a collection of essays instead of a typical biography. I won't read it again.



5. The story--or at least the legacy--of William Wilberforce is one that should be standard issue in all history courses. He is highly unknown in the US, perhaps because his greatest work came after its separation from Britain. But even I, who studied Political Science with strong philosophical and international emphases, had not heard of him until over 4 years after I graduated. Very well written book about the man who championed the cause and accomplished the abolition of the slave trade, and later the total abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire. Belmonte captures the essence of the man and his life through a text rich in its use of sources and first hand accounts, with appropriate use of personal insight and conclusions. True to the subtitle, Wilberforce is duly shown as a hero for humanity, a champion for everything human, and a role model for all who desire to make a real difference in this world. Couple with the movie "Amazing Grace," this book provides a rich look at a man who was the wealthies man of his time in all the ways that truly matter.

5 comments about African Queen: The Real Life of the Hottentot Venus.

1. The casual reader might be put off by the slow start -- the author has to establish the historical base and lay out many details, BUT once into the story it quickly gets to the heart of the matter, exploitation, de facto or otherwise, of a black African female. Not a pretty topic, but when it's handled as it is here by a sympathetic writer it becomes a fascinating story and a memorial to the heroine, Saartjie Baartman.



2. Gives yet another look into the dark chapters of the African Human Experience.



3. The subject matter (the sad tale of Saartjie Baartman, a well-endowed African woman put on British and French freakshows as the "Venus Hottenot" whose gelueteus is exploited to the maximus) has been discussed by the other reviwers. Therefore, I would like to commend the author for her excellent use of primary sources in the telling of this story. We see shockingly crude cartoons mocking Saartjie's buttocks (often comparing her with Lord Glenville, a forgotten british statesman with a comparatively large derriere) and giving her a ridiculous pidgin English that she obviously didn't speak. We read from the handful of known interviews with her as welll as trial transcripts (as her exploiters are taken to court). This combined with Nelson Mandela's recent efforts to get her reburied with dignity in her native South Africa all make for a compelling story and good written history.
   
   This book should be required reading for the modern rumpmistresses who thoughtlessly shake their gleuteus to the maximus on the likes of BET and MTV.



4. I discovered this story thru an email regarding a U-Tube video. I was shocked that I never heard this story before. After reading this book it open my eyes to history that was lost and forgotten until recently. The author gave life and honor to Saartjie Baartman. This is a moving and thoughtful document on slavery and exploitation. Unfortunately the exploitation of women of color still exist today. For anyone who is a history buff this book is for you. I recommend it to anyone who is intrested in women's study.



5. This book was so poorly written I kept expecting a monotone voice from a documentary to start narrating. No "meat" to the story. It just drownded on and on about the exploitation of this African woman mainly because her behind was so huge. It was truly a waste of time to read and barely kept me awake, even with a cup coffee.

5 comments about Lincoln's Virtues: An Ethical Biography.

1. Instead of a passive retelling of Lincoln's life, Miller examines Lincoln's choices, and how they made him the great man he became. Highly recommended.



2. This book describes the age and circumstances Lincoln grew up and ruled in. It does this with great detail and numerous of small accounts and that's what makes it interesting to read.
   
   Throughout the book suggestions are made of Lincoln's thoughts and at some point this gets annoying, as there are no survivors to tell the tale of the man they knew. And how good do you have to know someone who's living to judge him on his virtues, let alone someone long gone.
   
   The ethical propaganda makes me deduct one star from this wonderful written book that can teach us a lot about the times and the decission making in our lifes. Whether Lincoln's virtues were based on the ones William Lee Miller writes about is something we'll never know...



3. William Lee Miller is an academic who writes in an understandable style. In "Lincoln's Virtues" the historian examines in clinical detail the ethical cosmos of the railspiltter from the West who rose to the White House in the nation's darkest hour.
   Miller shows that Lincoln held two principles as sacred to those virtues enunciated in the Declaration of Independence: the Union which was indissoluble and predated the formation of states; the right of every American to be free. Lincoln fought hard for the black race in a racist society beyond a 21st century person's ken. He thought slavery wrong from an early age and will live forever for his authorship of the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 and support of the 13th amendment to the Constitution freeing slaves.
   Lincoln as a congressman in the 1840s opposed the Mexican War as unjust. He was an enemy of the Polk administration's Manifest Destiny hubris. As a Whig politician for most of his career his great hero was Henry Clay of Ky. who managed to get the Compromise of 1850 passed. Lincoln deplored the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854 which nullified the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was the brainchild of Lincoln's racist 1858 opponent for the Senate in Illinois: Stephen A. Douglas. With Kansas-Nebraska it became possible for slavery to be extended into the territories entering the Union. Lincoln also opposed the Dred Scott decision and the fugitive slave act.
   Miller shows how skillful a politican Mr. Lincoln was as he sought political power while at the same time moving the country forward to a more just and democratic society. His strong defense of the Constitution and the Union led to the waging and winning of the Civil War. Miller's portrait of Lincoln makes clear to this reader why he is our greatest president!
   Lincoln is sometimes been attacked for racism but those critics who cast aspersions on him fail to realize the type of white supremacist society in which he was immured.Without Lincoln the United States as we know it would probably not have survived the major challenges of secession by eleven states and a horrific civil war.
   Lincoln, teaches Miller, was a kind man who abhorred cruelty to animals and human beings. The sixteenth president was merciful to soldiers who fell asleep on guard duty. Had he lived, reconstruction in the southern states would no doubt have been less severe than it was. Lincoln rarely held grudges grasping the moral if not the doctrinal teaching of Christianity. He had the skills of a great author/poet. Lincoln's speeches soar higher and probe deeper into the American psyche than do those of any other American Chief Executive.
   This outstanding book should be read in tandem with the author's second volume on Lincoln entitled "President Lincoln." Read these books slowly and absorb their content. One wishes their was an Abraham Lincoln to cast his stovepipe hat in the presidential ring in the current frenzied contest for the Oval Office!



4. Having been educated in the mythology of Abraham Lincoln, I anxiously ordered this supposed "biography". What a disappointment. It is little more than a hypocritical opinionated essay attempting to rationalize the inconsistent and criminal conduct of one of our worst Presidents. It must be remembered that the myth of Lincoln is that he somehow "saved" a union (which was voluntary and from which a democratic majority in the Confederate states had withdrawn)by instigating a "Civil War" resulting in the death of more than 600,000 human beings and the destruction of much of the South. Supposedly, the War was fought over slavery. But, both before and during the War, Lincoln stated that the war was not over this issue. Furthermore, as is typical of those trained in the law, the statements he made prior to the War about black people were so ambiguous that no one can fairly comment on his ethics or principles. What we do know is that this megalomaniac insisted upon the use of force and warfare to enforce his political theories. He believed black people were inferior. He openly espoused sending the Negroes back to Africa. Only in 1862, when it appeared the North was in jeopardy of losing his personal war did he sign the Emancipation Proclamation, an "executive order" which could not have the force of law. It freed the blacks only in the rebellion states. Ethical, obviously not. Cynical and politically self serving, obvious so. Bombing civilians in the South. Destroying civilian food supplies and means of production. No problem. Suspending habeas corpus. Locking up dissident editors of newspapers. No problem. Screw ethics. Murder for political purposes, then claim it was for the cause of abolition. Where did he stand before the War while Seward and others put themselves on the line for the abolition of slavery? He contended it was protected by the Constitution. As a lawyer he was correct. Why then did he not use his supposed personality and powers of persuasion to seek an Amendment or propose that, as recognized property under the law, slaves be purchased and freed? This book is only the most recent apology for this madman. Page after page the author extolls Lincoln with his own personal hyperbole, excusing Lincoln's misconduct. As a result of Lincoln, the blacks were supposedly "freed". Freed into what? Freed how? A century later the black population of this country was still fighting for its freedom, voting rights, against segregation, and the racial divide remains. How did this happen? When violence is involved, the memory of human beings is long. In many parts of the "old south", as a result of the assault upon them by Lincoln, they are still fighting this war. Lincoln, the hypocrite. Lincoln, the murderer. Lincoln, the war criminal. Lincoln, the depressed megalomaniac. It is just a matter of time before historians will be attempting to rewrite the history of George W. Bush, a man much like Lincoln, whose egomaniacal sociopathic personality and actions resulted in the death of countless human beings. In the case of Lincoln, history was rewritten to claim the death and destruction was necessary to free the slaves. With Bush, the weapons of mass destruction will also disappear and history will likely claim the war was fought to "free" the Iraqis by killing, maiming and dislocating more than four million human beings. Ethics, what a joke.



5. William Lee Miller has accomplished a remarkable feat - he has written a truly fresh biography of Abraham Lincoln. In some ways it easier to describe what Miller's book is not rather than what it is. Lincoln's Virtues is not a standard biography, nor is it an uncritical hagiography, nor certainly is it a so-called `debunking' work that would show us an unworthy despicable Lincoln (if anything Miller debunks the debunkings). Miller does take the reader through many of the events of Lincoln's life, but always with an eye to Lincoln's "moral escalation" as a politician (retain the emphasis on both parts: moral and politician).
   
   Lincoln was a politician. The revered, marble-man Lincoln is typically not viewed as a `mere' politician, but in fact politics and his role as a practitioner of politics - a politician - were the centerpiece of his life. As Miller observes in the Preface "if Abraham Lincoln was not a `politician', then words have no meaning." (The Preface, which can be read on Amazon gives the reader an excellent sense of the book and whether it might be of interest).
   
   In this reader's view, Miller spends too much time on Lincoln's early days - the evidence from the early days is quite clouded looking back through the lens of Lincoln's later. While these early events were no doubt important to young Lincoln's development, whether we can parse their importance today is highly problematic - doubly so given the underlying doubts about the `facts'. An interesting and perhaps revealing set of facts does emerge, however. Lincoln was a social nonconformist - he did not drink, hunt, fish, regularly attend church, or swear - all of which marked him as highly idiosyncratic in the frontier communities of his youth. And yet, Lincoln was no social outcast; to the contrary he was often at the center of social life telling stories.
   
   Miller rewards the patient reader, especially with the chapters on the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the Cooper Union Address. The Lincoln-Douglas debates have provided fodder for the Lincoln debunkers who want to portray Lincoln the `Great Emancipator' as a common white racist (to use a 20th century term). Lincoln did say some highly offensive things (to our ears) about the social inequality of black and white. Without excusing Lincoln, Miller reminds us of the context. Lincoln was running for political office in a state that had recently adopted a constitutional amendment by popular vote to exclude all blacks, free or slave, from its borders. Moreover, he was running against a political Giant, Stephen A. Douglas, a proud across-the-board white supremacist. One really must read Douglas's statements to appreciate Lincoln's. Here is the key point of dispute between Lincoln and Douglas: Was the black man a human being with the right not to be enslaved? Lincoln said yes on both counts and Douglas said no and no.
   
   Miller demonstrates that Lincoln rose from his unlikely background to potential Republican nominee for the presidency because of his stance against slavery and because of his ability to communicate his thoughts with absolute clarity. The Cooper Union Address, discussed at some length, established his credentials to interested, but skeptical Easterners and was key to his political rise. Lincoln conveyed his reasoning without evoking great waves of emotion and, in this instance also without his trademark storytelling.
   
   Miller's Lincoln is a politician: an unstinting party man, willing to compromise to attain policy goals, and standing on core principles. (Lincoln the man also shines through as a fundamentally decent, honest, generous person, but that is not the book's focus). Lincoln's core principles were chronologically, first, that slavery was wrong (or nothing is wrong) and, second, preservation of the Union. The Union that Lincoln sought to preserve was no mere gathering of states, but rather a republic, the first modern republic. Lincoln came to regard its preservation as paramount, but also believed that slavery would not survive within that Union.
   
   Miller quotes Lincoln's letter to his long-ago Congressional colleague Alexander Stephens: "You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us." That statement captures the essence of the argument with Lincoln's trademark ability to get at the nub of a thing in a way that anyone could understand and no one could dispute.
   
   Oddly, Miller concludes his book at Lincoln's inauguration (after a brief, but interesting discussion of the forgotten and failed Crittenden Compromise). It is a measure of Miller's success that the reader feels regret rather than relief that Miller did not explore Lincoln's Virtues in his years as President.
   
   Addendum: Miller subsequently wrote President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman that covers Lincoln in the White House.

5 comments about Franklin Delano Roosevelt (The American Presidents).

1. This is a very good brief introduction to Roosevelt, and I highly recommend it to anyone wanting a brief understanding of Roosevelt. It is very easy to read and suitable for high school students. Being written by a man from Britain, it also shows how the world views FDR - as one of the most important leaders in world history.
   
   You will not acquire a thorough understanding of FDR by reading this book. For that I would suggest the huge "Champion of Freedom" by Conrad Black.
   
   In response to Mister Syzek, my understanding the post-war settlement is that Stalin broke violated the Yalta agreement, which was quite favorable to the west. FDR achieved most of what he wanted, including the stipulation that Eastern Europe was to have elections. But Stalin broke his promises and controlled Poland despite the agreements that FDR was able to extract from Stalan. FDR got the deal in writing. Stalin did not abide by it.
   
   Stalin was determined to control Poland no matter what, so Poland was firmly in his grip, despite what the actual terms of the agreement said. Staling went so far as to say that it was "a matter of life or death."
   
   Franklin Roosevelt was a geopolitical realist, and the reality is that the Soviet armies controlled Eastern Europe and Poland, and the USSR would be willing to fight - and win - to stay. The American people had no enthusiasm for yet another world war againt Russia. They wanted their soldiers home. Maybe you should ask the American people why they were not willing to suffer 5 million killed for Poland. You see, in America you must deal with these pesky things called voters and democracy.
   
   To complicate the matter, the Soviet Union took the brunt of the war (17 million dead), and Stalin was rigidly determined to secure a buffer between Mother Russia and Western Europe. Stalin would not have budged on his goal.
   
   So what Roosevelt obtained from Stalin was the best he could obtain - firm promises from Stalin to hold elections. It was Stalin who broke his promises. That made the Soviet Union look like the bad guy.
   
   Truman then waged the Cold War (without the millions of dead from a hot war) leading to an eventual liberation of Eastern Europe. It's no surprise that Reagan was a huge fan of Roosevelt, voted for him four times, and attended his third inauguration (a moving event for Reagan). Reagan then brought an end to the Cold War without firing a shot.
   
   You may be able to criticize Truman for not liberating Eastern Europe while American had a monopoly on the atomic bomb... or Eisenhower. After all, USSR staged a coup in Czechoslovakia and then staged a brutal crushing of the revolt in Hunguary in which tens of thousands were killed. Clearly this was in violation of the agreement that FDR was able to extract from Stalin. It was the USSR that broke the agreement. FDR did not sell out anyone.
   
   Then again, maybe the path Truman took was wise. Maybe waging a long-term cold against USSR was better than a violent real war. Maybe FDR realized that no European-based power has ever conquered Russia. Remember Napolean? Remember Hitler? Could even USA have defeated USSR in 1945? Maybe Roosevelt would have done things differently. We will never know because he died.
   
   As this book says, FDR was clearly moving to a get-tough posture against USSR. Indeed, FDR moved closer to one of his advisors who was anti-USSR. I suggest you read this book.
   
   At the same time, Roosevelt was an idealist in the Wilsonian tradition when realistic. He believed in the free determination of free people, but he was also realistic. For example, he essentially pushed for an end to world colonialism in his design for the post-war world. Churchill opposed this but he could do nothing about it. The British empire was too weak.
   
   By the way, Poland was not even a country at the start of World War One and was viewed by some in a similar way to the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Should American have gone to war over the Baltic States?
   
   This fine little book is a fine introduction to Roosevelt. It is the best brief book on Roosevelt. Read it if you want an easy introduction to FDR.
   
   If you want a more detailed study of Roosevelt's foreign policy then read Robert Dallek's Bancroft Prize-winning "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy." My essay here pales in comparison. Or read Conrad Black's "Champion of Freedom."



2. The late Roy Jenkins, in assessing Roosevelt, rates him in the top three of all American Presidents, along with Washington and Lincoln. Whether you like FDR or whether you are one of his critics, it is hard to dispute Jenkins' conclusion. Jenkins believes that had FDR not run for a third term, he would have been one of the better, near great Presidents, but that it took WWII to make him the icon he became. Jenkins fails to point out that FDR did not create any appreciable number of private sector jobs prior to WWII and that, in fact, unemployment was almost as high as it was eight years earlier, when he took office. The reason may be that Jenkins had been a Labour Party member of the House of Commons, accordingly, his world view was that of a government interventionist. However, I ultimately agree that nontheless, FDR was, at least, a better than average President during the depression years, due to the great optimism that he conveyed.
   
   I believe that Jenkins is correct, that FDR became one of the greatest Presidents due to the war. He led the United States in a great mobilization effort. Certainly, responding to events can make one great and FDR's optimistic leadership during the war made him great. This does not mean that he is beyond criticism, and Jenkins offers very little of that. Again, as a Labour party menmber, he would not have been as staunchly anticommunist as a Conservative, such as Churchill or later, Thatcher. Therefore, he spares FDR of any criticism for Yalta. His view is that since the USSR already occupied Poland, there was nothing to give away.
   
   I must contrast this book with another book in the American Presidents series, Tom Wicker's biography of Eisenhower. Wicker could find almost nothing Ike did as President that did not deserve criticism. Jenkins, on the other hand, finds little, in FDR, to criticise. An example is his absolving FDR from any real criticism for not taking in more Jewish refugees during the holocaust.
   
   This series of books constitues short biographies, thus it is not possible for the authors to be comprehensive. However, Jenkins covers a lot of ground. He gives a lot of coverage to FDR's career prior to his presidency. This is something Wicker failed to do, in his biography of Eisenhower, regarding Eisenhower's prepresidential career. Still, there was much Jenkins could not cover. For example, FDR went to great legnths to hide his disability. In a television documentary, it was revealed that he always would hang on to the arm of either a secret service agent or one of his sons and, by pretty much thrusting his hips forward, would give the illusion of walking. The legnths FDR went to are certainly fascinating but, I recognize that this book was too short to cover it in depth.
   
   Perhaps this biography was a little too adoring. The fact that there is much to criticise does not detract from the fact, that ultimately, FDR was indeed one of the truly great Presidents. Still, Jenkins covers a lot of material and I highly recommend this short biography.



3. avoid books where the author's personality and florid prose obscure the subject. besides, what precisely does jenkins have against short sentences and one-dollar words?



4. The New Deal, Social Security, World War II. FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century. He was a polio victim with braces on his legs. Perhaps America needed such a leader to get it through the Depression and the war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. We have seen the video of FDR addressing Congress following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor: "December 7, 1941, a day which will live in infamy!" Americans volunteered for military service in droves. They fought the Japs island by island. Army engineers built the Alaska Highway, stretching 1500 miles from Dawson Creek, Canada to Fairbanks. After Pearl Harbor, the fear was that Japan might take Alaska. Japan bombed the two western-most Aleutian Islands. Roosevelt was president the same years Adolph Hitler was in power in Germany, 1933-45. Roosevelt and his staunch ally, Winston Churchill, proved tougher than Hitler. Roosevelt was elected 4 times as there was no two-term limit. Roosevelt's archrival, Hitler, was born in 1889 in the Austrian town of Braunau. In his youth, Hitler wanted to be an artist. He lived and struggled in Vienna. It was there that he came to hate Jews and Communists. He believed in an Aryan master race. He fought against Britain in World War I. He joined the Nazi Party and went to prison after a failed coup. Hitler dictated Mein Kampf (My Struggles) to Rudolf Hess in prison. After his release, he reorganized the Nazi Party and surrounded himself with men like Himmler, Goebbels and Goering. Hitler became German chancellor in 1933. World War II began when Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Germany occupied France, bombed London and attacked Russia. The United States entered the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Americans landed at Normandy Beach on the coast of France on D-Day, June 6, 1944, and drove the Germans back. They met their Russian allies, who poured in from the east to crush the Nazis. Hitler and his companion, Eva Braun, committed suicide. It came to light that 6 million Jews had been exterminated in what is now called the Holocaust. America helped to rebuild Europe with the Marshall plan. Donald Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" became a suburb of the U.S. in light of the Soviet threat. The time has come the United States to put itself first. If the U.S is going to police the world, the world must pay for that protection. Police cannot work for free. Government is about war and money. Too often, it is a gang of thugs terrorizing its own people. Government should exist to serve. Its best form is democratic, not totalitarian, neither fascist nor Communist. Government needs to foster education, promote arts and sciences and care for the aged and disabled. It must encourage agriculture and facilitate transportation and communication.



5. This abridged version is read by Richard Rohan & he even tries his hand at FDR inflections. This is a pretty good overview of FDR's life,but you wouldn't expect much depth with 3.5 hrs. running time on a CD. Roy Jenkins died shortly after or maybe a little before this was completed. Arthur Schlesinger jr. edited. But the tone gets more reveverential towards the end. Not really Jenkins style so maybe Mr. Schlesinger finished. But there is no doubt that FDR was the most influential president of the 20th century. His impact is still very much with us.

5 comments about Forty Ways to Look at Winston Churchill: A Brief Account of a Long Life.

1. I bought this book while I was writing a book of my own in which Churchill is a central figure. I wanted new insights on the man, and listening to the author on a radio talk show, I thought she might be able to provide those for me. I was sadly disappointed when I started reading the book.
   
   The title comes from the fact that Rubin offers 40 exceptionally brief chapters (3 to 5 pages in length) that offer a different "perspective" on Churchill. The idea probably sound very good and innovative as a book proposal, but it is such a shallow account that the reader can be excused for feeling deceived. Chapter three is nothing more than a listing of people Churchill met during his life. Chapter fourteen is nothing other than a listing of facts about the man in bullet format. Each chapter as three complete sentences. Another chapter is a collection of quotes from him and another about him.
   
   I spent good hard earned money on this book, if you choose to read this book I suggest you borrow it from the library instead.



2. I was well on my way to reading "everything" about and by Churchill by the time I came across this wise and wholly admirable book. The magnitude of Churchill's life and times, and the tragic figure he cut--tragic in the full Greek sense of all that is necessary to constitute true tragedy--can create among some people an almost insatiable appetite for details. I would have to be counted among them. Frankly, I thought this book might make an interesting "snack" between the stack of Churchill books I'd just read and the stack I was about to. Instead I found that 40 ways... was a full course meal. What the author has accomplished is much more substantial than I would have thought possible in such a slim (for Churchill anyway) volume. You recognize that an individual's greatest strength must necessarily be the source of their greatness weakness, a self portrait reflected in a double edged sword, so to speak. I was impressed by the case she made that the times he lived in floodlight these strengths and weaknesses to further define him, and because there was greatness in Churchill, to help define the very times in which he lived.
   
   I was perhaps skeptical that this reduction and summation, pro/con approach would prove to be "gimmicky" or perhaps a shortcut to a more scholarly undertaking. Now I feel that the "gimmick" was instead an apt and inspired construct for examining an enormously complex thing. (It's a methodology that would be useful to apply to FDR, among others). To Rubin's credit she hasn't used this format to avoid judgment, but to elongate the period of consideration before judgment. I've read enough about the man to have done very well on the true/false test, but I still spent a long time pondering the several questions I got wrong. The test reminded me again that the complexities of his life are almost beyond my ability to assimilate them. Hence the fascination I suppose.
   
   Some years ago I was very impressed and moved by a biography of Brahms written by Jan Swafford. Swafford makes the point early that Brahms had been very fortune in both the timeframe he was borne into and in the timeframe of his death. Swafford's take was that the music world of Vienna changed immensely after 1897 and it had been Brahms' good fortune not to live to see it. I was struck at the time by looking at lives that way and Rubin makes a similar and equally valid point about Churchill in her book. He was unlucky to have outlived his time and was in a sense victimized by the nearly indestructible constitution that had served his so well for the first 70 years. There is no shortage of first-hand accounts of Churchill's flirtations with real danger. He was well aware of the historical advantage he might have had if he perished under heroic circumstances. He also enjoyed the adrenal rush these occasions afforded him. Of these accounts, none is better than the biography of his personal bodyguard of approximately twenty years, Walter Thompson, "Beside the Bulldog". More on his book at the close.*
   
   
   I noted with special interest the author's mediation on the subjectivity of biographers and the essential criteria she establishs for evaluating a life. Her comments on Manchester's "knowing insight" into a single photo of Churchill's mother illustrate the need for caution before you make a commitment to a particular version of Churchill's story and the thousands of pages that may go with it. Rubin has done a service to readers and biographers both, clarified the task for writers to come and possibly even established some ground rules. While the sales numbers for this book (and I've no idea what they are) may not suggest broad influence, I'm confident that the methodology used will have larger ramifications for a future generation of biographers. Would-be great writers long for a subject through which they can imbue their own greatness. This process of subverting one large ego for the other, a process that can subsume many years of the writer's life is full of temptations and seduction. It's almost inevitably that the writer's own feelings influence what gets exposed and what gets tidied up. The end product edges towards a symbiosis of the subject's life and the particular aspects of that life that speak to the author's own experience and or fascinations. By comparison, Rubin's approach in this book feels free of artifice. It's the case where not spending a dozen years of your life on a single project is actually a good thing, not just for the author but for the book as well.
   
   (For Churchill fans, my favorite first-hand account of his life is Walter Thompson's (to be re-released in print in late 2007). If you haven't read this former Scotland Yard detectives' account of the near twenty years he spent by Churchill's side than you have missed a great treat, for nowhere else does Churchill live and breathe as tangibly as in these pages.
   
   Thompson joined up with Churchill around 1918 and stayed with him through the end of WW 2. There were some years during the 1930's that Thompson was assigned elsewhere, but he did accompany Churchill to the US during the Al Capone years of the 1930's and was there when Churchill was hit by a car crossing against traffic in NYC. He was by Churchill's side during many of the secret FDR meetings, on ship and at The White House for Christmas. His take on things goes a long way towards answering many of the questions your book raises, though of course, Thompson hide things as well, both about Churchill, himself and the harsh treatment he received from Mrs. Churchill, who resented his constant presence to the extent that she frequently refused to feed Thompson while assuring her husband that arrangements had been made for him. Thompson's take on FDR, though only a small part of this book will interest historians. Thompson's displays a vivid command of the language, considerable wit, and more uniquely, he conveys an unusually keen sense of place. Marry those talents with his genius for sketching characters with deft precision and you get a compelling book. The panorama of Egypt, Morocco and the Gaza Strip, (eerily unchanged) circa 1920 are but a few locations that unfold before the eye. Add laying bricks next to Churchill at Chartwell, carrying Churchill's paintings materials throughout the world, (most notably in Marrakech and France), meeting Mussolini, dodging shrapnel on rooftops during the blitz and Thompson's fascinating and very favorable account of T.E. Lawrence (which led me to The Seven Pillars of Wisdom)and you've got an account unlike any other. The book Churchill's Bodyguard by Thomas Hickman will be re-released this fall. He substitutes Thompson's exceptional prose with his own dry and rather academic voice and while Hickman's account fills in the storyline for Thompson's own complicated life, it's not a substitute for the original).



3. Finally, someone wrote a biography of Churchill that didn't require a 6 month commitment. I have always wanted to read a biography of Churchill but they were all soooo darn long. Gilbert, Manchester, Jenkins.....the shortest is over 1 million pages long!!! (Okay, a bit of an exaggeration). 40 Ways to Look at Winston Churchill is the first Churchill biography to come along that can be read without having to quit your job to finish it. The format is unique and enjoyable. 40 very brief chapters that each cover his life from a different angle. The book is also an enlightening exposition on the biography genre itself. It was a very easy read. Many reviewers have complained that it is disjointed, superficial, gimmicky, repetitive, and/or self-contradictory. Some of those points are valid. I'll briefly address these one by one:
   1)Disjointed: Necessary given the format
   2)Superficial: Okay, then go read one of the 1000+ pagers.
   3)Gimmicky: I rather like the "40 ways" format
   4)Repetitive: True. That's why I gave 4 stars instead of 5
   5)Self-contradictory: This is deliberately done to show how the same set of facts can yield entirely opposing conclusions. I think this is one of the book's best attributes. It doesn't arrive at artificially certain conclusions like other biographies tend to do. True to its title, it shows the different ways to look at his life (he's a drunk/he's not a drunk, he was a natural leader/he wasn't, etc).
   
   In short, you may be disappointed if you re a Churchill buff but I recommend it if you just want a taste of who he was. It's an entertaining, well-written, easy to read book (if not comprehensive).



4. I thoroughly enjoyed this book because it allowed me to read about Churchill without being drowned by extraneous facts, battle details and drawn out war discussions. This format offers 40 "Thoughts" about Churchill and even manages to play devil's advocate. It is perfect for a reader who wants to understand his complex character without being overloaded by biographical facts.



5. The man: his oratorical magnetism, theatricality, and biting sense of humor... it's all here, in swallowable nuggets, but packing gobs of vitamins and minerals.
   
   This is probably the best INTRODUCTION to one of the most fascinating figures in the history of mankind.
   Some people will (and did) complain that this book is not "substantial" or "exhaustive". Please ignore them: they are the same "unfun" people who like to exhaust themselves and others by seeing all of life as one big never-ending PhD dissertation; and who insist on listening to, and passing judgment on, EVERY recording of Mahler and Bruckner. (YAWN...&... ffffart.)
   
   The format chosen by the author will greatly help the younger generation nurtured on Matrix, X-Box and iPOD to enter into the non-virtual world: the world of REAL blood, REAL sweat, and REAL tears.
   
   Most of the 40 vignettes are composed by juxtaposing a pair of views that contradict each other. This way structuring the narrative may come off as clever or gimmicky to some, but I found it to be a fun, fascinating, and even necessary way to show how there is no such thing as incontestable truth in biography; and by extension, in History -- with a big H. Indeed, this book shopws how History and the lives/values of those who shape it are ultimately not something that lived and died in the past but thrives in the contest of passions and interests of those that are living now.
   
   This book gives the reader a generous gamut of contradicting views culled from different bigraphies of the man. Thus the reader who is just learning about Churchill and his time will be better prepared to read, BUT strengthened to resist being completely taken in by, whatever tendentiousness that might exist even in the more substantial and penetrating analyses.
   
   Take it as a guidebook, and go on this fun tour.
   
   Here's a little something:
   
   Upon hearing that a captured German general was to eat dinner with the pompous Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery, Churchill confided: "I sympathize with General von Thoma. Defeated, humiliated, in captivity... and now, dinner with Montgomery ."
   
   (Churchill) once characterized Montgomery :
   "Indomitable in retreat; invincible in advance; insufferable in victory."

5 comments about Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times.

1. Since I live close to the area where Andrew Jackson was born (while I am a native North Carolinian, South Carolina seems to have the most evidence for claiming him as a native born son since one of the pieces of evidence was that Jackson himself claimed to have born in South Carolina), I had natural interest in reading about his life.
   
   Overall I would say the book is a good read - the story gets off to a good start in describing Jackson's early life but does seem to drag on in other periods.
   
   Among the areas covered by Brands include:
   
   1. Jackson's early life and how he was orphaned at an early age.
   2. Participation in the American Revolution.
   3. Training and experiences as a lawyer.
   4. Move to Tennessese.
   5. Military experiences with Indians and the War of 1812.
   6. Political alliances and his many political enemies.
   7. Marriage to Rachel Donelson.
   8. Later life.
   
   I would have like to have seen some more maps that pertained to his travels and military battles - doing so would have made it easier to follow some of the narrative.
   
   Still, a good read on "Old Hickory". Recommended.



2. H.W. Brands writes a detailed, fact-laden biography that treats Jackson with sincerity, but not excessive bias. The book is serious as well as alluring in that it maintains elements of the sweeping myth of the West - so relevant to Jackson and early America.
   
   More than half of the book deals with Jackson's life prior to his inauguration in 1821. While this may seem excessive, the context is critical to understanding Jackson and evaluating his legacy. As the first congressman for the newly formed frontier state of Tennessee, Jackson seems unfit for the laborious political maneuverings of Philadelphia and more apt to lead by the sword. With draconian discipline he succeeds brilliantly on the battlefield, crushing the Creek Indians and defeating the British in New Orleans in one of the most lopsided victories in American history. The people revere him as a fearless hero and maverick who is less inclined to listen to the Washington elites than to follow his own code forged from frontier experience - an experience rooted in dueling, drinking, slaves, Indian slaying and horses as well as in initiative, courage and persistence through immense hardship, of a sort unknown in the East.
   
   Jackson's fame, and infamy, ultimately propels him to the South Lawn where he hosts a raucous inauguration party, in stark contrast to his presidential predecessors. Again, Brands largely explains the most important acts of Jackson's presidency - the tariff, the bank crisis, Indian policy and western expansion - in terms of the lessons learned on the frontier as well as Jackson's instincts to preserve the Union at all costs - which fills the void left by his own deceased biological family.
   
   The end result is erudite and entertaining - a scholarly portrait peppered with stories of the frontier - that leaves the reader with a fuller understanding of Jackson and, despite Old Hickory's glaring flaws, at least a grudging respect for Jackson's courage, emotional devotion to the Union and embodiment of the hopes and fears of the American people. "His strengths were their strengths, his weaknesses were their weaknesses," writes Brands. More than anywhere else this was true of the American West.



3. Complete and truthful. Jackson was a onery old coot and a great president and military hero. Brands does a very good job of covering his life and times. A good read.



4. Although it is 550 pages, this biography served as an excellent introduction to the life of our seventh President because I started the book almost wholly ignorant of this fascinating American patriot. This is the second H.W. Brands bio I have read. His bio of Benjamin Franklin was a better book but Andrew Jackson is, by no stretch, a disappointment.
   
   Jackson was the first of many Presidents to realize that one doesn't have to know a thing about politics or even like politics to rise to this nation's highest office through popular vote. Actually, that makes sense. After all, the average American neither likes nor understands anything about politics. He spoke as the man of the people while simultaneously placing himself far above them & ruling with an iron will and fist. As a retired general who was renowned for his fearsome temper, he was used to being obeyed or else. Old habits die hard. Jacksonian Democracy seems to be: democracy is great as long as I'm in charge or, to paraphrase Jefferson "all men are created equal but some men are more equal than others." Jackson was a self-made man through considerable leadership and intellectual talents. He not only knew he was more capable than the next man, he had proof.
   
   Politics is the art of compromise and Jackson was never a compromiser. A smart man of strong passions, he brooked no insult & did not suffer fools kindly. He seems to have considered anyone who disagreed with him in the slightest a fool. Jackson had that peculiarly abrasive personality that brought out the worst in anyone who disliked him & even caused much hesitation in those who supported him. Jackson's epitaph could fairly have read "loved, hated but never ignored." As a younger man, Jackson repeatedly demonstrated a singular lack of self control manifested in a hot-head and itchy dueling finger. He also seems to have unhesitatingly relished killing "the enemy" whether the enemy of was the misbegotten Indians or the wicked British. A slaveowner & expansionist, Jackson squarely alligned himself with the furtherance of American interests, whatever the collateral. Ignorable orders and bendable laws were hardly impediments to his goals. The ends justified the means. As an older man, he seemed to mellow and become more thoughtful but the lion could still roar and his claws, though usually retracted, were still very sharp and powerful. He was never a very intellectual nor spiritual man but had a surprisingly compassionate side to his personality in regards to his family. He was a strict Literal Constitutionalist and struggled incessantly against Interpretationalists. For a supposed common man of the people, he was strikingly conservative in his policies and Presidential demeanor.
   
   Brands spends a tremendous amount of time on Jackson's pre-Presidency life and not nearly enough on the contentious elections that sent his rival, John Q. Adams and then himself to the Presidency or on Jackson's two terms. Now I need to read a book or two specifically about Jackson's political career. A long, rewarding and unhesitatingly recommended read for anyone looking to familiarlize themselves with Old Hickory.



5. Unique amongst most presidential biographies, which devote the majority of their pages to the pursuit and practice of the presidency, Brands' biography is more personal, devoting only 125 of 525 pages to Jackson's election and presidency, the rest to his full and violent life. This quote from Brands, spoken in context of the nullification (States Right) fight during Jackson's term, could well be his life's epitaph: "Jackson lived in a world of struggle. And the struggle never ended."
   
   Jackson's continuous struggle as an adult was for the preservation of the Union, during a time when the preservation of the Union was often tenuous and its eventual dissolution in the not-distant future assumed by many. Jackson's repeated mantra, as he expressed in a toast in defiance of the states-rights nullifiers: "Our Federal Union--it must be preserved." His policies and actions, vilified or praised, must be viewed through this prism.
   
   With only 125 pages to cover the highlights of Jackson's two-term administration--the nullification crisis, the Bank of the United States war, the (aborted) annexation of Texas, and relocation of the Southeastern Indian tribes across the Mississippi--the details are brushed over in summary form. But Brands captures the heart of the progression of American political leadership from republicanism to democracy, from federalists to Whigs to Republicans, from anti-Federalists to republicans to Democrats, from Washington to Jackson--and Lincoln, the connection Brand makes in the final paragraph.

5 comments about Catherine de Medici: Renaissance Queen of France.

1. Caterina Maria Romola di Lorenzo de' Medici was born in Italy in 1519, and in 1533 was married to King Henry II of France. When Henry died in 1552, Catherine moved from the shadows to become the all-powerful Queen-Mother, the ruler of France in all but name only. However, in an era of schemes and machinations, Catherine gained a reputation as the ultimate schemer, a woman without scruples or bounds. This is the story of Catherine de Medici from birth to death.
   
   Overall, I found this to be a very interesting book. The author wanted to humanize Catherine, and to show her as an able power-politics player in an age when it was played by the best. In a way, she succeeded ably. Catherine is shown not to have been "the Maggot from Italy's Tomb" (as Jules Michelet termed her), but rather a mother seeking to help and protect her children in a very dangerous world. But, she only had so much to work with.
   
   In fact, the author shows that Catherine was unable to give affection to her children, something they had to go to their father for, and while she might have been forced into the role of schemer, she embraced the role without scruple. Was she "La Nouvelle Jezebel?" Reading this book, I think so.
   
   Yes, this is a very interesting book, one that goes a long way towards bringing Catherine to life, and making her understandable to the modern reader. I enjoyed this book, and highly recommend it!



2. I found this book tough going, and it glossed over whole stretches of time in order, no doubt, to cover Catherine's life in less than a thousand pages. Overall, though, I enjoyed sections, and I'm interested to read more about this fascinating Queen.



3. Catherine de Medici was another amazing woman in history that we can learn from. She was a political pawn as women were in those days and did her best to survive in a loveless male dominated society. I think she was extremely intelligent and quite the political genius in a male dominated environment. She did her best to secure her children's futures and was amazing in how she comported herself in so many intolerable situations. I highly recommend this book.



4. This book is a perfect piece of literature for anyone interested in the full life of Catherine de Medici. Her birth, death, and everything in between was expertly written in an easy to understand manner. It also goes into the reigns of her three sons and explains the reasoning behind the St.Bartholomew's Day Massacre. The arthor mentions throughout the book how history has falsly portrayed Catherine as vengeful and "evil" and I think she did a great job of proving that wrong.



5. catherine lost her parents at early age was treated like piece of goods not breathing living human being.married to a man in different country.she find herself loveless marriage and dangerous court.catherine bear henri childern but never got his love.so she put her mind into secure her childern future.she become a political genius in male control world.