5 comments about John Doyle Lee: Zealot, Pioneer Builder, Scapegoat.

1. I am pleased to be the first reviewer of this book who is not a decendent of John D. Lee, yet I, too, must give the book highest marks. While it is history, and a biography, it is as captivating as any novel, and a treat for the immagination as well as the rational mind. Full marks for the late Ms. Brooks in her ability to weave together the elements that make the man, her insight mostly derived from his own copious writings and those of his faithful wives. The result is a reasonably complete look at the complex man, faithful to his dying moments in the Church and gospel he thought he was defending, a look that includes his intimate thoughts, a sense of his apparent egotism, his devotion to his multiple families, and the role that his wives and children played in his life.

   There is much that I appreciated about this book, not the least of which is the fact that Ms. Brooks did not shy away from the possibility that Brigham Young sacrificed J. D. Lee in a manner consistent with a Book of Mormon account, in which it is stated by God that "it is better that one man should perish, then a whole nation dwindle in unbelief." Lee himself implicates his "adoptive father," Brigham Young, in his farewell letter to his wives. At the same time, she does not for a moment lose the perspective of the seige mentality, the war-time thinking of both the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadow Massacre, and the leaders of the Church. Without this context, it is easy to stand in self-rightous judgement of what hindsight clearly dictates was a horrible act. With that psycho/social context, the fair-minded reader can at least admit that while John D. Lee was indeed a participant in an evil day, he was not an evil man. Far from it. Indeed, he may have paid the price with his life because he was in fact a man of high principles, and utmost regard for the God who gave him life. His faith sustained him through remarkable hardship, and sustained him in his own noble imprisonment and ultimatly his execution.

   You will not be able to read this book without a strong sense of compassion for his wives, either. They were called upon to endure extreme hardship, and appear to have risen to the challenge. From their march across the plains, to the numerous times they were asked to open a new settlement, to eventually living practically alone in Navajo country to fend for themselves, even to birth children without so much as the help from an older daughter, these were women of enormous faith, incredible fortitude, and proud devotion to a man that their Church had marked as a scapegoat and sacrificial lamb.

   It is likely that decendents of the Fancher Party would read this book with different emotions than I, but I found it to be highly stimulating and engaging, both to the sensitivities and the mind. It is a story of faith, of perseverence, of work and sacrifice, and ultimately betrayal by a man's dearest friends. If the book is too forgiving of Lee for his role in the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, it is only because his life was so much more than that one, dark day. The rest of his life was a labor of love, for his God, his Prophet, his friends, his wives, his children, and for the establishment of the Kingdom of God, of which he believed he was a key builder, in partnership with his God and his prophets.




2. I could not put this book down until I had finished it cover to cover. It is a gripping narative that is historically accurate. (None of the criticisms I have heard change the nature of the story at all.) She draws on primary resources and was often able to obtain documents no one else could. Her analysis, especially of Lee's second trial, is very insightful.

   I was surprised to learn that the group of 12 or so men known as the "Misouri Wildcats" who were probably the target of the massacre had parted with the Francher company the day before the the first Indian raid and hence escaped being in the massacre.

   I am not a descendant of John D. Lee.




3. The Mountain Meadows Massacre is usually recounted in one of two simple version: 1) Brigham Young ordered the assassination of innocent Gentile travellers; or 2) John D. Lee took it upon himself to do the same.

   Brooks deals with the Massacre more thoroughly in her appropriately-titled _Mountain Meadows Massacre_, also available on this fine website. But the picture is incomplete without an understanding of who John D. Lee was. That picture is provided in great detail by this book, and it is sometimes startling.

   Lee was not some renegade Danite chieftain. Raised on the American frontier, he joined the Mormons and became a pillar of the southern Utah community -- a church leader, the federal government's Indian farmer, and an officer in the militia. He was widely respected and reputed to have spiritual gifts of prophecy and healing.

   And on the day of the Massacre, he was in a bad spot. Caught between conflicting and ambiguous military orders and facing the alternatives of killing not-completely-innocent travellers and alienating the native american population at a moment when the U.S. Federal government had declared war on the Utah Mormons, he made a tough choice.

   Eventually, of course, Lee was banished for his crime, living out his last years as a ferryman with a greatly reduced family on the Utah-Arizona border. Some odd details strike you when reading Brooks' account, though:

   1. There's plenty of evidence that people talked about Lee's excommunication, but in the well-kept church records, no sure indication that it actually happened.

   2. Lee was a spiritually powerful man and a firm believer. Moreover, he was an intimate of Brigham Young (Young's adopted son, in fact).

   3. Lee was a frontiersman through and through, one of the few Mormon pioneers (along with, say, Orrin Porter Rockwell and Bill Hickman)really equipped to deal with the harsh desert environment.

   4. Lee was banished not when Brigham Young found out about the Massacre, but years later, and almost certainly in response to public sentiment.

   So ask yourself this: if you were Brigham Young, and you needed to sacrifice someone to protect the church, who would it be? It's hard not to wonder whether John D. Lee's banishment was a calling. Maybe he wasn't excommunicated at all, but sent away as a visible sacrifice for the good of the community. Only a man with Lee's faith, independence and wilderness skills could be called on to make such a sacrifice.

   Likewise, Lee seems to have virtually surrendered to his own execution, but it's not clear why. Was he again sacrificing himself for Brigham Young and the church? Did he feel the guilt of the Massacres and seek to atone by offering his own life?

   I don't know, but I know this: if you're interested in Mormon history, Utah history or even the history of the American West, you should read this book.




4. The book is a great book if the reader is interested in the early years of the LDS church. As a member of the LDS church I found it very insightful. It is more insightful on the every day history of the church and the struggles of the members than it was on just John Lee. By insightful I mean tidbits of policy, history, the way things were handled, and changes in the church sinnce then that as members today we never hear of. Juanita Brooks through much research tells the story and pulls no punches for the LDS church or against the LDS church.



5. All the elements of classic dramatic tragedy are alive in the story of John D Lee and the Mountain Meadows Massacre - a telling, complicated, and chilling 35 year saga. This is truly one of the most powerful individual tragedies in American History.
   
   Juanita Brooks, a powerful brave Mormon woman, said "nothing but the truth can be good enough for the church to which I belong". This biography of John Doyle Lee is part of her work to fulfill her belief. Her story is compelling and powerful, but suffers from some significant weaknesses in my view which I will describe after I "briefly" (sorry) relate the story of this tragedy. But on the whole, I highly recommend this book as a part of learning about this incredible occurence in the American West.
   
   
   THE TRAGEDY
   
   Lee converted to the Church of Latter Day Saints in the late 1830's. He had witnessed first hand the bloody conflicts between LDS communities and the "Americans" around them in Missouri and Illinois and had defended his community from the attacks of the "Gentiles". He had mourned the murder of his beloved profit Joseph Smith. Lee had played a major role in the migration of the "Mormons" from Missouri and Illinois in 1847 and 1848 and the settlement of Utah. He became the trusted and adopted son of Smith's successor, Brigham Young.
   
   Over the next 10 years Lee became one of the richest men in southern Utah, a powerful and respected member of the Latter Day Saints, a community leader, builder, pioneer with a large and prosperous family. But then all the forces of a true tragedy began slowly to converge on the fields of a place named "Mountain Meadows" in southwestern Utah.
   
   The "Saints" had been attacked by the larger American community and had become "outcasts". They had moved beyond the immediate power of the American Nation and had settled in a difficult land. They worked hard to build their communities and society and were proud of their hard-earned accomplishments. They were deeply committed to their faith and Church. Their views were of the "fire and brimstone - Old Testament" variety. They firmly believed the "End Times" were eminent.
   
   The Utah LDS church and civil society was extraordinarily hierarchical. The "Saints" believed their leadership spoke directly on behalf of God - an assumed infallibility that would have been the envy of any Medieval Catholic Pope. They intended to build their vision of "God's society" in the wilderness and desired nothing more from the United States than to be left alone until the Second Coming of Christ, at which time they would take their rightful position as the new "Chosen People".
   
   But the American Republic was young, brash, and expanding - and infused with the populist democratic ideal (at least for white folks). The US - Mexican War ended in 1845 and added California, Texas and the New Mexico-Arizona territories to the Union. Gold was discovered in California in 1848-1849. One of the largest migrations in history saw thousands of Americans moving across the plains and mountains to get to California and Oregon. And right in the middle were the Mormons of Utah. The society from which the Saints had escaped a few years earlier was now on the march through their domain.
   
   The hierarchy of the LDS resisted Federal control. Brigham Young and his associates informed the American government that they were not obligated to obey federal law with which the disagreed, and they would decide for themselves which federal officers would be allowed to exert federal authority in the territory.
   
   In 1856 John Fremont, the first Republican candidate for President, ran on a platform that promised to "prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of Barbarism - Polygamy and Slavery". The Democratic President elected instead of Fremont - James Buchanan - won with 45 percent of the vote in a 3 way election. Buchanan realized the country could be sliding toward Civil War. He was offended by Mormon "treason", and saw an opportunity to divert the nation's attention from the "irrepresible conflict" over slavery by focusing on Mormon treason and polygamy.
   
   During this time the LDS church experienced a religious "Reformation". The Saints were challenged to renew their deep commitment to the Church and to root out the "Apostates" among them. The forces of God and Evil were increasingly at War, and the Saints had to be "purified" to face the doomsday events immediately before them.
   
   In the summer of 1857 Buchanan ordered the army to discipline the Mormons in Utah. General Albert Sydney Johnston, soon to be one of the Confederacies most important generals, commanded the "Army of Utah". The Army that had recently defeated Mexico and greatly expanded the Republic was on the march against LDS domination of Utah. LDS leaders mobilized thousands of members of their militia to be prepared to oppose the Army. Brigham Young and his followers were preparing for war.
   
   Right at this point, 250 emigrants known to history as the "Fancher Party" left Arkansas in April 1857 bound for California. Over a dozen family groups and many individuals comprised a loosely organized group of several wagon trains that crossed the plains and rolled into Salt Lake City in August 1857.
   
   While they were on the trail a beloved and very important "Saint" - Parley Pratt - had been murdered in Arkansas by the first husband of one of his several wives. This news was reported in Utah newspapers in July 1857. The news "devasted the Saints and aroused sentiments of anger and grief" (see Bagley book below). Then, one month later, a wagon train of people from Arkansas arrived in Salt Lake City.
   
   What happened from the time the Fancher Party left Salt Lake in mid-August until they camped at Mountain Meadows in early September is highly disputed. There are dozens of stories ranging from severe anger by Mormons towards the emigrants to aggressive disdain of the Mormons by the emigrants, including an alledged poisoning of a spring.
   
   All these and several other threads came together in the Mountain Meadows from Monday 9/7/57 through Friday - another infamous 9/11 in American History. Early on Monday morning the emigrants were attacked by a combined group of Mormons and Native American allies. Subsequent investigations determined that on Friday, 9/11 the Mormons convinced the emigrants to surrender, in exchange for which the Mormons would lead the emigrants back to a town and safety.
   
   Instead, after they surrendered, well over 100 emigrants were murdered in cold blood in a 30 minute slaughter. Only a few children survived. The Mormons believed they were too young to remember enough about the Massacre to be witnesses in the future, although several reported late in their lives that "you can never forget the horror". Also, Mormon doctrine held that such young children were by nature "innocent" and killing them would be a "mortal sin".
   
   The man who convinced the emigrants to surrender to the Mormons was John D Lee.
   
   John Lee was put by fate in the middle of an extremely ambiguous and terrible crisis in which he had to choose. His choice led to his being the immediate leader of the largest slaughter experienced by any wagon train in American History.
   
   Did Lee make that choice on his own; was he the "highest" member of the LDS church who had "blood on his hands"? Or, was he following the orders of "God's representative on Earth" - his adoptive father Brigham Young? Or was the truth somewhere in the middle?
   
   Just as this tragedy slowly built over 15 years, it slowly unwound over the following 20 years. For a short time Lee remained one of southern Utah's most influential men. But then nature and his society began to work on John D Lee. Step by step Lee lost his wealth and position, until he was cut off from the LDS Church. But he still followed its orders to go to a desolate but beautiful outpost called Lonely Dell to operate a Ferry on the Colorado River in Arizona at the southern reach of the Morman kingdom - today named as "Lee's Ferry" on the map.
   
   Then, he was arrested, stood trial and was convicted for the Massacre. On March 23, 1877, Lee stood again at the Mountain Meadows, shook hands with those around him, and then was shot in the heart by a firing squad.
   
   John Doyle Lee was the only person who faced legal justice for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Was this justice? Or was Lee made a Scapegoat by the LDS Church? If so, did the LDS leadership sacrifice Lee to protect their own skins, or to save the Church?
   
   Or, to use a more contemporary phrase, "What did Brigham Young know, and when did he know it?"
   
   THE BOOK
   
   Juanita Brook's biography of Lee tells in detail the story of his life, and weaves it into the fabric of the terrible tragedy of Mountain Meadows. You get a real feel for the man and his times, and how he lived his life. Lee was energetic, responsible, industrious, difficult, committed - and Brooks tells the story well.
   
   HOWEVER, much of the "larger context" I described above is missing from this book. For example, there is no discussion of the effect of the American Civil War that began 4 years after the Massacre. Surely the most powerful event in 19th century America had some affect on this story. In fact, the War was so powerful and all-consuming that it appears to have prevented the federal government from effectively pursuing its investigation of the Massacre and bringing those responsible to justice.
   
   Brooks wrote another book - the Mountain Meadows Massacre - that explored this larger context. A more recent book - Blood of the Prophets, Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows - by Will Bagley adds more contextual detail to Brook's Massacre book.
   
   To really get a full appreciation for this complex tragedy, you need to read both this biography of Lee and preferably Bagley's broader book. I give Brook's book "only 4 stars" because much of this broader context is missing, but in fairness her book's goal is to tell the "inside" story of John D Lee's life.

No comments about Inkpaduta: Dakota Leader.

1 comments about Wu Zhao: China's Only Female Emperor (Library of World Biography).

1. Behind this fabulous tale of the rise of the daughter of a lumber merchant to the first and only female emperor of China is a probing study of power, politics, and gender. I was particularly enthralled by Rothschild's explanation of Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism in the Tang Dynasty and the ways in which they were variously used to invent a new language of symbols--indeed, to create a new political reality. This book is a tour de force filled with gruesome lore worthy of a historical novella by Tanizaki.

1 comments about Civil War Goats and Scapegoats.

1. "Civil War Goats and Scapegoats" is a highly readable, even-handed book that does an admirable job in defending generals who have been maligned unfairly and censuring those who committed major blunders. It's well researched and amply illustrated, hard hitting but fair, and includes clear descriptions of military terms and Civil War military organizations as well as interesting anecdotes on the pre- and post-War lives of many of the commanders. The book is recommended for anyone - novice or serious student - interested in the Civil War.
   
   Three scapegoats defended passionately by Winkler are J.E.B. Stuart, often criticized for his controversial performance at Gettysburg ("He was following Lee's orders, and he provided Lee with substantial cavalry assistance, which Lee misused," Winkler wrote); Charles P. Stone, a Union general vilified by the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War (or JCCW, of which the author is repeatedly critical) for his defeat at Ball's Bluff; and Henry Wirz, the commandant of Andersonville, the infamous camp in Georgia for Union prisoners of war.
   
   Winkler is equally passionate in blaming generals for incompetent performances, including Stonewall Jackson for his "chronic tardiness" in the Seven Days' battles (though, as he notes, Jackson was ill); Ulysses S. Grant for his suicidal attack at Cold Harbor; and Grant and William T. Sherman, then one of the former's division commanders, for being "completely and shamefully surprised" at Shiloh. In the book's most provocative passage, Winkler wonders whether Jackson's mortal wounding by his own troops at Chancellorsville might have been an intentional act. Also interesting is Winkler's assertion that George McClellan, in addition to being undone in the Seven Days' battles by his notorious cautiousness, also was undermined by political intrigue leading up to those battles, with Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and the JCCW chairman, Sen. Ben Wade, as the chief culprits.

1 comments about J. Edgar Hoover: A Graphic Biography.

1. Rick Geary does it again with his graphic biography of an American icon, J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI. He uses his trademark illustrative style to chart the course of Hoover's life from birth to death, and all points in between. Hoover is now a controversial figure thanks to some scandalous, yet unproven rumors (mostly about his personal life), but Geary treats his subject matter fairly, and portrays Hoover in an unbiased fashion. This is a new venture from Geary's excellent "Treasury of Victorian Crime" series, and it does not disappoint. Anyone looking for a concise, yet thoroughly enjoyable biography of Hoover need look no further.

5 comments about A Pirate of Exquisite Mind: The Life of William Dampier: Explorer, Naturalist, and Buccaneer.

1. This book was first brought to my attention when it was being discussed on NPR. Diana Preston sounded like she was actually gushing when she talked about William Dampier. After reading this book, one can certainly understand why. While there are many gaps in the historical record - we know virtually nothing about Dampier's personal life, Diana and Michael Preston weave what is known into a highly enjoyable narrative that moves at the speed of an action novel.
   
   William Dampier, a Scot, was a fascinating person. Like so many young unattached men of his time, he naturally turned to the sea as a means of livelihood. Like most sailors, he was a keen observer of the world around him. However, unlike many of his peers, he documented those observations, kept his papers in good order, and published his observations as sort of a half scientific journal/half travel story. He became sort of a folk hero to the large portions of English population who were wealthy enough to own his books, but not to experience the larger world first hand. His keen scientific observations deeply influenced meteorology, biology, and cartography for the next two hundred years. His charts were still in use as late as WWII.
   
   Today, it is difficult for a layperson to be taken seriously by scientific community. Thus a common sailor and buccaneer who is also at the cutting edge of scientific study seems somewhat incredulous to the modern reader. Yet, in this sense, the 16th and 17th century scientific community was a bit more egalitarian then the current one. Yet this is a world where slavery was accepted as a fact of life and basic human dignity, especially for non-whites, was a luxury vice a fundamental right.
   
   Likewise, Dampier himself was a case study in contradictions. A keen observer and analyst of the natural world, he seems completely unable to understand human nature. A gifted planner, navigator, and tough fighter; he fails at every leadership role that life thrusts upon him. Despite the fact that he was almost a folk hero at the time of his last expedition, he is more or less forgotten to the modern world with the exception of Western Australia. He was, after all, the first Englishman to visit Australia - sorry Capt Cook.
   
   This book will appeal to anyone who is interested in the age of exploration, the history of science, or British history in the late 17th Century. The main drawback to this book is that there is very little insight into William Dampier's personal life. For example, the authors do not know when Dampier's wife died or much about her life when he was not at home. Regardless, this is a history book that is as readable as any novel.



2. 
   This account of the life and times of William Dampier is refreshingly detailed. The authors successfully described the 17th Century world in all of its gritty reality. With these hard and unforgiving times as a backdrop, the reader can realize what Dampier was up against and how only an exquisite mind could accomplish what he did, under those circumstances.
   
   I heartily recommend this read for anyone interested in seafaring in the 1600's.



3. No many people knows about William Dampier even though his life is totally impressive. As a person looking for an opportunity to make a living, Dampier took his life as a buccaneer to develop his passion as explorer and naturalist. He didn't attend Oxford, nor Cambridge, but his accounts reminds me of Joseph Banks, accounts that were of much use for navigators and naturalist in the coming years, including Cook and Darwin.
   He survived three voyages around the world, but those voyages let him know fascinating places and cultures. I was especially delighted on the description of Juan Fernandez Island (In the coast of Chile), the use that pirates made of this island and the story of the Moskito indian and Alexander Selkirk, both castaways here. A book worth reading!



4. Ok, so there is no doubt that this book is a excellent read. It really is like 'The Pirates of the Carribean' but in written form and it all really happened! Swashbuckling adventures, gripping, perilous cliffhangers, monstrous storms, wild, and sometimes dangerous natives (but mostly friendly). In short, I am very glad I bought this book.
   
   But, I don't think I completely agree with the authors portrayal of our hero, William Dampier, as a forgotten hero who deserves better than he got. Certainly, he was an extraordinary man, of immense energy, life force, talent, a pioneer in innumerable fields and respected highly by the educational elite of his, and many in our, day. But he was not a good man all the way.
   
   He left his wife for years on end, without much of a shadow of a hint of remorse (leaving the first time very shortly after their marriage for 12 years and almost no mention of her during those 12 years till he gets back, stays a while and takes off again!). He partook in attacking and stealing treasures from merchant ships that were in no way threatening him or his crew (I understand many did this but it's no excuse). It doesn't make it excusable just because others in his day also did this and the authors lightly dismiss this under those pretences. It was still wrong. He stole and plundered, A LOT, for a living. It almost, but not quite, overshadows his achievements. And the 'not quite' is probably the reason why he is a little less dismissed as a pirate.
   
   All in all a good read, but he's no angel.



5. I didn't know anything about this explorer before reading the book, but became interested in learning about him when I saw someone else reading the book while on an airplane flight. It touched my curiosity and I sent for my own copy. Have enjoyed and learned, which are objectives that I value.

1 comments about Civil War Hospital Sketches (Dover Evergreen Classics).

1. This book was short and gave some insight, but was a little disappointing since I had just finished reading Civil War Nurse: The Diary and Letters of Hannah Ropes. Both Louisa May Alcott and Hannah Ropes were assigned to the same hospital. Hannah Ropes' book is more in depth with the day-to-day details and her feelings than Hospital Sketches. Louisa May Alcott's book makes you think it was written specifically for a certain reading audience in mind and was found lacking in some respects.
   (signed LAS)

5 comments about Stradivari's Genius: Five Violins, One Cello, and Three Centuries of Enduring Perfection.

1. I have no disagreement with the genius of Stradivari or the excellent qualities of his extraordinary violins and other stringed instruments. However it should not be overlooked that Stradivari was not entirely unique: equally fine instruments were made in Cremona at about the same time by Giuseppi Antonio Guarneri. In fact, many famous virtuoso violinists have chosen to play Guarnerius rather than Stradivarius violins, a fact not generally known to the public. At one time Polish virtuoso Henryk Szeryng owned two Stradivarius and one Guarnerius violins. Eventually, he donated the two Strads to worthy musical institutions and kept only the Guarnerius. Szeryng treasured his Guarnerius so much that, when he travelled, he bought two seats -- one for himself and one for his Guarnerius.
   
   The mystery behind the greatness of Stradivarius violins is actually a somewhat broader mystery: How did Cremona Italy in the late 17th and early-to-mid 18th centuries produce two artisans who made the greatest violins ever made? And why did this artistry end when they died?



2. this book is a must for all music lovers. it is factual without being boring and mr faber does a great job telling his story. i couldn't put i down and i don't even play an instrument. a great read!



3. I was out the other week searching for new books to read and came across Stradivari's Violins. A self-avowed classical music fan, I started leafing through the pages to see if the book would spark my interest. Well, a day and a half later and the book was completed, leaving me wanting for more! An outstanding read, the book chronicles the birth and subsequent history of five violins and one cello, over the course of time and history. If you are interested at all in history, music history, classical prose, or any genre in the history/music categories, this book would be a great read. It appeals to a large audience I think, and for fans of the movie the Red Violin, this book would make a great companion piece, although that movie was about a violin not covered within the pages, the Red Mendelssohn. Now in paperback, this book is definitely a bargain!



4. Interested in learning violin structure and repair, I felt the need to know a bit about the famous violin makers of the world. I highly recommend this book as it was very informative and actually a great read as I felt drawn to know more and more about the great Stradivari. Jim



5. This is the book for anyone wanting an accessible introduction to the mystique surrounding the famous Italian violin maker Stradivarius. Rather than trying to take on such an overwhelming and near-mythic character head-on, Toby Faber wisely decides to focus his work on the instruments themselves, carefully placing Stradivari's biographical and the violin's technical details throughout. As the title states, the book examines the `life' of six of Stradivari's instruments from their creation to the present day, exploring along the way the tastes, the desires, and the obsessions of generations of players and collectors. Although hundreds of Stradivari's instruments still exist, Faber has selected these particular examples because of their complex histories and their connections with famous historical figures. While at times his writing seems to trudge along when the instruments' stories become impossibly intertwined, Faber's style of story-telling is engaging and effective for the topic; this is a book that both specialists and novices will enjoy. Interestingly, he ends the book by questioning the ordinarily unassailable value placed on old instruments, noting that some antique violins seem to have lost their sound. He ends by saying, "One day, supplies of the great classical violins will run out. We need a new Stradivari." Fortunately, this enticing last line is addressed by a perfect companion book to Faber's: John Marchese's "The Violin Maker" (2007).

5 comments about The Eloquent Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis: A Portrait in Her Own Words (With a One-Hour DVD Insert from A&E Biography).

1. Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy was without a doubt one of America?s most admired first ladies and that is the major theme of this book. Although the book - a collection of quotes taken from a variety of sources, mostly interviews given by Mrs. Kennedy - spans her lifetime, a good portion is devoted to Jackie?s roles as the young wife of Senator John F. Kennedy and as the Nation?s First Lady.
   In order to fully appreciate some of the late Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis?s comments about her roles as a woman/wife/mother and widow, it is important to bring up the historical context. The Kennedy Administration, ?Camelot,? took place amid turbulent times: widespread civil and racial unrest, the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis, and escalating involvement in the Vietnamese conflict. The women?s movement was then in its infancy and it is against this backdrop that the Kennedy?s acquired mythical, almost magical qualities.
   ?Jack and Jackie were America?s royal couple,? writes Bill Adler in his introduction to The Eloquent Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis; A Portrait in Her Own Words. The quotes provide a window into her childhood, life with JFK and her role as First Lady, then widowhood, followed by her marriage to Aristotle Onassis, her work as book editor for both Viking Publishers and Doubleday, and final years. One section deals with the assassination, ?Jack was the love of my life. No one will ever know a big part of me died with him.?
   A common thread that runs throughout is her great love of, and reliance on, the family. Jackie?s life revolved around those she loved the most, her husband and her children, Caroline and John Jr. ?Raising children is the best thing I?ve ever done,? she declared.
   For those of us who lived through the sixties and are old enough to remember where we were when we heard that the President of the United States had been mortally wounded by an assassin?s bullet, this tiny giant of a book will help to fan the flames of remembrance by highlighting the ?beauty, grace and intelligence Jacqueline Kennedy brought to the White House,? the country, and the world.



2. This book paints a picture of a person, using very brief quotes and anecdotes categorized by topic. One can pick this book up and read something which reveals the inner character of Jackie O.



3. I have great admiration for Jacqueline Kennedy... Anything about her that is not scandalous is good for me



4. It says very clearly in the ad that this book includes a one-hour DVD with it, but my order arrived without the DVD. After sending 3 emails
   to the vendor's customer servce, none of them are replied. But the vendor
   is still selling the same items at Amazon. I think that with their poor service quality, this vendor should be removed from the Amazon immediately.



5. The best part of this book was the A&E video included. It was all quotes, and some not so positive. I did not feel that the author actually liked her. If you want to read it, check it out of the library.

5 comments about Journals: 1952-2000.

1. Historian/columnist Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. was the last half-century's most prolific, eloquent liberal voice. He served John Kennedy's administration as "special assistant to the president," wrote best-selling biographies of JFK, RFK, and Franklin Roosevelt, advised, wrote and edited speeches for Senator Ted Kennedy and most major Democratic leaders, and had working friendships with most of recent history's most influential political, literary, even entertainment figures. His exhaustive life journals numbered more than 6,000 pages; Schlesinger approved their publication before his 2007 death, and they were edited by two of his sons and Penguin Press to a still-formidable 858 pages.
   
   Yet amid Schlesinger's power lunches, society parties, and foreign trips seeming the setting for each page, he writes compelling, honest looks at friends and loved ones (wife Alexandra and children, the Kennedys, Adlai Stevenson, Henry Kissinger), enemies (Roy Cohn and Caspar Weinberger but chiefly Richard Nixon as the comic villain Schlesinger calls "Tricky") and loyalty to FDR/Truman/JFK liberalism.
   
   Schlesinger's opinions and observations fascinate, whether from inside as cabinet member or distantly as seasoned political observer. He called political gamesmanship his "favorite spectator sport," and his election year entries (especially those involving a Kennedy as late as 1984) are especially savory. Not to mention his disappointment at reduced roles in Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter's administrations. (Schlesinger even paraphrased Gerald Ford describing Carter's 1980 defeat.) His year 2000 entries even echo into this year's election race with frequent positive references to Hillary Clinton (in her First Lady and Senate campaign roles), John McCain, and a haunting closing sentence on then newly-elected President George W. Bush.
   
   Schlesinger's brief period as Nixon's next-door neighbor (years after placed on Nixon's "enemies list.") reads hilarious, as do some of the more pithy presidential cracks at predecessors (JFK on Eisenhower, Ford on Nixon).
   
   Yet even in these informal settings, Schlesinger's chronicles 1963 and 1968's horrific events with mastery and mourning for friends and political heroes. He repeats a generation's feelings on November 23, 1963, when wrting, "I still cannot believe this man (JFK)...of such intelligence and gaiety and strength, is dead. The wages of hate are fearful."
   
   Schlesinger's June 9, 1968 entry is possibly even more saddening. He speaks of Senator Robert Kennedy's assassination with personal heartbreak associated with losing a younger brother: "There was for me such a poignancy about RFK," he wrote, "all the greater now that they killed him before he had the chance to place his great gifts at the service of the nation and the presidency; Jack had at least 2 ½ years." These events shadow Schlesinger throughout the rest of his life and journals, from Ted Kennedy's presidential campaigns to tourists on the Kennedy front lawn.
   
   In his recent hit album, "Memory Almost Full," Paul McCartney writes, "When I think that all this stuff could make a life/it's pretty hard to take it in." It can be argued Schlesinger stood too close by one political family to keep an historian's objectivity. Or his Washington-New York social life (chronicled endlessly) cost him understanding of how Americans lived and viewed their history. But his was an important voice and seconding motion for the post-World War II years, and this well-edited collection of observations and perspective cement his niche in history behind the political giants he advised, chronicled, and befriended. Highly recommended.



2. Anyone who has read Schlesinger's books on Andrew Jackson, the New Deal, or John and Robert Kennedy knows how partisan he was. He viewed American history as a perennial struggle between noble, idealistic, intelligent liberals and selfish, materialistic, moronic conservatives. This is not my interpretation of his views. It was explicit in his meta-historical cyclical conception of American history, which he adopted from his father. Indeed, his partisanship was so obvious that it was harmless. These journals are no exception. Those people who opposed his heroes were not only wrong, they were morally and intellectually corrupt; and even, in the case of Lyndon Johnson, borderline insane. The only exception I could find was Henry Kissinger, whom Schlesinger usually described with respect. The same is true of events. The American involvement in Vietnam enters his journals only in 1966, with regard to Robert Kennedy's opposition to it. There is no way of knowing from these journals that John Kennedy was responsible for it.
   Nevertheless, these journals provide many interesting and important insights into the events and people that shaped American political history in the last half of the twentieth century.
   Moreover, among their most valuable passages are those in which Schlesinger's liberal bias itself is illuminating. For example, on page 363, he attributed George McGovern's catastrophic loss to Richard Nixon in the 1972 election mainly to racism, which he says was "the all-pervading issue of the election." According to Schlesinger, it was "the belief that Nixon can be relied upon to keep the blacks down" that caused large numbers of traditionally Democratic voters to vote for him. Schlesinger acknowledged that Nixon's supporters did not say that that they were racists. Schlesinger claims that instead of admitting their racism, Nixon's supporters used code words: welfare, crime, busing, schools, quotas. However, it should have been obvious that these were real and serious grievances. At that time, the rate of violent urban crime was rising by more than ten percent a year; children who lived a few blocks from a public school were being bussed for hours each day; etc. McGovern lost so terribly because he and his supporters thought like Schlesinger. They dismissed these real and serious grievances as expressions of racism.
   Another example is on page 437. There Schlesinger makes the interesting observation that Carter was the first Democratic president of the twentieth century whose programs did not have a label, like Wilson's New Freedom, Roosevelt's New Deal, Truman's Fair Deal, Kennedy's New Frontier, and Johnson's Great Society. He attributes this to Carter's defects. (Schlesinger loathed and execrated Carter.) Schlesinger could not see that the reason was that the Great Society completed the New Deal. (Completing the New Deal was Johnson's purpose, the dream he had had since he entered Congress as a fanatical Roosevelt supporter in 1937.) After the Great Society, there were no longer any new, broad, governmental economic programs that could gain the support of most Americans. Schlesinger regarded McGovern as the last Democratic candidate who represented the true Democratic tradition. But anyone who now reads the 1972 Democratic platform will be stunned by its vacuous phrase-mongering and shameless racial posturing. (Most Americans were revolted in 1972 also.)



3. Unless one is a scholar, those under 60 will not find this book of great interest. For someone my age (71) who's also a political junky with still-vivid memories of the 1960s forward, this book is an artistic and intellectual treasure. The editing--and there was obvious a lot of editing--results in jewels on virtually every page. Schlesinger undresses everyone of consequence he ever worked with, no holds barred, including the Kennedy family.
   
   In 1969 (maybe 1970) Lloyd Norman, dean of the Pentagon press corps, addressed a class I attended at Fort Benning, GA. He claimed before the so-called Cuban missile crisis, he was given a briefing about how the crisis at sea would be orchestrated, so there was never a real chance of armed confrontation. I could never get verification of this, and none of the popular or historical accounts mention it. Yet, on page 176 Schlesinger mentions an October 1962 letter from Khrushchev to Bertrand Russell about "his instructions to Soviet ships to avoid confrontation..." When Schlesinger heard about the incident from Averell Harriman, he sent a memo to the President describing the Khruschev letter. Kennedy, according to the book, "called Harriman the next day and asked him questions about it." Is this validation of Norman's account? Maybe.



4. Schlesinger's 'Journals' is a fantastic insight, focusing mainly on the Democratic Party's inner battles as well as a juicy dish piece for an intellectual socialite. The author may embarrass himself on a number of occasions, but he's always thoroughly readable and deadly honest. Criticisms of his devotion to the Kennedys might be accurate, but he's honest in his affection and very aware of it. Anyone thinking this is just a load of leftist propaganda ought take note of Schlesinger's animosity toward Gore Vidal and American communists, as well as warm relationships with Henry Kissinger, George HW Bush, and eventually William Buckley. (A fantastic subtext is the declining role of alcohol in American politics.) Does anyone know if there's a conservative book like this?



5. I liked the journals by Mr. Schlesinger and learned a lot from this journals especially when it came to the issue of the Iranian revolution, hostage crisis and the late Shah of Iran. Not that I agreed with Schlesinger's liberal and wrong ideas on how to deal with the Iranian revolution but it confirmed what I have always thought about the incompetence among Carter's aides and advisers which resulted in loss of a great ally. As a typical leftist the author disliked the late Shah of Iran and thought it is okay to replace him. Also, it showed how terrible Carter admin was in dealing with the Iranian crisis where Carter says to Zbig: "I can't tell a fellow head of state what to do". Also, it confirmed my earlier belief that Zbig was in favor of supporting the Shah and preventing the revolution but Commie Carter and State Dept were against his tough proposals. All in all, journals are a great way to learn about the past and I do appreciate his time for writing the journals even though politically I disagree with him so much.