5 comments about Mr Tompkins in Paperback (Canto imprint) (containing Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland and Mr. Tompkins Explores the Atom).

1. A lovely reprinted edition of a peral from Gamow. The original edition has been out of print for a number of years. This 1993 edition has added commentary and a fascinating bio of Gamow. He was born in Odessa, in what was then Russia, --before the Soviet Union. The story of his escape to the West is straight out of a thriller. Only it is real! Gamow was referred to by a journalist, some time during the Cold War, as "the only scientist in America with a real sense of humor". He can take the most technical stuff and make it simple. Fun too! The book:--Intellectual treats, whimsy, but deep. Illustrated with lovely drawings by Gamow himself. Much of it can be understood by a child, and other parts might require a little concentration. All of it is great fun. Follow your imagination, and while you explore, you will learn about Einstein's theory of relativity. And in unexpected ways! You will see the wonders of physics thru the eyes of a child. With his unexpected thought experiments, Gamow has captured the imagination of generations of readers, and he has inspired a degree of curiosity that comes naturally to children.
   The author George Gamow started in nuclear physics, during the Golden Age of Physics, worked with Niels Bohr in Copenhagen, then later in the US, on the Manhattan Project during WWII; and after the War, he was professor in Boulder Colorado. He has a building on campus of The University of Colorado named after him! He is one of the few scientists who wrote popular books. They are precious pearls, and they have been equally popular with my parent's generation as with mine. For awhile they were out of print, but luckely some have now been reprinted in recent years!
   Other Gamow titles: Biography of Physics, Atomic Energy [dedicated to the hope of lasting peace], Physics of the Strapless Evning Gown,...We are lucky that Dover has reprinted some of them. Gamow's list of scientific accomplishments includes a 1948 landmark paper on the origin of chemical elements, the Big Bang model, and later work with F. Crick on DNA and genetic coding.-- Do more Gamow editions, Dover!
   Review by Palle Jorgensen, September 2003.



2. I'm a novice at this subject matter, and I've recently started reading introductory books on quantum physics for fun. I read, "The New Quantum Universe" prior to reading this. This easy to read book filled in some gaps that that I had. It helped me grasp some concepts that had otherwise passed over my head when reading the other book.

   I understand that this is a classic text and I can see why. It's fun to read, and provides a foundation for further understanding. It explains uncertaintity, radioactive decay, and electron shells especially well.

   I may not fully appreciate the concepts I was able to internalize from this book for quite some time. I can say that I strongly recommend it to the layman or anyone who's eager to understand some basics of this incredible field of study.




3. Here are Gamow's two 1940's Mr Tompkins books popularizing modern physics, in one tidy package. An earlier reviewer has suggested that this book be produced as an animated educational film, a good idea, but I picture it as being more of a computer enhanced live action video. The chapters on relativistic geometries and cosmological models could really be audio-visual treats, and it's hard to imagine a better basis for a script explaining the strange new world of physics to the interested lay public. The lions-share of what science now claims to know about the world was developed from a seemingly strange handful of theories thrashed out in the first three decades of the twentieth century. Gamow was both a party to this theoretical explosion and a gifted writer. Most of what has occurred in physics since these books were first published, has essentially been the refining of the ideas discussed here, so, for the most part, the science is still significant. But while Gamow had some important cosmological ideas -- he predicted the cosmic microwave background radiation, the discovery of which earned Wilson and Penzias a Noble Prize (in which Gamow should have shared, but did not) -- he also bet on the wrong horse when it came to cosmological models.
   Gamow cleverly and artfully presents the three basic cosmological models being argued from the 1930s through 1965.* The context is a night at the opera in which noted physicists sing the virtues of their respective theoretical opinions. First up is no other than the initial developer of the expanding universe ('big bang') model, the Belgian physicist and cleric, A. George Lemaitre. The Lemaitre universe is a majestically wondrous, one-off, elegant masterpiece. He sings, "Z' splendeur of z' origine. . . Worrk of Z' Lorrd!" Second is the oscillating or 'bouncing' model, and this piece is sung by Gamow, who at that time favored the concept of an eternally recycling universe (bang, expand, contract, re-bang, expand, contract, ->, etc). The third and last piece to be sung is of the Bondi-Gold self-maintaining or "steady state" universe, so famously preferred by Hoyle. Appropriately, this singer is generated mysteriously from intergalactic space, singing "Was never formed in time gone by. . . But is, has been. . .shall ever be. . ."
   Well, on this question we seem to have a winner, and no, it isn't Gamow's model. As Roger Penrose relates in the foreword, Gamow's bouncing universe and Hoyle's "steady state" model are both dead ducks these days. Seventy-five years of observation and mathematical fine-tuning have made something like Lemaitre's general understanding look like the only serious cosmological game in town. But don't hold that against this artful and thoroughly fun book. Gamow discounted the 'steady state', and most of the science here is still sound and relevant.
   *[File this under 'is there nothing new under the sun?': 1600 years ago, Augustine of Hippo recorded (City of God, Book XII) that classical cosmographies all distil into three basic models, the same three considered here by Gamow. (These same three models subsume the "innumerable universes" of Epicurus' speculation and of the recently famous so-called 'strong anthropic principle'.) Augustine bet on the right horse though, reasoning that the 'cycling' and 'eternal' models both seek finally to avoid rather than admit a true explanation. Only the universe-from-nothing (ex nihilo) model admits that the universe has an explanation -- albeit a grandly mysterious one.]
   This volume is classic science writing in a most entertaining package, it awaits some creative screenplay adaptor and video genius to make from it the best popular science audio-visual experience ever. Have at it.



4. It was a great transaction, Good prices, Great quality, and FAst delivery



5. I am nothing more than a humble interested amateur and my formal science education is limited to some advanced classes for my high school diploma many years ago. I picked up "Mr Tompkins" following a conversation with a physicist sitting next to me on a long flight. I found it to be an excellent introduction to modern physics in general and quantum mechanics in particular. I found it challenging and I wouldn't claim I understood every last detail, but it is definitely not necessary to have a profound knowledge of mathematical and physical concepts to read this book. The writing is witty, precise and thoroughly enjoyable. In fact I was so intrigued that I went and picked up two other books (Alice in Quantumland and Taking the Quantum Leap), both of which I found harder to read and not as suitable for the uninitiated as Mr Tompkins.

5 comments about Grant.

1. This is one of the most fascinating books i've read in a while. Smith has a clear grasp of Grant's life. Both his virtues and flaws are given equal attention. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in either the Civil War or the Presidency.



2. This is an excellent and highly readable biography of Grant. However if you are considering the Kindle edition, note that there are some transcription problems:
   
   * Footnotes have been transcribed as inline paragraphs within the main text flow. They are normally included closely after the relevant paragraph, but they sometimes lag by a screen (or even two) and in one place surfaced in a prior screen.
   
   * The maps have been omitted.
   
   * The full original index is included. But since it includes neither hyperlinks to the text, nor Kindle locations, nor even paper page numbers, it is essentially useless.
   
   * The paper version uses indented paragraphs to indicate extended quotes. Unfortunately these show up as normal undistinguished paragraphs in the Kindle version, so I was sometimes surprised to discover I was in a quote, or that I had left one.
   
   * There are also occasional minor transcription glitches such as words being erroneously joined together or erroneously split apart; or sentences erroneously broken into separate paragraphs. But these are relatively minor.
   
   Note that most of these issues aren't due to the Kindle itself: for example it handle footnotes and textual links just fine. The issues are mostly with how this particular book has been converted.
   
   I don't want to overstate the issues: the book is still quite readable in the Kindle edition, and suitable for (say) travel reading. However the various glitches are sufficiently annoying (and the book sufficiently good!) that I have ended up also buying a hardcover version, for browsing and reference.
   
   For the biography itself 5 stars. For the Kindle transcription, only two.



3. After reading Professor Smith's Grant biography, two apparent things come to mind: the same cult of ignorance that has removed George Washington and Eisenhower from the lips of children and TV ditto-heads was responsible for the "overlooking" of this great leader; and, they, the racist, largely-white Establishment is on the march as we wage unnecessary war today with clue-less leaders in charge. This southern biography in one volume does great justice to that 19th Century and our 21st Century that stands on a precipice,serving as a trumpet call-to-arms. From the middle of Grant's memoirs at Vicksburg, I went headlong into this thrilling read, moved many times by its revelations,riveting insertions of quotes that dramatize the action with tremendous clarity. Insightful, balanced and engrossing from beginning to end. Clearly, U.S. Grant was forgotten by those whose sensibilities were offended that one man could be charged with being a Negro-lover, Indian-lover and a unifier. And for once, Jean Edward Smith got it right: the man who masters the battlefield challenges can deftly handle the administrative ones as well, without the meddling of professional politicians and slicksters. Until reading this biography, I was led to believe that the Confederacy was more noble defending the genteel plantation ways and pleasantries against the crudities of Northern pride. Like, how dare they attack Miss Scarlett! The Civil War was much larger than Margaret Mitchell, and Jean Smith builds this biography to a deeper understanding about the war and its cost. Not only does Grant rise in dimension, but he levels off and enjoys a special relationship with Lincoln that is unique and illuminating, before moving into his White House years and retirement.If one needs to know why leadership is empty in the Executive Branch since Eisenhower, you need not look beyond the enemies of Grant's legacy. The standards of conduct,on and off the battlefield, by all participants, their levels of understanding of the cause, especially their civility was so moving and numerous that one is shocked to return to 21st century conduct. There is much to admire about those times and the great man, U.S. Grant. Read this, keep it and learn plenty.



4. I really loved this book. What a great General he was. Very underrated President. Should be ranked right up there. His battlefield skills saved the country.



5. Jean Edward Smith has written an outstanding biography of Ulysses S. Grant, one of the more complex heroes of American history. Grant's complexity does not stem from his own actions, but from the fact that his career as a general is considered such a success while his presidency has always been looked at as an abject failure. Henry Adams had even written that denunciation of Grant, saying, "The Progress of evolution from President Washington to President Grant was enough to upset Darwin." Mr. Smith had the good sense to compare what Adams wrote to the earlier thoughts of his brother Charles Francis Adams Jr. who admired the general and called him "an extraordinary man."
   Sometimes history needs to unfold over a longer period of time before a figure can be properly judged. With Grant the fact was that for over 100-years he came out on the losing end of history because he was for Reconstruction and the civil rights of the freed blacks. When Rutherford B. Hayes came into power in 1877 the freedoms of blacks had become a dead issue and Grant was destined to appear a failure in the eyes of history. It has only been with the success of the Civil Rights movement throughout the 1960s that Grant was in a large way vindicated. Finally southern biographers were unable to point to him as a man who picked the losing side of history, and a man who sympathized with blacks and therefore was wrong.
   It is always difficult to attempt to judge anyone or any act of the past by the standards of today. That is why it is hard to condemn George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves because it was common-place at the time. They don't deserve any positive press for owning slaves, BUT if they had turned over their slaves while they lived and fought for the freedom of all then they would have been so far ahead of their time to almost not have been real. There was no-such-thing as Virginia planters of the 18th and 19th centuries who refused to embrace the benefits of free slave labor. At least, I do not recall anything of such people.
   Grant is different because while he was President he WAS popular and DID protect the freedoms of people (which is correct even though it was judged as wrong in the south from 1877 to the 1960s). Mr. Smith is actually righting a historic wrong by trying to view Grant as the people of his time viewed him rather than those who came after and detested him for taking what was for 100-years the losing side of history. For instance, if George W. Bush has many biographies written by his supporters (now less than 28% of the population) that help to shape how he is looked at in the future, it would require a writer like Mr. Smith to come in and show that DURING the vast majority of his term, he was not exactly what one would call "popular."
   Re-writing history is a dangerous game and it takes writers like Mr. Smith to set the story straight after it has gone too far astray. In the south for instance, it was around a century or more before there started to be seen positive views of Abraham Lincoln. It is said that history is written by the winner, but really history is written by whoever happens to be holding the pen, and it isn't always the winner. How else could one explain the "Lost Cause" mythology that turned Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman into villains? It is only after carefully dissecting what actually took place that the story can be set straight.
   In "Grant" Mr. Smith has written a biography of the 18th President and first four-star general in the nation's history that is more accurate than a great majority of those that have come before. His biography is free from the anti-Grant bias that flooded the view for so long. However he also does not gloss over faults of Grant. Grant was a man who sometimes drank too much, and Mr. Smith doesn't hide it. But neither does he extrapolate and assume (as many anti-Grant biographers have done) that Grant was a hopeless drunk who stumbled around at all-times and was hardly ever sober. That such views have been accepted by many historians as fact is absolutely ridiculous, and Mr. Smith finally sets things to right.
   In closing, what we get from Mr. Smith is not a biography that overlooks all Grant's faults and pretends that he was a man heaven-sent who never made a wrong turn in his life. Instead we are given the portrait of a man who sometimes trusted the wrong kinds of people too much and who would other times have been better off as President had he sounded his views out amongst the public (especially the Cabinet and Congress). We see a man who as general came close to defeat more than a few times, but who had the nerves and calm to stand his ground. We get an accurate view of a man whose best traits as a general (indeed the fact that he was not easily perturbed in the most trying moments) are what got him into such trouble with historians for over a century. Not only did Grant wind up on the losing side by supporting the rights of black Americans, he showed no remorse for having done so (nor should he have, though it hurt his legacy).
   Time has vindicated Grant in the end and given Mr. Smith the clarity to write a definitive biography of the man from Galena, IL. Finally Grant can be reassessed and while he may never crack the top ten or even top twenty on the list of the greatest presidents of all-time, he at least can leave the likes of Buchanan, Harding, Pierce, and (something tells me) George W. Bush behind at the bottom forever.

5 comments about Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power.

1. Dallek frames Nixon and Kissinger as a "cautionary tale that the country forgets at its peril." He sees both men as arrogant and self-serving. Additionally, it is Dallek's feeling that both men used each other for political purposes. The great foreign policy victories of the Nixon administration - opening of China, détente and the peace in the Vietnam War - are all merely political moves by both men to win elections and prove that they are the smartest people in the country. Yet, the worst comes during the Watergate crisis, where actual foreign policy decisions have to be made including the Yom Kippur War. Nixon is merely seen as a second hand player in these dramas, thwarting when not ignoring Kissinger. It was a dangerous time with little oversight from outside the White House that we should all remember least it not be repeated.
   
   This good analysis drives the book. However, Dallek has the annoying habit of calling Kissinger "Henry." Its not like I'm gonna get him confused with the other major characters called Kissinger. Secondly, the most important foreign policy event between VJ Day and the fall of the Berlin Wall is the end of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates - where the United States basically used a steady dollar to keep the world economy on an even keel. On August 15, 1971 Nixon ended the convertibility of dollars to gold by closing the gold window. Yet, if you only read this book you would never have known. I am aghast at such an omission.
   
   Despite these problems, the book is still a good read. It attempts to conquer the myth that while Nixon was a bad domestic executive he was still great in foreign policy. Read it together with All the President's Men and you'll never like Nixon again.



2. Robert Dallek, biographer of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, has now written an account of the Nixon presidency, but it is not as good as Seymour Hersh's magnificent The Price of Power.
   
   In July 1968 Nixon and Kissinger told President Thieu of South Vietnam to reject US calls to begin participating in peace talks. In doing so, they broke the US law against private citizens conducting diplomatic negotiations.
   
   Nixon campaigned on a platform of ending the war, yet sabotaged Johnson's final efforts to negotiate, and then escalated the war. Nixon and Kissinger always opposed unilateral withdrawal. They aimed to continue the US aggression against Vietnam until victory could be achieved. When they talked of an `honourable settlement', they meant one that achieved all the USA's war aims. More US soldiers would have to die so that the earlier deaths would not have been in vain, which, absurdly, equates to saving the dead.
   
   Nixon and Kissinger cruelly indulged in sunshine talk about the war, promising the American people that one last push, one more invasion, would bring victory. But the truth was that the USA had lost. There was no alternative to withdrawal: their only choice was whether to end the war swiftly, or end it a bit later after killing yet more Vietnamese and having even more American soldiers killed pointlessly (20,000 were killed under Nixon).
   
   Nixon and Kissinger never grasped that a quick exit from Vietnam would have helped, not undermined, US credibility. They never asked other governments what they thought about a speedy exit. Détente was just a cynical device to try to divide Vietnam from its allies, and it failed.
   
   Dallek concludes that Nixon and Kissinger's policy towards Vietnam "was a disaster. Administration actions destabilized Cambodia, expended thousands of American, Vietnamese and Cambodian lives, gained no real advantage and divided the country." Actually, Nixon virtually united the country against him and against the war: by 1969, 71% of the American people wanted Nixon to withdraw 100,000 troops from Vietnam by the end of the year.
   
   Nixon and Kissinger claimed that their policies were realistic and intelligent, but neither could see that the Vietnamese people were justly fighting for their national liberation. Nixon and Kissinger were not the tragic, flawed heroes that Dallek portrays but despicable war criminals.



3. The relationship of these two incredibly insecure men is interesting to explore. Both were looking for constant reassurance from one another. Nixon seemed incredibly unsure of himself in Robert Dallek's book.
   
   Dallek explores other good biographies of Nixon and previously unreleased material to go in more depth.
   
   The problems faced by Nixon and Kissinger were varied, and handled with varied success. The failure in Vietnam sticks out like a sore thumb and is a major theme of the book. Smaller problems that they dealt with including Chile where the U.S. intervened to take a democratically elected leader out of power shed light on the deception and secretive measures used by the administration. The Nixon administration did more than stretch the rules...they broke many of them.
   
   Henry Kissinger appears as the hero of this book. Domestic issues are in the background of this book with Foreign policy as the star.



4. This book is a great history of the Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy. However, even more than that, it also shows how our government makes (or fails to make) foreign policy. It shows the day to day infighting, trivialities, and ego-stroking involved at the highest levels of government. In particular, Dallek details how Nixon and Kissinger sought to wrest foreign policy control from the bureaucracy for themselves, essentially personalizing foreign policy. They also had a tendency to ignore experts and keep others in the administration in the dark over major decisions. This book would have been useful before the Iraq War to understand how Cheney and Rumsfeld undertook a similar effort to seize control of national security policy and ignore intelligence experts.
   
   My only criticism of the book is that sometimes Dallek seems inject his own political views into the analysis. While I am sure Nixon and Kissinger often played politics improperly, and Dallek provides much evidence for this, there are times when I think he goes too far. For example, he blames their insistence on continuing the Vietnam War largely to their personal insecurities, but I think they had legitimate (if ultimately wrong) arguments about the world's perception of U.S. power. I think applaud Dallek for criticizing the administration's tilt toward Pakistan, but thought his argument could have benefitted from more discussion of US-India relations before and during Nixon. The final chapter of the book I think frames the author's overall arguments more coherently, but throughout the book they sometimes seem disjointed.
   
   If you are a die-hard Nixon/Kissinger fan, you might resent such asides. For most readers though, I think the book is overall balanced and well-reasoned.



5. I like this book
   Anyway to show that Nixon was A GREAT PRESIDENT is in my opinion OK

No comments about The Rise of Barack Obama.

5 comments about Andrew Carnegie.

1. This book flows well and is elegant in its prose. Some biographies can be quite tedious this one isn't.
   
   This book is full of insights such as that Teddy Roosevelt although he sought for Carnegie's support he didn't like the man. Because Carnegie was an intellectual and a manager but Roosevelt hands on in the trenches type manager.
   
   For good or evil Andrew Carnegie is right up there with Washington and Lincoln in his impact to the United States. Through his management skills he drastically cut the price of steel. This allowed for cheap consumer and industrial goods. The low cost of steel allowed the US to build the its fleet of battleships, skyscrapers, bridges dams and other large scale public and private works projects. Carnegie's mills alone had a greater output and at lower cost then England and Germany.
   
   The second reason why he transformed the US was the Gospel of Wealth. He was the impetus of charitable giving. It wasn't until after Carnegie's vast sums that his peers such as the Rockefeller's started to contribute. While others focused on art, which has a small but important impact on this country. He focused on education and funding the retirement of thousands of professors from all over the country. 2,500 public libraries. Including 5 million dollar grant to the New York Public library system.
   
   The great cultural institutions of this country Carnegie Hall the Metropolitan Museum of Art by JP Morgan National Gallery by Andrew Mellon were all funded by Republicans. The same is true today see Bill Gates.
   
   Nassaw states that 5 million dollars circa 1900 was approximately 3.5 billion today. If this is true Carnegie gave away 20 to 30 million dollars a year a sum greater than the total assets of Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.



2. A fascinating biography of the exuberant Scottish-American tycoon and philanthropist.
   
   Nasaw covers all of Carnegie's life from early boyhood in 1830's Scotland, to ambitious telegraph boy in Pittsburgh, to iron and steel magnate, to philanthropist and finally to international peace advocate. Most of the 800 pages go swiftly. Nasaw writes well and I generally found his very detailed account valuable, especially for Carnegie's business adventures and for his final peace activities, although perhaps rather less so for all the details of his family life.
   
   In Nasaw's account Carnegie comes across as much more of a "businessman" than an "industrialist". His initial fortune was made in his twenties through insider dealings from his role as a key aide to railroad magnates who were making their own fortunes by tricks such as awarding lucrative contracts to companies that they themselves owned. But starting in his late twenties Carnegie did build a mighty iron and steel empire, with remorseless business logic.
   
   Carnegie in his middle age inevitably comes across as a great hypocrite. He had given speeches extolling the virtues of unions and of the need for employers to treat workers fairly, but he went on to mercilessly repress workers at his own plants, including cutting wages, extending hours, and suppressing all unions. He denied responsibility for the climactic Homestead lockout which was designed to break the steel unions, but Nasaw shows that he was kept fully informed and must have either made or supported the key decisions. Nasaw explains how Carnegie rationalized this harshness to himself, as a necessary part of business and of social evolution, but still his deeds fit poorly with his words.
   
   However in his later life, especially after selling Carnegie Steel, Carnegie became indisputably a genuine exuberant philanthropist. He lived well (very well indeed!) but he also gave away a vast fortune, founding an astounding 2500 libraries, plus many Institutions, the Carnegie Hall, various Hero funds, and many peace organizations.
   
   In his latter years, Carnegie's incessant lobbying for international peace is truly striking. Nasaw sometimes deprecates Carnegie's endless expressions of optimism in the face of repeated failures and his ceaseless lobbying of presidents, monarchs, and statesmen. But given that Carnegie believed war would be a disaster (as WWI proved all too well) and was committed to doing whatever he could for peace, then his behavior seems both entirely rationale and commendable. Yes, he was often grasping at straws and he did aggressively pester and "name drop" to try to move things forward, but given the stakes it is difficult to condemn his donning of a bold face and his trying again and again in the face of failures and cynicism. Alas, his efforts were probably inevitably doomed, but given his beliefs and commitment, it seems hard to criticize him for trying as hard as he did.
   
   Overall, Carnegie's life is a fascinating one, involving many contrasts and apparent contradictions. Nasaw captures it well and succeeds in making Carnegie a surprisingly sympathetic character, without concealing his flaws.



3. How to describe Andrew Carnegie? Certainly he would have to be one of the most fortunate individuals to have ever been born. Son of a hardscrabble weaver from a small hamlet near Edinburgh, Scotland, Carnegie and family immigrated to Pennsylvania whan he was a young man. Perhaps never before in history, has a particular man, with certain skills, found himself at the right place, at the right time and under the right circumstances as did Andrew Carnegie in 19th century western Pennsylvania.
   
   Despite having no formal education, Carnegie was certainly a very intelligent man. He educated himself over the years to the extent that he was considered a very philosophical author and sought after speaker on many of the issues of the day. He hitched his wagon to the right horse when he became assistant to an up and comer in the Pennsylvania Railroad. From an early age, Carnegie discovered the beauty of dividends and compound interest, money earned not by virtue of labor, but solely by virtue of having money. Due in large part to his connections, he was able to parley inside information into increasingly lucrative investments, to the point that he was soon able to turn over daily operation of his several businesses to very able lieutenants while he enjoyed the good life. These lieutenants, assisted by a series of unique events and developing technologies, made Carnegie the richest man in the world.
   
   While it may sound as if Carnegie was merely an observer and accumulator, he certainly deserves much credit for his success. He was an early pioneer in the concept of cost accounting and through a ruthless system of unit cost reduction, both in the areas of vertical integration and labor cost, was able to successfully grow his business and survive numerous economic downturns which bankrupted his competitors.
   
   Many decry Carnegie's business practices, most notably in the areas of labor/manangement relations and anti-competitive practices. However, this demonstrates a very common failing in many commentators; holding historical personages to current standards. The same people that condemn Carnegie's labor practices, denigrate George Washington for owning slaves, or Harry Truman for making racist comments. Each of these, though immoral by current standards, were men of their times.
   
   Owners of manufacturing entities were expected to battle with labor. Labor, in the mid-late 19th century was heavily connected with the burgeoning socialist movement which was looked upon with disfavor by much of society. In fact, it is no coincidence that those of Carnegie's competitors whose labor forces became organized, were largely those that failed in the repeated economic panics of the day. Carnegie succeeded, and grew, as a result of reinvesting profits and maintaining low unit cost. Ironically, though his Homestead steel works became the symbol for labor/management violence, he considered himself one of the most enlightened managers of the day.
   
   Carnegie is viewed, with Rockefeller, Morgan and Vanderbilt in the class of "Robber Barons" which sprang up during the era, however, Carnegie is vastly different than each of these individuals. While many of his contemporaries benefited and suceeded largely due to watered stock and market manipulation, he was very proud, and quick to point out that he never operated a corporation and never sold a share of stock. He was definitely NOT a monopolist (U.S. Steel was formed as a result of his sale of Carnegie Steel to J. P. Morgan and investors). He was simply a supreme capitalist and the first of his type and scale.
   
   He is condemned by others for taking advantage of political and business connections not available to others. Again, that was common practice in the era. Many things that he did, while legislated against now, were perfectly legal and accepted business practices of the times.
   
   All that having been said, I get the impression, especially in the later parts of the book, that Carnegie could be an insufferable prig. I imagine it becomes easy to view ones self as omnipotent and all wise, when everything one touches turns to gold and one is constantly praised for his good works. However, it is telling that he constantly bragged of being successful while only working 2-3 hours/day, lecturing his many employees to enjoy leisure time, while at the same time instituting a 12 hour/7 day a week work schedule. It seems almost unbelievable that he was unaware of the hypocrisy of some of actions, but after reading the book, I actually believe that he was. By letting his managers do the dirty work of making his money, he was able to "keep his hands clean" and disavow any unpleasantness that might result.
   
   Though hopelessly naive, it is difficult to condemn a man who literally pioneered the concept of philanthropy and spent his last decade in a never flagging crusade for world peace. He tirelessly advocated the formation of a League of Nations/United Nations style world arbitration body, with military enforcement powers, well before any of his contemporaries. While he would doubtless be overjoyed to learn of the existence of the current United Nations, he would nonetheless be less than pleased with its corruption and lack of effective authority.
   
   All in all, a rather good treatment, not just of Carnegie, but of the period itself and many of the historical figures of the era. At times, the book dragged and became tiresome, but not exceedingly so. I would highly recommend the book for anyone interested not just in Andrew Carnegie but in late 19th century American and British history.



4. David Nasaw succeeded in creating a complete record of the life of Andrew Carnegie. As the reader, you come to know that Carnegie was born to a family of poor weavers in Scotland before moving to the United States, beginning work at a young age and eventually becoming unfathomably wealthy as an investor and entrepreneur in the steel business.
   
   All of the details are there in this book, and in that way, you know the facts of Carnegie's life, but at the same time, you really never get the feeling you know Carnegie. I don't know if that is Nasaw's fault, or if Carnegie is just not a man who allows a biographer to know him very well. Either way, the book feels empty in a way that the best biographies feel full.
   
   You catch glimpses of Carnegie's true personality; he obviously liked to see himself as the wise elder statesman, handing out advice to protoges, even when those protoges were successful 50 year old business men, or even presidents. He seems to wear out his welcome, and relationship with a lot of these people because he only sees the knowledge and advice flowing one way. Carnegie comes across as a man too removed from the realities of life to understand (or maybe care) how he was truly perceived.
   
   Other than that, you never get a real feel for how Carnegie became wealthy, whether he possessed a unique talent or ability which allowed him to become the richest man in the world, or how he fit in to the world in which he lived. I recently finished "Mellon," by David Cannadine, which tackles a similarly tough subject, but I finished that book feeling like I had much more insight into the man than I did in this case.
   
   Recommended for fans of history or biography, but still missing a critical spark required of a five-star biography.



5. Insight into a fascinating and complex person living in a fascinating complex time. A man who was unique and had incredible influence on his surroundings, yet in many ways was typical of his era

1 comments about Around the World with LBJ: My Wild Ride as Air Force One Pilot, White House Aide, and Personal Confidant.

1. There are those who disliked LBJ. They probably would have felt differently if they had known the personal man. This book gives highly personal insights into a man often called "bigger than life." And, reading this well written and well-researched book (the author lived it), many would change those negative views.
   
   The writing is interesting, well done, and highly engaging. The author, retired Air Force General, Air Force One Plane Commander, and Presidential Military Aide James Cross said he wanted to show the unknown and deep humanity of President Johnson. He succeeds without pandering, but rather just by stating plain-spoken truths from an impressive man himself, General Cross.
   
   General Cross started as an Alabama country boy and became a close confidante of the President of the United States. He was not political; he was a highly respected and respectable officer in the U. S. Air Force who did his job and did it well. General Cross is the unsung hero here. The incidental glimpses we get of him in this book - definitely not given to build himself up - show a very decent man serving his president and his country well and with good, old-fashioned patriotism and honor.
   
   I would personally estimate that almost anyone who reads this book will enjoy it, be impressed by it, and come away from it with a much more positive image of President Johnson...plus meeting a genuinely nice guy who our country is fortunate to have had that close to the top: General James U. Cross
   Review by:
   Dick Stanford
   The Azusa Gazette
   Book Reviews
   May 2008

2 comments about Democracy's Prisoner: Eugene V. Debs, the Great War, and the Right to Dissent.

1. This is a superb book about an extraordinary figure--labor organizer, Socialist Party leader, and five-time presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs--during an intensely controversial period of his life. At age 63 and in poor health, Debs was convicted under the new and deeply flawed Espionage Act for criticizing the U.S. entry into World War I. University of Tennessee historian Ernest Freeberg shows how a fascinating cross-section of Americans pushed for or resisted amnesty for the charismatic radical. The historical parallels with the present are uncanny, and the differences are instructive, too. If you like American history or just well crafted general nonfiction, give this one a look.



2. This book is a somewhat detailed look at the conviction in 1918 of Eugene Debs, labor leader and socialist, on trumped-up sedition charges under the Espionage Act of 1917, his subsequent incarceration, the three-year effort to free him, and the commutation of his sentence on Christmas Day, 1921. More broadly, the overall climate for and general reactions from various quarters to political dissent both during WWI and in subsequent years is covered. Though not emphasized by the author, this entire scenario was played out while the US was supposedly making the world safe for democracy.
   
   The book is not a treatise on the history of the First Amendment, but it is clear that rights under that amendment had not been well articulated by the time of WWI. The US government helped to create a climate, with the creation of the Committee on Public Information in 1917, just after declaring war on Germany, where any perceived disloyalty to the American cause would not be tolerated. The Postmaster General did not allow so-called radical publications to be mailed. The nation's press did its part by casting those speaking against the war as traitors. Convictions of disloyalty were obtained usually only on a vague sense that a speaker might be disloyal. Such was the case with Debs; the climate of hysteria was such that his anti-capitalism and anti-war beliefs were viewed as having the potential to incite others to refuse military service, though not one example could be pointed to.
   
   Many, at the time, felt, with WWI ending on Nov 11, 1918, that convicted dissenters, such as Debs, would be granted amnesty. The author repeatedly looks at the rationalizations of Pres. Woodrow Wilson and Attorney General Mitchell Palmer in their refusals to do so. The Supreme Court demonstrated a most limited view of the First Amendment by upholding Debs' conviction in March, 1919, allowing his imprisonment. The unconscionable roundup of 6000 so-called radicals in Jan, 1920, by Palmer may have been the low point of the assault on the political rights of Americans. Virtually all were released - falsely accused in a temper branded as the "Red Scare." The rise of vigilante groups after the war, including the formation of the American Legion, and their repeated physical assaults of socialists, communists, amnesty advocates, etc are also described.
   
   There is a certain amount of busyness and repetitiveness about the book as any number of relevant developments outside of the trial are covered, such as the breakup of the Socialist Party into pro- and anti-war factions, including Bolshevik versus reformist wings, and numerous marches, petitions, meetings, letter writing campaigns, etc, and the efforts of numerous individuals to free Debs and to grant general amnesty for all political prisoners jailed for their opposition to the war. The work of anarchist Lucy Robins in orchestrating support for Debs from ordinary persons to AFL head Samuel Gompers to high-ranking gov officials was quite remarkable.
   
   While the book is not intended to be a biography, much is learned about Debs' character, beliefs, associations, and his standing among working- and middle-class supporters. By the time Debs was freed from prison, the socialists and the radical labor movement had been irrevocably broken. Yet, ironically, the American public had come to accept a broader interpretation of free speech. It was the Harding administration that granted amnesty to all political prisoners and rescinded all restrictions on the mailing of radical publications. This was also the time that the ACLU was established.
   
   It seems like the free speech/dissent lesson has to be relearned again and again in this nation: witness the McCarthy hearings in the early 1950s, which was another Red Scare. Nonetheless, it is clear that the suffering that Debs and other dissenters/radicals endured during the aftermath of WWI did help in furthering the cause of free speech.

5 comments about You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train: A Personal History of Our Times.

1. This book was excellent. Zinn has shown a side of history that you wouldn't get from a basic educational history class. Teachers and professors always mention a strike here, a demonstration there, and x amount of people died as a cause of this event. In his autobiography, Zinn stops and explains the history that is skipped over and dodged in the classroom. I live in Ohio (which is dominantly a conservative, republican state) and have had too much exposure to the conservative opinion. He does an excellent job of showing a liberal, more sensitive side to things.
   I had always wondered why liberal thinkers do what they do and Howard Zinn has taught me the reasoning behind their actions. He passes his beliefs of peace and love for all people in this book.



2. When I started reading this book, I wasn't all that excited because it was for a class.
   But, by the time I finished, I wanted to hold a protest of my own. Or at least do something to make this country better.
   A true hero in my eyes, anyone who believes in equal rights and doing what you have to to make things happen should read this book!!!
   I highly recommend it to everyone!!!



3. This man leads a storied life and we are all better off that he documented it in his book. It is astonishing what we aren't reminded of from the past, even the recent past. Zinn definitely makes the most of his time on this planet and his life is an example to live by.
   
   It is still shocking that within the last 50 years, our country was a much different place, specifically the deep south where Zinn began his teaching career. I wish I would have had to read this book in school.



4. If you're thinking about reading this book, you've probably read Zinn before, probably A People's History of the United States. If you haven't read Zinn before, hold off on this book and go read A People's History. This book isn't as much history as it is personal experience mixed in with history. Zinn combines his personal experience in the civil rights and (to some degree) black power movements with life lessons he learned from those experiences. After reading this book, I fell in love with Zinn's writing all over again. I feel like I better understand the man behind the books, and now I will go back and read A People's History and Declarations of Independence again. If you like Zinn, you can't miss the book.



5. A viewing of the film "You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train" sent me back to Zinn's memoir of the same title, which I first read back in the mid-90s. Elegantly written, insightful, and both inspiring and just plain fun to read, Zinn's autobiographical essays (for the book is really more that than a traditional chronological memoir) are a joy to read.
   
   The book is divided into three sections: Zinn's work in the Civil Rights movement during his years at Atlanta's Spelman College--a job he eventually lost, despite tenure, because he was just too "radical" for the then-president; his peace-making work during the Vietnam years, including the historic journey with Dan Berrigan to North Vietnam; and a miscellaneous collection of essays ranging from his jail experiences to his long battle with Boston University president Joe Silber. Also in this section is a touching memoir of Zinn's blue-collar childhood.
   
   I found the first section the most moving, as well as the most revealing. The legal discrimination that Zinn chronicles is almost unbelievable today. Just one example: Dr. Otis Smith (who only recently died, by the way) was sentenced to 8 months hard labor because he dared to tell a white woman not to interrupt a phone conversation he was having with a patient. Incredible!
   
   Zinn's personal recollections are fascinating. What makes his book valuable is that it's really, as its subtitle says, a personal history of one of the most turbulent and important periods in American history--a time in which, as Zinn often says, the voices frequently ignored by mainstream historians insisted on being heard.
   ______________
   * "To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness." (p. 208)

5 comments about Washington: The Indispensable Man.

1. George Washington is known, of course, as the "father of our country"; that's not completely true, but what is true is that without Washington we might still be flying the Union Jack; he was "The Indespensable Man". He was a reticent, self-controlled, man who never let others get too close; this makes a biographer's task difficult, but it hasn't kept a LOT of people from trying. Washington may well have more published biographies than any man who ever lived; thus, we look hard at each new one, as if daring the author to justify his choice of subject. The volume here is James Thomas Flexner's abridgment of his own multi-volume work, and a wonderful offering it is.
   
   Part of the problem in a study of Washington is the immense wealth of available material; Washington was famous from his mid teens on, building a great military reputation at an age when Jefferson was still in school, and Patrick Henry was tending bar. The great Douglas Southall Freeman who wrote the definitive multi-volume biographies of both Washington and Lee commented on the differing problems; Washington was famous early; Robert E. Lee didn't "hit the big time" till he was 55, so a biographer has to hunt for the early material [again, this hasn't stopped a lot of folks from trying].
   
   Flexner has chosen to focus on the centrality of George Washington to the process of our becoming a nation...Washington was viewed as superior by his own contemporaries; their deference to him was as natural as breathing. Adams and Jefferson were better educated, many were better writers or public speakers [yes, yes, I know; Jefferson was a real thorn in his side...but that was later, and he still showed respect]. BUT, Washington had the limitless strength of character, the absolute refusal to quit no matter how bad things got [in 1776, they were pretty bad], without which we could not have won our freedom. It remained for Jefferson to think up, and write down, the ideas that make us work, but first, the battles had to be won......
   
   There are lies told about Washington, some important, some not...he never chopped down a cherry tree...he did not have wooden teeth [he had around nine sets over the years, mostly ivory, or animal teeth, spring hinged, set in a lead base...I've seen one set...hideous]...he was not without passion, he just controlled it well. Washington was not without faults; he was over ambitious, but always for the public good...he married Martha for her money...he was a lousy son to his Mother, but then Mary was a lousy mother, a real "Mommie Dearest"; still, George got his strength of character, and his horse riding ability, from her. The only real public blot I can find comes from the Presidential years....his lack of faith in Edmund Randolph.
   
   George Washington is tough for us to get a good handle on; alas, that was true for his contemporaries, too. The reasons that he is difficult to "figure out" are very different than those that Jefferson is, but still real. Everybody needs to read one good bio of Washington; this is a pretty good choice, easily readable, and readily available. Other good choices are Joseph Ellis' "His Excellency", Willard Sterne Randall, and Richard Harwell's one volume abridgment of Freeman's magnum opus [the full seven volumes are impossible to find at a decent price]. There are one volume versons of sets by Washington Irving and John Marshall, the latter abridgment done by Marshall himself. These are pretty much for people like me, and are only available thru specialized venues like Mount Vernon, or The John Marshall House. [both authors met Washington, though Irving was only seven; neither mentions Sally Fairfax...] If you want to read them all, go for it; if you only want one, try this.....



2. This just isn't sufficiently accurate nor well-written given its hype and other ratings here. One example is at page 13, where Flexner describes young Washington's trip to a French fort at the confluence of French Creek with the Monongahela ("now Franklin, Pennsylvania"). The problem is that French Creek flows into the Allegheny, not the Monongahela.
   Another problem occurs when he describes (p. 24) how Washington accompanied General Braddock at the disastrous defeat at Turtle Creek in July 1755. Of course, Washington was 23 in July 1755, having been born in February 22 (Feb 11 by the old calendar), 1732. In the next chapter, he describes how after Braddock's defeat the British Army left Virginia defenseless, so the Virginia Assembly created its own army, and Washington "now twenty-two" was elected colonel (page 28).
   In an early battle of the Revolutionary War he describes how Washington held a strong position at White Plains, NY, but was outflanked and decided to move to higher hills near New Castle. Although New Castle, NY and North Castle, NY are close geographically, the hills in question are in North Castle.
   The book is also written in an annoying manner, using words (not quoted) like "unwisdom" and "plaguey." The writing seems at the level of a sophomore term paper. There have to be better one-volume biographies.



3. As a student for some reason I have never been able to focus on the founding fathers. I have read an assortment of biographies of Revolutionary-era politicians and military leaders and always emerge with only the faintest understanding of who these men were and what the different issues were being debated in the 1780's and 1790's. This book is the first one I've read from this period that really held my attention. Too bad I didn't have it on hand when I took my first class in American history but perhaps it might come in handy somewhere down the educational road.



4. This book is a "distillation" of the author's award winning four-volume biography of Washington. "The extreme reduction of scale - to about one fifth - dictated that, if the shorter work were to have its own integrity and literary effect, the material would have to be revisualized and rewritten. Except for the account of Washington's death, the text is almost altogether new." (viii)
   
   The literary style is excellent. The narrative, however, stays so close to Washington that the historical context of his life is often only hinted at, and at times left out entirely. The chapters are, in almost every case, less than ten pages long. The book reads, with exceptions, like a series of extended, well polished essays written from selected notes compiled for a longer work - which I suppose is exactly what it is.



5. This is an excellent book. It is well written and very informative. Not having read all of the single volume biographies of Washington, I cannot testify to its being the very best, but surly it must be one of the best. The book is Flexner's single volume abridgement of his four-volume biography. Being only one quarter the size of the complete work it cannot be as detailed, but it nonetheless provides a very coherent and compelling portrait. Perhaps the best accolade that I can give is that I now I want to know more and I am considering reading the complete Flexner series. As might be expected from the subtitle "The Indispensable Man" the book paints the most favorable picture possible and shows why Washington was indeed the "Indispensable Man". He was indispensable not only as the leader of the army but also as America's first president. His firm hand set many of the precedents that shaped the office of president.
   
   While Washington is shown in the most favorable light the same cannot be said of Jefferson and Hamilton. Both (but mostly Jefferson) are shown to be more loyal to their party (the Federalists in the case of Hamilton and the Republicans in the case of Jefferson) than to Washington. Confidences were betrayed, especially by Jefferson. If there was a villain in this story it was Jefferson, who is painted as one who was willing to bring on war with Britain in order to support France and to further his vision of an agrarian America.
   
   One word of caution - this book is not a military history of the American Revolution, or of the detailed causes of the revolution, the writing of the constitution or the complete history of Washington's presidency. All of these things are covered, but not in the detail provided in books devoted specifically to these subjects.

5 comments about Profiles In Courage For Our Time.

1. On page 3 C Kennedy defines "courage" as "sacrificing their own future, and that of their families, to do what they believed was right for our country". I think it is hypocrisy to apply it to Edmund G Ross (supported a President against Congress), or Gerald R Ford (covered up a President who was virtually impeached). Both can be said to have obstructed justice and the lawful popular will. So why was James Florio added to this list? Neither Florio or Ford have suffered from their actions; losing an election isn't a sacrifice, its part of political life.

   When Florio ran for Governor in 1989 he promised not to raise the sales and income taxes. He not only reneged, he extended the sales tax to items previously exempt! The authors take a perverse pride in these actions, but cannot (or dare not) explain why. It is regressive and reactionary to have a sales tax so much higher than the income tax.

   Florio was a Congressman from Camden NJ, a once important industrial city that is now a stripped junker of a city. Page 72 shows another dishonest statement about NJ. The Colony of NJ was controlled by the large landowners, then the railroads and other powerful corporations. What Governor has NOT been a servant of the Corporations since the Civil War?

   A Quindlen uses an anecdote (p.72) to justify Florio's law, but never mentions the special interest forces and the money used to pay for this law. She does admit the most objectionable feature was the confiscation of legally owned guns. The Federal Constitution forbids ex post facto laws! The rejection by the courts underlines the lack of democracy in NJ. Judges were never popularly elected since NJ was a Colony. The loss of the Senate and Assembly in 1991 seemed mainly due to the sales and income tax increases. This was the correct political response.

   A Quindlen does an incompetent job in writing of the history of gun prohibition (p.76-77). Those "opinion polls" merely reflect the wishes of those who paid for the desired results. The referendums held in Massachusetts and California overwhelmingly rejected gun prohibition. Since 1987 thirty-three states passed "right to carry" laws. Page 78 lists the latest tactic of gun prohibitionists: present it as a police safety measure. They use politically appointed police chiefs; some do it for the money.

   On page 80 Quindlen finally tells of the Florio taxes His "skill at taking his case to the people" (p.81) failed miserably once Florio had to talk about a subject most people were familiar with. his defeat by a rich dilettante shows the efficiency of political machines in running a scandal-free candidate (just like Woodrow Wilson). The loss of "grass roots" by "Hands Across NJ" shows what happens to a politically naive movement that lacks a competent cadre of leaders.

   Florio's "sour grapes" comments on "the influence of money in the process" recalls similar whines from Bill Bradley, whose Senate law started to tax Social Security. The failure of Whitman to act on campaign promises is not new (p.86); she was the latest puppet of the Republican machine.




2. This book is a compilation of short biographies of the winners of the Profile in Courage Award. It is a group effort, being the work of numerous historians and writers. I found these stories inspiring because many of them illuminate political leaders who took actions they knew would be detrimental to their careers. Yes, most of the award winners have been on the liberal side, but personally I find that a healthy antidote to the sort of "leadership" the mainstream media prefers to applaud these days. And don't forget good old Gerald Ford, whose biography (by Bob Woodward, no less) eloquently makes his case for his pardoning of Richard Nixon. Many readers will disagree with some of the choices for the awards and with some of the conclusions of the authors of these biographies. Nevertheless Profiles in Courage For Our Time is an inspiring effort meant to remind us of the highest qualities we should expect from our leadership.



3. The "profiles" in this update to JFK's classic, are varied in both their subjects and their presentation. These accounts are not uniform in quality. Most stirring are those with a personal flavor such as Bob Woodward's profile of Gerald Ford, wherein we see a hidden profile of Woodward as well. However, others seem either too detached or tediously narrative, such as Michael Daly's "The Irish Peacemakers" which outlines the alphabet soup of the political/religious strife in Ireland, but does little to connect the overall themes of courage to anything outside the situation.
   
   It is a good read, but not all the selections hold interest. I'd recommend particular excerpts for good classroom reading. I also commend the acknowledgement of politicians, leaders, and activists on both local and global levels.



4. During our time one lonley man steped up to the plate to take on polotics and america as we know it. If you are intrested into polotics or Amercian history this book has it all and maby if you read it you might become class President just like I did.



5. President John F. Kennedy:
   
   John F. Kennedy said "US will never start a war. We do not want war. We do not expect war. This generation of Americans has had enough - more than enough - of hate and expression".
   
   JFK profile of courage was a suggestion of massive reform: 1. Major tax reform starting with the cutting of taxes which benefited low-income households 2. The revision of the capital gains laws would free capital investment and encourage economic growth. 3. The removal of tax privileges that favored mineral companies, such as, oil 4. A migration from a floating currency back too the gold standard, as means to control inflation and deflation and the printing of debt free money. 5. The dismantling of the Federal Reserve 6. Tighter budgets policies to be implemented that significantly reducing military spending. 7. Accepting the conclusion, South Vietnam war was their war and affective immediately the withdrawal of US troops from the region.
   
   JFK wrote in his book, "In whatever arena of life one may meet the challenge of courage, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he follows his conscience-the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow men-each man must decide for himself the course he will follow. The stories of past courage can define that ingredient-they can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration. But they cannot supply courage itself. For this, each man must look into his soul."
   
   Carl Elliott:
   
   Congressman Carl Elliott from Alabama fought for equal opportunity in education and was redistricted out of his congressional seat in retaliation for his principled stand.
   
   "Elliott fought for equal opportunity in education and was redistricted out of his congressional seat in retaliation for his principled stand.
   
   What Elliot cared about was "seeing that folks got what they deserved, good or bad; seeing that the less fortunate weren't denied at least the same opportunity to get an education, earn a decent income, have a home and raise a family as people who happened to be in better circumstances."
   
   Elliott believe the Congressman should not just look out for himself and profit from monies from special interest groups, but that the Congressman should "mind the store" and hear what the American people's problem were.
   
   In 1958 Elliot and Senator Lister Hill were key champions of the $900 million National Defense Education Act, known as the Hill-Elliott Act. 40,000 grant-in-aid college scholarships were proposed with the aim of producing scientist, engineers, mathematicians, and linguist.
   
   Elliot realized that if he took the wrong stand on race, he would be out of office. "White Southerners in Congress were under ferocious pressure to take their stand with the segregationist of Dixie." Elliot did not side with the segregationist telling one reporter, "Anybody who had a grain of sense knew that blacks had to be given their rights. The question was, how were we going to do it. Then the question locally was, what can we do and still live with our own particular situation?" Elliot helped sponsored and get ratified the aid-to-education bill and received strong opposition from racist Alabaman groups. Elliot disliked when Freedom riders and other civil right workers were attacked in Birmingham and Montgomery and felt repelled by the violence. By 1963, Elliot and new governor George Wallace were at different sides of the fence; Wallace publicly calling for segregation now and Elliot saying, "George, don't piss on my leg". Later Wallace would stand defiantly in the door of the University of Alabama in "a vain effort to forestall the Kennedy's administration plan to enforce the law ensuring integration". Elliot public spoke against JFKs assumption that the civil rights laws would calm racial turbulence believing the civil right laws were "too much to soon, and hoped the Wallace madness would pass away, having faith less confrontational steps toward integration could then be taken". In 1964, the civil right law was passed under the Johnson administration. Elliot believed the law was the law and it should be obeyed. In 1965, after "bloody Sunday" in Selma, state troopers and a civilian posse lead by Sheriff Jim Clark attacked civil rights demonstrators and Lyndon Johnson sent a bill to congress that ensured that black Americans could vote.
   
   Elliot decided to run for governor. Elliot's enemies, including the Ku Klux Klan scrawled, "never, never, never". Martin Luther came out for Flowers hurting Elliots chances for governor recalls Elliot, "I didn't stand a ghost chance after that day." Elliot found himself a half million dollars in debt. Elliot's political career came to an end, "I had pretty much become a political ... untouchable and I know that had to hard for my children to see, no matter how much they believed in me and the things I stood for."