1 comments about A White House Diary.

1. Bought this book for my in law since he loves to read. He mentioned for me to give it a whirl so I did. Great details from a woman whose life itself was under a microscope.

5 comments about Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man's Friend.

1. This is an excellent work on the in-depth Christian character of Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson. Mr. Williams has obviously spent countless hours gleaning the information contained in this volume. His interviews with several direct links to the Lexington Colored Sabbath School add just the right touch to tie all the information together.
   I highly recommend this book to anyone seeking information on the true character of T.J. (Stonewall) Jackson.



2. I find this book extremely interesting. The other side of General T. Jackson and the work he accomplished within the Confederacy. A must for the students of Stonewall Jackson.



3. This is an excellent book about a side that most people do not know about Stonewall Jackson. Not only was he a great general, but he was also a great man and christian. I found this book easy to read and really enjoyed it.



4. REJOICE IN THAT DAY WHEN THEY CAST OUT YOUR NAME AS EVIL
   
   REJOICE
   
   This book has had my name on it and I had a hard time finding it. The book is dear to my heart in that I do not think the whole truth has been told about the South and the Civil War. Somehow I may be related to Stonewall Jackson. Most of my ancestors were protestants from Northern Ireland as were Jackson's.
   
   This is the book to read to reveal a gentler glimpse of slavery in the Old South. Stonewall Jackson broke a Virginia law by teaching his slaves to read and teaching many others about Christianity. Mr. Williams presents this untold story of the famed Confederate General as Stonewall's most enduring legacy. Many descendants of Jackson's black Sunday School class completed divinity studies and have pastored untold hundreds of others in the way of the cross. The blacks of Lexington, Virginia loved Stonewall Jackson and that love was passed down for generations to people like Richard Williams.
   
   The book is a true gem, not to be missed for a completed view of slavery in the Old South. Thank you so much, Mr. Williams.
   
   This side of the Civil War story has not been told. Little do you know the real reason why Thomas Jackson left the U.S. military. His commanding officer was using his influence, as we would say today, to obtain sexual favors from a little slave girl. Such were some who liberated the slaves and their descendants are here with us today. The abolitionist movement was christian supposedly too, yet what a huge mess they made in my neck of the woods. O.K. Being a christian man of honor, (would that there were more these days), he quietly left the service, though his immediate family knew the real reasons. Most people see white southerners as hypocrites. We live in the bible belt, but we're not really christians in that many of us had slaves at one time. I could go on and on about this subject. Careful who you listen to, careful who you ally yourselves to; 99.99999999999999999999999% of self-professed christians ARE NOT.
   
   IF the truth be told.



5. This book is very informative and very accurate. It is told from the viewpoint of the Black People. I would recommend it to everyone who is interested in the truth about the history of the Civil War and Stonewall's compassion for the Black People.

2 comments about Ronald Reagan: A Life In Politics.

1. I am confused why they sell these books at the Reagan Library. Admittedly they are long, through, and have wonderful cover at. But the content is what disturbs me. Not the entire content, but just three things.
   
   The first snag is that Cannon does not like Reagan. He clearly admits this in-in his footnotes:
   
   "It was the only time Reagan ever complimented me on anything I write." (Governor, 311n)
   
   This quote sums up the books main negative bias. This book is a history of Reagan as filtered through Cannon's philosophical grid. This makes for a tedious read. He takes Reagan on Lou Cannon's terms. Maybe that is why Cannon had a weekly column that included "Reaganisms," (President, 102n).
   
   Cannon is, however, fascinated by him. He freely admits this in the 1991 preface to President Reagan. This provides a positive bias, which saves the book from being a multi-volume hit piece.
   
   The second snag, is the books are almost all context. It is always "Reagan And": Reagan and Unruh, Reagan and Meese, Reagan and Reagan, and Reagan and Nancy. But we never see Reagan as an individual.
   
   The Gipper's tag-line is the Great Communicator, but Cannon rarely quotes him. This sucks the life out of the Regan magic. Read Michael Reagan's quote book on his father and then read this book. It is like seeing two different men. One is a lively and deep thinker; the other is a vague buffoon. But will the real Ronald Regan please stand up?
   
   Reagan also had a gift for humor. Peggy Noonan observed that Reagan had "an encyclopedic memory for jokes." (When Character Was King, 228). However, Cannon, in his chapter on Reagan's humor, talks about his humor in the abstract and recounts his juicier ethnic jokes (President, 101-102).
   
   The last snag is in the area of analogy. The second book is subtitled "The role of a Lifetime." His rhetorical device is to cast Reagan merely as an actor who gets the chance to play a president. This is a combination of "I'm not a president, but I play one on TV" and the plot to the film "Dave."
   
   Hover, this rhetorical device affects his logic. David Hackett Fischer calls this "the fallacy of insidious analogy" ("Historians' Fallacies," 244ff). The problem is that Cannon's analogy takes over his writing. It also become contradictory at times.
   
   For example, Chapter six of the presidential book discuses what Canon calls "the script." What he means by the script is the core philosophical ideas that Reagan had that attracted the voters. Cannon freely admits, "But it was the script that was compelling, and it was Reagan who wrote it." (President, 66). Then in later chapters he speaks of Reagan taking direction and needing a director (President, Chapter 10, p. 25, 32, 116, ).
   
   Cannon may misunderstand the necessity of delegation. The role of the president is to be the leader. That is, he articulates the vision, and then empowers his staff and cabinet to implement the vision. That is why he said, ""Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority and don't interfere as long as the policy you've decided is carried out." (President, 150). Ill timed or not, it is not only sound advice, it is the only way to run a country. A micromanager could not last three second as president.
   
   To be sure, Reagan may not have done follow-up as well as he should have, but he did understand the genius of individual people. He was not just remaking country, but truing everyone into demi-gods by empowering them.
   
   I think I have said enough, but there is one comment that just grates me. In Chapter 9 of the president book, Canon describes the rise and fall of the M/X missile. During one Cabinet meeting, Regan showed up with a cartoon of Uncle Sam playing as hell-game with Brezhnev. This clinched the issue for Reagan. (President, 138). Cannon conclude the chapter saying that Reagan was a "president who skimped on preparation, avoided complexities and news conferences, and depended far too heavily on anecdotes, charts, graphics, and cartoons." (President, 140)
   
   Cannon forgets that Reagan had an intuitive sense of people, and was able to connect without the use of the Cabinet and Bureaucracy (President, 119). One obvious was he did that was by listening to them. Another way was attuning himself to the humor. Cannon forgets the power of humor and that George burns said, "Truth is the basis of all good comedy."(Governor, 107). That one political cartoon illustrated a truth that would do honor to Socrates or Kierkegaard. For Cannon, the medium was the message. End of story.
   
   The gubernatorial book is the better book. Cannon does not feel the need to cover as much as he does in the Presidential book (Some of the material is redundant). The Presidential one has long chapters that sometimes get muddled. Chapter 8 covers Reagan's humor and thought patterns, and Chapter 11 covers Regan's early life-kind of late in the book for that. Also, Hinckley isn't mentioned by name in the narrative about the assassination, which is covered in half a paragraph, and then resumed in the narrative about the melt-down of Alex Haige.
   
   What would have helped this book? First of all, Cannon needs to sort out what he really thinks about Reagan. He is fascinated and even at times charmed by Reagan. But it is a love-hate relationship. Cannon disagrees with Reagan politically and philosophically. It is almost like Canon is afraid of Regan and feels the need to cut him down a notch.
   
   Canon makes the comment that Reagan may have never read E. B. White (President, 97). I suggest the same for Cannon: Remember Strunk and White's first rule of Composition: Place Yourself in the background (Strunk and White, 70).
   
   Secondly, "Check your premises." Figure out why you have this attraction to reign, and name concretes. Both were Irish and had Alcoholic fathers (President, 174n), but there is something deeper.



2. I did read the whole book just so I could comment on it. The part about him being docile when visiting his parents home made me throw up. But I persevered and read the rest of it. I just don't understand why the President and Nancy let this book happen. If you hate Reagan and you hate Conservatives, then this book should make you very happy. I threw my copy away. No way was I going to give this to the library like I usually do.

5 comments about Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power.

1. Lou Cannon was a reporter for the San Jose Mercury-News and covered Reagan's eight years as governor in Sacramento. As a result, this book is based on many personal interviews with Reagan and his staff, detailed research, and several other published works on Reagan's early life.
   
   Cannon used an interesting approach in organizing the book with each chapter describing titled with one word that describes a "role" that Reagan played at that time in his life, such as Announcer, Actor, Conservative, Pragmatist, etc. He describes Reagan's youth and early career in the Midwest, narrates how he came to Hollywood, analyzes his films, and discusses his work with the Screen Actors Guild. He shows how Reagan's work with General Electric Theater was a key turning point for him to move into politicsl. In summary, he understands Reagan's character, motivation, and goals, which is no small feat, given Reagan's very private nature.
   
   Cannon is very fair in assessing Reagan, not taking political sides in the controversies of the day. He lays out Reagan's vision, as well as the pragmatic compromises that he was forced to make in the governorship. The book describes Reagan's six-year campaign for the his first presidential nomination in 1980 and ends with his electoral victory in 1980.
   
   The many stories and anecdotes told by Reagan make this book well worth reading, and Cannon's writing is highly interesting as well. Highly recommended.
   
   Be warned that Cannon's companion volume President Reagan: Role of a Lifetime is a much different and much lower-quality book. See my review of that book on its page.



2. This is a good start to anyone interested in how Ronald Reagan started his run for presidency. This runs through the governor years and ends with Reagan being elected to the presidency. The writing is decent but tends to drag in some places. Overall though if you are interested in Reagan or California history this is a great start to that history.



3. Lou Cannon is the dean of books on Ronald Reagan. Having followed Reagan's career from the very beginning, Cannon has the insight and first hand knowledge of California politics to make this book very good.



4. Cannon has made somewhat of a career out of covering Ronald Reagan in California and Washington, DC as he ascended from "citizen-politician" to Governor and then to President. This volume provides a brief biography of the citizen years, then covers the 8 years of Reagan's two terms in Sacramento (1967-1974).
   
   Written (and read) in hindsight, it is hard to separate the President to come from the governor who was, but Cannon does an excellent job of conveying the politics and progress of Reagan in his terms. Reagan had already started making the transition from acting to politics many years before, through his stints in leadership of the Screen Actor's Guild, his years working as a spokesman for General Electric, his years hosting the "General Electric Theatre" television program, and his time stumping for the Goldwater campaign in 1964.
   
   While Reagan gave a widely-praised and nationally-televised speech in support of Goldwater, the magnitude of the Goldwater defeat scarred Reagan with the same brush, and this "reactionary" label combined with his "citizen-politician" naivety contributed to the beginning of a pattern of underestimation by his political opponents. In fact, writes Cannon, Reagan was successful at being underestimated so often because he worked so hard at it as a political strategy (and one that stood him in good stead throughout his career).
   
   Reagan's terms as governor proved a valuable learning ground for Reagan, and honed his skills and exposed his weaknesses that would later be splashed large on the national stage. He learned quickly, but tended to latch on to insignificant or misplaced facts and statistics. He could learn and perform from a "script" quickly and adeptly, but could overreach when speaking off-the-cuff. He wanted to answer every question from reporters and opponents, but didn't always have the depth or breadth of knowledge to recognize when he was out of his element. He knew when to delegate, but sometimes over-delegated or failed to provide guidance or follow-up.
   
   Politically, he was of course conservative, but surprisingly willing to reach practical compromises. He was unswervingly optimistic and trusting (he relied on Nancy for more clear-eyed assessments of those around him). While he mangled the "trees are the worst polluters" idea and was branded an anti-environmentalist, his record as governor was surprisingly strong in practical environmental actions. While a fiscal conservative, he passed the largest (at the time) state tax in crease in California history. Considered an ideologue, he worked with Democrats in the California legislature (notably Jess Unruh and Bob Moretti) to pass difficult but necessary legislation on taxes, welfare reform, natural resources, and education. Moretti, an avowed enemy who remained at odds politically with Reagan, nevertheless said
   
   ' . . . he had a philosophy that he was willing to pursue, that he was willing to enunciate, that he was willing to attempt to push. And . . . he's a strong personality. . . . Leaders are people who are willing to take positions and stand up and fight for those positions. [Reagan] had an enduring desire to accomplish something, to leave something behind that really improved things.'
   
   Moretti's conclusion: Reagan "was a good governor ('better than Pat Brown, miles, and planets, and universes better than Jerry Brown'). (p. 366-367).
   
   In short, Ronald Reagan became a more than capable governor, and better, a leader with convictions and courage:
   
   "It was often said of Reagan, from his first campaign to his last, that he was an actor who knew how to deliver his lines. This was true, but Reagan also was an experienced politician with convictions and a plan of action that he believed would rescue a nation in need of leadership." (p. 503).
   
   Governor Reagan prepared President Reagan for a role of a lifetime.
   
   President Reagan The Role Of A Lifetime
   
   Note:
   
   I never read other reviews before I have written my own, and I was surprised to find that some reviewers down-rated this book because of Cannon's corrections to factual misstatements that Reagan made at different times in his career. Some reviewers felt this was unnecessarily biased against Reagan and damaging to the value of Cannon's book. I also noticed that many of the reviewers stated their political position, and that those who disliked Cannon's corrections of Reagan were typically conservative.
   
   I am politically conservative, voted for Reagan for President both times, was there on the Capital grounds that memorable Inauguration Day 1981 when the hostages were released, and believe that Ronald Reagan is the equal of either Roosevelt in the pantheon of great Presidents, just below the pinnacle of Lincoln and Washington. But that said, I do not believe that Cannon's corrections of Reagan detract from the book. Sure, all politicians stretch and bend statistics and "misremember" facts to suit their purposes, so one could defend Reagan against Cannon's finger-pointing by saying that "all politicians do it." But Cannon's calling out Reagan's biggest gaffes is fair in the hindsight of his Presidential terms because this was a consistent problem through Reagan's career for which he was justly criticized. Even a strong supporter like myself must admit it was Ronald Reagan's biggest weakness.
   
   Now, as I said at the top of my review, it is hard to separate the governor's actions (and faults) from the President's yet to come, and it would be unfair to criticize Governor Reagan for statements and situations to come later. But I don't feel that Cannon does this either explicitly or implicitly through any politically-driven motivation.
   
   After further review, the review stands as called.



5. Having not known Lou Cannon from a can of paint prior to reading this book, I had no idea that he was a left-leaning journalist. That became more clear as I read but I didn't think Cannon allowed his political leanings to impact his writing in the first of these two books. The second, I thought was a bit unfair at times, but the first was even handed.
   
   I really enjoyed the completeness of the first book. It covered Reagan's early life completely. I didn't know the details of his governorship, nor did I know about his involvement in the SAG and the republican party prior to 1976.
   
   Cannon appears to be the right guy to tell this story. He followed Reagan for many years and had a firsthand account of what went on. I would recommend the series first because it is complete and second because I think Cannon's analysis is pretty fair, especially in the first book.
   
   Reagan was a stud as a governor. I liked the way he handled the war protestors. I'm not as impressed with his environmental record but it appears that he tried to do the right thing - or at least what he thought was the right thing - most of the time and that counts for a lot in my book.

4 comments about To End All Wars: Woodrow Wilson and the Quest for a New World Order.

1. Professor Knock turned my head around on the foreign policies of Woodrow Wilson. This book takes the reader back into the 1890s, when Wilson was a professor of politics and history, in its quest to understand the evolution of his foreign policy thru American entry into the First World War. Nothing is sacred in this author's hands either. He devises a large-scale drama encompassing a spectrum of players--Jane Addams, William Howard Taft, Elihu Root, Eugene Debs, and more--as he dissects how and why Wilson failed to gain Senate ratification for the Treaty of Versailles. If it is a familiar story, Professor Knock's retelling of it is both original and compelling. I think this is the single most important book currently available on Wilsonian foreign policy.



2. To End All Wars attempts to show where President Wilson's ideas on the League of Nations came from and why he ultimatly failed. A fascinating protryal of early 20th century poltics, Knock successfully intergrates both the domestic policies of Wilson with his international policies. The links between the progressive, pacifist leagues and Wilson's views are clearly marked and appear credible. What is not examined is the moral conflict between Wilson's anti-war views and the fact he lead the country into World War I. Further research into this inconsitency could have led insight into why Wilson treated his former progrssive allies with such contempt as the war progressed. The ultimate result was his political inability to convince the American people to join the League of Nations after he alientated his greatest supporters.



3. When I was very young, I read somewhere that Wilson was the greatest swindler in human history. And Wilson has always been a mistery to me. Reading this book, I expected to learn the reason why Woodrow Wilson decided to lead America into World War I. But it was not a main theme of this book. And the explanation about it was not satisfactory to me. My misunderstanding about Wilson, however, is removed now thanks to this book.
   Thomas J. Knox decidedly focused on the League issue. He meticulously studied the process of the formation of League of Nations. And his analysis of American political spectrum of that era - especially progressive internationalism & conservative internationalism - was excellent. It was very helpful in studying American history.



4. This book is about Woodrow Wilson's quest for a new world order during and after WW I, especially his strong desire for the creation of a League of Nations which would mediate all future disputes between nations. The U.S. Senate, of course, voted it down. I found it interesting how the country (and Wilson) had strong socialist leanings, especially in international affairs, until War was declared in 1916, when a huge reaction took effect. Knock does a good job relating events and portraying Wilson as one whose ideas for truly ending warfare was convincing to world leaders but not his own country. The effort of trying to persuade his countrymen of the importance of a League probably broke his health and led to his death. Recommended.

3 comments about Abraham Lincoln: Man Behind the Myths, The.

1. We invented Abraham Lincoln. Not the man, of course, but the myth, that solemn and statuesque giant memorialized eternally overlooking the Capitol mall. The power of that myth and the quiet dignity of its personage dwarfs us all. But the myth is not the man. Myths never are. Stephen Oates in his _Abraham Lincoln, The Man Behind the Myths_, does not seek to diminish the man but rather to clarify him, separating the mythos from the mortal. And it is not an undaunting task, it seems, for overly soon after Lincoln's tragic end the mills began to churn. The public's shredding of the White House interior for mementos while Mary Lincoln lay debilitated in the next room seems symbolic of the wolfpack mentality in Washington even today. And every new memoir published by another family acquaintance of the Lincoln's almost always got it wrong, and tore anew at the heart of the family. We may not have memorialized and glorified our modern-day tragic heroes to such an extent, for we have simultaneously tried to scandalize them. But the tabloid trade it seems has always been a yellow paper. Even Lincoln was vilified in his time and after. He was, Oates, reminds us, one of the most unpopular living presidents of our history. But though the legacy ballooned to heroic proportions after his passing, the man seems to have been lost in it all, remaining only in the hearts of the family leaving quietly and unattended down the steps of the White House never to return.



2. As an amateur genealogist I discovered that I was a sixth cousin, five times removed to President Abraham Lincoln through the Lincoln and Holmes families. On page 21 ( Abraham Lincoln, The man Behind The Myths ) Mr. Oates wrote that there was a mistaken belief that Thomas Lincoln was not Abraham's real father rather it was a Senator John C. Calhoun or a Henry Clay. If this was true it would mean that I was not related to President Abraham Lincoln. How would such a rumour start ? Is there any documented evidence that Nancy Lincoln had an affair with one of these men while being married to Thomas Lincoln. At the time I am trying to locate Stephen B. Oates so I can get this matter cleared up. Sincerely, Mr. Blair E. Bartlett, 87 Shillington Road, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada, E2J 4K7 1-506-696-6175



3. In this small but valuable volume, Oates explores the reality beyond the two sources of Lincoln myth: the primary myth of a saintly and folkloric Lincoln of Carl Sandburg and a secondary myth of the 'white honky' Lincoln of the 1970's revisionists. Oates emphasizes that Lincoln drew deeply upon the "spirit of his age", which was a profoundly revolutionary time across the world. Oates relates how Lincoln absorbed one of the core lessons of America from the example of Henry Clay: : "in this country one can scarcely be so poor, but that, if he will, he can acquire sufficient education to get through the world respectably".
   
   That slavery was the cause of the Civil War is beyond all doubt. As Oates explains, however, the North did not go to war to free the slaves. In the standard phrasing, the North went to war to 'preserve the union'. Oates explores Lincoln's fears that the spread of slavery in the wake of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision would lead to the destruction of democratic society. The debate then still raged on the world stage whether a republican form of government could last. Lincoln rejected the "ingenious sophism" that states could freely leave the Union. "With rebellion thus sugar coated [southern leaders] have been drugging the public mind of their section for more than thirty years." Secession posed nothing less than a final challenge to popular government. If a minority could destroy the government any time it felt aggrieved, then no government could endure. Thus the war had to be fought to preserve not just the American Republic, but the possibility of republican government.
   
   Lincoln did in fact oppose slavery from early on. His views on racial matters apart from slavery became more fully progressive over time. Lincoln, however, hoped that slavery would slowly melt away in a losing competition with free labor and that liberated slaves would resettle in Africa. It is part of Lincoln's greatness that he later gave up these views. Oates explores this evolution in his thinking. Oates debunks the notion that the Emancipation Proclamation was unimportant in liberating the slaves. Oates also refutes the notion that Lincoln would have favored an easy hand during Reconstruction. On the contrary, the evidence strongly suggests he would have led the so-called Radical Republicans.
   
   Highly recommended for any reader with an interest in Lincoln, the Civil War era, or really pretty much any American.

No comments about Jefferson Davis and the Civil War Era.

5 comments about All the Best, George Bush: My Life in Letters and Other Writings.

1. First let me put my bias right up front. I love the Bush family. George the 1st is a decent, honest man....a man of privilege, but a man of honor. He wasn't my favorite president; and I wasn't sure I would like this book.
   
   This collection of letters is *marvelous*!...and a tribute to the WWII generation and generations before who were letter writers. I have a story in letters from and to my own father from the time he entered the Army in 1943 through his being wounded in France and meeting my mother in a hospital in Kansas just before the war ended in 1945. George H. W. Bush's book made me laugh and cry. It gave me a new admiration for the "man". If you love the WWII generation, read this book. If you don't know much about that generation you HAVE to read this book! You NEED to know about them. They epitimize America at it's best...



2. This is a collection of letters, memos, and diary entries by President George W. Bush that were written throughout his life. They include official documents, but also notes to his families and friends, as well as notes for his own use. Some of them are of national importance while others are humorous or personal.
   
   You will want to read this book if you are a student of the Presidents, especially if you are interested in the Bush 41 or the Bush family. However, it also offers information for students of other topics. For example, Bush was the Chairman of the RNC during Watergate and the material provided here is very interesting. I think the letter he wrote his children on July 23, 1974 is as fair and balanced an assessment of Nixon and Watergate as you are likely to find. Of course, Bush did not know Nixon was also lying to him and the entire Country at the time he wrote the note. When the smoking gun tape comes out everything changes, and Bush's comments to Haig and others are agonized, but to the point as is his final letter to Nixon the day before the President announced he would resign the presidency.
   
   The book also provides a chronology that will help you remember what Bush was doing at any given time. The chapters are organized around various posts Bush has held or key periods in his life. You will also want to dip into index to find certain people and events for review.
   
   He comes across as an honorable man with a deep sense of tradition with political ambitions, but within certain bounds.



3. But, still, don't waste your money. If you must read this, get it from the library and buy a book here from a real American like Al Franken.



4. George Bush (41st President, the father) wrote his autobiography while he was Vice President. After he left the Presidency, he decided to not write his memoirs (unlike other presidents) and let historians decide how his presidential years were. This is a big disappointment because it is always fun to read a Presidential Memoir when they come out, and also to learn about the different periods when they are a President. Fortunately, Bush was coaxed into collecting all his letters he had sent out to other people throughout his life and making it this book. I would say that the best part of the book is when you read the letters he sent out to various world leaders like Deng Xiaoping after the Tiannamen Square Massacre, and to Gorbachev after the Lithuania uprising. The period during the first Persian Gulf war is also interesting. You actually get to read the letters that Bush wrote, and this is quite a difference from other presidential memoirs where the author usually says in a line or two what he discussed with other world leaders.
   
   Also interesting are some of the letters he wrote to his children, including George W Bush. There is a letter from Bush the father to his children, written just before Desert Storm, where he talks about how sad and difficult it is for him to send US soldiers in harms way.
   
   The letters to Bush's mom where he talks about his fiancee Barbara is also interesting, but I was more interested in his presidential years. To me, the book became interesting after he started being appointed to various posts by different Presidents, e.g. Ambassidor to China by Nixon, CIA director by Ford, etc.
   
   However, as written by Kitty Kelly, Bush is a bit of a person who kisses up to people when the time is right. For example, while Bush was Chairman of the Republican Party, until a day before Nixon announces his resignation, Bush is in full support of him. Only then (and probably after he hears that Nixon is going to resign) does he send a letter to Nixon saying maybe it is time for him to resign.
   
   I think in future editions of this book, his letters to George W Bush during his son's presidency should be added, and also letters where he describes his feelings about Bill Clinton should be added too, since Clinton and he have become best pals.
   
   Overall an okay book. Would still prefer a typical Presidential Memoir though.



5. I bought this book to learn a little about the best looking United States President in history, at least according to me. The structure of the book is different, yet interesting. 630 pages in which you get to know this Congress Man, embassador, DCI, Vice President, President, and family man. One can learn how such an important public figure juggles politics and family life. Love him or hate him, this book is touching in every sense. He writes these letters from his heart, and a good portion of the book is a journal that he kept. He shows his point of view on everything that went on during his politician days, as well as his thoughts and feelings when he had to make any kind of decision during his presidency. All in all, the book is worth every single cent. Get to know this important figure like I did, and you won't regret it.

2 comments about Patrick Henry.

1. This book was written a long time ago yet is the best reference I've read so far. And the most open minded. It doesn't favor one founding father over another. It states the facts. This is a must for serious students of Patrick Henry.



2. I had not realized how much we owe Patrick Henry for the Bill of Rights. There is just enough in this book to encourage me to read further on the myth and reality of Patrick Henry, the fallout with George Washington, and just exactly what was the problem between James Madison and Patrick Henry. This is all briefly discussed in the book. Of course, the book was about Patrick Henry and could not possibly contain all this information. If you want to know just how important Patrick Henry was, and is, read this book. It will start you on a search separating myth from reality.

5 comments about The Color of Truth: McGeorge Bundy and William Bundy: Brothers in Arms.

1. I happened upon this book in a bookstore in New York. I'm not going to say it changed my life: it would take a lot for a biography to do that. But for what it is: a biography of two men who were raised to hold the reins of power, than did so in one of this countries most difficult periods, the book is balanced, insightful, and enlightening.

   I was a bit worried going into the book that Bird, a frequent contributer to the Nation, would perform an unbalanced hatchet-job on these two men-- who must of course be seen with their redeeming qualities. And he does. This is a well-researched, well-put together book. It is a must read for anyone interested in Vietnam, the Kennedy Administration, or foreign affairs in general.




2. THE COLOR OF TRUTH: MCGEORGE BUNDY AND WILLIAM BUNDY, BROTHERS IN ARMS: A BIOGRAPHY is essential reading for anyone trying to understand American foreign policy in the twentieth century. This book is well-researched and full of previously-undisclosed information. It also provides two portraits of what "establishment liberalism" was, how it developed, and its consequences. In the process, some of the most fascinating moments in American history are illuminated, most of the time unfavorably.

   From their respective military careers in WWII to their numerous positions in academia, government, and the non-profit sector, these two brothers were at the center of a huge web of personal and professional contacts in the American establishment. They were in many ways, the best, but also very flawed. This biography reveals those flaws, and the consequences of their failures.

   This book is very dense, especially during the sections dealing with the question of Vietnam, and an acquaintance with the brothers' own corpus of work is helpful and increases the potency of the book's analytical edge. It should be required reading for anyone interested in government policy, because it reveals how decisions are made, and how human beings think.




3. Like nothing else available, Kai Bird's THE COLOR OF TRUTH demystifies liberal pragmatic centrist (the Bundy brothers were EXTREMELY difficult to categorize/pin, politically) contributions to a disastrous post-WWII U.S. foreign policy drift that continues to this day. It does re-cover best/brightest territory, but in the nicest sense of recovery, with graceful focus on key players plus perspective & freedom-of-information access impossible for Halberstam. A case of perfect historian timing? Primary sources still alive/available but no longer needing/wishing to defend/protect/fib too heavily? Bird is a contributing editor for The Nation & dedicates the book, partly, to his parents, lifelong worried opponents of brutal wars in the Middle East, but has no axe to grind, is familiar with context by virtue of previous work on John J. McCloy, appropriately begins with Henry Stimson & Harvey Bundy, father of a couple of perhaps frighteningly blessed sons.

   William & McGeorge Bundy grew into decent bright academics who would indirectly destroy millions of humans, plus their own reputations, by doing exactly what bright decent academics get paid do, usually fairly harmlessly. In order to operate in the professional expert marketplace, one must learn to develop/defend theses. Neither of the brothers was a certified official Dr. Henry VIP (an easter egg the size of the Ritz is noted at the bottom of p. 407 of the hardcover) dignitary, but certain allowances can/will be made for the off-the-charts smartly impatient. These guys were good, even superb, at thesis concoction/defense. Also connected well past needing paper proof? Regardless, thesis defense can get out of hand, seriously, if/when thesis basis information turns out to be inaccurate/skewed or even flatly atrociously wrong. What can a responsible expert do? Admit erroneous basis? Revise thesis? Even, if one has accepted a government job, reverse policy? Perhaps. But this can feel mighty embarrassing, or swampy/waffling/kinetic, especially if U.S. troops have already died under prevailing false thesis conditions & elections impend? So, if one is an unusually gifted aristomandarin character, as both William &, probably even moreso, Mac were, all sorts of spinning options are open? After all, one is a professional? Execute the assignment? Indeed.

   It took many to generate bloody quagmire in Vietnam. The Bundy brothers were merely essential state-of-the-art instruments (filtering network managers, the postmodern equivalent of loyal trusted Machiavellian courtiers?) humbly serving two Democratic presidents who failed to get a sane/sage grip on something set in motion by congenial Ike. McGeorge Bundy departed in 1966, just as the unreconstructed Texan in LBJ began to explode. Bill left in 1969, before the incoming Nixon plus Dick's own academic favorite, vastly less decent than either Bundy, cranked Vietnam up/down into criminally pointless/cynical brutality, or peace with honor. Bill Bundy eventually wondered, in writing, about the final five years of the futile war he had contributed to failing to curtail.

   Bird's chapter on the JFK government adventurism regarding Cuba, which set a tone, is especially valuable, as is his fairly relentless harping on the bizarrely spooky nature/bias of the American electorate during the middle years of the cool quasi-war with the Evil Empire. The Bundy brothers were NOT very bad men, as gentle reader learns as Bird tells of McGeorge at the Ford Foundation or William writing up himself (plus later even more pragmatic others) for arrogant carelessness. But they WERE very bad wizards, which can/does happen when professional experts overestimate their [genius] rights/capabilities, still. Even now? Might be safer to inform/trust our own judgements, sometimes?




4. Without hesitation I've put this book on my short list of recommendations for anyone who wants to learn more about the Vietnam War. Not at the top simply because it assumes some prior knowledge about many of the players involved and the historical events described but it should be included, (I think), with books by Halberstam, Sheehan, etc. Why? The Bundy brothers were at the center of most if not all the policy and military decisions concerning Vietnam made during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations - McGeorge as Special Assistant to the President on National Security Affairs to both presidents and William working under McNamara, (Defense) and then Dean Rusk, (State). This book/author does an excellent job of putting these decisions in the context of the Bundy brothers' background, upbringing, education, intellect, loyalty and sense of duty, i.e. all the things a biography should do. Will the reader agree with all the decisions the Bundys made? ...Of course not. In fact one may disagree with every decision each or both of them did make but this book gives the reader an appreciation or at least an understanding as to how and why they came about. (As an aside, most of the questions/doubts concerning Vietnam policy made in hindsight, were raised contemporaneously by one or both of the Bundys -just another piece to this overly complex puzzle) Regarding the book's perspective/objectivity, I have no complaints and found the author admirably evenhanded - Although there are some anecdotes concerning peripheral individuals, (i.e. Henry Kissinger), which do not show them in the most positive light and may even raise a smirk from the reader. Finally although this review has centered on the Bundys and Vietnam this book chronicles much more, both before and after the Vietnam War - Henry Stimson, military service, the CIA, McCarthyism and the Cold War, Harvard and Yale, Cuba, the Ford Foundation - but in the interest of brevity I hope I've made my point.



5. According to this book everything President Kennedy did was sinister and hawk-like and everything the Bundy boys did was well intentioned and high-minded. It's so blatantly slanted it's disgusting.
   
   In addition, it doesn't even address major questions about the behavior of McGeorge Bundy. For example it mentions that the night before the Bay of Pigs invasion Bundy called Richard Bissell of the CIA and canceled the planned dawn airstrikes that JFK had authorized. JFK did not authorize the cancellation of the airstrikes; Bundy just did it on his own. WHY? Kai Bird never explains why, and never even expresses curiosity. This is a glaring omission in a book supposedly showing what made the Bundy boys tick.
   
   But as another reviewer noted, Kai Bird writes for The Nation, the faux "left"/establishment left publication. So that makes it clear why an author of theirs would try to paint the Bundys as "liberal" and JFK as a hawk, which is exactly backwards.
   
   I gave it a star because the book still has some interesting history and insights.