5 comments about A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House.

1. A Thousand Days could hardly be classified as history and basically is an emotionally charged admiration of the 35th President. However, it is one of the classics that helped proliferate the Camelot myth that, unfortunately, continues to persist to this day.



2. Simply put, this is one of the books that shattered Schlesinger's credibility as a legitimate historian once and for all. Once he was "Artie," the precocious high-flying historian/prodigy, amazing his peers & elders with his dazzling talents as an author & scholar. Now he is a superannuated peddler of Camelot nostalgia and a defender of a school of thought that has been so thoroughly discredited over the years that it truly is a wonder that anyone takes Schlesinger seriously anymore. Really, the only author/historian that is worse in this field is possibly Manchester.
   
   How can anyone regard this stuff as serious history? It is as though Schlesinger has sustained a sort of man-crush on JFK for all these years and cannot bring himself to be even remotely objective about a rather undistinguished administration. He really contributes nothing to this field of study, so save yourself the effort of reading this tripe.



3. Schlesinger starts out by stating in the forward, "This work is not a comprehensive history of the Kennedy Presidency. It is a personal memoir by one who served in the White House during the Kennedy years." In the first two sentences, Schlesinger tells his first two lies.
   
   There is no way that this can be considered a memoir, especially when on countless occasions Schlesinger himself admits that he was not involved nor really informed about issues. How can it be considered a memoir when he is basing his statements at times purely on documents? That is a "comprehensive history" and not a "personal memoir."
   
   Despite Schlesinger's failure in his initial task, he does tell the history of the administration in great, albeit bias, depth. It is tough to avoid repetition over 1031 pages, but Schlesinger does a good job avoiding informing me of the same thing in three different ways. As well, he interlocks the history from chapter to chapter and explains its interconnectedness to defend Kennedy. Schlesinger attempts to tie the domestic problems such as the U.S. Steel company raising its prices into foreign policy. It is doubtful that his foreign successes and failures would have been any different without the U.S. Steel controversy, except to Schlesinger.
   
   As Schlesinger admits, he overstates the importance of the advisors, especially himself. Regardless of what he did, he manages to mention himself in every chapter in a last ditch attempt to memoirize this history. Sometimes he did something, other times he just had a conversation with the president. On another occasion, to include himself in the chapter he writes about how he jumped in a swimming pool when Mrs. Ethel Kennedy fell in. For the first time and only time on that one page, it is a memoir.
   
   Despite the excessively pro-Kennedy attitude, Schlesinger does manage to vividly describe the administration. He takes us around the world from Southeast Asia with Vietnam and Laos to Africa with the dealing with Sekou Toure and other Moscow-leaning leaders to Europe and troubles pleasing De Gaulle and keeping control of the Americas despite Castro. The foreign policy of the administration is explored, if not fairly criticized, for most of the book. He is less in depth on domestic policy, however he devotes a good 150 pages to the Civil Rights Movement and the budget and congressional legislation. He also attempts quite successfully to argue the point that Kennedy failed to keep the people up to date on what was going on in the world. He even elevated Kennedy above his even more beloved Roosevelt by stating that FDR addressed the nation "no more than two (times) a year" before the war compared to Kennedy averaging three a year. Kennedy also frequently made speeches at colleges such as American and Yale.
   
   Almost as common as the Kennedy praising was the Eisenhower bashing. He over-generalizes the conservatism of the Eisenhower administration and he criticizes some things that Kennedy adopts and praises Kennedy for adopting, such as the large peacetime budget deficit. Conversely, he over-generalizes the liberalism of the Kennedy administration. The changes made were on a large-scale slight. The only major policy change was the change from defeating communism to containing it. And even that change was only a spoken change as proven by the Bay of Pigs and the continued hope for an overthrow of Castro.
   
   Overall, Schlesinger does a good job organizing the book logically. With two exceptions, everything follows with at least a logical flow. Only in the middle when he changes from foreign to domestic policy and a few chapters later when he goes back to foreign policy does the reader need to stop and readjust himself (well, also when he starts talking about the swimming pool incident).
   
   The history is accurate, even if it is bias, and it is an interesting, but long read. If you don't mind the bias or don't want to form your own opinion, it is worth the read. At least you are warned.



4. The value of A Thousand Days is self-apparent to anyone who has ever attempted to seriously examine the policies of the Kennedy administration.
   
   Arthur Schlesinger Jr., with an undeniably skilled pen and an exhaustive eye for detail, compiled one of the most thorough accounts of the Kennedy administration. I don't see how it could be that surprising, at this point in time, that participants in an administration generally tend to write books that view their president in a favorable light. Is anyone really that shocked?
   
   Did he take an interest in JFK's love life or other prurient topics? No. Did he seek to write a definitive evaluation of the president? No. Schlesinger is honest - he is writing by and large as a participant and an observer and the value of this account is that it captures the outlook and motivations of the administration. He left it to other authors to write more critical accounts - the value his book holds comes from the personal observations he makes throughout it.
   
   You don't have to like Kennedy to find this book valuable. Plenty of people critical of the Kennedy administration have studied this book carefully. Its value as a firsthand account of the administration is self-apparent. If it happens to challenge the Limbaugh right's view of JFK . . . well, oh well. The rest of us can approach this book with care and real interest, allow for natural instances of human bias, and still come away better informed for the effort.



5. Arthur M. Schlesinger wrote in 1965 a detailed account of the Kennedy presidency, 'A Thousand Days'. During this administration Arthur M. Schlesinger was special assistant to President Kennedy. It is quite an achievement. In more than thousand pages Schlesinger gives an inside view of the difficult decisions and complicated discussions within the administration. In his account he expresses his profound admiration for John F. Kennedy. It is this uncritical acclaim of the President that raises some doubts about the judgment of Schlesinger. On the other hand his historian broad view makes the book immensely readable. It is exhilarating to read about the way Kennedy reaches decisions in the Cuban Bay of Pigs incident. It illuminates the restrictions in presidential decision making. Kennedy was not at all amused by the military preparations and conspiracies with Cuban exiles. But he decided to go along because of the damage being afflicted by pulling back. So, I recommend this account of the famous Kennedy presidency, but keep a sceptical eye on the judgments of Schlesinger. Arthur M. Schlesinger died in 2007.
   
   Luuk Oost

5 comments about Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full.

1. I worked to help Richard Nixon get re-elected in 1972 because I thought he was a great president. I was a huge supporter of Nixon. Even up to the night he resigned, I thought he was getting railroaded. I was 23 at the time, but I'm a lot older now, and I see things more clearly, honestly, and objectively. That's one thing this book does not do--look at Nixon's life clearly, honestly, and objectively.
   
   I enjoyed the first half of the book, as I thought it was about time someone gave Richard Nixon a break and be truthful and fair to him. The writer seemed to be doing that, and although I was glad he was giving Nixon a lot of credit and understanding for the first half of his life, as the book continued I began questioning the author's use of personal comments and judgments as becoming less about history and more about punditry. By the time the book reached the frenetic beginnings of Nixon's second term, it had stopped being a historical narrative and became instead a very partisan editorial on Nixon's behalf. The author took on the role of a Nixon apologist. (One can understand why the conservative reviewers have praised it so much.) I am a student of Watergate; I've read dozens of books and articles, and watched countless interviews about it and its participants. I quickly came to realize that Black left out a lot of unflattering Nixon actions, glossed over others, minimized Nixon's criminal behavior, and routinely re-wrote historical facts. Black described those people who disagreed with and were willing to testify against Nixon, and those public servants who acted with honor and integrity, as "rats," "weasels," "turncoats," and "liars" over and over again. I can't imagine T.H. White, Edmund Morris, William Manchester, Dumas Malone, Stephen E. Ambrose, or David McCullough injecting such unprofessional personal indignities in one of their wonderful--and objective--biographies. As the book progressed, Black's writing style became more reminiscent of Kitty Kelly's gossipy tomes about Frank Sinatra and the Royal Family than of a professional historian writing what could have been the seminal book on Nixon.
   
   Black repeatedly stated some transgression of Nixon's only to point out that other presidents were worse in this particular violation of law or lapse of ethical behavior. Black sounds very much like a 21st century authoritarian when he routinely, even excessively stated "it's okay if Nixon did it because the other guys did it worse." Black regularly portrayed FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and even Nixon's mentor, Eisenhower as having less integrity than Nixon. It didn't work when Nixon tried to do that 35 years ago, and it didn't work in the book either.
   
   "Richard M. Nixon, a Life in Full" hardly qualifies as an objective or truly scholarly biography although it could have been. I could have overlooked the occasional glossing over of and bending of the truth as poor reporting, but Black was blatant in his omissions and measurably flawed in his translations of events. By the time the book came to an end, I realized that this was a Nixon I didn't know, and I know an lot about Richard Nixon--much of it good, and some of it not so good. I should have read about the author's credentials before I read the book instead of during the middle of the reading when I began to suspect that it was more than just a biography. Once I realized Conrad Black was connected to the Nixon Library, I understood that this book was just a re-writing of history: a deconstruction of the facts and an attempt to paint a different picture of an undoubtedly important but flawed life.)
   
   Black is a talented writer and a relatively thorough researcher. What he is not is a praiseworthy historian. I would not say don't read this book, but I would say be aware you are not getting an objective look at an interesting life and otherwise effective president. I did enjoy the book to some measure because it was exciting to relive that period in history, but I did get frustrated reading accounts of situations that I knew were just not true. I don't mean to sound crass, but reading this book is like reading a book about L. Ron Hubbard that was written by one of his followers, and then expecting it to be an objective look at Scientology. In spite of Black's efforts, "Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full" because of its overt lack of objectivity, will be soon relegated to the bottom shelf of dusty libraries rather than be viewed as an important addition to the Nixon canon of political thought.
   ---------------------
   LATE ADDITION: The following was taken from a conservative publication's Conrad Black bio page: "Conrad Black, an erstwhile media mogul, closely connected to rightist political factions in the United States, was convicted in July 2007 for defrauding shareholders of his Hollinger International newspaper empire out of millions of dollars. He was sentenced to 6.5 years in prison in December 2007 for his conviction on three counts of fraud and one count of obstruction of justice (Associated Press, December 10, 2007).
   ---------------------
   I guess that speaks to Mr. Black's objectivity better than I can. It's all the more reason to be suspicious of the content of the Nixon book. After all, with his conviction for obstruction of justice he has much in common with the Nixon White House.



2. The moment I finished reading this book, the image of the late USA President came to me when he left office and waved to the crowd his last Good-bye. Nixon looked hesitant and undecided like a man relieved of an overwhelming burden. His Good-bye expressions were made indicating how far he had worn out of his Office; his eyes refused to meet the camera.
   Perhaps what is quite revealing is that Nixon policies and behaviors were formulated to keep pace with `Détente `. There has been a wave of publicity unparalleled in contemporary American foreign policies relating to the appointment of Henry Kissinger in September 1973. Never before has a President and a Secretary of State had such interest by Newsmen and Biographers alike. Both names were associated with secret channels notably in Vietnam, Arab/Israeli conflict, and of course - Detente. I can safely say that Nixon, in particular, was less a friend of the media until Watergate blew its hurdles in the face of the world and the legend `'impeachment" was then born. What followed invoked a cauldron of aggressive and sympathetic editorials. Hostile comments were destructive in character and reflected envy.
   I am convinced these 1000+ pages transpire feelings of persecution centered more upon the Office and less upon the Person whom many have loudly hated and secretly admired.
   Mr. Conrad Black could picture the late President of the United States of America at his best moments slouched back in his chair, his long legs stretched out above the table in the deceptively thoughtful pose caricaturists had made famous in their media.



3. Conrad Black is not a typical historian or biographer. Indeed his approach and style are singular. Unlike "professional" historians and idelogues like Robert Dallek, Black does not have an ideological axe to grind. Although a professed conservative, Black's biography of FDR is the best I've read, utterly balanced in its approach to the man who so divided the nation before he saved the world from the darkness of fascism.
   
   At 1,059 pages, the book is too long. Yet, if I were editing it, I would be hard-pressed to figure out what to cut from the manuscript. Even so, only the dedicated student will make it all the way through or not skim in some places.
   
   Black does not flatter his subject. He sees Nixon as a man of some great strengths and some equally great weaknesses. Thirty-some years later, in fact, and reminded by Black's book, i56 is still mystifying that Nixon was so tone-deaf in his handling of the Watergate "scandal". Black makes a solid case that Watergate was a tempest in a teapot that, with the aid of left-wing journalists, venal Democrat politicians and intellectuals and pundits, was turned into a coup against a sitting President. Certainly nothing that Nixon did was any worse than what was done in the name of national security or just plain politics by Roosevet, Kennedy and Johnson. But Nixon had been hated by the left-wing for his anti-Communism since he first appeared on the political scene.
   
   Critical phrases such as "Nixon's duplicity acheived a new depth . . . " mark Black's narrative, leaving no doubt that Black sees all sides of Nixon.
   
   Nixon was a President of great historical significance. The fact that he was so endlessly attacked by the left-wing is proof, in a way, of his power. He also made mistakes, such as imposing price controls. He never gave up, though, successfully rehabilitating his image before his death.
   
   As he did with Roosevelt, Black has written a superb biography of another controversial, immensely talented, vastly misunderstood American President. Well worth reading, but the length of the book is daunting.
   
   Jerry



4. Richard Nixon was one of the most influential man in the world, and also someone who was misunderstood



5. This was a great read. I was thrilled to discover that Conrad wrote a fair and even-handed biography of the late President. (I enjoyed Nixon's memoirs, too, so lengthy tomes aren't a problem for me, as they might be for a few of the reviewers.) I liked the book's emphasis on Nixon's persistence and ability to remain on the political scene for so many years, despite media prejudice and pumped-up mobbings. Nixon had to perform on one of the most volatile stages of American history, and this book made it clear that he managed to stay on it, decade after decade.

3 comments about George Washington : Writings (Library of America).

1. George Washington is far more revered than known; but, as this splendid book proves, when you come to know him you feel even more admiration for him. This installment in the indispensable LIBRARY OF AMERICA series gathers hundreds of Washington's letters, as well as his more formal public statements as Virginia legislator and revolutionary leader, Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, advocate of federal constitutional reform, and First President of the United States. The formal public statements display the heavy style that Washington fell into when consciously speaking to posterity. It is in his letters that Washington's vigorous mind, strong emotions, and sound judgment emerge most cleary -- and that portray his humanity and his nobility most clearly and accessibly. Readers of this volume would be well-advised to read John Rhodehamel's superb chronology (appearing at the back of the book) first, and then turning to the text. If they do this, they will have! a sound chronological and historical basis for setting Washington's writings, public and private, in context and for seeing the critical founding decades of the American republic as he saw and experienced them.

   -- Richard B. Bernstein, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School; Daniel M. Lyons Visiting Professor in American History, Brooklyn College/CUNY; Book Review Editor for Constitutional Books, H-LAW; and Senior Research Fellow, Council on Citizenship Education, Russell Sage College




2. Like Robert E. Lee, George Washington might be considered the marble man of his time, a revolutionary whose passion doesn't burn as bright on the pages of history as, say, Thomas Paine, or as clear as Thomas Jefferson. He may be admired and revered, but not necessarily loved, certainly not in the way as old Marse Lee.

   Whether Washington the man can be reclaimed from Washington the statue is a task left up to biographers and fiction writers, because after thumbing through this collection of his writings, it is with some certainty that the man from Mount Vernon can't do it himself.

   Once gets the impression that Washington was a man who believed in duty, to himself as an eighteenth-century man of means, and to his country, whether it be England (for whom he participated on several expeditions against the French in Pennsylvania), or his newly created United States. The man who, in 1755, volunteered to join the British commander in chief, General Edward Braddock, on what became a disasterous expedition into western Pennsylvania, became by 1775 the man who would write to his wife announcing his appointment to head the rebel army, that, "I have used every endeavour in my power to avoid it [command]."

   Even his ascention to the presidency was performed in very reluctant steps. In a letter to Henry Knox, he wrote, "I can assure you . . . that my movements to the chair of Government will be accompanied with feelings not unlike those of a culprit who is going to the place of his execution."

   So why serve? "It was utterly out of my power to refuse this appointment without exposing my Character to such censures as would have reflected dishonour upon myself, and given pain to my friends," he wrote Martha Washington.

   Perhaps an early clue to his character can be found in the first entry, a collection of 100 maxims he composed when he was 15, rules for living which range from the practical ("Put not your meat to your Mouth with your Knife in your hand neither Spit forth the Stones of any fruit Pye upon a Dish nor Cast anything under the table"), to the inspirational ("Let your Recreations be Manfull not Sinfull"), and even a bit of the poetic ("Labour to keep alive in your Breast that Little Spark of Celestial fire Called Conscience").

   Sober, practical, firm-minded, George Washington was not a man to inspire devotion through force of personality, only through a far-sighted competence which does not make for glorious history, but to those who cherish the ideals and promise of America, one can be thankful that he was in the right place at the right time.




3. All too often, George Washington comes across as a monument rather than a person. As the victorious general of the American Revolution and as our nation's first president, he is often depicted as the indispensable figure in the struggle to establish America as a nation, with his decisions and actions almost providential in nature. Yet Washington the man is lost amidst the adulation, leaving the reader with an incomplete picture of who he really was.
   
   This collection of Washington's writings is an indispensable aid in the process of understanding the man behind the legend. The editor, John Rhodehamel, has selected 446 key documents from Washington's life, including letters, addresses, and general orders issued to his men. Written in the strictly formal style of the Virginia planter seeking to maintain the dignity of his position in society, his prose often cloaks the anxiety he felt about his status, the revolutionary cause, and the survival of the new republic. Together they convey a distinctly human figure, one whose stature only grows with a better understanding of the difficulties he surmounted. This is the book for anyone seeking to supplement other works on Washington with the original sources, or for those who simply want to read about Washington's life in his own words.

5 comments about T.R.: The Last Romantic.

1. The bar is high for H.W. Brands - after a bigoraphy as nearly perfect as "The First American" we have come to expect great things. Well in "TR" we have a nearly perfect biography on Teddy Roosevelt.
   
   To me, Brands strength is his flowing style that often reads as fiction. Unfortunately that is the lone chink in "TR" it is a little choppy and not as fluid as we have come to expect.
   
   As far as the subjects matter: Teddy Roosevelt may have been the strongest personality America has produced ...ever. His life is one that reads of power, strength and an enormous drive to achieve great things. Brands is able to capture these elements of TR's life and paint a fascinating picture of a man that was born to be president (interestingly enough TR is one of the few men who ever ENJOYED being president).
   
   As a whole - I will admit that I was still a little disappointed, mainly dur to my respect for Brands. While "TR" is not to the level of "The First American" it is still better than your typical biography on Teddy Roosevelt.



2. Two of the finest historical biographies I have consumed in my lifetime have come from the pen of H.W. Brands. The work at hand on Theodore Roosevelt was published in 1997; the other, on Benjamin Franklin, in 2000. Both works pass muster for scholarly accuracy and content. What is intriguing is the author's ability to adapt style to his subject and the times. Franklin's life carries the gravitas of the building of the constitutional life of the United States of America. Roosevelt's, in contrast, bears the energy of a man who came to power as America was high on its own industrial hubris. Brands' Roosevelt is a product of the Gilded Age with the common sense to see its tarnish as well. The T.R. of this work may not be wise, but he was definitely smart.
   
   Born a sickly child to a New York family of some means in 1858, young Roosevelt almost from first consciousness set himself on the road to self-improvement. Brands suggests that one motivating factor may have been Roosevelt's regard for his father, Theodore Sr. The elder Roosevelt had been successful in business and family life, but there was one glaring omission in his resume: he had purchased his way out of the 1863 Union draft. How much this $300 gesture affected his son is a mystery, of course, but there is no denying that the young Theodore [and later, the middle-aged Theodore] would never miss a bugle call.
   
   Roosevelt's professional resume is eclectic and even eccentric. Although he was born into money, he was not so rich that he needn't work. A lawyer by profession, Roosevelt's drive and self confidence would never let him live conventionally, and he seems to have suffered from chronic "vocational crisis." For the young and the restless of his day, the two great frontiers were politics and the open West, and T.R. ventured into both.
   
   There is some irony in this, because in truth Roosevelt was not genetically suited for either. His Dakota ranching years proved to be an expensive, uncomfortable, and at times dangerous experiment that took a large bite from the family fortunes. On the other hand, he acquired the skills that would later help him corral enemies in his gilded Republican party. Dakota in many ways was the paradigm for the political Roosevelt: a man strangely out of place in a hostile environment who proved to be doggedly likeable and yet someone not to be trifled with, either.
   
   His rise through the Republican Party was the antithesis of, say, that of McKinley or Harding, or even his dear friend Henry Cabot Lodge. Put briefly, he was so loud and so popular that party leaders virtually had to hold their noses and swallow hard. Brands' description of Roosevelt's nomination to the vice-presidency sounds for all the world like the tale of a middle manager being booted upstairs because no one could work with him. Roosevelt in the executive branch was bearable; it was, after all, a McKinley universe.
   
   McKinley, sadly, departed the scene sooner than anyone expected. And yet, for his seven-plus years in the White House, Roosevelt must have felt as if he was still in the McKinley orbit. He was not totally unlike his young relative Franklin Roosevelt in terms of political fortunes: electorally untouchable, professionally anathema. In the case of T.R., he captured the great electoral middle ground with rhetoric that decried the trusts and the excesses of big business, on the one hand, and radicalism on the other. He would easily have captured the 1908 election had he kept his mouth shut, but he felt compelled to honor his public remarks made years earlier that he believed his completion of McKinley's term should constitute his own first term as well.
   
   Roosevelt's executive strength lie in national defense and foreign policy. He had long been a disciple of the Alfred Thayer Mann school of strong navies, and it is not surprising that the Panama Canal is one of his legacies. The canal's strategic importance in two subsequent world wars has dulled Americans to the memory of Roosevelt's Caribbean chicanery in making it possible. In T.R.'s defense it can be said that he was probably as knowledgeable of world politics as any president of his era and very much a realist on matters of American military capabilities.
   
   His understanding of Emperor Wilhelm and the deteriorating European alignment probably made his retirement extremely difficult, and he seems to have been rather unsatisfied with his progress of effecting the "Square Deal" for American workers. Much of this frustration was projected onto his anointed successor, William Howard Taft. Roosevelt's treatment of Taft as described by Brands is morally repugnant, and one is hard pressed to feel much sympathy for Roosevelt's political derailing in 1912.
   
   The complexity of Roosevelt's affections for Taft might come as a surprise to those who subscribe to Henry Adams' description of T.R. as "pure act." In truth, Roosevelt's psyche and the complexities of his personal life deserve and receive substantial attention. Consider, for example, his conjugal life. After a brief infatuation with Edith Carow, Roosevelt was smitten by her friend Alice Lee and eventually married her. In letters to his friends Roosevelt described his life with Alice as unimaginably happy. What he could not have foreseen was Alice's untimely death in childbirth. The reader must make what he will of Roosevelt's behavior in his grief, as he gave away baby Alice to relatives until he was well established in his second marriage to the runner-up Edith. It was Edith, hardly naïve to the realities of the situation, who bore the next five of Roosevelt's children.
   
   Roosevelt's record as a husband and father was mixed. One winces at his absences and hunting trips. On the other hand, he professed and lived a fined tuned moral stance toward marital fidelity and parenting. Whether his longtime wife Edith ever felt she had received a "Square Deal"....



3. This book was HW Brands' first book-length biography. He tackled a challenging subject and succeeded marvelously. The thing about Teddy Roosevelt is that he would be a fascinating character even if he had not become President.
   
   To fit Roosevelt's life into a single volume extended the book to 800+ pages (paperback), but well worth the read. This life deserves it. TR's maniacal energy pulses through the book. TR was a true polymath as well as a 'man of action'. He charges through the book and a towering public career with 'dee-lightful' gusto. An extreme example: he gave a speech in Milwaukee despite still bleeding from a gunshot received that same day. Roosevelt's biggest political mistake came when he announced that he would not run for second full term (He did so because he had served nearly all of McKinley's term). As a result he was out of office at the age of 50!
   
   At the same time his private life revealed a darkness. Stunned by the early death of his father when he was a youth and then by the deaths of his first wife and mother on the same night when he was at Harvard, Roosevelt seems to have never recovered emotionally. After the latter event, he left for the Dakotas and his cowboy period leaving his infant daughter (the redoubtable Alice Roosevelt Longworth) behind. The child, whose mother died two days after her birth, was virtually ignored by Roosevelt. Near the end of his life his youngest son dies in World War One and TR is crushed.
   
   Brands makes extensive use of Roosevelt's personal letters to tell the story of this amazing life. Highly recommended.



4. I grew up being a fan of Theodore Roosevelt. His energy, unabased patriotism, and concern for the people all attracted me. As time went on and I learned more of him that admiration slowly receded. Nowadays, I can admire his energy but his patriotism I realise was over the line, border line jingoism. His 'concern' for the people caused him to ignore and reinterpert the Constitution in ways favorably to actions he wanted to take.
   
   That said, Mr. Brands has not done a particularly interesting book. The style of writing is breezy and almost tabloid in style. Details are often lacking and opinions are injected without indentifing themselves as such. In stark contrast to Theodore Rex by Mr. Morris, this book seems to be a lightweight. Little concern is apparent in Mr. Brands writings concerneing the damage TR was doing to both the nation and Constitution with his cavaliar attitude in governing the nation. If you want to know about TR's decision making at critical junctions in history or indepth background to such, this is not the book for you. Mr. Morris' book is far better then this Hollywood style tome.
   
   At best this book might be a TR primer, for sure it is not the best book on the subject.



5. I am very pleased to add this book by Brands to my T.R.collection. He gave me more insight to Roosevelt's life as a man, a husband, a father and a President. A very good, informative read.

5 comments about Lincoln the Unknown.

1. The storytellers of other nations and cultures have to manufacture myths to give themselves heroes. Americans don't have to. Abraham Lincoln is inspiring because of his greatness, yet he is inspiring also because of his human frailties, which make his monumental achievements all the more fantastic. This book is a labor of love by Mr. Carnegie about his hero; it's his way of making his hero available to us all. I love particularly the introduction in which Mr. Carnegie tells his reasons for writing the book and his method of composing it. This is one of the best books I've ever read. All the wisdom and insight Mr. Carnegie ever collected in his "how to" books can be found more poignantly and abundantly here, because Lincoln exemplified everything that Mr. Carnegie ever taught. This book is what will keep Mr. Carnegie's name alive, long after his institute has folded and his "how to" books have gone out of print. In this book Mr. Carnegie captures the living reality of Lincoln: his wisdom, his virtues, his beautiful and unfettered English prose, his perserverance, his commitment to justice and liberty, his keen understanding of the paradoxical condition of mankind, his deep reverence, and his abiding love.
   This book also demonstrates that heroes don't just descend from Olympic heights to awe mankind with superhuman prowess; they are regular folks who face troubles, pains, and long-odds like the rest of us; but when most people act out of self-concern and a desire for ease and convenience, true heroes do what is RIGHT, in spite of the cost to themselves and the apparent futility of the task at hand. Lincoln was such a hero.



2. THIS BOOK WAS GIVEN TO ME . THE COPY I HAVE IS THE 1932 PRINTING . I KNOW NOW HOW LUCKY I AM TO OWN IT AFTER FINISHING . IT WAS VERY HARD TO PUT DOWN . OTHER BOOKS I HAVE READ ABOUT HIM DIDN'T TOUCH ON HIS GENTLENESS AND HOW IT AFFECTED NOT ONLY HIS MARRIAGE BUT, THE WAR. SOMETIMES I THINK NOW, HE WORRIED TOO MUCH ABOUT OTHERS FEELINGS . SUCH AS INEPT GENERALS AND THAT LUNATIC WIFE , MARY TODD WHO'S TEMPER TANTRUMS WERE INFAMOUS. LIKE HE HAD ENOUGH " ROCKS IN HIS SACK " WITHOUT STRIFE AT HOME. I SO PITY HIM , EVEN NOW THAT HE IS BEYOND ALL CARES AND WOE . GOD BLESS YOU SIR AND GIVE YOU THE PEACE THAT SO ELUDED YOU HERE ON EARTH .



3. Knowing little other than the obvious facts about Lincoln, I was amazed, entertained, and simply captivated by this Carnegie masterpiece. Lincoln's poverty-stricken childhood, his lackluster days as a lawyer, his love of poetry, his political career - it's all covered in great detail and conveyed in a very appealing and straightforward style. Carnegie's research and dedication towards this book are deservedly well-applauded. The story of how this very mortal man became so admired, so loved, and such an American icon is simply priceless. This monumental work is a must-have for anyone's collection.



4. This is the best book on Lincoln I have ever read. A true joy to read.



5. This is by far the best Abe book out there...actually makes "learning" fun!...be careful about loaning this one out!

5 comments about The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope.

1. This is a worthy read if you don't swallow it in the "whole cloth." Alter tells the history of the time within his own parameters and with his own prejudices, as any of us would do if writing this history. What we learn from this is that FDR was no social genius with all the plans worked out ahead of time. Instead he was a willing experimenter. He was willing to try something and if it didn't work he would move on to something else until he found what did work. But you have to read between the lines here and realize that FDR was willing to go to unconstitutional lengths to accomplish his agenda. Many of his programs were determined to be unconstitutional. So his strategy was to try to pack the Supreme Court with more judges so that his programs would be approved. He was also willing to built government bigger and bigger by creating new bureaucracies and new programs from which we have never recovered. All in all, I recommend this book as long as you view it from the prospective in which it was written and don't allow yourselves to be overwhelmed by the idea that Roosevelt was the knight on shining armor who saved civilization.



2. This book was apparently written with the goal of showing how Roosevelt attained success in his first 100 days, but it often comes off sounding more negative than positive. I grew up imagining Roosevelt was a genius and close to perfect president. The impression I got from this book was that his sense of hope, showmanship and tireless dedication to always try something trumped an average grasp of the subject, and some odd personality and character traits. Much of this book actually seems to suggest between the lines that Herbert Hoover was more competent with the issues, and should almost be given some credit for the initial New Deal successes. I would say that there are numerous places in the book where history is being interpreted through today's lens. There are footnotes that make comparisons to more contemporary presidents and events, and it's obvious the writer has the current climate of opinion in mind when writing. Overall, I found the book fascinating. I discovered many things I did not previously know. For example, the country was almost hoping for a dictator in 1932. Both parties favored balanced budgets and tax increases during the early part of the depression. Roosevelt perhaps delayed recovery by some of his actions. Hope and inspiration were almost as important as the actual policies, and the low point of the depression came the night before Roosevelt's inauguration. I would recommend this book to anyone who would like to make comparisons between the Depression and what the various players did with current times, and what we should consider doing.



3. This is a very well done, tightly focused biographical portrait of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the early days of his Presidency. Alter, a television political commentator, begins with the idea that Roosevelt found himself as a leader in the fight to overcome the problems of the Depression.
   
   It is a fair, balanced book, although I suspect close readers will pick up on the fact that Alter has far more respect for FDR than he does for President Bush. (And acutely close readers will realize he admires Reagan more than Bush.)
   
   Alter does make numerous comparisons to contemporary politics, and I think on balance these are often unnecessary distractions. I sometimes felt like I had an overbearing teacher explaining the meaning of the book to me. I did not feel while reading this that I was inhabiting the times, which was a feeling I had with No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II.
   
   The book is especially strong in its treatment of Roosevelt's speaking style and the confidence he instilled in the the nation at a very dangerous time in our history.



4. Great introduction to FDR's efforts at responding to the Great Depression upon his entrance into the presidency. Sometimes a bit too much psychoanalyzing, but there should be no doubt that FDR was the great president of the 20th century, not necessarily for finding a domestic economic cure for the Great Depression, but for helping millions of suffering people and giving them hope. His leadership of WWII would take care of the rest, but that's for another book. Great description of FDR's pre-presidential career and his political talents, and Alter gives appropriate credit to Louis Howe for much of FDR's success.



5. The first 100 days of FDR's first administration are the focal point of this recently published work. Alter uses several chapters to re-introduce us to FDR the man, and also to provide background on the socio-economic situation in America at the time. Some of the more powerful insights show how Roosevelt's struggle with polio changed him from the sneering, privileged, upper class twit of his youth to the "man of the people" that he was to become. Especially interesting is the study of the 1932 Presidential Campaign and the compromises and sacrifices that had to be made just for the privilege of leading America through some of its darkest hours. After this drama, the actual 100 days seem almost anti-climatic. The ultimate picture we're left with is that of a pragmatist, a man who was willing to admit that he didn't have the answers and so was willing to try anything that might help. Alter admits that many of FDR's programs were failures, but is quick to point out how much Americans were heartened just by the fact that the government was actually doing something. Conversely Hoover's inaction, even when it was theoretically the wisest course, left Americans feeling abandoned when they were in need.
   
   Although not notoriously a great student of history, this reviewer enjoyed this book and its depiction of a period eerily similar to our own. It is also a fascinating study of FDR himself, a man whose story often gets overshadowed by the momentous events that he guided America through. WWII buffs please note: Alter leaves off after the first 100 days of FDR's first term, so don't expect an analysis of his entire presidency. Still an engrossing read.

5 comments about To the Best of My Ability.

1. Lot of good information and a quick history, but the authors seemingly never met a government regulation or expansion that they didn't approve of. They provide an interesting service in showing that the political leaders, including the presidents, have generally been largely incompetent and hypocritical, with little understanding or regard for the principles of the Constitution.



2. Reaching back for more than two hundred years, through forty three men, the Presidency of the United States has been held by a wide range of people. Some have been brilliant, some less honest than others, but in the end most have been honorable people.
   
   They have been responsible for setting the direction of the country in times of war, depression, and good times.
   
   In this collection of essays a short chapter covers each of the forty three men. Each written by an authority on that particular era, on that particular man. They cover:
   
   the major events that occurred during each president's term in office,
   election results for each cycle by popular and electoral votes,
   complete text of every inaugural address,
   memorable quotes illustrating the president's image while in office,
   outstanding accomplishments and contributions of unforgettable first ladies.
   
   The book formed the basis of the series of shows created for the History channel. It's the best short summary I've ever read.



3. This is just the kind of book I've been looking for on the American Presidents.I do a lot of reading about American Politics and History and end up chasing through books looking for information about the President at the time .Sometimes I find what I am looking for but not always.The people who put this book together have done a superlative job of creating a reference book that covers all the same things about each of the Presidents.It doesn't take long to get to know what you can expect to find.Important dates,family members,famous statements,major events during their terms ,pictures,campaigns,Inaugural Addresses,election statistics,running mates,opponents,and so forth.I must stress,they didn't just include what they had on hand to fill the space;they dug up all the same things for each President.When you want to know something,you won't be wondering if it will be there;you'll be confident you'll find it.
   Another thing I found quite interesting was that each President's signature was included with their picture.Also.the first picture was of the time when in office.I happen to have a book signed by President Truman,while in office.It was fun to compare it with the one in this book.It is also interesting to compare the various signatures.For,instance,who had the best penmanship?In my opinion,James Buchanan wins hands down.I particularly admire Andrew Johnson's and Andrew Jackson's,which were quite similar. For the most intricate,that has to go to James Polk.
   What a great cast of characters ,have come forward to lead America;and no two even remotely alike.
   A wonderful reference source,and I know I'll turn to it often.



4. I absolutely adored this book. I have long been fascinated by the nature and character of the men who held the office of President. Each of the mini-biographies sheds new light on the manner in which each of our Presidents approached and executed the powers of the Presidency. Fascinating pieces of Presidential trivia can also be found in this marvelous work. I loved it!



5. Even though the introduction states the summaries of each president is mostly in a positive light, the chapter on George W. Bush is very negative. The author sounds like a bitter Gore supporter. It was written by a liberal and people like Bill Clinton got super treatment from friends. Oh well.. the majority of the book is a wealth of great information.

No comments about John Tyler: The American Presidents Series: The 10th President, 1841-1845 (The American Presidents).

5 comments about Benjamin Harrison (The American Presidents).

1. Imagine a Republican who believes in a big government? This wonderful biography of Benjamin Harrison is useful for us today to sort out a different era. While this is short, it certainly covers an era in which few of us are very familiar. However, the era is the foundation of today, and this book opens a window for us.



2. Unlike some of the authors in the AP series, Charles Calhoun is a professional historian who has written previously about his subject's era. He clearly has the depth of knowledge to analyze Harrison and place him properly in the context of his time.
   While Benjamin Harrison had a successful career prior to his election as President, he really was no more distinguished than any number of 1880s politicos. A respected Civil War officer and successful lawyer, he was a candidate because of his famous name and his popularity in the swing-state of Indiana. After his election however, Harrison was not able to hold his party together. He could not subdue or satisfy his party rival J. G. Blaine, or enact all of the desired Republican legislation. His presidency was crippled by losses in 1890 congressional elections and dissatisfaction among western Republicans. The death of wife Caroline Harrison in 1892 sapped Ben's desire to wage a strong second campaign.
   I was surprised to learn that Harrison was a strong advocate of black civil rights. However, he was not very successful in stepping up federal protection for blacks in the South. Calhoun also covers Harrison's somewhat creepy relationship with his wife's niece, whom he would marry after he left the White House.
   If you are not up to reading the three-volume biography of Harrison, this a good place to turn. Recommended for anyone interested in the Gilded Age.



3. If you ask most people what they know about Benjamin Harrison they might tell you two things they remember from history class...that he was the grandson of a president (William Henry Harrison) and that his term was sandwiched in between the two non-consecutive terms of Grover Cleveland. Beyond that, Benjamin Harrison remains a mystery to most, but author Charles Calhoun has done a crisp and clear job of relating Harrison's life and term in office.
   
   This is the third of the American Presidents series I have read and I think that these books serve better in telling the stories of the more obscure presidents. The brief length of the Harrison book (as well as the ones I've read about Arthur and Harding) give just enough overview regarding these men. They are nice "starter" books, which might, one would hope, prompt the reader to seek out deeper accounts of the lives of these presidents. That said, Calhoun's book offers a good flow of information. Harrison is usually rated in the middle of the presidential mix, and Calhoun creates no impression that Harrison should be moved up or down. He was a solid, if stoic president with some notable legislative accomplishments. While never rising to the stature that a more forceful president might have, Harrison nonetheless fought for rights of blacks to vote and was keen on providing a pension for Union veterans of the Civil War. It was fascinating to read that Frederick Douglass said of Harrison, "to my mind, we never had a greater president". That's certainly high praise coming from one of the leading abolitionists of the nineteenth century and a man who knew Abraham Lincoln personally. Harrison had a few challenges abroad, but his four years were generally quiet as the country saw the passage of such landmark legislation as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Harrison's political problems as president seemed to stem as much from members of his own Republican party, especially his wily Secretary of State, James G. Blaine. Through a combination of forces against him, Harrison lost badly to Grover Cleveland in 1892.
   
   Calhoun tells of the president's dalliance with and subsequent marriage to his wife's niece, Mary (Mame) Dimmick...it's a colorful addition to the life of a pious president. The rift that this marriage caused seems never to have healed with his two adult children as Harrison died just five years after his second wedding.
   
   Benjamin Harrison may have been a footnote in history but Charles Calhoun has rightly written about him. After all, there have been only forty-two different occupants of the presidential chair...and Harrison was one of them. I recommend this book for its insight and easy narrative style.



4. Benjamin Harrison lived most of his adult life in Indianapolis, and his handsome brick Victorian home on Delaware Street has long been a memorial open to the public. Yet even the citizens of his hometown are vague on who he really was. Many confuse him with his grandfather, William Henry Harrison, "Old Tippecanoe" as he was called, who also served in the White House, albeit for only thirty days. Some see the signature of "Benj Harrison" on the Declaration of Independence and assume that the Indianapolis resident was in Philadelphia in 1776. If they only stopped to think, they would realize that the city of Indianapolis was not founded until 1821 and that their Benj Harrison was not born until 1833. The signer was the great-grandfather of the 23rd President. Charles Calhoun has done a scholarly job of helping stamp out the ignorance and confusion surrounding Benjamin Harrison, the last President to sport a beard and the first to decorate a Christmas tree in the White House. He and his wife Caroline were occupants of the Executive Mansion when electricity was first installed, replacing the gaslight fixtures. The old story goes that they were both afraid of the strange new utility and refused to touch the light switches. Harrison was the second shortest of our Presidents, coming in at 5' 6" and was affectionately referred to as "Little Ben" by the 1000 soldiers of the 70th Indiana Regiment who followed him into the Civil War. His bravery in battle was recognized by General Joseph Hooker ("Fighting Joe") who awarded Harrison a battlefield promotion to Brigadier General. Calhoun makes a good case that Harrison could be considered one of the earliest "activist" Presidents, long before Theodore Roosevelt became the poster boy for the position. He makes the point that Harrison's term helped to restore the power of the Presidency that had been nearly destroyed by the impeachment attempt on Andrew Johnson. Harrison surprised and irritated his own party when he bucked their directives and insisted that party hacks would not automatically get patronage. He wanted to make sure his appointees were qualified for their jobs. It sounds like a "no-brainer" today, but it was liberal thinking in those days. Six states came into the Union under Harrison, more than any other Presidential term. Oklahoma was opened for settlement, 13 million acres of land were put into reserve for national forests, the size of the Navy was greatly increased, and Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the McKinley Tariff. So it's not like nothing happened under Benjamin Harrison. Calhoun points out that Harrison often had to serve as his own Secretary of State as a result of frequent "illness" on the part of James G. Blaine, whose relationship with Harrison can only be described as "chilly." Toward the end of his term, in the midst of a re-election campaign, Harrison's beloved wife Caroline was dying of tuberculosis. He stayed at her bedside. "I was so removed from the campaign that I can scarcely realize that I was a candidate," Harrison wrote to one supporter. Two weeks after Caroline died in the White House, Grover Cleveland won another term. But it was just as well to Harrison. He wrote, "It does not seem to me that I could have had the physical strength to go through what would have been before me if I had been re-elected, with the added burden of a great personal grief." He returned to his beloved home on Delaware Street and resumed the job he really liked from the beginning - attorney at law. Charles Calhoun, a scholar of the "Gilded Age," provides a very readable account of a President who helped lay the foundation for the 20th century.



5. A new biography on Benjamin Harrison, our 23rd president, has been written by Charles Calhoun who is a professor of history at East Carolina University. Harrison is solely remembered now for being the one-term president who served between rival Grover Cleveland's two non-consecutive stints in office.
   
   Harrison was elected for one term in 1888 by defeating incumbent Grover Cleveland. He then lost to Cleveland four years later in a re-match over pretty much the same issues once the president's popularity dropped when the nation's economy tanked in a recession so he was shown the White House door by the voters.
   
   Harrison's time in the White House more resembles the tenure of George Herbert Walker Bush, our current incumbent's father, who was also a somewhat popular president yet got tossed out after one term when it appeared he was out of touch with the public. The younger Bush seemed to have learned the lessons from the defeat of Harrison, his father and other one-term presidents who lost their second term chances by making sure he attacked first on the issues in his re-election contest instead of being put on the defensive to criticism of his administration by Democratic candidate John Kerry in the 2004 election.
   
   Harrison grew up with privilege, just like the current officeholder, being the grandson of a chief executive and a descendant to one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. He ably served in the Civil War, then entered politics against the advice of his father to rise through the ranks of political positions until he was the Republican Party presidential nominee of 1888.
   
   That contest was a close race and Harrison won the electoral count for the win even though Cleveland actually got more votes from the public in the same manner the younger Bush did in his 2000 election triumph over Al Gore. And he took office with his party controlling both houses of Congress just like our current leader.
   
   But the Republicans of the late 1880's were complete opposites to the GOP politicians of today. Then, they were in favor of tariffs on imported goods from other countries to pay for government services. Today, they encourage open borders and the constant arrival of foreign-made products to power the economy and the elimination of all government interference in global commerce to the detriment of American manufacturers who must now compete with cheap labor outside our country and are forced to keep wages as low as possible to the American worker in order to stay in business.
   
   Most of the money coming into the U.S. Treasury in those years was through the fees raised by tariffs on those imports. Harrison campaigned in the 1888 election against Cleveland to keep those protective tariffs in place since there was no federal income tax on citizens to raise government revenues at that time. His strategy was successful and he defeated the first Democrat to be elected to the presidency since 1856. But things began to immediately go wrong for the Indiana politician upon arriving in Washington and taking the oath of office.
   
   Calhoun makes the argument that Harrison's presidency soured when he tried to please too many special interest groups of his own party as the nation had its first billion dollar peacetime budget and Harrison's Republican Party subsequently lost control of both houses of Congress in the 1890 mid-term contest as a result of voter dissatisfaction. An ill-advised attempt to annex Hawaii as part of the growing nation and the constant fighting between his administration and both parties in Congress led to his sliding popularity as his upcoming re-election approached.
   
   His opponent in the 1892 contest would be former President Grover Cleveland who was trying to win his job back. A lackluster campaign on Harrison's part plus the death of his wife two weeks before Election Day took away all of his interest in keeping the presidency so only got 43 percent of the vote and left office a dispirited man.
   
   Harrison paid the price from a scorned populace by trying to please too many special business interests when the country was becoming less agrarian and relying more on manufacturing to spur economic growth in order to compete with the other nations of the world.

5 comments about Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department.

1. I'm a 16 year old sophmore in high school and have an interest in all history, especially history that took place during the 1930's to around 1965. this book gave very deep and detailed insight into the inerworkings of the stae department after world war 2, and displayed the type of men it took to rebuild governments around the world into well oiled democratic machines. i would HIGHLY reccomend this book to anyone interested in learning a great deal about the state department under truman and acheson, as well as a person just interested in a good read.



2. Dean Acheson, one of "The Wise Men" who crafted foreign policy from Truman to Johnson, was a great American. I assume it could be debated just how correct our Cold War policy was, but we're all still here to debate the point so that in itself says volumes. President Truman was wise indeed for the trust and extreme confidence that he placed in Dean Acheson. Great reading!



3. A generally enjoyable and interesting book. I hold Dean Acheson in very high regard along with Harry Truman and George Marshall. As other reviewers have stated, those three men (and several others) initiated policies that shaped world history for the next 50 years.
   
   That said, the most fascinating aspect of the book for me was the back-stabbing, political posturing, stonewalling, and unresponsiveness that Acheson described throughout all the various government bureaucracies (both foreign and domestic) - Congress, the Defense Department, Foreign Ministries, Treasury, etc. It drives home to the reader just how difficult it is to get ANYTHING done in government! And it also reminds the reader that the political animosity and disfunction we see in modern government isn't a new phenomenon at all...



4. I respect that this book has a Pulitzer for History, and it has a wealth of information for scholars, but for the lay reader, it is too long by 100 pages or so and goes into minute governmental procedures and such, obscuring the good parts of the book. Acheson manages to be hawkish, critical of both parties, but makes a lot of sense too about containment, and realistically looking at the Soviets. I take his comments with a grain of salt, as this is part memoir and apologia. I would have liked to see more of his take on the years after Truman's presidency. And yes, this book did help me appriciate Truman's character more.



5. I rememeber doing a 60-page research paper on Dean Acheson while I was an undergraduate at UCLA; and this book was one of the primary sources of material that I used in my research. The book is a fascinating insight into a man who before, and during the Cold War, was truly 'Present at the Creation.' Dean Acheson was Harry Truman's Secretary of State during one of the most tumultuous periods in American history. As secretary of state, he was one of the primary movers who helped shape and guide the nation's foreign policy for many years to come. Dean Acheson was not only one of the most important men during this postwar period, but as one who helped shape a major part of this country's policies; and he gives a fascinating insight into the policies and decision makers in the government.
   
   In the book, Dean Acheson describes how decisions were made and then eventually implemented. The book, which is Acheson's memoirs of his years in the state department is not dry; but instead a very insightful a engaging read. If you are interested in politics, or history, and wonder how decisions were made that impacted the American foreign policies during the Cold War, then this book is an important read. Moreover, what he discusses in the book has not changed at all in terms of how the government goes about implemeting polices, and those who try and thwart the process: either through political gain or ignorance. Or in some cases a little bit of both.
   
   You might ask yourself, "Why should I care about this man, and his memoirs?" Well the answer would be [from me anyway] that the polices he helped shape are with us today. [Many anyway]. The political structure of the postwar period was primarily designed to contain communism. And as such, the creation of NATO was one of the most important decisions enacted during the cold war era. His insistence [along with Truman] that Western Europe had to be revived and restructered as a thwart to Soviet Russia is an extremely important chapter in our nations history. This book is highly recommended, and belongs in your library.