No comments about Theodore Roosevelt and the International Rivalries.

2 comments about James K. Polk: A Clear and Unquestionable Destiny (Biographies in American Foreign Policy).

1. Fabrication By Alien., February 28, 2007
   Reviewer: Betty Burks (Knoxville, TN) - See all my reviews
   
   This book was not written by a fan or supporter of this Tennessee president, but released by a Yankee group who hides behind "Oxford" so we might think Mississippi or England. Not so, William Dusinberre must be fuddies with the university professors who tore apart Nathan Bedford Forrest in the same way. Overlooked completely he status and the part these Tennesseans played in the history of this nation. It's best to consider character assassination with the conflicting thins these writers emphasize while leaving out the real story, the facts of the matter. James K. Polk had been Governor of Tehhessee and Speaker of the House of Representatives before becoming U. S. president. It was not a secret that he owned slaves to work on his cotton plantation in Mississippi. We didn't have such in Tennessee, but I have an old post card of the 11th President's bust which stands in the State Capitol in Nashville. We visited Polk's ancestral home in downtown Columbia, Tennessee. It was not out in the country, though a famous one is in that county owned by a female physician. She did not have slaves. Forrest's family were fine, upstanding natives of Chapel Hill, not so far east from Columbia. It infuriates me when I innocently find weird subverted stuff like thos on the public library shelves. I wish the reference librarians who ordered these fiction pretending to be non-fiction before putting them out for just anybody to read. Polk was duly elected and in the White House from 1845 to 1849, before the Civil War. He was not responsible for that war.
   
   This person from Cape Town used the false writings of professor Wayne Cutler when he came to this Republican town, and thought that what he was reading was truth. Polk was a Southern Democrat. What would he write about Huey B. Long, George Wallace, and other governors who stood tall for what the South stands for. The politics of slavery did not have any substance whatsoever in the war which divided this country. It was states' rights -- the Southern states, which Northerners would not understand. I learned more than I had planned that there is a conspiracy going on to deride Southern leaders and presidents. They were statesmen and war heroes and lived to be a part of the history of America. Modern history-writing is all wrong, when the author makes up "facts" as he is inclined, and not factually.



2. I am currently reading a bio of every President in order. I generally look for a fairly comprehensive one volume account but unfortunately for Polk there are none available (although the forthcoming 400+ page plus bio by Borneman will hopefully change this). I decided I would save my money to wait for Borneman's book and checked out Leonard's short bio (196 pages of text) from the Library.
   
   Thankfully, this is a great short bio of James K. Polk. His early life is covered in a suprising amount of detail for the short amount of text devoted to it, and his Presidency is covered quite thoroughly. This is accomplished by Leonard's great writing and superb organization and editing. This book was so satisfactory I am not sure I will even decide to read Borneman's forthcoming biography. Also, do not be swayed by Betty Burke's review, she is clearly reviewing the wrong book.

2 comments about Jefferson's Secrets: Death and Desire at Monticello.

1. I got the audio CD edition of "Jefferson's Secrets" for a recent cross-country drive. It made the journey much more enjoyable and rewarding -- even the endless landscape of Texas passed by in no time!
   
   
   ABOUT THE CD PRODUCTION QUALITIES:
   The narrator, Simon Vance, does a superlative job. His voice is very easy on the ear, and his pacing and enunciation are ideal. The only minor niggle is that he pronounces the name of Jefferson's home as "montisello" instead of "montichello". (Dictionaries endorse both pronunciations, but Jefferson's correspondence suggests that he used the Italian version.)
   
   The book lends itself to aural consumption very well -- I found myself listening in "page-turning mode" in some sections, and in others, I was pausing the CD frequently to take notes and reflect. It makes for very comfortable and efficient absorption.
   
   
   ABOUT THE CD CONTENTS:
   Unlike other reviewers, I don't believe that "Secrets" requires extensive familiarity with Jefferson and his politics. My rudimentary knowledge of American history (I'm an immigrant) did not hinder my comprehension or enjoyment of the book at all. On the contrary, I think "Secrets" makes an excellent Jefferson primer because it covers those aspects of the man that he deemed most important himself (according to his epitaph.)
   
   "Jefferson's Secrets" is an immensely satisfying book -- one that leaves you wishing for equally thorough and insightful works on other prominent figures. Alas, few people have made their souls as accessible as Jefferson did. Indeed, it appears that most of his words and deeds were intended with a view to his legacy. By bringing Jefferson's later writings to light, Burstein is therefore fulfilling the founder's fervent wish that his contributions and convictions be properly understood.
   
   The book has a very effective structure. The first two chapters serve as a prelude, presenting a miscellany of information about Jefferson: his decidedly physiological view of life, his activities and afflictions, his relationships with family and friends, his highly rational and scientific mindset, his voracious reading and writing habits, etc. There is also much information about Jefferson's times, including the prevailing medical and scientific knowledge, attitudes, conditions, personalities, and language usage.
   
   This groundwork places the reader squarely inside Jefferson's head, which helps a great deal in understanding his views on slavery, race, gender, sex, politics, literature, and religion. In subsequent chapters, Burstein explores each of these topics thoroughly and unflinchingly. His well-founded conclusions answered my questions in full. Having finished the book, I feel I know Jefferson as well as might a family member or a close friend. I am now better able to appreciate his virtues, and I have a clearer understanding of his shortcomings.
   
   Yes, Jefferson's legacy is clouded because he was not able to rise above his times to become the emancipator of Blacks and women. Yes, he was uncharacteristically close-minded about race and surprisingly vindictive towards his political enemies. And yes, he was fiscally irresponsible in living way beyond his means (the quintessential American!)
   
   However, the salient image that emerges from the book is that of a man who was indeed "a mindful practitioner of the art of living life." He provided the mantra for the nascent republic, and his vision and awareness guided it during its early vulnerability. He was understated, principled, caring, curious, industrious, resourceful, optimistic, and reasonable. In a more enlightened time, I have no doubt that he would have written "all people are created equal".
   
   I am awed and inspired by all that Jefferson was able to achieve -- has there ever been a better manager of time? On the other hand, I am saddened to think that one of this country's greatest presidents would have no chance of being elected today (a non-religious widower would be a nonstarter.)
   
   "Secrets" is a positive and uplifting work. In a world of sound bites, it's a pleasure discovering research as comprehensive, even-handed, and well-written as this. Highly recommended!



2. The narrator's voice is almost as annoying as his continual mispronunciation of Monticello. As to the 'book' itself, the prologue is endless and serves only as a monument to the author's colossal ego. I've read perhaps fifty Jefferson books yet have never before found one that attempts so much and delivers so little. Skip this one.

5 comments about Plan of Attack.

1. Very well-written and informative book, but the person "reading" the book had a somewhat monotone voice. Really detracted from it. Worth reading -but not worth buying the book on tape.



2. Woodward seems to have a little industry of churning these books out (and other people doing a lot of the work).
   
   This book shares the faults and good points of the earlier book: basically a recounting of a lot of meetings that we were never in...but still a limited picture of what people were REALLY thinking...and no analysis of what they SHOULD have been thinking.
   
   Somehow it seems just a bit richer and more interesting than the previous one. As if either the events were more intriguing or Woodward had warmed to his subject more. But still...too much of a reportorial data dump.



3. I just reread _Plan of Attack_, and was struck by how much light it sheds on the currently unfolding drama swirling around Iran.
   
   To the extent that President Bush still appears to believe that it is his sacred duty to strike pre-emptively at evil wherever he finds it, then the current "coercive diplomacy" being aimed at Iran--the current exemplar of his "axis of evil"--seems likely to end in war, just as it did in Iraq.
   
   The parallels between the developments that Woodward reports on in the run-up to the war in Iraq, and what we are seeing with respect to Iran, are eerie--the distortion and exaggeration of intelligence to justify the war, the simultaneous building up of forces in the region, and the willingness to shift justifications as needed, jump from the page.
   
   At this moment, December of 2007, when we are learning that our own intelligence does not support the existence of a nuclear threat from Iran, we're also seeing the neocon establishment attack the messengers, and re-focus on Iran's intent rather than capability. Unless Bush and those around him have experienced a real change of heart, the White House depicted by Woodward can be expected to redouble its efforts to bring about regime change in Iran, rather than admit any errors and change course.
   
   I strongly recommend giving _Plan of Attack_ a read or re-read right now, certainly for what it says about how and why we got into Iraq, but even more for what it may presage about Iran.



4. A lot has been said here. Woodward tells a straight story and has incredible access to Bush Administration officials. As a whole, this is a great portrait of the group psychology that fumbled post-war planning in Iraq.
   
   Rumsfeld is the main villain, and probably justly, but one wonders how Bush could allow Condi Rice to maintain such a weak NSC and so let Rumsfeld (who *everyone* hated and vocally opposed) have his way. Bush comes off as naive here, and so complicit perhaps in incompetence, but it is #1 a story of Rumsfeld. Not much attention is given to Bush as a prime-mover, and the Powell's virtual abdication as 'beacon of the good' in the pre-war run-up is treated lightly too.
   
   Still, at $5.49 or less this is an incredible bargain and it flows terrifically with much dialogue. Check it out and see how poor planning, which bears a strict lesson of 'tread carefully' for any politician, may be the real culprit here.



5. We returned this book because you sent it to us minus the first twenty or so pages. We did not read this book.

2 comments about Thomas Jefferson Versus Alexander Hamilton: Confrontations that Shaped a Nation (Bedford Series in History and Culture).

1. This book really gives the reader a sense of what Hamilton and Jefferson were REALLY like. They had disputes and were mistrustful of eachother. There wasn't any school-boy stuff going on here. I recommend this book if you're interested in history and are in college. Good book!



2. This book helps give the reader an excellent prespective on how the Federalists and Anti-Federalists helped shape our nation though debate and press.
   
   I enjoyed this book because it is more of a collection of letters, from both Jefferson and Hamilton, leaving it up to you on how to interpret their stances and personalities.

5 comments about Deserter: Bush's War on Military Families, Veterans, and His Past.

1. Kerry released his service records in April. If you have an IQ above that of a post, figure it out.



2. I read the book in one day and at the end of it was absolutely astonished at how much we ignored the horrible lies of George W. Bush, who successfully managed to pursuade Americans that he is a war hero.
   
   It is no secret that George W. Bush wanted a war. He wanted to be a war president. He wanted to be a commander-in-chief. But in fact he is a deserter. While himself dodging the war which he supported, he sent thousands of Americans to fight in Iraq. He has no respect for those who are unfortunate to be serving under his command.
   
   This is not a mere hatchet job, it is a well documented analysis. Ian Williams has put the facts together to draw the real face of the "commander-in-chief".



3. This book is excellent. My husband, who's recently retired from the military, and I bought this because of Dubya's flip-flopping on his record. Although a lot seems to be missing (like the DD-214 all of us get when we get out--I have mine), it's still revealing. We're an Air Force family and have known many, many pilots over the years and they take great pride in their flying status and would not miss their annual, required flight physicals for anything.
   
   Too bad the media can't give the same coverage of this like they did the Monica thing. Young men and women are dying while I type this, but hey, let's keep our priorities straight. Since when was it moral to send people to their deaths with lies? Especially when the same people perpetrating these horrible sins were hiding and ensuring they saved their worthless hides while shirking their duty during Viet Nam.
   
   An excellent book for anyone who really cares for our military personnel and their families.



4. Ian Williams has been all over the media lately after it was revealed by Accuracy in Media -- and Williams doesn't deny it-- that he had been taking money from the UN while covering the UN for The Nation and other media. Williams went on the O'Reilly
   Factor and said he saw no ethical issue with that blatant violation of journalism ethics.
   
   Then came revelations in Accuracy in Media and Front Page Magazine that his wife, who can't even work in the U.S. legally, got a job at a journalism organization where Williams has clout.
   
   Given his shamelessness, this tired rehash of previously published allegations against Bush is even more disgusting. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.



5. My only problem with William's book is he fails to discuss that Bush was the most decorated pilot in the Alabama National Guard. Junior was awarded the Yellow Strips four times for going AWOL beyond the call of duty. But seriously, Bush does not even posses the courage to last one mere day of service in the Girl Scouts. The book is a must for any Nam Vet.

1 comments about Lincoln in the Times: The Life of Abraham Lincoln, as Originally Reported in The New York Times.

1. Two of the best of Lincoln's men, David Herbert Donald and Harold Holzer, have edited a book every person interested in Abraham Lincoln and/or newspaper coverage in the Civil War era should own.
   
   While a solid effort throughout, I found the second half of this book the most interesting. The reports printed in the New York Times on the last days of the war through the assassination conspiracy and its aftermath have a striking immediacy.
   
   The report carried in the Times on Walt Whitman's talk on Lincoln given in New York City, some twenty-two years after that dreadful day of April 14, is an especially fine close to a valuable book on our nation's greatest president.

No comments about Historic Photos Of Harry S. Truman (Historic Photos.).

5 comments about Murdering Mr. Lincoln: A New Detection of the 19th Century's Most Famous Crime.

1. Charles Higham's research connects various Copperhead merchants to the Confederate Secret Service, but fails to convincingly tie any of them to John Wilkes Booth. The book is worth reading primarily for its exploration of a new angle to Lincoln's assassination: Copperhead commerce with the South, reluctantly approved by Lincoln as necessary to the Union to finance the war, provided a cloak for an assassination conspiracy.

   Mr. Higham almost certainly has several things wrong. He assumes the plot to kidnap Lincoln was always phony and a cover for murder. But why would Booth write in his diary, "...we sought to capture (and changed to murder at the end)"? Why would Arnold and Surratt, years after they were safe from the law, provide details of Booth's planned abduction? It's also a huge stretch to say Surratt traveled 24 hours from Elmira, N.Y. to Washington on April 13-14 and spent only 5 hours in the city, most of which was devoted to getting his hair cut and watching a transvestite show.

   Finally, as with every single historian to have written on the case since 1865, Mr. Higham is willing to assume that Booth entered Lincoln's box without having determined in advance that Parker, the guard, would be absent. This, despite his precise timing of the gunshot to coincide with a laugh line in "Our American Cousin" and with Paine's assault on Seward. Booth acted according to a presumption to which he was not entitled, i.e. Parker would not be guarding Lincoln. He had to have known this.




2. Charles Higham has long seen conspiracy theories under his bed. For most of us, going to bed means counting sheep and drifting off into a restful sleep, but for Higham it must be an entirely different experience. Perhaps his sheep all wear swastika armbands on their legs, baaing in syncopation with goose-stepping spies on their way to conspire with their Hollywood friends. Now, after a long and fruitless career hacking out spy laden fiction about Hollywood's brightest stars, he turns his attention to Abraham Lincoln. The switch from Hollywood figures to political icons is consistent with Higham's long rumored belief that every celebrity was not only a Nazi spy, but a closet homosexual intent on destroying the pillars of democracy. No matter - Higham's book is without merit. This book is no more than a long supposition bracketed by historical gobbledygook and pounds of manure shoveled up from Higham's seemingly endless supply of self-created excrement. Surely, he needs some fiber in his diet, and a backbone to go with it. A soul would help, too. But we need to keep in mind a fundamental truth when considering Charles Higham's long and lucrative career - he has the right to publish what he wants. Freedom is everything, and we need to accept that, even if it means that any deranged fool raised in a leper colony by a homosexual Franciscan monk from Mars can bellow about the conspiracy that occupies his dreams. Yes, they shoot horses and diseased cattle, but not people, and so the diseased are allowed their bellowing. Such people have the strength of their beliefs, and no dialogue from the rest of us will convince them that they are wrong. We should pity them. In any event, it appears obvious that Higham has reached the end of his career. He will still publish, of course, but he is much reviled. His "lack of journalistic integrity" (as historian Tony Thomas so aptly stated) is well known. At best, we should all pray that one day such illnesses are defeated and that one day Charles Higham will finally rest in peace.



3. Those interested in the politics behind the war will find Higham's work at times fascinating and horrific. The book really brings home what happened apart from the battlefront. As revered as President Lincoln is today, he made some decisions that would make 21st century citizens of a democracy cringe. Alternatively, Lincoln's detractors and political opponents did the same. It seems unfathomable to me now that Lincoln could have been hated by so many, and this book really pierces the veil of the myth surrounding his presidency and the unity of all those in the Union.

   When one really ponders what Lincoln did - suspending the writ of habeas corpus, prosecuting publishers printing unfavorable information, trading with South, etc. - one realizes that Lincoln - just like everyone - is neither complete hero nor complete villain - but a convoluted mix of gray areas.

   But a reflection on Lincoln is not an intended objective of this book. Nor does it foster an argument that Lincoln deserved death. The focus here is the plot to de-throne Lincoln and make peace with the South, hatched by shadowy Confederate sympathizers, fringe Confederate spies, the European aristocracy, and some out-and-out crazies, like the chief villain George Sanders and assassian John Wilkes Booth. This objective is fulfilled in excruciating detail.

   Also deeply disturbing was the revelation of the "Young Americans" Hitler-youth-type organization, the assertion that Stephen Douglas planned for a military coup d'etat over Lincoln, and the whole affair between Confederate exiles conspiring with British/Canadians to incite war with England.

   A fascinating story is marred by the author's continuous barrage of trivial details. He throws so many names, places, and things at the reader that even the most astute Civil War scholar would be overwhelmed.

   The book reads like a novel and while that is good for easy reading, one has to wonder how the author dug up so much granular information 150 years later. The source notes - a paltry half-dozen pages at the end - do nothing to convince me that the author did in fact thoroughly validate the accuracy of his assertions. Personally, while I think the book does contain many facts, I have to consider it more a historical novel, like Gore Vidal's "Lincoln", than a history. "Dark Union", another recent and similar book on Lincoln during the war, is much better annotated.




4. The editorial review says it all:
   
   Conspiracy theorists and Civil War buffs may want to take a gander, but overall this book adds little to our understanding of the assassination.



5. A well written book with a flair for the extreme. The author has taken numerous facts about the assassination and it's particpants and stretched them with assumptions that are conceivable but not proven. A wonderful story, but a disclaimer should be attached allowing readers to understand that some facts have been stretched to offer the story of a dynamic conspiracy, a thrilling hunt and final solution. A great read and it would certainly make a great movie, ala Otto Eisenschiml.

No comments about La Follette's autobiography;: A personal narrative of political experience,.