5 comments about Grant.

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



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



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



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



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

4 comments about The Presidents Fact Book: A Comprehensive Handbook to the Achievements, Events, People, Triumphs, and Tragedies of Every President from George Washington to George W. Bush.

1. The price tag for The Presidents Fact Book: A Comprehensive Handbook To The Achievements, Events, People, Triumphs, And Tragedies Of Every President From George Washington To George W. Bush is a bargain for a weighty, sweeping survey of American presidential biographies as presented by Roger Matuz in over 700 pages of detail: any high school, college or general public library collection with an interest in Presidential history and biographies will appreciate this review of the lives and times of all the nation's presidents. Included are not only biographical sketches, but boxed details on key historical figures of their times, first ladies, and lesser-known presidential facts.



2. I am teaching a high school extra-curricular class this semester on the history of U.S. presidents and wives. This book has proven wonderful! Loads of information and each formatted the same for easy referencing. Great buy!



3. Quotes from Raiders of the Lost Ark aside, I recently became alot more interested in American history. I guess after years of complaining about politicians and where I stood on issues, I kind of wanted to know at least a little of what I was talking about. So I stumbled upon this book,and at a great price no less(cue audience going OOOOOHHHH with fake surprise)! Anyway, I eagerly awaited it and when I recieved it, couldn't believe how extensive it is. It covers every president up to Dubyah and basically reads like a school textbook-which I think it was. It is a very large book and not only focuses on the Presidents and their administrations, but important people behind the scenes and even family members. I learned alot that I didn't know(or couldn't retain from school) and it allowed me to view alot of these men in a different light. It is truly a fascinating read. The one drawback is the fact that it is basically a textbook makes the writing very dry and sort of fact by fact history. This really isn't too much of a problem though because i really wanted something unbiased and informative. This is by no means a way to become an expert on any on of these people, but a great way to get started by learning a little about all of them.



4. This book is wonderful for ages 7 and up. Our family members are all becoming Presidential scholars. Can't stop reading it.

5 comments about Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and The War Years.

1. For anyone that has an interest in American History and enjoys Biographies, this book is worth reading. Carl Sandburg is an excellent writer and sprinkles anecdotes from people who knew Lincoln to really add reality to this reading.
   Lincoln was a fascinating person who led the US in a critical time in its history. This book captures what he was like and reinforces why he is so revered in this country.



2. Sandburg was a poet, and this is a poetic biography of Lincoln. Is that an asset or a liability? In today's climate of "facts, facts, facts," most would probably say the latter. But, in this instance, I would disagree. There are occasions when great poets hit, with their prose, closer to the mark than the historians. It's like the story of the spirit of one of the Russian aristocrats going through the history books and saying, "My secret is safe." Then he reads Tolstoy's War and Peace and shakes his ghostly fist, crying, "How did he know?" This is a great work by a great writer--and lest I give the wrong impression, there are a great many facts in this book. It's one of the most well-researched historical biographies ever written. But if you are looking for more than a biography of Lincoln, if you are looking to be transported, then this is the book for you.
   
   Richard Salva--author of Soul Journey from Lincoln to Lindbergh [UNABRIDGED]



3. This is a biography of Lincoln by the esteemed poet Carl Sandburg. I was born just up the road, US Route 34 (in Kewanee), from his home town of Galesburg, Illinois. Thus, I have always had a soft spot for this version of Lincoln's life
   
   As a poet, Sandburg's version tends to be more epic and mythical--and less critical--in its examination of Lincoln. For all of that, the book still works well. The first part, "The Prairie Years," recounts Lincoln's youth and early career before he attained the presidency. The story, of course, starts with his family settling in Kentucky, where Lincoln was born in 1809. Later, he moved with his family to Illinois. Lincoln began in New Salem and later moved to Springfield. Sandburg's depiction of his development, to becoming a practiced attorney, his political ambitions, his brief time in the militia, lays out the standard treatment of Lincoln, written extraordinarily well. Many anecdotes dot the volume. We see his doomed relationship with Ann Rutledge and his rocky courtship of Mary Todd. The discussion of his famous debates with Stephen Douglas in the Senate Campaign that brought him national visibility (and rendered him viable as a potential presidential candidate) is well told.
   
   Then, the work goes on to explore his place in the Civil War. The volume speak poignantly of the family tragedy that he experienced (the death of a child is always difficult), the strained relationship with his wife, the challenges of orchestrating the Union's war effort.
   
   In a sense, this is a poetic, lyric, romanticized view of Lincoln. It could scarcely be anything else, I think, given Sandburg's perspective. Nonetheless, for that, this is still a compelling work and worth a read.



4. Sandburg took criticism for filling in some blanks with his imagination, but so what? His biography of Lincoln was not intended as a scholarly treatise. Think of the mystic atmosphere of a campfire at night, with an elder telling about the greatest person in a tribe's history. That is Sandburg's accomplishment, making Lincoln live again among us, at least while we are surrounded by Sandburg's mesmerizing account. No one interested in Lincoln or in the meaning of America should miss the experience of these volumes.



5. After searching for the quintessential Lincoln biography to read, as my introduction to studying this fascinating man, I settled on Sandberg. He was a great pleasure to spend several weeks with! Even though we know this book was completed in the 1930's it is so well written and held up by so many academics and scholars as quintessential. It is true masterpie. Many more, hundreds in fact, books have been published as biography since Sandberg but his alone provides the understanding and genesis of how Lincoln came to be Lincoln.
   America (2008) is searching for the next Lincoln: revered on the right and the left, revered in the center, revered on the political fringes, we need a leader, statesman, collaborator, bold leader today more then ever.

5 comments about Mugabe: Power, Plunder, and the Struggle for Zimbabwe's Future.

1. As a Zimbabwean who had to leave the country due to it's current troubles, it was very difficult for me to pick up this book and look for answers to some of the many questions I had about what went wrong in my homeland. However, I came away fascinated by Martin Meredith's careful piecing together of the last three or four decades of Zimbabwe's history. He has assembled a brilliant account of the rise and rule of Mugabe and his Zanu-PF party, and has, for the most part, accurately detailed the major events that have occurred since Mugabe came to power in 1980. The book is not only an account for Zimbabweans, but is written so that any person who is not informed of Zimbabwe's present crises will receive an in-depth look of all that has gone wrong in what was once "the breadbasket of Subsaharan Africa."

   On an aside, this book bears a strong resemblance to another Amazon listing: "Our Votes, Our Guns: Robert Mugabe and the Tragedy of Zimbabwe" by Martin Meredith. Although I have not read this second book, I believe that they are one and the same book.
   by Martin Meredith




2. I served briefly in Mugabe's Zimbabwe as a transiting diplomat in 1998 after the bombings of our East African embassies. I was astounded how someone could spit in the face of the economic forces that provided him with the lavish lifestyle he so enjoyed. This book does an excellent job of portraying the nascence and subsequent decay of one of the world's most corrupted minds. The breadbasket of Africa was turned into desert by this man. Everyone should read this book.



3. great book. i'm not really a book guy. i had to read an african book for a class so i chose mugabe.
   
   this book easily held my attention. i read every word of it in a few hours. i knew nothing about modern zimbabwe. this book changed that.
   
   if you want to read a book that in 3 hours will make you an expert on a very relevant and important current world issue.. pick up mugabe.



4. 2 stars is not a judgment on the quality of this work. No, the low rating is due to the misleading title of the book. As an earlier reviewer suspected, this book simply is a "revised and updated" version of "Our Votes, Our Guns" -- which I already own! Needless to say, I would not have purchased this book had I known that. Yes there is a small footnote on the BACK OF THE BOOK, but you don't see that until the book arrives.
   
   Furthermore, Meredith doesn't even provide and introduction telling one just what parts he has updated or revised. I'm sure this version contains valuable commentary on events since the earlier book, but there's no easy way to find the new material.
   
   Overall I'm sure the book still is a valuable introduction to the insanity that is the Mugabe regime (that's why I gave it 2 stars rather than 1). If, however, you have read the earlier "Our Votes, Our Guns," save your money and wait for "Dinner with Mugabe" to be released.



5. For anyone interested in beginning to understand the dynamics of Zimbabwe's recent electoral crisis, this book is essential. Meredith goes into Mugabe's long history of violence,who like Mao sees violence as essential for politics. From the war waged against opposing guerilla forces because of political differences, the slaughter of 10,000 in Matabeleland, the seizure of white farms, threatening judges who ruled against the ZANU-PF government, and electoral violence, what we are seeing is nothing new, as Meredith reminds us. He also hints at the ethnic and racial tensions driving the politics and violence, something too often forgotten in today's media coverage. For example, Mugabe's ZANU-PF has its roots in the rural Shona ethnic group, while the Movement for Democratic change is much more urban and has many white supporters.
   
   The book is also relatively short (about 244 pages) and easy to read. Meredith provides a huge amount of detail without wasting too many words (or the reader's time).
   
   I think the book could have used a bit more of an introduction into Zimbabwe's and Africa's history more generally for the uninitiated to allow us to compare Mugabe's rule to how politics was conducted in the past in the country and the wider continent. For example, some readers might not realize the importance tribal and ethnic divides play in many African countries. However, any ignorance in this regard could be fixed by reading Meredith's other books on Africa.
   
   Usually in biographies authors try to psychoanalyze their subject. Fortunately, Meredith does not try to do this. He provides insights using quotes and sources, not psychobabble. This is not only good academic practice, but also creates an alarming effect in the book in which Mugabe himself often seems somewhat distant, except through his public statements. That indeed appears to be how he is in real life, alienated from his nation, isolated from the people, and removed from reality.
   
   I hope he comes out with another revised version when Mugabe finally falls from power.
   
   [note: this book is a revised version of "Our Votes, Our Guns". It says this clearly on the front cover and back, but just to warn future readers...]

5 comments about It Takes a Village, Tenth Anniversary Edition.

1. Our country needs an empathetic voice for those who have no voice. This book is worth reading.



2. I decided to read this book because if Senator Clinton becomes president, I needed to know what we would be dealing with. I must admit that I am finding it difficult to get through, as I am only 1/3 done.
   
   First, I find her words disingenuous about her care, concern, and love for children because I can't help thinking about her stance on abortion. It just doesn't make sense. How could someone adore children this much, and yet disregard those babies in the womb?
   
   Second, Senator Clinton reveals many ideas in regards to caring for babies and children that will fall under the responsibility of the taxpayer. Her ideas include: teaching parents how to care for their baby or child, how to talk to him, how to feed him, how to discipline him, and the like. She highlights programs in Europe and Asia where health care representatives make house visits for 10 days after the birth of a baby, as well as one that makes visits monthly for up to five years to check on the family. Talk about losing our privacy!
   
   Senator Clinton brings up good points, that the family is broken down, and many do not have good intentions when it comes to children. However, govenment stepping in is not the solution. It never is. So many of these issues are already being addressed through government, hospitals, schools, and private organizations to help teach child care, but when people's hearts are not right in the first place, God is the only solution.
   
   In the end, though, I think we can look forward to a lot of these ideas being implemented under the guise of Universal Healthcare, which she is making her number one priority. Besides that caring for children should not be government's job, it scares me very much to know she just may get what she thinks is so important.



3. The premise is a good one (p 317), "Each of us...has the opportunity and responsibility to protect and nurture children." And it would be hard to argue with her contention that (p 16), "Whether or not you are a parent, what happens to America's children affects your present and your future." But the book's subtitle, "And Other Lessons Children Teach Us," is a misnomer, as it is more about lessons Ms. Rodham Clinton wants to impart on readers than those provided by children. The real deal, supposedly, is this (p 17): "It is a statement of my personal views, a reflection of my continuing meditation on children."
   
   Although many topics are touched on, including personal histories of both the Rodham and Clinton clans, and her personal parenting experiences (like six-year-old Chelsea role-playing her father's negative opponent during a reelection campaign), most of the book concerns child-related policy and politics. She shares what the husband and wife team have achieved on the issue: (p 49) "To prevent these children from languishing in foster care, my husband signed legislation...," (p 90) "The Family and Medical Leave Act, the first bill my husband signed into law as President...," (p 137) "The Brady Bill, which my husband signed into law in 1993...," (p 200, 201) " As my husband said in his 1995 State of the Union address:...," "(p 210) "As I said in my speech at the United Nations Fourth World Conference...," (p 237) "On October 31, 1995, I hosted an event at the White House...," (p 244) "I began to work on behalf of education reform in Arkansas in 1983...," and (p 265) "In 1994, the President, again with bipartisan support, signed the School-to-Work Opportunities Act." She sites research: (p 72) "Two in five American teenage girls become pregnant by the age of twenty...," (p 132) "Three times as many children die each year from preventable household accidents than from murder," (p 133) "Nearly half of all American households have guns...," (p 271) "...every year the average American child watches more than a thousand stylized and explicit rapes, murders, armed robberies, and assaults on television," and number four of the Goals 2000 list (p 261), "United States students will be first in the year [by the year 2000] in science and mathematics achievement." And she includes recommendations: (p 82) "Radio and television stations could broadcast child care tips...," (p 120) "Brisk walking, hiking and bicycling are all good exercise and are great ways to spend time together as well," (p 144) "Adults should practice counting to ten and taking a deep breath before contributing to the climate of incivility and insecurity that surrounds us," (p 172) "If more parents introduced their children to faith and prayer at home...I am sure there would be fewer calls for prayer in schools," (p 188) "Standing up for tolerance and respect in front of children gives them models for how to confront bigotry on their own...," and the biggee (p 127) "A reformed health care system that guarantees all children the medical care they need." But overall, it's a bit disjointed and unfocused. While she makes some excellent points, her writing is somewhat stiff and awkwardly overfilled with words and phrases in quotes ("the way things used to be," "come naturally," "upsized," "your turn"). It would have read better if, instead of meandering, she had stuck to the apparent issue: U.S. policy on child-related issues. Better: Mountains Beyond Mountains by Tracy Kidder, There is No Me Without You by Melissa Fay Greene, Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin, and Dreams of My Father by Barack Obama.



4. I wouldn't read this book for a million dollars. She has shown many times on the campaign trail that nothing that comes out of her mouth has any value at all. She is a politician...and since when can any politician be trusted.
   
   I bought this book to give to a friend as a joke (and it turned out to be pretty funny, I'll spare you the details). Please note that I bought this book used so that Hillary Rodham Chavez didn't receive any money from my purchase.



5. This book is regurgitated Karl Marx. Everyone remembers his spoutings about industry and its relation to class struggle but he was very opinionated on how to raise children to fit in with his vision of a socialist Utopia. And Hillary Clinton's viewpoints mirror his nearly word for word. Maybe people think his writings are too old for it to be labeled plagiarism but it's like she copied it and added a word or two of her own once in a while.

5 comments about George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography.

1. Amazingly accurate and well researched, this book will provide the reader with a fascinating view of "41", and the depths of the Bush influence in American politics. This is revelatory reading. Remember, Poppy is merely prologue for Dubya. These are dangerous people.



2. Great book for reference. Bibliography checks out nice. Book is good at seperating the facts from the fiction concerning the Bush Family, as well as others. Definately a must have for all those concerned with current affairs and America's future. Don't let "unauthorized" in the title discourage you, this is the REAL biography, not the propaganda puke which is regurgitated by mainstream media and press...



3. For me this is the fourth book I have completed on the Bush dynasty. Unlike the others, this one is not gossipy or filled with innuendoes and salacious half-truths strung together to entice the reader: This is a full-bodied history, well researched and documented, and backed up with "real facts." Since the authors are loosely affiliated with, or at least sympathetic to the Lyndon La Rouche cause, I made a conscious agreement with myself to keep my "crap detection system" in "wide open alert mode," and to "declare foul" at the first sign of "manufactured anti-Bush" unsubstantiated facts.
   
   I have now reached the end of the book and cannot say that I have found anything beyond a slight disagreement with the guilt by association arising in the case of the Union Banking Corporation's Hitler Project. It seems to me that Bush's father was more or less operating under the rules of the Versailles Treaty then in force: as a kind of silent "overseer" of a Harriman caretaking operation. The Bush connection to Nazism was thus more a product of these arrangements than due to some sinister ideological and Fascist motive, which is often erroneously left hanging in the air. U.S. and British partnerships with Germans were more the rule than the exception due to these WW-I Treaty restrictions. And this was true well into Hitler's administration. In fact, many of the actions the government took against these "shared corporations" under the Enemy's Act of 1942, specifically indicated that seizures were only of the "Nazi interests," often leaving the U.S. partners free to carry on business as usual. Except for this, and the fact that the rules of business morality generally seemed to have been more relaxed with wider opportunities for graft in the milieu of the last generation of "wheeling-and-dealing," there is little to question here.
   
   The book pretty much confirms the facts found in other books, but here the authors have done so at a much cleaner, more professional, and in my personal view, on a much higher level. Needless to say, I am impressed with the scholarship of the author's work. The book is all the more devastating because these authors have gone well beyond the cover stories; have provided context as appropriate, have not relied on the normal and very much available anti-Bush claptrap; and have additionally done their own independent research and investigations, often from scratch.
   
   The authors story about Bush I, goes as follows:
   
   George W. Bush (Bush I), like the other Bush brothers and sons, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bush oligarchy, started by his maternal grandfather and uncle, George Herbert Walker, and George Herbert Walker, Jr., and Senator from Connecticut, Prescott Bush (George's father). The epicenter of the oligarchy has always been, and remains the banking business, in particular the Wall Street international investment bank of Brown Brothers Harriman. According to these authors (as well as all the others I have read), this bank remains the "Bush family firm" in the deepest sense of that phrase.
   
   The power of this bank and its ubiquitous network reaches both across the globe and across time. In particular, its connections to the British oligarchy, to Henry Kissinger Enterprises, to Israeli and Zionists circles, to Texas oilmen, and to the Saudi and Kuwaiti Royal families are well known. What is not so well known, is how these connections conspire to control, and in many cases to undermine U.S. economic and national security interests. In this regard the author points out that: "It will be noted that Bush has succeeded in proportion as the country has failed, and that Bush's advancement has proceeded pari passu (in tandem with) with the degradation of the national stage upon which he has operated and which he has come to dominate."
   
   The key to the story, according to these authors is Bush's amoral and compliant personality and willingness to bend the rules to serve those higher up the economic food chain, and family interests over U.S. national and economic interests. As he notes: "The reader will search in vain for strong, principled commitments in George Bush's personality; the most that will be found is a series of obsessions, of which the most durable are race, vanity, personal ambition, and settling scores with adversaries."
   
   Anyone doubting the seriousness of this book will be quickly disavowed of that notion from reading the prediction on its first page in which as early as 1991, when it went to press, predicted that GW Jr. would win the presidency and that his reign would be another unmitigated disaster for the U.S. That alone is worth five stars.



4. One of the scarriest books I've ever read. Almost hard to believe that people can be so calculating.



5. i DO NOT CARE FOR bUSH. BUT EVEN I THINK ALL THIS BOOK IS TRASH.

5 comments about Alexander Hamilton.

1. And he wasn't even born here. This is the amazing story of an incredible intellect. Arriving on the shores of this country, and immediately putting his past behind him, this wunderkind went on to do some truly remarkable things. Here are the main things that truly amazed me about Hamilton:
   
   Our constitution was not a done deal.
   
   The Republicans, led by Jefferson preferred that powers be vested in states: foreign policy, currency and they viewed states' economies as agrarian based.
   
   The Federalists, led by Hamilton believed in a strong central government which subordinated states. They believed in a manufacturing base to the economy. The federal government would determine foreign policy; create a single currency etc. to wit, the Constitution. In order to explain this document to the lay person, Hamilton, Madison and Jay undertook the writing of the Federalist Papers, probably 75% of which were written by Hamilton. The Federalist Papers were published in the newspapers of the day. They worked and the Constitution was ratified. If he had stopped there, Hamilton's contributions to the cause would have been some of the greatest, and I haven't even mentioned his valiant performance at George Washington's right hand during the Revolutionary War.
   
   Hamilton read and studied voraciously and learned everything he could on the subjects of economics and international finance and with great foresight set about to create the American banking system and was appointed as first treasury secretary. This man, almost single-handedly, bequeathed to us the greatest financial/capitalist system the world has ever known.
   
   These two things: defending the Constitution through the Federalist Papers, and the creation of this new financial system seem to me to be so vastly different, require such different skills, that it doesn't seem possible, and yet they come from the mind of one man. That was what blew me away.
   
   We would not be the country we are today, if not for Hamilton.
   
   In his telling of this tale, Chernow paints the revered Jefferson in a less than flattering light. Fearing direct confrontation Jefferson almost always acted through a proxy, most often Madison. He allowed Madison to do all his dirty work, and for years the two heaped bitter and vile criticism upon Hamilton, yet Hamilton never missed a beat. Hamilton won, and they lost, and we are all better off for it.
   
   I won't say anymore except to say that this is one of the best, most complete books on the subject of our nation's founding, that I have read and I highly recommend it. Happy reading.



2. This is a terrific biography of a fascinating founding father, largely overlooked in history books. The NYC vs VA perspective of Chernow is particularly insightful and refreshing. One of the best history books I have read.



3. I absolutely loved this book. The research and detail was amazing, and I found it to be well balanced. It's not a short book by any means and is in no way a "quick read." It took me a few weeks to finish. The biggest obstacle for me was the language used in the 18th century that is no longer used today. I am an avid reader and a college graduate, but I found many words I had not seen before (such as "hegemony" and "shibboleth"). I ended up buying a small Merriam-Webster Dictionary that I kept handy while reading this book.
   
   I have a much greater respect and understanding of Hamilton than I did before, despite his many flaws. Also, I am much more disappointed and not overly fond of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson after reading this biography. After I read "American Sphinx" by Joseph Ellis, I wasn't that enamored of Jefferson. Now I understand why in more detail.
   
   You'll be amazed at Hamilton's abilities and accomplishments after reading this book.



4. I fond this book to be pleasantly refreshing in its scope and style. In almost every page is a new insight into the main characters life. A complete course in American History, and a must read among American History enthusiast.



5. Long, but an easy interesting read for anyone interested in the founding fathers and seeing our current problems of today were the same ones they strugled with.

5 comments about Khrushchev: The Man and His Era.

1. My mom -- white bread, Communist-fearing, life-long Democrat -- has always had a soft spot for Nikita Khruschev. "I just don't think he was that bad. He couldn't have been that bad if he cried after President Kennedy died." This book vindicates my mom. He really *did* cry after Kennedy died -- although it's not clear how much that was due to grief and how much that was due to the realization he'd have to work with a US president with some actual political experience and ties in LBJ. (No word on how my mom knew about the crying thing....KGB files have now been closed).
   
   But even if Nikita Sergeyevitch, right hand man to Stalin, participant(however distasteful) in the Ukraine purges, cold war bully to Kennedy's (and to some degree Eisenhower's) naivete, and shoe banger extraordinaire wasn't Mr. Sentimentality, this book divulges a lot about him we can be grateful for. And in looking at the darker side of this major player of the 20th century, Taubman excels at helping us understand him from all angles: his son Sergei, Khruschev's own papers, the historical record here and in Russia, and indeed the correspondence between Khruschev and Kennedy, which began during the Cuban Missile Crisis and did not end until the fall of 1963 (both undoubtedly expected it to continue).
   
   The last is indeed the most poignant, perhaps just for the American reader, perhaps for all of us, since it does signify the attempts of two great but flawed leaders to struggle with the immense burden on their shoulders and try to come to some kind of understanding for the sake of their nations. In doing so, they seem just about to build a friendship.
   
   I found the book a bit too long, and would like the prose to have gone at a more clipping pace. Better editing may have helped. But I will read it again someday and I'm glad to have it on my shelf. I don't see how it could become outdated or lose its importance.



2. In the last 60's, Krushchev wrote "Khrushchev Remembers", a self-serving memoir. It was interesting to read depsite its heavy slant, but the book didn't provide the reader with a sense of the man, and it was clearly censored by Soviet authorities. William Taubman has written a fine biography that gives us a clear and astonishing picture of Krushchev along with a snapshot of the Stalin-era purges and a superb picture of the Cold War. He uses interviews with Krushchev's former associates and with his son Sergei to great effect. He also uses archives that became available only after the Soviet Union fell apart. As a result of his research and clear writing, we feel like we know the man who darn near blew us all up during the Cuban missle crisis. (Or at least that was the feeling I had in 1962, watching in a college dorm as it all unfolded on TV.)
   
   It's scary to see Krushchev as Taubman displays him. We knew he was a boor when he took off his shoe and pounded his desk at the UN in 1960, but it was fascinating to read about his highly charged, highly politicized encounters with Soviet artists and writers in the early 60s. Taubman shows us the man's temperament, which makes one wonder at how the Cold War failed to cause a nuclear war. It also makes one marvel at the distortion in national policies that come about when one person has such enormous power and is so undisciplined.
   
   Although the character flaws Taubman illuminates are serious and frightening in retrospect, Taubman also shows how important Krushchev was in ending the Stalinist era. In 1953, a politician in the USSR who fell from power would have been shot; in 1964 Krushchev was simply booted out, given a pension and made to shut up.
   
   It's hard to imagine anyone having better access to Khrushchev's contemporaries, and Taubman puts an astonishing story together for us in a beautuifully understated way.



3. This biography is the kind that I like. It's about an intermediate figure and uses that individual's life to frame up the times (ref: my review of Paul Preston's Franco biography).
   
   Taubman does an excellent job of research and a good job at having a view about Krushchev's character and motives. However, the book is just not executed that well. The early years are presented fairly slowly and don't seem as tightly focused given that Taubman does have a thesis about Krushchev the man. This may just be that there are gaps in what he could learn about earlier years. The second half when Krushchev is in charge picks up a great deal. Some of this is just that the stakes are higher plus he has better sources since there are/were people alive to interview. However, even here there is some sloppiness in presentation.
   
   The book is an excellent confirmation that much of what occurs in history is because of the idiosyncracies of individuals. Anyone who has worked in a large corporation would be familiar with unusual decision-making processes based on the personalities of people. That reality is presented clearly here even including how Eisenhower and Kennedy are presented in their dealings with Krushchev. On the one hand, it's almost amazing that war was avoided, But on the other hand, all of these individuals understood the amount of death that would have occurred and worked hard to avoid it. It speaks well that all understood that losing face was just fine compared to killing millions of people. However, it is repeatedly presented that Krushchev was certain that nuclear weapons could not and would not be used so the irony is that it made it easier to threaten with resulting in the view that he was kind of a mad man. It's similar to two bullies ready to fight as long as someone is restraining both of them. The good news is that Krushchev was not fundamentally evil like a Hitler who probably would have used the weapons.
   
   But, this leads to the most interesting question about Krushchev. Taubman clearly speaks to the contradiction of Krushchev participating in Stalin's purges but then subsequently denouncing these crimes. While not overtly stating it, Taubman presents Krushchev as a true believer in communism who is willing to kill to achieve it for the "greater good." I think the book should have more clearly discussed the probability that Krushchev also accepted that killing was necessary for his own personal power. And, if so, could everything have not just been the pursuit of personal advancement/power with communism as a convenient support for that? Did any of these communist leaders (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) actually believe what they were saying? Taubman does not address this.
   
   The other gap I think the book has is that it doesn't really speak much about Brezhnev. Given that Brezhnev maintains power till death, was there a contrast in his approach that would have shed light on Krushchev. My guess is that there probably is and I think it also might have helped answer the question of whether Krushchev ever believed in communism or was just out for himself.
   
   As it is, it is easy to say that Krushchev was not evil in the way that Stalin was. Once he was in charge, it became possible to be retired from the government rather than always branded a traitor and executed. Even to the point, that Krushchev could be forced to retire.
   
   So, this is a worthy read but expect to work a bit to get through it.



4. 
   
   It's about time we had a decent biography of Nikita Khruschev.
   
   Khruschev is a more important historical figure than seems generally appreciated today. He was something of a refreshing presence on the dreary world scene of the late 1950s and early 1960s. I remember his American tour, and you couldn't help but find a kind of pleasant and infectious quality in some of his observations and activities. I believe he sincerely wanted to slow or halt the Cold War the same way he diminished the horrors of Stalinism, an historic achievement.
   
   Taubman doesn't capture the more idealistic sense of Khruschev, which I believe was genuine, because I was a young man through his time and took an interest in events.
   
   Taubman's Khruschev is a bright (Khruschev had considerable analytical ability and a remarkable memory) peasant risen to the top, an extremely crude man, always regretful about his lack of formal education, who never ceases to behave as something of a Father Karamazov. I have no doubt there is truth here, but it provides an incomplete picture.
   
   Was Khruschev any cruder than what we now know of the private life of John Kennedy, who had prostitutes swimming in the White House pool while Jackie was away, or of the public Lyndon Johnson, who used to conduct interviews and bark orders while relieving himself? I ask this because Taubman repeats the word crude or offers anecdotes about crude behavior many, many times.
   
   Even as a young man I thought many of Khruschev's crudities were not so great as they were treated by America's press. The banging of his shoe at the U.N. is a favorite example. Crude? Yes. But significant beyond style? I think not much.
   
   I enjoyed this book and would recommend it to anyone interested in biography, the period, world affairs, or Soviet history, but I do have reservations about it, and it should be read with some caution.
   
   Taubman weaves into the text too great a sense of the correctness of America's position and policies of the time, giving a sense of Khruschev largely representing an irritating and sometimes dangerous opponent to them. America often behaved in provocative and dangerous ways through the Cold War. Taubman mentions some matters, as Eisenhower's saying that if the Soviets over-flew the United States the way the United States regularly invaded Soviet airspace there would be war, but the week-to-week reality of this is not stressed enough here to appreciate the intensity of the Soviet point of view. There were many such matters, including American submarines actually colliding with Soviet boats.
   
   Taubman gives a lot of attention to Khruschev's well-known habit of rattling his rockets in speeches, but we are not given enough background for why he might do this. The Pentagon actually had plans in the mid-1950s for an atomic pre-emptive attack on the Soviets. Generals like Curtis LeMay, the man who bombed Japan to the point of gratuitous horror, openly advocated nuclear hostilities. And, of course, America had used the atomic bomb, twice.
   
   Taubman's treatment of matters like the Cuban Missile Crisis suffers from this. The U.S. had a huge, generously-finaced terrorist operation going against Cuba at the time, including along more than one track, and that is an important part of the background that Taubman treats with what I believe is neglect. Taubman's words on the ghastly Bay of Pigs does reveal hints of American jingo attitudes. They are not offered loudly, but they are there, and I think they should not be if we want to understand what motivated Khruschev.
   
   One of the great missing chapters in the book is any detail around the Kennedy assassination. The assassination is there but not treated adequately. It was, after all, an epic event which had great consequences on both the Soviets and America. Of course, to treat the assassination adequately involves going into issues that remain murky and controversial.
   
   Despite my reservations, the book is an interesting and worthwhile read, however, I certainly do not agree with the New York Times review which said "Succeeds in every sense...unlikely to be surpassed any time soon...."



5. William Taubman's biography of N.S. Khrushchev won the American prestigious Pulitzer Prize in 2004 for best biography. Although the book is very in-depth and extensive, it is not clear why, since the overall result is far less than outstanding.
   
   The main flaws of the book are its overuse of pop psychology, which seems to come from the interpretation of the writer himself rather than from any established source (although he claims to have consulted with "experts" in this field), which does nothing to enhance our understanding of Khrushchev and his motives, and most of which are arbitrary and subjective opinions of the author. This applies especially to the parts which cover Khrushchev's period in power. The second, and biggest, flaw is the insipid and annoying editorial line employed by Taubman, one of the most vulgar anti-socialist sort and not in the slightest informative or interesting. I do not see the point of writing a book about a leader and major figure in the Soviet Union, a bulwark of Communism, when you are so anti-communist you feel compelled to tell the reader this every other sentence or so. This goes all the more since Taubman's interrupting objections consist of useless comments along the lines of "we all know that human nature is against socialism though" or "he ought to have finally recognized his system was a failure" etc. These are not interpretations or context-giving statements that help one understand Khrushchev, but are only political opinions inserted by Taubman, and silly ones at that. If Taubman wants to expatiate on his political views, he should write an essay book on the topic or somesuch.
   
   The obvious merits of this biography, on the other hand, are its scope (with some 650 pages plus over 100 pages of notes), and the structure of the biography. Taubman uses, apart from the introductory chapter, the chronological method, but is very systematic and leaves nothing out, while at the same time keeping a good grasp on all the material. This allows the reader to get a large amount of information on Khrushchev, both in his political and his personal life, at any stage of the proceedings. Despite the pop psychology interruptions and politicking by Taubman, the descriptions of Khrushchev's decision-making in power are fairly thorough and shed a clear light on how many famous Cold War events looked from the Soviet side. It is also pleasant that Taubman does not, as some authors have done, focus excessively on the foreign policy side, but instead pays all the necessary attention to his reforms (and wavering in them).
   
   Although Taubman has a strong tendency to want to discredit Khrushchev and underestimate his competence, partly because Khrushchev himself was rather insecure about himself, he does manage (perhaps against his intent) to make Khrushchev sympathetic and understandable to the reader. Taubman also involves the various other leaders of the USSR, the intelligentsia, officials etc. with whom Khrushchev interacted often into the story, which gives a bare amount of context for his decisions and policies and how they were received, although there could have been much more on this. Because of this, and the large amount of useful information contained in this vast biography, "Khrushchev: The Man and His Era" cannot be considered a failure. But Taubman's editorializing plus his psychologizing, individualist interpretation of historical events make it certainly not worth awarding prizes to either.

5 comments about Twilight at Monticello: The Final Years of Thomas Jefferson.

1. This book discusses the extended family, the estate and the retirement activities of our third president. It's well written, but it's a once over lightly.
   
   While we meet the family members (a family chart is very much needed), we don't understand them. I thought I somewhat knew daughter Martha, but in the end she punishes a slave in a very unseemly manner which didn't fit any impression I had had. While there are character differences between the sons-in-law, their big fight and its aftermath seem to be wedged in, rather than a culmination of differences between the two men. Crawford does a very good job in presenting the story of the Hemings family, but again there is no way to understand them.
   
   The estate and its furnishings are well described. There is a floor plan for the main building and photos and drawings of the grounds and of the other residences. There is little on the slave quarters. A map locating all the family residences would have been helpful. Unlike many writers who cover the finacial past Crawford gives benchmarks to help in understanding the scale of costs and deficits.
   
   What is told of Jefferson's activities is good, but since the retirement spans 18 years there has to be more than what is given. Jefferson's work is always an extension of his philosophy, and Crawford's best work is here. He gives the clearest description of Jefferson on slavery that I have read (inclusive of his holding Britian responsible for rooting it in the new world) and his religious beliefs and views.
   
   While the above review has a lot on the negative side, the problems are not about what apprears, but about what could (or maybe should) have been included. I recommend the book. It reads very well-- in fact--- it reads so well its biggest shortcoming is that there isn't more of it.



2. An interesting perspective on Thomas Jefferson at the end of his life and his belief in his entitlement.



3. Bought the book thinking I would learn more about Monticello but discovered so much more about Jefferson. What an interesting man but also full of faults. I had only known about his presidency and his various inventions but this book had fascinating information about his personal life, his family and all the troubles they all encountered over the years.
   
   I enjoyed the book so much I emailed the author to tell him so and he responded. I waiting for the delivery of a second of his books. Can't wait because he writes the kind of book you can't put down. And you come away learning a great deal as well.



4. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Being retired and elderly my self I am interested to see how others reach closure on their lives.
   
   What interested me is the consistency of Jefferson's response to the ebb and flow of his life. Denial was his main ego defense and he honed its use till there was barely a pause between the event and his response.
   
   You realize you are dealing with a good man beset by what he wanted and his ability to deliver for himself and his family. You are saddened by the life he dealt his grandson Jefferson Randolph, then self protectively blaming Jeff for not finishing his education.
   
   Reading about his son in law and his grand daughters husband, Charles Bankhead one wishes that AA had been created 200 years earlier. Jefferson was remarkably insightful in his realization that Alcoholism was a medical illness.
   
   Jefferson spoke to me when he wrote,
   
   "When you and I look back on the country over which we have passed, what a field of slaughter does it exhibit! Where are all the friends who entered it with us, under all the inspiring energies of health and hope? As if pursued by the havoc of war, they are strewed by the way, some earlier, some later, and scarce a few stragglers remain to count the numbers fallen, and to mark yet, by their own fall, the last footsteps of their party. Is it a desirable thing to bear up through the heat of action, to witness the death of all our companions, and merely be the last victim?
   
   I recommend this thoughtful book to you.



5. In Twilight at Monticello, I was looking for an accessible portrait of Thomas Jefferson the planter, neighbor, and family man. I got exactly that while simultaneously revisiting Jefferson the politician, history-maker, philosopher, and visionary. The great man was always there facing the mundane, the day-to-day difficulties of clashing personalities, mounting debt, and the inescapable effects of aging.
   Crawford's prose is relaxed, yet precise - a pleasant balance between hard facts and evocative descriptions. He's an incredibly efficient storyteller, deftly drawing dozens of characters, while steadily revealing Jefferson himself.
   Crawford's organization is fundamentally chronological, pausing from time-to-time for a story or discussion, such as Jefferson's philosophical struggle with the institution of slavery contrasted with his relationship with Sally Hemmings. Other "subplots" are skillfully and dramatically carried across the book - like the gruesome story of Jefferson's nephew Isham Lewis or Jefferson's relationship with the thoughtful and determined Edward Coles.
   Monticello, Poplar Forest and Albemarle County come to life as well -- from the fog rolling over the Blue Ridge mountains, to the terraced gardens, to the charged excitement of Court Day in Charlottesville.
   Jefferson the intellectual is never lost in this look at his later years. The reader finishes with a good grasp of Jefferson's world view and how it impacted his relationships with friends and family members. Irony fills Jefferson's old age, yet tragedy and pain can never really dampen his extraordinary vision.
   Crawford paints Jefferson and life at Monticello with a swift, broad stroke, still the book is rich with detail. It is an engaging springboard to a wealth of Jefferson scholarship. Crawford left me wanting more, which in this case, is a very good thing.

No comments about Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Making of Modern America (Weekend Biographies).