5 comments about George Washington and Benedict Arnold: A Tale of Two Patriots.

1. This is a great book! It is extremely well researched and powerfully written.
   
   Composed by career soldier and historian David Palmer, "George Washington and Benedict Arnold" tells the story of two Revolutionary War patriots who left such diametrically opposed legacies, despite life trajectories that were at one time so parallel.
   
   George Washington and Benedict Arnold were both more than just patriots and American soldiers, they were the heart of the American military movement against the British.
   
   Washington was the brains, soul and conscience of the Continental Army, while Benedict Arnold was the sword of the Revolution. A soldier of tremendous courage, talent and energy, he managed, time after time, to turn defeat into victory on almost every major battlefield and changed the course of the war.
   
   Indeed, Arnold's victories eventually convinced the French to enter the war on the side of the Americans. Shortly afterward, Spain and the Netherlands followed, turning a rebellion into a world war and all but ensuring a British defeat.
   
   But as the war progressed and Arnold failed to recieve the recognition and rewards he desperately craved, the thoughts of America's premier soldier turned to treason. Had he succeeded in his betrayal, Washington would surely have lost the war and America her independence.
   
   How is it that two men with lives that paralleled and intertwined so closely have legacies so vastly different?
   
   George Washington is remembered as America's greatest soldier and the father of his country, while Benedict Arnold is still considered the greatest traitor in the history of the United States.
   
   To quote the author:
   
   "Your thoughts become your words.
   Your words become your actions.
   Your actions become your habits.
   Your habits become your character.
   Your character becomes your destiny."
   
   "George Washington and Benedict Arnold" is a tremendously good read, recommended for those interested in America's war for independence and the impact of character on destiny.



2. Gen. Palmer came and spoke to the Betty Martin Chapter of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution to review his book. We found out that every penny of profit that would be his is sent to fund Mt. Vernon, Washington's home. The book is an interesting contrast of two men with eerily similar backgrounds. Gen. Palmer contends that the difference in the outcome of the two lives is CHARACTER. Gen. Palmer is an excellent speaker. In his book, he presents a clear picture of the lives of these two very different men - each of whom played a major role in the foundation of our country. The character of the man determined the content of that role. I gave copies of the book as gifts at Christmas.



3. I enjoyed this book for the good narrative that it is. Most of my pleasure came from learning the rough details of Benedict Arnold's treason. I had only known him as a traitor prior to reading this book, but had no idea that he was "America's Hannibal" prior to becoming a turncoat, nor was I aware of the reasons for his treason or the way in which he tried to execute it.
   
   The book is a quick, enjoyable, and easy read, which I am also grateful for, because if it weren't, I probably would have put it down and tried to find something more comprehensive on the subject of Arnold to read instead. I have never read a book on a subject such as this that contains no bibliography. Palmer includes a few suggested readings at the end of the book, but it is only about 10 books altogether, and two of them are prior works of his own.
   
   Even within the text, Palmer several times says something like "as a prominent modern historian says 'George Washington was...'"
   
   Well, who is the historian?!
   
   This unwillingness to cite anyone else within the text or in a bibliography really bothered me the whole time I was reading the book. The whole thing reads like something a high school student would turn in to his history teacher. The only difference between this book and the student's essay is that the book is nearly 400 pages long.
   
   There may be some very good reason for not including a bibliography or giving a prominent modern historian credit for his words in the text. I am not accusing Palmer of anything, only saying that these things bothered me quite a bit.
   
   Now, I will find some more books on Benedict Arnold to get the full story.



4. Reading Palmer's great book made me think about today's events in Iraq. Those who don't read history believe that most events that occur are happening for the first time. They believe things have never been worse. As Palmer so eloquently writes, Washington had major problems in his execution of the war and had not only enemies on both sides, but cabals of fellow military men working for his defeat and wanting his job. Some of these narratives were revelations about our first president. He lost more battles than he won, the war was going terribly and the morale of his troops was so low they were loathe to re-up when the terms of their duty had expired. More than once he had to intervene to keep from losing troops to desertion. He acted firmly in handling all these obstacles and persevered to win the war and save the fledgling nation. There may not have been a CNN, MSNBC or NY Times working to bring him down. But, as Palmer tells us, there were many who published the most vicious things about Washington, and sometimes, directly to him, and wished him ill throughout the war. So, some things never change. Things go wrong in wars. People, including the Congress, carp and think they can do better. Washington had the character to see the plan through to its satisfactory ending. This in spite of having a "friend" like Benedict Arnold working eventually to defeat him and the rest of the new nation. Palmer's book serves as a defining account of the Revolutionary War and why George Washington deserves a day in his honor. It should never have been diluted into a "President's Day." Read the book and learn more than you've ever known about Washington, Arnold and the Revolutionary War.



5. Excellent piece of history -- incredible detail -- easy reading. Dave Palmer is a retired general and past supervisor at West Point. He is also a terrific speaker and a very ethical person. (Obviously, I have heard him speak, after which I bought the book).

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

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



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



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



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

5 comments about Profiles in Courage (Perennial Classics).

1. John F. Kennedy makes an excellent contribution to history with this book. It describes the lives of several distinguished Americans who, in the course of history, have shaped the face of the United States. All these biographies are interesting. History becomes very much alive with this book, and Kennedy does an excellent job in showing how men can contribute to the life of a nation. What is even more noteworthy is that that is what he himself did. This new edition of the book has an excellent preface by Caroline Kennedy, herself an eminent legal scholar.



2. 
   I read this book quite a while back and found some great food for thought. One of my primary takeaways was that be careful when judging others motives.
   
   Kennedy (or whoever wrote the book) poses a primary question: Which is better...the man who will not compromise at all, or the man who bends but does not break?
   
   The argument is that the man who does not compromise may be considered true to his cause, but may get little done. The man who compromises to get things done may not be 100% true to his cause but is able to forward some of his ideas.
   
   The author(s) leave it up to the reader to decide (judge) if the path is right. Or, are both paths right? This is good food for thought for a critical thinker!
   
   What the author(s) is pointing at is that each man and woman must choose their own path in a situation according to their beliefs, values and morals, even if it may cause political and/or other ruin.
   
   The Re-Discovery of Common Sense: A Guide to: The Lost Art of Critical Thinking



3. This book is well written, engaging and tells stories of courageous political leaders. Once you pick this book up you won't be able to put it down, and it will stick with you for years. He won the Pulitzer for a reason; we all need a reminder that doing what's right but unpopular leaves a far richer legacy than making decisions that win short term allies.



4. I bought this book and it's a nice read and very historical, of course. I just wanted to put it in context today. 07/31/08 The house voted 213-212 not to extend the session. The main reason it was brought up was to debate the issue of our nations energy future One vote mattered to keep Congress in session, it voted against that debate. I wonder if that can be pinpointed to a single Representative for that vote against and why they chose that. Probably not as they would not be viewed as a member or party of courage today! Then again why not? They come out on TV saying they want to save the earth (tell China, India and the rest of the world please and let me drive cheap, please), so lets get the debate going and cut the total BS. no courage on the Democrat side now a days or else you become Lieberman.



5. Profiles in Courage is a book that American lovers of history will inevitably read at some point or another...and they should. It is a solid piece of work, grounded in erudition and steeped with keeps-the-pages-turnin' anecdotes.
   
   The Senators profiled are mostly forgotten, but their stories are compelling nonetheless, and one wonders why they have lapsed into obscurity while other negligible figures (e.g. Crispus Attucks) have risen to prominence in elementary history curricula. (OK, one doesn't really wonder.)
   
   There are some eye-glazing passages of fluff and foofaraw, but the book mainly keeps a brisk pace, evoking the historical context in small prefatory chapters, and then outlining the situation wherein the Senator in question--rightly or wrongly, for good or ill--exhibited the courage that qualified him for inclusion. (One could call their courage anti-democratic...but sometimes that worked out for the best.)
   
   Besides its readability, Profiles in Courage is also strictly non-partisan--a feat I'm surprised they pulled off. Kudos to Ted Sorenson for crafting this--I'll go ahead and call it "classic"--work, which stands as an admirable piece of educational apparatus.
   
   (Too bad he didn't receive the Pulitzer.)

5 comments about Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield.

1. This is a fascinating look at a little known president in American history. It covers the convention that nominated Garfield where he was not even a contender. Garfield was a representative for General Sherman who was against General Grant and James Blaine. This convention was one of the most interesting in our history and shows how the freedom of delegates can result in a compromise that gives a candidate acceptable to many. While none would wholeheartedly jump behind Garfield he was able to take a nomination. The New York crowd who backed Grant was particularly bitter. Roscoe Conkling who is made out to be the great villain in this story provides an interesting foil. Chester Arthur is shown to be a man even more unlikely than Garfield for the presidency and it is telling that after his term is up he is hardly even considered for another. The election process also proves to be interesting showing a time before TV and radio when stump speeches reigned supreme. Garfield's assassin turns out to be one of his campaigners who want a political appointment. He feels that by killing Garfield he will be rewarded with a patronage position. Garfield's election seems to bring about a divide in the country that is already distrustful after the election of Rutherford B. Hays. Ironically it is the death of Garfield and the unlikely ascension of Arthur that will heal the nation. This dark horse unified the country in his death and paved the way for civil service reform. For those who have an interest in the Gilded Age this is a must read. For those who are fascinated by political history they will find this a riveting tale that cannot be put down.



2. I enjoyed this book so much, I sent this letter to the author:
   "Dear Mr. Ackerman, I recently read and thoroughly enjoyed your fantastic book, Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield. I feel it is worthy of a Pulitzer Prize for History. I found your writing style to be engrossing as, even though I knew much of the history you recounted, I read each page of the book most eagerly. I had just finished Roy Morris' Fraud of the Century and, as much as I enjoyed it, I found your book to be a more compelling tale. Your character development is superb and I love how you tied the thread of the Conkling/Blaine feud of 1866 to events throughout the book. The final weaving together of the tale in Chapter 15 is a beautiful closure to a moving story that, as you accurately captured, impacted and captivated large numbers of Americans. Your research and documentation were extremely thorough and quite logically incorporated into the chronological flow of events. Your footnotes are pure joy for a politics and history buff (like me). I didn't really feel I had finished the book until I read the endnotes, as they added to my deeper understanding and appreciation of the events. Having lived through the Kennedy assassination, the comparisons with Garfield's demise are most intriguing and the distinctions also profound. Both were younger presidents who had won narrow victories to gain the White House. Both were succeeded by vice presidents who were clearly 'ticket balancers.' But Kennedy's assassination has forever been plagued with conspiracy theories, while Garfield's had no doubt as to the assassin. Alas, to pursue this line of thought would invite rambling on my part, but these ideas do cross my mind. I think your book would make a great movie, except for the sad reality that Hollywood would inevitably destroy a great story. Also, most likely, it isn't the kind of story that would capture much interest among our populace, at least in my judgment (keeping in mind the kinds of movies that seem to proliferate theater complexes these days). If only I were wrong about this! Your recapitulations of future developments of each of the prime players in the book (Chapter 15) are tailor made for the closing of a great film. I found particularly touching the telling of Mollie Garfield having married Joe Stanley Brown. Some minor observations, suggestions, and thoughts I have are as follows: - A table of the results of the 1880 Presidential Election and a national map of the results (as I have attached) might have been a good addition to the book. I did thoroughly enjoy your tables of the key convention ballots. (Obviously, my bias as a mathematician and cartographer is showing.) - I am working on a book (well, it is really more of a tutorial) of the History of Partisan Representation in the United States Congress. As you are well aware, the story of the evenly divided 47th Senate, in and of itself, is a fascinating one and your accounting of the battle for control of the Senate is most illuminating. Your description of the tie-breaking (precedent setting) votes of Chester Arthur is great drama. -- In this vein, while you point out that one of Arthur's first actions as President was to call the Senate into special session to choose a President Pro Tempore, you never related who they selected for this position. My research indicates that Thomas F. Bayard (D-DE) served from October 10 to 13, 1881, David Davis (Independent-IL) from October 13, 1881 to March 3, 1883, and George F. Edmunds (R-VT) from March 3 to December 2, 1883. Perhaps with the Senate evenly split, this particular tale was too complex and off the focus of your storyline to include. - Not to nit-pick, but in case your book is ever reprinted, some minor points: -- on page 205, last line of paragraph two, the spelling of 'ungentlemanly' missed the editors gaze, -- on page 234, end of line 15 should probably read 'In fact' instead of 'If fact.' -- the last endnote 'I am a poor hater' should be attributed to page 453. - If space had provided for it, including the White House family portrait on the cover of the book would have been wonderful. Just viewing this photo (in the context of the murder of Garfield and all you shared about his wife and children) truly conveys the personal tragedy that occurred, separate from the great loss to our country. - Indeed, as you note, we do need a solid, contemporary biography of James G. Blaine. Equally, I would welcome one of Chester A. Arthur. While a product of machine politics, as you described him, he showed character, spirit, decency, and integrity that made him attractive. I would enjoy reading more about him. Again, please accept my thanks for your superb work and for sharing this wonderful tale. Sincerely, R. Bruce Telfeyan"
   --By the way, he did write me back a substantial note of thanks. As did other reviewers, I subsequently visited the Garfield NHS in Mentor, OH, and his burial site (really a beautiful shrine) in the eastern part or Cleveland, OH.



3. Can't praise Ackerman enough for a detailed study of late 19th century political machinations - if you've ever wondered how local politicos could control the nation's power base, this superb effort makes it perfectly clear and understandable. How few people truly understand the power of a relatively unknown figure such as Roscoe Conkling (even if you already knew of Boss Tweed's legacy.....and yet Ackerman's magnificent research and analysis opens this character for the reader's astonishment. Outstanding reportage of the dealings involved in the 1880 Republican convention power-brokering, the desperate struggle between the Stalwarts of Conkling and Arthur versus the Half-Breeds of James Blaine and Garfield, the defining battle for the NY Customs House appointment. Garfield's early bio and in fact his assassination history are not the focus of this book, but who cares? The incisive political intrigue of a mere 8 or 9 months of our presidential history makes for both a terrific read and a wonderful expose of a truly watershed milestone in the evolution of the American governmental system. My highest recommendation for anyone who thinks he knows the Gilded Age, but wants an eye-opener with the readability of an indulgent summer novel.



4. On the morning of July 2, 1881, Garfield was preparing for a trip to New England. While waiting for his train in Washington's Baltimore and Potomac Railroad station, the president was felled and gravely wounded by the shots of an assassin. Garfield was carried to the presidential mansion, the White House. For weeks he was nursed there. Later he was moved to Elberon, New Jersey, to be with his family. Garfield never left his sickbed, and on September 19, 11 weeks after the shooting, he died.
   
   Garfield's assassin was Charles J. Guiteau, a religious fanatic and a Stalwart, who was apparently angered because he had been refused a government job. He stated that he shot Garfield in order "to unite the Republican Party and save the Republic." Guiteau readily gave himself up after the shooting, certain that the people would understand the high-mindedness of his purpose. He was found guilty of murder, however, and was executed in 1882.
   
   Vice President Chester A. Arthur succeeded Garfield as president. A member of the Stalwart faction, he had sided with Conkling in the dispute over Garfield's appointments. He gradually replaced all of Garfield's Cabinet with Stalwarts, but picked them for ability rather than loyalty to Conkling. The shocking nature of Garfield's death fueled a movement in Congress for civil service reform, which had been started but stalled under the Hayes administration. As a result Congress passed the Pendleton Act, which President Arthur signed into law in 1883. It established the Civil Service Commission to ensure that federal jobs would be awarded according to qualifications rather than connections
   
   Several hundred pages of text on Garfield and the politics of his day may seem a stretch, given the gray, hyper-partisan, issueless politics of the Gilded Age. But in Ackerman's hands, the story of Garfield's presidency and murder comes brilliantly alive. Ackerman (an attorney who has worked on Capitol Hill and in the White House and written about Gilded Age scandals) relates with gusto and fizz the story of Garfield's unanticipated nomination as Republican presidential candidate in 1880, his election by a whisker, the travails of his few months in office, and his assassination. It's a story mostly of the struggle for spoils and patronage between two wings of the post-Civil War party of Lincoln. In fact, the lonely, unstable assassin, Charles Guiteau, was a resentful partisan of the wing that Garfield didn't fully reward. Soon after the president's death, and largely as a result, Congress enacted civil service reform. Ackerman brings to life all this and the colorful political figures, mostly senators, who strode the nation's public stage. The trouble is that, like so many works of history these days, it's long on narrative and short, very short, on analysis. You wouldn't know that the political deadlocks of the 1880s deeply, and disastrously, affected the lives of freed slaves, nor do readers learn of agricultural and labor crises, industrial growth or financial shenanigans-the very matters that factional fighting and political murder kept under the rug. It's a pity that Ackerman doesn't apply his skills to such central matters of context and significance.



5. It has often been remarked that the only thing new under the sun is the history one has not read yet and this book is proof of that old adage. Kenneth Ackerman has provided the novice reader with a primer on the dynamics of Gilded Age national politics.
   
   It is highly unlikely, with the exception of Grant, that any of the participants in this book will ever be the subject of an uncritical adoring biography. Garfield and Arthur do come off as ultimately honorable men, but the real protagonists of the book are James G. Blaine and Roscoe Conkling, two titans behaving badly. Ackerman places the nomination of Garfield in the context of battle between these two national figures who played an important role in politics in the years following Reconstruction.
   
   While the behavior of some of the founding fathers is often so honorable as to defy imagination, this manner of operating does not have appeared to have occurred to Conkling and Blaine. Both are bare-knuckled operators who are frequently petulant as children arguing over a soccer ball. No marble men on Mt Rushmore were the politicians of the Gilded Age.
   
   In a way, because Conkling and Blaine are such scoundrels, the book is rather fascinating, almost like a sequel to "Democracy" by Henry Adams (Conkling is supposedly the inspiration for one of the characters). However in this version, circumstances elevate both Blaine and Conkling to the status of Greek Tragedy.
   
   The book opens with the origins of their feud which began on floor of the US House of Representatives. Because the wise old men of congress decided not to intervene, the two men grew to hate with a fervor that lasted until death. The hatred between the two men reached its crescendo at the Republican National Convention of 1880. Blaine was making his first serious run for the presidency and Conkling was sponsoring the third run of General Grant who represented a return to government free of the meddling of reformers.
   
   A deadlocked convention lead to the selection of Garfield who was present to back his own candidate, Secretary of the Treasury, John Sherman. Of all the candidates Garfield seemed the most reasonable choice since he had yet to have made any serious enemies. This would change once Garfield was elected president. The selection of Conkling's crony, Chester Arthur sealed the deal. It appeared that Conkling's Stalwarts and Blaine's reform minded "Half Breeds" had unified around a single candidate.
   
   Garfield was sworn in as president in March 1881 and died less than six months later. The focus of his brief presidency was an argument over the appointment of a Conkling foe to the plum position of plum positions, collector of the New York customs house. This obscure position today was the most lucrative in the Gilded Age. For the senior senator of New York, this was an impossible blow to Conkling's honor. He resigned his seat in a fit of pique and never was significant in politics again.
   
   This argument at the center of US political life so unnerved a Stalwart supporter, Charles J. Guiteau, that he shot Garfield in order to ensure that Chester Arthur would be president. Ackerman's ability to move between the world of the White House, Congress, political smoke filled rooms, and the shabby world of Guiteau is a credit to his skills as a writer and an historian.
   
   Along with bringing back this lost world of Gilded Age politics, Ackerman's story serves to illustrate that while civil service reform (or "snivel service reform" as Conkling dismissed it as) and other changes have taken place, the dynamics that sustained US politics then, with its larger than life personalities seeking advantage over rivals continues on now much as it did then.

5 comments about Robert the Bruce: King of Scots.

1. This is one of the most well written books on Scottish history that I have had the pleasure to come across. Its thoroughly gripping whereas other books about this time period have positvely made my eyes glaze over.
   It takes a deeper look at the politics and war of the time and introduces you to Bruce's fascinating followers James Douglas and Thomas Randolph. This book is a must for those interested in history.



2. Scott's "Robert The Bruce" is a truly enjoyable and fascinating book. One is shown the growth of the playboy Lord of Annandale to the courageous, self-sacrificing warrior king who risks everything to lead his people to freedom. A chunk of history I was not too familiar with, Scott fills in the gaps and describes the situations and major characters in an engaging manner. Highly recommended!



3. This is a great biography of Robert the Bruce. Ronald McNair Scott gives a nice full and fleshed out story of Robert the Bruce and his rise to throne of Scotland. Mr. Scott does a great job following Bruce through his Grandfather and Father's initial competition and ultimately his own attempt for the Throne after the deaths of King Alexander and his last remaining heir. Like most noble families in Scotland of the time they had land and family links to England. The Bruce, Balliol, and Comyn families all dynastic ties and claims to the throne but in the end the Bruce family won out. Mr. Scott does uses well known sources for his biography like Barbour, Fordun and Barrow. Of course they glorify all that Bruce does and spends minimal time on his faults. Mr Scott gives us a general bio that is great for the novice to Scottish history and those reading their first book on Robert. There is a lot of personal story here with some supposed quotes to help you feel you are with Bruce when he knights Wallace, accepts the Guardianship, or when he murders his primary rival John Comyn and claims the throne or when he wins his great victory against the English at Bannockburn. But Mr. Scott doesn't stop there. We see him continue to firm up Scotland's independence against Edward I, II and finally III. We get a vivid view of his great Lieutenants, James Douglas and Thomas Randolph. Bruce finally sees peace in "old age" at 55 and dies with a son and grandson to succeed him. But in the end he was a man with all the faults ordinary man and for all he gained he equally paid a price in family, pain and life. After his death the English rise again and his heirs continue the struggle. But that is another story for another book. Robert the Bruce, King of Scots by Ronald M. Scott is the life of the Bruce as history remembers him today.



4. Scott's book is a biographical and chronological account of Robert the Bruce's accomplishments. It is written to be read, as well as studied and is quite well done from that point of view, forming a coherent narrative, or story, if you like, detailing the life of the King of Scots.
   
   An interesting biography.



5. An interesting read, but you had better like history. No glamour here, just fact telling. I was struck by the ongoing hatred for the Scots on the part of Edward I and Edward II. Bruce gets the last laugh.

5 comments about Warren G. Harding (The American Presidents Series).

1. John Dean's volume on President Harding succeeds due to the following:
   
   1. It takes Harding's accomplishments seriously without subjugating them to his failures as do other biographies (i.e. He had good cabinet members, but chose poorly as well; He was elected by a huge margin but woman voters found him attractive, etc). Harding for too long, as Dean's work observes, has been the victim of bias and not scholarly study. Harding deserves to be taken seriously as president, and Dean faithfully does this.
   2. Although Harding was to some extent a philanderer, the author does not give this undue focus, rather he focuses more on what Harding tried to accomplish, even highlighting his acts of courage.
   3. As have other solid biographies, Dean shows how the Harding story was written not by historians, but by anti-Harding writers, and how his private papers, long hidden and not catalogued, allowed anyone to write basically anything. Of interest were the comments by Randolph Downes, who, after juxtaposing the discovered Harding papers to popular opinion about Harding, wrote in his article "The Harding Muckfest" in the Northwest Ohio Quarterly:
   "It is high time for a painstakingly honest and scholarly appraisal of the life of Warren G. Harding."
   It is of interest that a recent book on the Teapot Dome scandal was titled "Slick and the Duchess", again sensationalizing the Harding years (Was Harding called "Slick" when he lived?, was the "Duchess", Mrs. Harding, even involved in the Teapot Dome scandal?)
   
   Building upon Murray's "The Harding Era", Ferrell's The Strange Death's of President Harding, and Trani and Wilson's "The Presidency of Warren Harding" Dean's book continues a fair historical and academic renovation of the Harding years.
   However, that being said, one still gets the picture of an historian rummaging through a pile of Harding papers, holding one up and proclaiming "See, the real Harding years were better than what many think!" True enough, but even when the real Harding has stood up, there just isn't enough in the pile to really take Harding beyond this. While Dean's book restores Harding to where he should be, it cannot save him from his lackluster place in American History.



2. There is nothing wrong with giving a broader perspective on Harding, but the documented facts are never going to go away. Anyone who says Harding wasn't responsible for Teapot Dome and all the other corruption scandals that went on during his administration (such as the Veteran's Administration) simply doesn't understand the concept of Chief Executive accountability. While no one has ever said that Harding himself was corrupt, the fact that so much of his inner circle was corrupt says all we need to say about the man. Harding was a simple man who gave a great speech and had an authority about him. He had a cold wife but he was a man of privilege who preoccupied himself with the pleasures always afforded such men: good cigars, women on the side, golf and other activities with his male peers of the day. He left the day to day running of the country to a set of cronies who ultimately proved to be thoroughly rotten. Apologetic Republicans would like to re-write this little stretch of history because it is a cautionary tale of cronyism masquerading as conservatism. The fact that John Dean penned this book makes it all the more interesting, but Harding was no Nixon by any stretch of the imagination. Nixon may have left office in disgrace but I think that he was still one of the most intelligent and innovative presidents of the 20th century, and he was running his own show, not somebody else. Harding was more like George W. Bush, a mouthpiece for a staff full of robber barons.



3. I've read every known book about Harding and own most of them. He certainly was an interesting man; bad presidents are often more fun to read about than good ones. I've been through Harding's house in Marion, Ohio, several times, listened to docents there try to beatify him outrageously and visited his and the Duchess's magnificent tomb in Marion. I've even tried to listen to Harding's speeches on the record put out by the Ohio Historical Society, but that was too painful. As H.L. Mencken said, Harding strung words together like wet sponges. If Harding was trying to say something, it was all lost in droning and alliteration.
   
   John Dean, whose other books I admire, just tried too hard, I think, to redeem Mr. Harding with a coat of whitewash. He never should have been president--by experience, by education, by leadership qualities, by common sense. He prefered to play poker and dandle Nan Britton on his knee, perhaps even at the White House. He liked to golf and write mushy letters to another lady friend--letters on U.S. Senate sationery while sitting in the senate, in session. He paid lip service to prohibition and drank alcohol, but only one glass per day, Dean explains. It seems doubtful that Harding ever really understood the real issues. In short, he was a bungler and a hypocrite. Oddly enough, that makes him fascinating, in a way that, say, Jimmy Carter is not.
   
   Fortunately Harding was president at a time when he could do no great immediate harm, although his opposition to the League of Nations may have contributed to the disasters that followed. His biggest fault was probably naivete. He was simply done in by some really bad friends, such as Fall. Forbes, Smith, Daugherty, Means, Denby et al. As Truman is quoted in the introduction to this book: "The buck stops here." Harding, like Nixon, is responsible for the sort of people he attracted and put into government.
   
   Mrs. Harding comes across in Dean's encomium as an attractive and rather self effacing woman in the Dean book. She was older than her husband by several years, and there was nothing attractive about her, physically or intellectually. No wonder Harding slipped out of the house at night to drink with the boys, play poker and whatever. One observer at the time said Mrs. Harding had a voice that would etch glass and called her husband "Warrrn."
   
   The biography by Mr. Dean tries to polish off all the rough spots on Harding's CV, but it just doesn't work. Harding wasn't the worst president we've had, but he wasn't a good one either. The Dean book doesn't change that.



4. I could't wait to read this book. After seeing all the reviews with most being positive and some being highly negative I was intrigued about this book causing so much debate in its reviews here on Amazon. I must say the book did not disappoint me at all! It is a excellent must read book! It made Harding a human being, not some ogre, dummy or crook who never did a good thing as some would have you believe. It showed him in his best moments, in his bad moments, showed his shining achievements and his terrible failures. Harding comes through as a big hearted well-meaning man who learned much from being President and was growing into the job as he went along. The book also shows his shortcomings and his own coming to realize his own limitations and how he tried to compensate for these. While the book leaned more to the positive, it also did not diminish or apologise for his mistakes, shortcomings or bad decisions. However, it was nice to see his achievements, advancements, victories and strengths applauded and explored. What a refreshing breath of fresh air to read about Warren G. Harding in this light and this alone makes this book a must read! If you want to see Warren G. Harding in a more balanced way do read this book!
   
   Unlike many books this one is well-researched. It has tons of footnotes so you can check out the statements, quotes and if they are taken in context by John Dean. Check them I did, and I found no misquotes, misstatements or anything taken out of context. Excellent job by John Dean in this area! I like well-researched books that can back up their claims with documentation. I also like the fact that this author uses the papers of the Warren G. Harding administration in drawing his insights and conclusions. Excellent job in documentation makes this book much more powerful in its presentation.
   
   It was refreshing to read about Warren G. Harding in a positive light. Some would have you believe that nothing good happened under the Harding Administration. This book describes very well the accomplishments that most overlook when Harding is considered. Every President has their failures and accomplishments and this book touches upon both bringing a much more balanced account of Harding and his Presidency than most books in the past have. However, John Dean does play up the the positive side slightly more, but with good reason. So much negative press has been given in the past with regards to this President and his Administration that to dwell upon this would not justify a new book on this topic. By reading this book in combination with others, which are more negative, one gets a much more balanced account of President Harding and his Presidency.
   
   I liked how John Dean also explored the negative claims and clarified them, putting blame where blame is due and through documentation and use of other's first hand knowledge he refuted some of the more outragious claims. His use of Colonel Starling's quotes is one example of documentation that is helpful. I've read Colonel Edmund Starling's book and his being a Secret Service Agent from Woodrow Wilson thru FDR's years is interesting, informative and eye opening in regards to the Presidents he served and protected. John Dean perhaps plays a bit too lighty upon the negative, but in the introduction Dean does state he was concerned at how to best portray the truth of who Harding was, how he was elected and how he operated and performed as President. I feel he accomplished his goal very well with this book.
   
   The flow of the book was done very well also. It was a pleasure to read and I never found myself bored, distracted or the reading tedious. It is a very well written, very well organized, very well researched and a very impressive book. You will come away from this book with a very different view of Warren G. Harding and his Presidency. For me I see him now in a much more balanced light. He made good and bad decisions. He had some of the best and some of the worst Cabinet members. He saved the government lots of money only to have some in his adminstration steal quite a bit. He had his moments of brilliance and his moments of either extreme ignorance or extreme naivete. Warren G. Harding was a very human President who did some very good things and made his share of mistakes. Was he the worst President ever? I don't think so, but I sure do not believe he was anywhere near being a great one either. If you want a much more balanced look at this man who I believe did the best he could do and achieved more than we are led to believe read this book! Five Stars.



5. Interesting factors. John Dean (of Watergate note) authors this biography of Warren G. Harding in The American Presidents series. And he grew up in Marion, Ohio, where Harding lived for many years. And, against all odds, Dean makes Harding seem much less the failure that he has been branded over time. Does the author succeed fully? Each reader will have to judge for himself or herself, but I did come away from this book with a different impression of Harding than the one I brought with me as I sat down to begin reading this volume. One thing to Dean's advantage--access to Harding's papers which were not available to many earlier biographers.
   
   Dean makes his view plain at the outset (Page 1): "Warren G. Harding is best known as America's worst president. A compelling case can be made, however, that to reach such a judgment one must ignore much of the relevant information about Harding and his presidency." As with all books in this series, we begin with a brief introduction to the character's life, in this case starting with his birth in Ohio in 1865. He tried studying law and selling insurance, but only came into his own when he managed to purchase the Marion Star, a daily newspaper. He appears to have been good at managing the paper and serving as a reporter in addition.
   
   He began to be active in Republican politics in Ohio and, down the road, with the help of some political pros, he was elected as a state senator. Shortly thereafter, he became one of Ohio's two Senators in Washington, D. C. He came to national attention with a speech at the 1916 Republican convention. Some even thought of him as a dark horse candidate to get the nomination, but he chose to bide his time. His career in the Senate was not characterized with any major legislation bearing his name (and he often "missed" roll call votes on divisive issues, thus not offending either wing of the Republican Party). He decided to run a low key campaign to be the Presidential nominee of his party, surmising that no single leading candidate could gain enough votes to clinch the nomination. His suspicion turned out to be correct. He received the nomination and won the election.
   
   His presidency, as described by Dean, is an interesting mix of positive steps, such as his effort to undo some of Woodrow Wilson's racist policies, his foreign policy, and even his choices for the Cabinet (most were very fine, although Albert Fall, of course, represented a major exception!), but not a presidency where major accomplishments emerged that caught historians' eyes later on.
   
   One will have to evaluate the extent to which Dean makes Harding appear to be something more than the worst president in American history. I think he has made a case that the reader must confront, however, and that itself is something of an accomplishment.

No comments about Presidential Travel: The Journey from George Washington to George W. Bush.

5 comments about Fourteen Byzantine Rulers: The Chronographia of Michael Psellus (Penguin Classics).

1. I always like to read the original texts that historians tend to paraphrase.

   This is definitely not one of those antique histories written by a forgotten author. Instead, Psellos writes across a range of topics: psychology of leadership, geography, Orthodox Christianity, statecraft, and let's not forget philosophy. This historical work is a tribute to the power of the Medieval empire of the Greeks, the high extent of its culture, and its heritage.




2. I was first hooked on Byzantine history after picking up a copy of John Julius Norwich's abridged History of Byzantium. This led to an abiding interest in the second half of the Roman Empire.

   Psellus' turn of phrase and genuine storytelling ability make this book a pleasure to read. I only regret I cannot read it in its original Greek, for I think it would be even better. Despite the bias against his female compatriots (only to be expected in that era) Psellus remains fresh, authoritative, winning, and as balanced as can be expected. I love the Penguin editions of classic works- I rarely buy anything else- and my copy of the Chronographia is already dog-eared and underlined.

   In short, I truly recomment this edition for any serious or leisurely student of Byzantium. Psellus gives us a window into a sorely misunderstood time and age- as well as being able to tell a ripping good story when the mood takes him.




3. Michael Psellus was an 11th century Byzantine scholar, historian and member of the court. After the emperor Basil II, there followed a host of emperors and empresses from the Macedonian house. It is widely beleived that their collective rule contained much mismanagement, as they were more interested in (empty) learning, ritual and intrigues concerning their city of Constantinople, while ignoring the international political and military predicament of the Byzantine state.
   
   Psellus's Chronographia is his attempt to write a history of these rulers (the Macedonian house as well as the two following houses of Comnenus and Ducas) while utilising a more classical Greek historiography and methodology. The work can be seen as part of the Byzantine "Golden Age" where learning, literature and the arts became increasingly important. This is reflected in the work - it is full of quite dense narrative styles, literary allusions and other fragments of Greek learning. However, being written by such a versatile historian, it does contain a detailed and intelligent description of the Byzantine rulers and their works.
   
   The issue of bias comes from the fact that Psellus was himself involved in the politics for much of his life, and this is quite obvious, especially towards the end of the work where he launches into a vomit-like praise of the last few rulers. Also, he was himself part of the scholars so he can also be accused of many of the failings as his contemporary emperors and empresses.
   
   So why read this book, if you're not a historian? It is an erudite journey into a very different world. Written by someone with some definite opinions as to what history, learning and politics are, it opens to us the world of the Byzantine "Rennaisance" scholars, philosophers and politicians. Despite providing a whole heap of genuinely well-thought out and careful history, on a wider scale, it provides a Byzantine counterpart to the European Rennaisance man in Psellus, and shows a great deal of the power, versatility and bias of the human.



4. Michael Psellus' Chronographia, written in the 11th Century, gives the modern reader a glimpse into the court and personal lives of fourteen Byzantine rulers. Psellus served as a court advisor and resident intellectual to several of these rulers and had direct contact with most of his subjects, which makes this book a valuable first-person account from an obscure period of Medieval history. However, Psellus' account is oftentimes less a historical narrative than a piece of deliberate disinformation, as the editor often points out in footnotes. The Byzantine Empire was beginning to decline in the period of the author's narrative and his account often seems designed to conceal or distort his own role in this phase. While the author appears as a fairly sympathetic and intellectual character early in his narrative, by the time he rose to the rank of senior advisor he was clearly corrupted and he admits in the final chapters that he was rewarded financially for his overly flattering portrayals of Emperor Michael VII. At one point, the author admits that "I have passed over in this work many facts worthy of mention" in order to satisfy his benefactors. Thus, read Psellus to gain insight into certain aspects of the Byzantine mindset, but be aware that this is a "tainted history" in which the author's primary loyalty is to his own self-promotion and avarice, not the truth.
   
   Psellus' narrative begins with the 49 year-reign of the Emperor Basil II, whose hard work brought the Byzantine Empire to the pinnacle of its strength, with secure borders and a full treasury. Although Psellus was only a child when Basil's reign came to an end, he bases this part of the narrative on contemporary secondary sources and it seems fairly objective. The six rulers that followed Basil in the next 17 years, when Psellus was a youth, are covered fairly rapidly although the author did have some contact with these individuals. It is with Emperor Constantine IX (1042-1055) that Psellus' narrative begins in earnest and this chapter is fully 25% of the book. Psellus entered the life of the court under this emperor and he admits that he benefited from his reign, but he also admits his overt bias when he says that, "I knew that in many things I should clash with the Emperor Constantine and I should be ashamed of myself if I did not seize every opportunity of commending him." Although the previous rulers had been a string of ineffective mediocrities, even Psellus' account admits that Constantine IX "chose a life of pleasure and luxury" and that he "wasted the imperial treasury" on satisfying the whims of his nit-wit mistress. In short order, the sound military and financial structure built by Basil II was depleted by Constantine II, although Psellus seems to shrug his shoulders at this. Indeed, the author was clearly a sycophantic courtier, who frequently describes the "beauty" of this emperor and compares his head to "the sun in its glory." Psellus admits that "it was not my desire to write a history, nor to acquire a reputation for veracity in that sphere; what I wanted to do was to compose a panegyric in honor of this ruler." Thus, Psellus' shabby gift to the modern reader is a propaganda piece, not objective truth. This is not to say that Psellus conceals his benefactors faults - at one point he admit that Constantine IX protected a nobleman who had embezzled a huge sum from the military budget - but despite this unethical behavior he still describes him as "this very great emperor."
   
   Readers will probably find Psellus a vain and smug intellectual, who claims superior knowledge in all spheres, including warfare and medicine. At one point, Psellus wrote that, "I know that perfumes give off a vapor which drives away evil spirits..." and he seems to confuse reading about warfare with expertise in warfare.
   
   One theme that does appear throughout Psellus' narrative is that a very poor state of civil-military relations contributed to the decline of the Byzantine Empire, by causing rebellions and a low state of military preparedness. Weak emperors viewed their mobile field armies as a potential source of rebellion and consequently deprived them of resources, despite near-constant threats on the borders. Promising military leaders were denied promotion or even cashiered, lest them become rivals to mediocre emperors. Instead, weak emperors preferred to rely upon fixed fortifications, particularly the redoubtable walls of Constantinople, rather than mobile forces. However, this neglect of the mobile armies weakened the ability of the empire to ward off external threats and began the reliance on foreign mercenaries. It is also apparent that Psellus was part of an anti-military cabal and that some of his advice contributed to the declining fortunes of the empire.
   
   Psellus' description of the reign of Romanus IV (1068-1071) and the disastrous Manzikert campaign against the Turks appears deliberately unfair to the one emperor who tried to revive the empire's military fortunes. After Manzikert, Psellus was apparently part of the conspiracy that removed Romanus and at that point his narrative becomes rather sickening in its blatant bias. Psellus became particularly attached to the young emperor Michael VII, another nitwit who is described as "a prodigy," "a divinity" and a "God-like emperor." Psellus admits, "favors were heaped upon me, gifts were sent to me... augmenting the wealth that I already possessed." In fact, Psellus even admits that Michael submitted his own version of his biography for Psellus to include in his work. Thus, while the Turks were massacring Byzantine civilians in Anatolia and depopulating the eastern empire, this author was getting rich writing a whitewashed history of a conniving thug. Although the editor writes that what happened to Psellus after 1078 is not known, one might hope after reading this shameless piece of disinformation that the author's head ended up on a Turkish spearpoint.



5. Fine edition of an oft forgotten (but indeed important) opus in Byzantine literature and history. The author, Michael Psellus (1018-1078 A.D.), born of an aristocratic family, was a pupil of John Mauropous (Archbishop of Euchaita), became Professor of Rhetoric and then, after being introduced to the court by Michael V, rose to be a first hand spectator of the rise and demise of several emperors, having occupied the posts of Secretary of State, Prime Minister and Grand Chamberlain. This explains why this is a valuable memoir of a contemporary witness to Byzantine life and the workings of the imperial court, under several rulers, from the reign of Basil II (976-1025) to the reign of Michael VII (1071-1078). Originally published as the first whole translation in English of Psellus work in 1953, under the title The Cronographia of Michael Psellus , this revised edition is a wonderful tool for those interested in Byzantine history. The scarce or relative interest that occurred in the field of Byzantine literature until a century ago, compared to the classical period, comprehensive of Greek and Roman history up to the reign of Justinian, has been surpassed due to the fine work of several modern scholars. But it has been clearly noticed that in addition to the well known classical works of Procopius, Menander Protector and Leo Diaconos, this opus by Psellus is unsurpassed or unique for the study of the period covered by the author. Indeed, he was in a position to fully comprehend the events that occurred at the death of Basil II (who ruled for more than 40 years, crushed rebellions, rescued the Empire's army, finances and pride ) in 1078, and the particular decadence that ensued in the following generations due to the unworthiness of the following rulers. So we must concur with the appreciation of Professor Joan Hussey, who wrote the introduction to the second edition of this opus in English, in the sense that Psellus was one man who comprehended the decay in the Empire's fortunes around the eleventh century as a turning point, and that although the Cronographia may give sometimes the impression of vagueness (compared to the works of Cedrenus or Zonaras) it has a colour and variety rarely found in any of its rivals. Not in vain Professor Hussey concludes that Psellus dedication to philosophy was life long and that his contribution to revive classicl learning was truly important:-Renaissance authors owed much to this man-
   For scholars or those generally interested in Byzantine history, mores and decadence, the Cronographia is a must.

5 comments about The Bending Cross: A Biography of Eugene Victor Debs.

1. Zealot, compassionate, humane, intemperate, ambitious, intensely honest and driven to greatness despite his flaws -- such is the biographical picture aptly drawn by Ray Ginger in this highly readable biography of Eugene Debs, five time socialist candidate for President of the United States.

   Hardly ever without hope, Eugene Debs faced overwhelming odds in trying to change society for the better. His initial goal was to strengthen the labor movement, to give it suficient power to negotiate with its bosses. His intense dedication and his obsessive honesty gave new life first to the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen in the late 19th Century and then for nearly 50 years his great energy served the labor movement in general. Even though he came from a middle class merchant family, Debs recoiled at the cruel advantage big corporations took of its laborers who were forced to toil long hours for low pay under miserable conditions. He was their dynamic, compassionate general who led non-violent, wide-spread strikes to force employers to agree to improve the lot of the people who worked for them.

   Debs was not always successful but he succeeded in so many ways that his followers and admirers elevated him to near sainthood.

   Ray Ginger has sifted through a monumental amount of written material to produce a fascinating study of a man who deserves to join the ranks of Great Americans in History. Though a paeon to Debs, Mr. Ginger did not gloss over Debs' faults: his naivete, his drunken bouts, his inflexibility and even his bigotry.

   A minor point: Mr. Ginger incorrectly writes Vladimir Ilich Lenin's first name as "Nicolai" -- several times. How such an error escaped an otherwise thorough author or his editors was a mild distraction. Nevertheless, for those interested in the history of labor unions in the United States, this book is a 'must-have'.




2. 
   Originally published in 1947, The Bending Cross: A Biography of Eugene V. Debs is now in a new 2007 edition featuring an introduction by historian Mike Davis. The Bending Cross unapologetically advocates activism in its story of the life of railway organizer and socialist Eugene Debs. Yet though Debs devoted his life and his passion to his cause, neither did he turn away from people who were nonpolitical, or even anti-socialist, in their hour of need. Though Debs suffered imprisonment for "disloyalty", his moral compass and loyalty to the labor movement were both unwavering. An amazing, in-depth portrait of one of the most eloquent speakers of the socialist movement.



3. This is a beautiful portrait of America's foremost labor leader Eugene Debs---his transformation from conservative union official to revolutionary socialist. I've always admired Debs, but honestly didn't know the half of his life, personality or politics before reading Ginger's biography of him. This book is a treasure for socialists, radicals and other activists. Every page is engaging, every chapter is a lesson without didacticism.



4. Ray Ginger's absolutely authoritative biography of the great man, Eugene Debs, deserves as wide a reading audience as can possibly be achieved. In this marvellous, well-written and well-researched book, the life and times of Eugene Debs are made accessible to the people of today (or rather, 1947, but it is equally readable now), and thanks to the Haymarket Books reprint Debs can continue to inspire all men of good will even now.
   
   The book describes every detail of Debs' life: his upbringing in a petty bourgeois merchant household in Terre Haute, IN, where he was taught the German and French romantic classics by his father (the name Eugene Victor comes from Eugène Sue and Victor Hugo), his first jobs and union involvement on the Vendalia railway, his early leadership in the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, his subsequent higher and higher promotions in the union ranks, holding office in Terre Haute in between, then the formation of the American Railway Union, the general strike and destruction of the same, his periods in prison and conversion to Marxism, and finally his political career in the Socialist Party where he made himself immortal in the annals of radical history by winning 6% of the vote in 1912, and also being the only person in American history to win a significant amount of votes while in prison (1920).
   
   Some of these events may well be known to many Americans, but many of them probably are not, and all depict the absolute humanity, loyalty, intelligence, cordiality, and charity of Eugene Debs. Indeed sometimes it is astounding how one man could unite so many virtues and be so utterly uncorruptible, leading one to become suspicious whether Debs' reputation is not exaggerated, but fortunately biographer Ray Ginger is always careful to substantiate the claims when true (which is almost always) and to apply criticism where deserved.
   
   Less known in general perhaps, even to people with an existing knowledge of radical history, are the many connections Debs had with other important people of his time: Lincoln Steffens, Robert Ingersoll, Victor Berger, John Altgeld, Susan B. Anthony, and even a short conversation with Warren Harding in the White House. Debs was never much of a theoretician, and did not read any of Marx' own works (though he knew the popularizers like Kautsky), but he had an infallible sense of the failures of both extreme left sectarianism and excessive reformism in radical movements and labor unionism, and it is rare in the course of this history of Debs' union activities that one can conclude he made the wrong decision. Moreover, much unlike many radicals today, Debs had a supreme capacity for personal love and charity, and was capable of opposing the political decisions and strategies of many other union activists without in any way lessening his personal loyalty or affection for them, or blaming them in person for their views. While an inveterate opponent of all capitalism, he was at the same time by no means a rabid sectarian, and could make himself loved and respected even by his enemies - once he so effectively inveighed against a railroad director in his own office that the director started offering him high level jobs in the company!
   
   Debs of course made American political history, not just with his prison campaign in 1920, victim to Woodrow Wilson's political terror; but also with the first campaigning train tour through America (the "Red Special"), with the highest percentage of votes in a Presidential election any left-wing candidate has ever received, and last but not least with his fierce opposition to American participation in World War I, when all tides were against him. This alone would make him a hero of socialism. But he equally deserves recognition for his remarkable goodness in his personal dealings: he refused all offers of careering and high wages, refused all attempts of union federations to lavish gifts or praise upon him, and was known for giving away large amounts of his money even when he could not afford it. When the ARU collapsed under the military terror of the American government, he personally took all the debts of the union on him, which it took him 18 years to pay off. He was even loved by all the inmates of the Atlanta prison during his stay there. Add to this his visionary and consistent support for the rights of women, blacks, and immigrants, when such things were radical even among radicals, and Eugene V. Debs indeed is nothing but an example to us all. If I had but one-tenth of the quality of Debs, I would have much to be proud of.



5. A decent, if dated, biography of Eugene V. Debs first published in the 1940's. Author Ray Ginger has a stilted and rather dated style of narrative writing reminiscent of the 19th century classic style. Ginger used good sources and information for his biography but none of it's footnoted so good luck tracking down anything that you might wish to find out more about. But that's what happens when you go back six decades for your sources.
   
   I really wish that the American labor movement had followed the Debs model of class unity instead of the AFL/Sam Gompers model. Our country would be an entirely different and to my mind, likely better place today if it had. I recommend this book for those interested in the life and times of Eugene V. Debs.

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.