5 comments about Franklin Delano Roosevelt (The American Presidents).

1. This is a very good brief introduction to Roosevelt, and I highly recommend it to anyone wanting a brief understanding of Roosevelt. It is very easy to read and suitable for high school students. Being written by a man from Britain, it also shows how the world views FDR - as one of the most important leaders in world history.
   
   You will not acquire a thorough understanding of FDR by reading this book. For that I would suggest the huge "Champion of Freedom" by Conrad Black.
   
   In response to Mister Syzek, my understanding the post-war settlement is that Stalin broke violated the Yalta agreement, which was quite favorable to the west. FDR achieved most of what he wanted, including the stipulation that Eastern Europe was to have elections. But Stalin broke his promises and controlled Poland despite the agreements that FDR was able to extract from Stalan. FDR got the deal in writing. Stalin did not abide by it.
   
   Stalin was determined to control Poland no matter what, so Poland was firmly in his grip, despite what the actual terms of the agreement said. Staling went so far as to say that it was "a matter of life or death."
   
   Franklin Roosevelt was a geopolitical realist, and the reality is that the Soviet armies controlled Eastern Europe and Poland, and the USSR would be willing to fight - and win - to stay. The American people had no enthusiasm for yet another world war againt Russia. They wanted their soldiers home. Maybe you should ask the American people why they were not willing to suffer 5 million killed for Poland. You see, in America you must deal with these pesky things called voters and democracy.
   
   To complicate the matter, the Soviet Union took the brunt of the war (17 million dead), and Stalin was rigidly determined to secure a buffer between Mother Russia and Western Europe. Stalin would not have budged on his goal.
   
   So what Roosevelt obtained from Stalin was the best he could obtain - firm promises from Stalin to hold elections. It was Stalin who broke his promises. That made the Soviet Union look like the bad guy.
   
   Truman then waged the Cold War (without the millions of dead from a hot war) leading to an eventual liberation of Eastern Europe. It's no surprise that Reagan was a huge fan of Roosevelt, voted for him four times, and attended his third inauguration (a moving event for Reagan). Reagan then brought an end to the Cold War without firing a shot.
   
   You may be able to criticize Truman for not liberating Eastern Europe while American had a monopoly on the atomic bomb... or Eisenhower. After all, USSR staged a coup in Czechoslovakia and then staged a brutal crushing of the revolt in Hunguary in which tens of thousands were killed. Clearly this was in violation of the agreement that FDR was able to extract from Stalin. It was the USSR that broke the agreement. FDR did not sell out anyone.
   
   Then again, maybe the path Truman took was wise. Maybe waging a long-term cold against USSR was better than a violent real war. Maybe FDR realized that no European-based power has ever conquered Russia. Remember Napolean? Remember Hitler? Could even USA have defeated USSR in 1945? Maybe Roosevelt would have done things differently. We will never know because he died.
   
   As this book says, FDR was clearly moving to a get-tough posture against USSR. Indeed, FDR moved closer to one of his advisors who was anti-USSR. I suggest you read this book.
   
   At the same time, Roosevelt was an idealist in the Wilsonian tradition when realistic. He believed in the free determination of free people, but he was also realistic. For example, he essentially pushed for an end to world colonialism in his design for the post-war world. Churchill opposed this but he could do nothing about it. The British empire was too weak.
   
   By the way, Poland was not even a country at the start of World War One and was viewed by some in a similar way to the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Should American have gone to war over the Baltic States?
   
   This fine little book is a fine introduction to Roosevelt. It is the best brief book on Roosevelt. Read it if you want an easy introduction to FDR.
   
   If you want a more detailed study of Roosevelt's foreign policy then read Robert Dallek's Bancroft Prize-winning "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy." My essay here pales in comparison. Or read Conrad Black's "Champion of Freedom."



2. The late Roy Jenkins, in assessing Roosevelt, rates him in the top three of all American Presidents, along with Washington and Lincoln. Whether you like FDR or whether you are one of his critics, it is hard to dispute Jenkins' conclusion. Jenkins believes that had FDR not run for a third term, he would have been one of the better, near great Presidents, but that it took WWII to make him the icon he became. Jenkins fails to point out that FDR did not create any appreciable number of private sector jobs prior to WWII and that, in fact, unemployment was almost as high as it was eight years earlier, when he took office. The reason may be that Jenkins had been a Labour Party member of the House of Commons, accordingly, his world view was that of a government interventionist. However, I ultimately agree that nontheless, FDR was, at least, a better than average President during the depression years, due to the great optimism that he conveyed.
   
   I believe that Jenkins is correct, that FDR became one of the greatest Presidents due to the war. He led the United States in a great mobilization effort. Certainly, responding to events can make one great and FDR's optimistic leadership during the war made him great. This does not mean that he is beyond criticism, and Jenkins offers very little of that. Again, as a Labour party menmber, he would not have been as staunchly anticommunist as a Conservative, such as Churchill or later, Thatcher. Therefore, he spares FDR of any criticism for Yalta. His view is that since the USSR already occupied Poland, there was nothing to give away.
   
   I must contrast this book with another book in the American Presidents series, Tom Wicker's biography of Eisenhower. Wicker could find almost nothing Ike did as President that did not deserve criticism. Jenkins, on the other hand, finds little, in FDR, to criticise. An example is his absolving FDR from any real criticism for not taking in more Jewish refugees during the holocaust.
   
   This series of books constitues short biographies, thus it is not possible for the authors to be comprehensive. However, Jenkins covers a lot of ground. He gives a lot of coverage to FDR's career prior to his presidency. This is something Wicker failed to do, in his biography of Eisenhower, regarding Eisenhower's prepresidential career. Still, there was much Jenkins could not cover. For example, FDR went to great legnths to hide his disability. In a television documentary, it was revealed that he always would hang on to the arm of either a secret service agent or one of his sons and, by pretty much thrusting his hips forward, would give the illusion of walking. The legnths FDR went to are certainly fascinating but, I recognize that this book was too short to cover it in depth.
   
   Perhaps this biography was a little too adoring. The fact that there is much to criticise does not detract from the fact, that ultimately, FDR was indeed one of the truly great Presidents. Still, Jenkins covers a lot of material and I highly recommend this short biography.



3. avoid books where the author's personality and florid prose obscure the subject. besides, what precisely does jenkins have against short sentences and one-dollar words?



4. The New Deal, Social Security, World War II. FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century. He was a polio victim with braces on his legs. Perhaps America needed such a leader to get it through the Depression and the war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. We have seen the video of FDR addressing Congress following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor: "December 7, 1941, a day which will live in infamy!" Americans volunteered for military service in droves. They fought the Japs island by island. Army engineers built the Alaska Highway, stretching 1500 miles from Dawson Creek, Canada to Fairbanks. After Pearl Harbor, the fear was that Japan might take Alaska. Japan bombed the two western-most Aleutian Islands. Roosevelt was president the same years Adolph Hitler was in power in Germany, 1933-45. Roosevelt and his staunch ally, Winston Churchill, proved tougher than Hitler. Roosevelt was elected 4 times as there was no two-term limit. Roosevelt's archrival, Hitler, was born in 1889 in the Austrian town of Braunau. In his youth, Hitler wanted to be an artist. He lived and struggled in Vienna. It was there that he came to hate Jews and Communists. He believed in an Aryan master race. He fought against Britain in World War I. He joined the Nazi Party and went to prison after a failed coup. Hitler dictated Mein Kampf (My Struggles) to Rudolf Hess in prison. After his release, he reorganized the Nazi Party and surrounded himself with men like Himmler, Goebbels and Goering. Hitler became German chancellor in 1933. World War II began when Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Germany occupied France, bombed London and attacked Russia. The United States entered the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Americans landed at Normandy Beach on the coast of France on D-Day, June 6, 1944, and drove the Germans back. They met their Russian allies, who poured in from the east to crush the Nazis. Hitler and his companion, Eva Braun, committed suicide. It came to light that 6 million Jews had been exterminated in what is now called the Holocaust. America helped to rebuild Europe with the Marshall plan. Donald Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" became a suburb of the U.S. in light of the Soviet threat. The time has come the United States to put itself first. If the U.S is going to police the world, the world must pay for that protection. Police cannot work for free. Government is about war and money. Too often, it is a gang of thugs terrorizing its own people. Government should exist to serve. Its best form is democratic, not totalitarian, neither fascist nor Communist. Government needs to foster education, promote arts and sciences and care for the aged and disabled. It must encourage agriculture and facilitate transportation and communication.



5. This abridged version is read by Richard Rohan & he even tries his hand at FDR inflections. This is a pretty good overview of FDR's life,but you wouldn't expect much depth with 3.5 hrs. running time on a CD. Roy Jenkins died shortly after or maybe a little before this was completed. Arthur Schlesinger jr. edited. But the tone gets more reveverential towards the end. Not really Jenkins style so maybe Mr. Schlesinger finished. But there is no doubt that FDR was the most influential president of the 20th century. His impact is still very much with us.

5 comments about An American Life.

1. Apart from the first few chapters about his own path to success, the book's an introductory history lesson on the u.s. and international political scene of the 80's. Easy to understand. Reagan explained very clearly on his ratinales behind the things he did. It was like listening to a wise old man telling his story. His international policies, as indicated in the book, made far reaching impacts on the development of world events then and afterwards. A great read. The book lets me understand this great man more and made me remember him more.



2. A very good book. Contains much history which either wasn't or couldn't be reported at the time it was happening. Although it is over 700 pages, it was a good and enjoyable book.



3. My first vote in a presidential election was for Ronald Wilson Reagan. I was a freshman in college and quickly coming to grips with my political philosophy and world view, when this idealistic, bright ray of sunshine declared it was "morning in America." Having remembered all to well the horrors of Watergate, the tepid Ford presidency, and the...well...you fill in your own perjorative for Jimmy Carter's presidency, Mr. Reagan, for me at least, was a breath of fresh air.
   
   If you are looking for pure history of the Reagan years, the works of Lou Cannon and Richard Reeves will provide more objective views; i.e. the type of stuff political junkies like myself love to chew on. However, if you are looking for a first person account of a uniquely American story, this memoir will both uplift and inspire.
   
   This book is quintessential Reagan. Missing is the self-adulatory, self-promoting tripe you read in autobiographies. Also, although he was bitterly opposed by "The Establishment," the literati, Hollywood, socialists, communists and the like, there is not an ounce of rancor to be found.
   
   An American Life, despite the fact that it is 700+ pages, is a quick and fairly easy read. In order to obtain a full view of his presidency, I not only recommend this work, and the aforementioned volumes, but also the book that is the compilation of his letters. Far from being the "amiable dunce," you'll discover that "Dutch" was a unique and complex man and we are a better country for having him a part of the body politic for as long as we did.



4. This is one of the best bigraphies I have ever read on anyone. It was excellent from beginning to end. It spoke alot of his Christian character and upbringing and it covered politics but it was never boring. The author never goes on and on.
   
   Ronald Reagans Christian upbringing and morality is so encouraging.



5. Reagan's autobiography presents a dual account into the mind of one of the most charismatic leaders of the 20th century as well as a deep view into the extraordinary political events that shaped the world in the 1980s.
   
   Regardless of where your political views lie, if you have a sincere interest in events and decisions shaping both fiscal and foreign policy, An American Life will deliver. From his near fatal shooting, his correspondence with Gorbachev, to events leading to the Iran Contra scandal, Reagan lays it all on the line. The basis of his positions via his own words provides you the full scope of his reasoning, which is fascinating insight no matter what your persuasion.
   
   A historical account written straight from a man in one of the worlds most prominent positions should be of interest to anyone with an attraction to historical accounts. Having it come from one of our most enigmatic presidents only raises the bar.

1 comments about The Portable Thomas Jefferson (Viking Portable Library).

1. "The Portable Jefferson" consists of a vast collection of Jefferson's works. It provides us with valuable insights into his mind and his world.

   The longest entry is "Notes on the State of Virginia". It provides a multifaceted assessment of the Virginia known by Jefferson. Politics, the economy, topography, populations, flora and fauna are all included in this report. I read with particular interest the reports on areas of French settlement in what is now Illinois, areas in which my ancestors were living but to which Jefferson had never traveled and about which he had to have learned from the reports of others. Many insights into the Virginia of his day are very interesting.

   Jefferson's July, 1774 tome on "A Summary View Of The Rights of British America" give a preview of America's grievances on the eve of the Revolution.

   The next segment consists of Jefferson's public papers and addresses. Some are well known, such as the Declaration of Independence, while others are obscure, but often no less interesting.

   The last segment of the book consists of many private letters written to a host of correspondents. Some of these are rather mundane matters of personal interest, while others are occasions for expositions of political views and comments on the news of the day. I found particularly interesting his comments on developments in France during its Revolution.

   I have long had an interest in Jefferson. This book enables the reader to see him in new and deeper lights. His thought, the breath of his interests and his genius shine on the pages of his book. This is a book to read and then keep handy for reference.

No comments about Write It When I'm Gone: Remarkable Off-the-Record Conversations with Gerald R. Ford.

1 comments about Yeltsin: A Life.

1. Colton has provided a smart, well-researched and well-written account of a pivotal figure in Russian history.

5 comments about After Fidel, Updated Edition: Raul Castro and the Future of Cuba's Revolution.

1. This book is mostly about Fidel. There are only two chapters that hone in on Raul. Even Latell, who surely knows more than he could reveal in his own book, didn't reveal too much. He avoided the Bay of Pigs. He didn't say much about Cuba's interference in other Central and South American countries.
   
   Still, it's a good read for laymen wanting to know the basics about Castro and Cuba. Who will take over the island once Fidel dies? Even Latell could only speculate, mentioning a few top ministers from the brothers' group (Raulistas).
   
   Although I didn't gain much insight about Raul, I did learn interesting tidbits about Fidel: the entire clan were illigitimate. Fidel himself has his girlfriend (and their children) set aside. That both Fidel and Raul have a deep hidden side should be no surprise. After Fidel gave the reigns over to Raul in August 2006 there were rumors that Raul would be a ruthless dictator worse than his brother. That hasn't occurred.



2. After Fidel: The Inside Story of Castro's Regime and Cuba's Next Leader.(Book review): An article from: Military Review
   
   After reading the Spanish version, I decided to read the English version for comparison. There were many translations into Spanish that were not familiar to me.
   
   The author provides insides into the Castros' way of thinking of which probably very few are aware. The information provided makes it easier to
   discuss Castro with Cuban-American friends that hate his guts.
   
   The book concentrates on behavior and time-wise jumps around. To get a
   better understanding of events in an orderly time sequence, other readings are necessary.
   
   I recommend this book to anybody that is interesting in learning the inner feelings that make Fidel and Raul 'tick.' I never realized what an egomaniac 'gachupin' he was until reading this book.



3. I bought this book because its title caught my attention.What's gonna happen after Fidel? Mr Latell's account is very well researched and documented.His insight and instincts really gives the book a good "taste".I guess after many years watching a person you get an edge over a reporter or historian.His depiction and study of Raul Castro and his relation with Fidel is very accurate since i have heard basically the same opinions from people that used to live in Cuba.Good book and good work by the author.



4. As a college professor, if not as a high ranking CIA, one expects an author to investigate what he writes and not be sloppy in his research. In the first page of his first chapter, the author attributes to José Martí a well known poem by Puerto Rican poet Lola Rodríguez de Tió. In English the first verses would be: Cuba and Puerto Rico are the two wings of a bird that receives flowers and bullets in the same heart.
   The problem with that first impression is that one can not help but ask, how credible this book really is.



5. The author is very astute and informed. This book will open your eyes to the total affect Castro had on the world. Includes a partial biogaphy explaining the personal side of Castro that many aren't aware of. Worth the read.

5 comments about Andrew Jackson (Great Generals).

1. On a recent of list of great presidents in American history, Andrew Jackson was ranked near the top. Yet there is no Andrew Jackson Day. Most people would be hard pressed to name a single fact about "Old Hickory". Yet if he lived in the age of the cable news network, he may have been the most scandalous president ever. In this short but very well written biography, Robert Remini does a comendable job documenting the life of General Andrew Jackson.
   
   Jackson was raised in far from ideal conditions. When his parents died when he was young, he lived with several different relatives at varying times. After growing up in the Carolinas, he moved west to Tennesse where opportunity was available. In Tennesse, he became a very accomplished attorney which allowed him to accumulate wealth. It was in Tennesse that he met his wife Rachel who was in a failing marriage. For a time, Jackson actually lived under the same roof as Rachel and her then husband. When Rachel's first marriage became irreconcilable, she immediately married Jackson. Unfortunately, it was not until three years later that Rachel's first husband officially filed the divorce papers. This forced Andrew and Rachel to marry again to make the union legal.
   
   Jackson's early political career was not remarkable. He had less than fulfilling stints in the House and Senate before he achieved real glory in the military. Jackson is most noted for his conquests in the War of 1812 and battles with American Indians. Riding the wave of his military glory, he was elected president. In doing this he also helped to found the Democratic party. Jackson's accomplishemnts as president include his elimination of the National Bank, forcing the French to pay war reparations, and ending the spoils system that plagued the government. He was championed as a common man's president because of this Tennesse background and military service.
   
   The whole life of Andrew Jackson is not disclosed in this review, but this book is an excellent source to discover his life. Remini's writing is not bogged down in political lingo, but tells the story for those interested in reading about a great life. While a short read, it is thorough and highly enjoyable.



2. Few American presidents could be said to have left such a distinctive mark on the office and the nation as Andrew Jackson. Even as Jackson's legend fades into the mists of the past, we owe it to ourselves to reach back and draw it up into the light of honor accorded such giants as Washington, Lincoln and FDR, because Jackson was a figure of equal stature. One way to accomplish this is to read Robert V. Remini's concise history entitled simply Andrew Jackson, a quick, yet surprisingly thorough chronicling of Jackson's many achievements as president, politician, general and pivotal figure in the establishment and settlement of the state of Tennessee.
   
   What makes Jackson so interesting is the way his checkered past shaped the trajectory of his Presidency. Decades before Lincoln, he was the first president to be born into rustic circumstances and rise above them to achieve greatness, but unlike Lincoln, his story is not that of a paragon of virtue overcoming adversity with folksy charm and wit. Jackson was a bully, an adulterer, a blowhard and a holder of grudges, character flaws that he eventually reshaped to his advantage, and to that of the nation's.
   
   Humiliated and wounded as a boy during the Revolution, Jackson carried a lethal grudge against the British that eventually got its airing during the War of 1812 when he commanded US forces in the Battle of New Orleans and won a lopsided victory that sent a stinging message to the rest of the world about the folly of underestimating America's determination to defend its sovereignty.
   
   It made him a hero and launched his political career, an enterprise that might have been merely interesting were it not for Jackson's staunch determination to take the smug creatures of privilege in Washington by the scruff of their collective neck and teach them a stern lesson about whose country it really was. By 1828 the nation was already in danger of being sold out to the highest bidder and Jackson rose to power on the promise of snatching Democracy from the jaws of Oligarchy. Remini's speculates that, in some measure, this came from Jackson's early experience after having been ripped off in a land deal by moneyed interests.
   
   In any case, Jackson was as good as his word, going after the all powerful National Bank with a vengeance, staring down the threat of secession on the part of South Carolina over a question of tariffs, and defeating formidable political foes with equal helpings of restraint and ferocity. Jackson helped found the state of Tennessee, was instrumental in the establishment of the Democratic Party, virtually invented modern campaigning, was the first president to wield the veto with brio, and elevated the office of the Presidency to its present formidable role. But Jackson's most lasting contribution was his faith in and reliance on the people, even after he'd been elected, a true Democrat of a type almost entirely missing today and one not likely to be resurrected any time soon.
   
   Remini is a comprehensive Jackson scholar, one whose works on the Hero of New Orleans number eleven. This book is more or less an abridged version of his longer work and represents a cherry picking of facts and reflections. Regrettably, the book favors facts over reflections which is unfortunate, because one would like to know more about Remini's interpretations of events. But if you want to pick up a basic understanding of Andrew Jackson and his importance to American history this book is a wonderful start.
   
   Jackson's parting words on leaving office were, "Remember, my fellow citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing." What politician would ever say that today?
   
   That Jackson is increasingly forgotten when discussing the great Presidents of our history says something, too, about our ability to retain the blessing for future generations.



3. Few Americans have won the mythical status enjoyed by Andrew Jackson. Often portrayed, in his day and since, as the champion of the common man, Jackson came to Washington as an outsider, the first President born outside the thirteen original states, indeed the first president born neither in Virginia nor Massachusetts. Throughout Jackson historiography, Jackson via his policy of `rotation' in office has been accused of instituting the spoils system in American politics. This criticism highlights how Whig myths have come to permeate the historical writing on this subject.
   
   Starting with James Parton in 1860, anti-Jackson historians have followed this criticism, blaming Jackson for replacing a supposed merit system with a partisanship that corrupted the civil service for generations. Despite further research since Jackson's time, many historians have uncritically repeated these accusations without examining the actual record of appointments during the presidency unhappily described by some as "The Reign of Andrew Jackson".
   
   There have been essentially four cycles of studies into the life and Presidency of Andrew Jackson. The first cycle began soon after the death of Jackson with the "liberal patrician" or "Whig" school, who were generally unfavourable towards the policy of rotation. Most familiar is James Parton's classic The "Life of Andrew Jackson". So critical of rotation was Parton that he stated "this single feature of his administration would suffice to render it deplorable rather than admirable." Other members of the "Whig" school include Sumner, Schouler and Von Holst, all very critical of Jackson's policy of rotation. Parton's biography was the standard source on the Jacksonian era, until the second cycle represented by the Progressive Historians, such as John Spencer Bassett's "The Life of Andrew Jackson (1911), which cast Jackson in somewhat of a different light. Bassett reduces the amount of blame put on Jackson for rotation by suggesting that his democratic views made him oblivious to unintentional dangers from partisan appointments. However, the Progressives shared with the Whigs the view that Jackson had brought a spoils system to national politics and that its effects were negative.
   
   Historians in the third cycle of Jacksonian studies, of which Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s "The Age of Jackson" (1945) served as a pivotal work, shifted attention away from Jackson himself towards larger forces in his era. Historians of the third cycle, such as Hofstadter and Hammond, debated the effects of class and culture in determining party differences while showing little interest in evaluating Jackson's rotation policy, though tending to criticise it briefly. No biographies of Jackson discussed the policy of rotation in depth during the next thirty years.
   
   The appearance of Robert V. Remini's three-volume biography of Jackson marked the start of the fourth cycle of interpretation. Based on modern scholarship, Remini covers all aspects of Jackson's life and career, demonstrating his contribution to the great developments of nineteenth century America, particularly empire, freedom and democracy. By returning to first hand sources, Remini shows that the policy of rotation in office has been exaggerated and misunderstood. However, having set himself the remarkable task of producing a thorough study of the life and Presidency of Jackson, Remini did not have the scope for a detailed re-interpretation and re-evaluation of rotation. Since Remini's work there have been many scholarly works on Jackson, but none offer an in-depth reassessment of rotation as touched upon by Remini.
   
   Remini states that Jackson has received a disproportionate share of the blame for the spoils system and that there is a need to disprove the Whig myths, which have come to permeate the historical writings of historians over the generations. Remini was not the first to stress the need for such a revision; in fact a similar plea was expressed by J.R. Poinsett in the "Oration on the life and character of Andrew Jackson, delivered July 4, 1845" when he stated about Jackson, "His instinctive love of justice... gave a high tone to his government and exalted the honor of his country. His hatred of corruption rendered his administration pure.... I will content myself with expressing my belief that in future time the impartial historian will justify both his motives and his conduct on this trying occasion.
   
   Remini offers the reader a great insight into the pioneering mind of one of America's greatest Presidents.
   
   
   [The above Review is taken in part from 'Andrew Jackson's policy of 'Rotation in Office' by Alexander Rayden. © Copyright 2005 Alexander Rayden, All Rights Reserved].



4. We had to read this book in my AP U.S. History class. It is good. My theory on the reason why Remini wrote this book was to explain why Jackson did the things he did like the duels and make up for them. I never realized how interesting the presidents were espically Jackson. Good book to read.



5. I have read several of this author's works, and have never been disappointed. It is easy to see why he has become an acknowledged expert on the "Age of Jackson." His writing is always very easy to digest, and his insights are illuminating. I highly recommend this book, and the audio version is equally enjoyable.

5 comments about An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America.

1. This book details the change in G. Washington's attitude toward the institution of black slavery and his efforts to free the slaves under his control and the many reasons why he could not just free them all in his life time. (Many were not 100% his. But the property of his wife and her children (his adopted children and grandchildren). The author gives insight how slaves could earn money by which they could purchase their freedom. That slave owners used various tools to motivate their slaves , from the whip to rewards as incentives. This book also reveals the hard hearted attitude many slave holders developed even toward slaves who would today be recognized as half sisters having the same father but different mothers . An excellent book on the nature and early history of black slavery in the Colonies . Slavery as we understand it today as a birth to death existence only developed about the late 1730s - 1865 in the 13 colonies and later the U.S. Prior to this people of every race could be sold into indenturement which was a limited servitude of a set term usually 7-9 years after which they were free to pursue their own interests . The poor in England often would sell themselves into indenturement as a way to get to America . Another source of indentured servants was the English prisons. As these sources dried up land owners looked to African slavers to provide them with laborers. These too were originally treated in a similar way as the British laborers gaining their freedom after 7-9 years of labor.(This is the origin of many the early free American Negros by the time of the American Revolution.) As greed took over, owners of the indentured began took look for ways and reasons to keep their servants longer thus between 1720-1740 a view that blacks were not really fully human but more like animals was developed by those in power. This allowed a false morality to developed that said Negros and their offspring could be kept, bought and sold into slavery not indenturement Thus if only Negros could be kept in a lifetime of slavery Greed (follow the money) led to owners to define that to be negro only required that they be as little as 1/8 some as little as 1/16 negro to be bought and sold in slavery. .It is a great book in explaining slavery historically and how Washington opinions about slavery evolved over his life. Another good book on this early period that is out of print is "America at 1750: A Social Portrait" by Richard Hofstadter. But Can now be found Amazon new/used books.



2. A well written book, done in a casual style that really brings the issue and the man to life. Not a ringing endorsement of Martha!



3. I bought this book at a used book store for a great price of $4.98 (hardbound) otherwise I think I would have skipped it. When I checked out the clerk commented that he'd heard it was a great book, which certainly piqued my interest and raised it in my queue of books to read.
   
   
   The story is very well told, and I really tore through this book pretty quickly considering the type of book. I enjoy historical non-fiction quite a bit, but in general, I can't sit for hours reading them like I can other types of books. I tend to read these kinds of books 30-40 pages at a time and slowly digest them over a few weeks.
   
   I found the book and topic very interesting, it showed you another side of Washington that you wouldn't normally see. It's so easy to forget that like us, he was only human, and was far from perfect, even sometimes cruel to his slaves (he sent one away to the sugar plantations in the carribean knowing full well he was sending the man to his death).
   
   What I found most interesting was that Washington clearly analyzed his own life over time and recognized both his strengths and weaknesses and took action near the end of his life to do what he felt was the right path, even when that path was one no one else would take with him, even his wife. In many ways, reading this book, gave me more respect for him getting a glimpse into the man from a subjective viewpoint, not an idolized one.



4. Excellent book for anyone that wants to know what really happened between George and his slaves.



5. However, lionized Washington was as a military leader, he was far more wishy-washy where slavery was concerned. His path to enlightenment regarding race was something other than a hero's journey. This book measures the slow growth of Washington's willingness to change. But about the bigger picture, this much is clear - Washington did change. And the force of his moral and intellectual progress can now be understood more deeply than before.

5 comments about Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare.

1. I read this book knowing virtually nothing of Pol Pot or the history of the Cambodian revolutionary movement. Having read the book I feel it works far better as a history of modern Cambodia and the rise and fall of the Khmer Rouge than it does as a biography of Pol Pot, hence my rating. My expectations of Short's work are high having greatly enjoyed his biography of Mao which is overflowing with the kind of personal detail and insight that is absent from this work. I would speculate that this may have something to do with the availability of source material and perhaps with the cultural issues around the definition of truth in Cambodian culture which Short alludes to in the book.
   
   Despite this I came away far more knowledgeable than I arrived and Short is an excellent writer with a knack for making his material easily digestible.
   
   Good history, but only an average biography.



2. I am sorry but this book was boring. I think it took a special kind of writer to make something as seemingly interesting/horrific as the Khmer Rouge so dull. This book is overloaded with details upon details that do not really give any real insights into what happened in Cambodia or upon Pol Pot.
   
   This is not the first book someone should read to get a strong understanding of Pol Pot or the Khmer Rouge. Instead it should be read by people that are serious students of this subject otherwise you will just get bogged down with names and the little bureaucratic nuances of the Khmer Rouge step by painful step.
   
   This book has taken me a long time to read through and I generally read pretty quickly. I would find myself cleaning my house or doing laundry to avoid finishing. I am one of those people that feels they need to finish a book once they started it and this one made me seriously reconsider.



3. As some of the previous reviewers have already stated, this is not your typical biography. Short shows the life of Pol Pot and the history of Cambodia at the same time. Short shows how an evil man such as Pol Pot could rise to the top of the Khymer Rouge, and the eventual downfall of both the country and his evil regime. At close to 500 pages of reading, this biography and the accompanying history is pretty heavy reading.
   
   Pol Pot was the Angkar of this regime. He was secretive, vindictive, and a self serving. He thought he was the brains of the Khymer Rouge, and everybody else was the follower. Any threat to his leadership was met with death by his opponents. It was too bad he died in his old age. He needed to meet the same fate as Saddam Hussein. As it was, 1 1/2 million Camdodians died because of his rule. Some of his fellow monsters are still around and should br tried for crimes against humanity.
   
   What is also striking is the self serving nature of Pol Pot. He killed people who were foreign trained, even though he went to a French college.
   His banned a personal life, even though he selected a young women to have a family with. He was your typical hippocrit, do as I say, not as I do.
   
   This is probably the best book on the Cambodian Holocaust. This mass killing should never have happened. Hopefully, Pol Pot is burning in his afterlife.



4. Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare (John MacRae Books)
   This study deserves to be another documented remainder of the practical and , unfortunately , logical consequences of what began as a humanistic idea about equality and sameness and ended in its consequent and tragic equation , cca at least half a billion unmarked graves stretching from the revolutionary France up to the bloodiest of all eras , the 20th century with communisms of different ' denominations '( e.g. stalinism , titoism ,Pol - potism ... ) . If we could dare calculate the percentage of people murdered in a time unit , then Cambodia is probably at the top of the saddest scale imaginable ,as 2 million people , a third of population , were starved and butchered on the infamous killing fields . Mr. Short's analysis is a hard core scientific work which tries to minutely describe and explain the history of Cambodia before the WWII , before the arrival of Khmer Rouges and the creation of the real Hell on Earth in the mid70s, the period of its 'great' leap forward and its quick demise , succeeding perfectly in illustrating the mindset behind Pot Pol and his clique , that was fatally influenced , which Mr Short repeats on numerous occasions , by at that time fashionable , e.g. progressive ideas , which were a) French b) marxist c) nihilistic . All these ideas were combined with the pre-existing Cambodian traditions and psychological mindsets , where violence in its most bizzare and brutal form ( according to one of the interviewees in the book , it was nothing unusual for children ,while swimming in a local river, to find severed human heads floating around , special forms of torture where a torturer is dancing around a helpless victim with a machete before hacking him to pieces and drinking his blood, etc. ) co-exists with the image of the most peaceful people in the world . All these , as well as the opposition against the king , poor management by the colonial master France , senseless interparty bickering, and war in the neighbouring Vietnam were factors that inescapably led to the final stage - red inferno with the secret sect first called Angkar to which virtually everything had to be sacrificed ( not only material objects, cars , tv sets ,etc. ) but specially human , individual characterictics , the very feelings , the soul itself , where the greatest sin was , simply , to have a thought! This study is another document of the 'usefulness'of radical ideas , where it is impossible to remain untouched , and a document which must serve as a perennial warning of how evil a man can be ! It is first and foremost a tribute to all the innocent Cambodians that were massacred en masse because of a psychopatic idea in psychopatic minds .



5. Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare
   Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare
   
   "The evacuation of Phnom Penh was a shambles. To move more than two and a half million people out of a crowded metropolis at a few hour's notice, with nowhere for them to stay; no medical care; no government transport and little or nothing to eat, was to invite human suffering on a colossal scale.
   `The... defining features of the evacuation - the systematic stripping away of the possessions of the rich and not-so-rich; the writing and rewriting of autobiographies to identify potential opponents; the summary executions; the near total absence of resistance by millions of people, uprooted from their homes and going like sheep to the slaughter - were equally a foretaste of the regime to come." Philip Short; Anatomy of a Nightmare, P. 283
   Thirty years after the end of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, many of the leading players like Pol Pot are dead. Others, like Ieng Sary and his wife face war crimes charges in international courts. Sary was granted amnesty by former King Sihanouk but still faces charges in The Hague.
   The country remains one of the poorest in Asia: per capita income is about $300 US, and most of the country's inhabitants exist on subsistence farming. One of its growth industries, tourism, ironically is straining the fragile Angkor Wat Temples.
   Like many of history's worst villains, Pol Pot was a self-made man who was constantly reinventing himself. After losing his engineering scholarship in Paris in the early 1950's, he began his political ascent as a guerilla fighter. As Cambodia was targeted for US bombing strikes during g the Vietnam War, the Khmer Rouge used the threat of bombing as an excuse for the massive, involuntary relocation of the millions of urban residents to the countryside, where they were placed in collective labor camps and deprived of all private property.
   Conservative estimates of the death toll from starvation, disease, torture and murder are at 1.7 million. But as Stalin, one of history's most notorious exterminators, said: "One death is a tragedy. A million is a statistic."
   Pol Pot not only rewrote history, he obliterated it. He declared the start of the Khmer Rouge Regime as "Year Zero," effectively beginning all over again. "Communist regimes everywhere have sought to level income disparities; to make law an instrument of policy; to monopolise the press; and to control postal and telecommunications links with the rest of the world. But Cambodians chose more radical, more insane solutions.
   Money; law courts; newspapers; the postal system and foreighn communications -- even the concept of the city .. were all simply abolished." (Short, Introduction P.12)
   
   Short, a British journalist, lived in Cambodia for many years. He has prepared a scrupulously researched and evenly written history of one of this generation's worst nightmares.

5 comments about Stealing Lincoln's Body.

1. Avoid this book, unless you are stranded on a desert island and you have nothing else to read. the basic story while interesting, could have been told in about 20 pages. the author was not able to engage me as a reader. his story rambles all over the place and is detailed to a fault. plus it is rarely colorful enough to make one care. even though the book is relatively short, it is still much too long.



2. [...]
   
   I give the writer 4 stars for this historical account of an incident that I had never heard of before. His numerous footnotes added credence to the fact that this absurd attempt to kidnap our dead President's body was carefully planned, and would have been successful had it not been for the efforts of the Lincoln Memorial attendants, who hid the body until a permanant resting place could be completed.
   
   A great tale to add to the sometimes unbelievable events that are part of our great American heritage.



3. Bungling thieves who fail in an attempted heist, and bungling cops who eventually catch them, might seem to be improbable subjects for a detailed book on the whole botched affair. There is no lack of interesting detail, however, in _Stealing Lincoln's Body_ (Belknap / Harvard). Thomas J. Craughwell has illuminated a bizarre crime, and has also cast light on many subjects that would seem unconnected to it but all of which are brought in to play their parts. The crime itself was a petty affair, not just a failure; it was hardly even begun before it was halted. Craughwell's spirited story, however, takes in the history of counterfeiting and embalming in America, grave robbing, the founding of the Secret Service, the rural cemetery movement, the Pullman strikes, and much more. It is a tribute to Craughwell's narrative skill that this story of a small, ghoulish, thwarted crime can hold all the digressions and show how the diverse themes are all connected.
   
   Craughwell's story starts with Lincoln's death. Even if there had been no grave-robbing, Lincoln's was among the best travelled and most fussed-over of cadavers, so there is a description of the history of embalming here, and of the body's travels to Springfield, Illinois. Then Craughwell gives us the history of American counterfeiting, an activity that was busily pursued long before we had our own currency. The reason that this is a justifiable digression in the story is that it was counterfeiters that plotted the theft of Lincoln's corpse, and the Secret Service that took charge of bringing them in. A big crook hired minor crooks for the job of getting Lincoln's corpse for ransom, and they took on a small-time crook to help them in their effort, only he was a stool-pigeon for the Secret Service which had been put on alert after the first conspirators fled. Thus, on election day in 1876, the conspirators took the tour of the Lincoln mausoleum, with the custodian fully aware of who they were and why they were there. They returned that night, ill-equipped to saw through the one padlock that secured the place, and when they finally got in and broke into the sarcophagus, they found the lead and cedar coffin too heavy to carry. They were relieved from having to do so by the Secret Service which was lying in wait for them in stocking feet so that their footsteps didn't echo in the tomb chamber. Unfortunately, one of the detectives accidentally fired his pistol, alerting the would-be grave robbers who got away. This left the lawmen nothing to do but engage in a futile hunt within the cemetery, and along the way mistakenly shoot at each other, with aim fortunately as bad as the rest of their night's doings. No one was hurt.
   
   The perpetrators were eventually caught and imprisoned in Joliet prison. The wild story of the attempted theft in the graveyard was buried beneath the bigger story of the attempted theft (by both Republicans and Democrats) of the Tilden / Hayes election. Also, the story of the tomb robbers was simply too incredible for the public to believe. Lincoln's body did not rest easily for some further decades. The custodians within the secret fraternal organization the Lincoln Guard of Honor decided to keep it safe by secretly burying it in the basement of the mausoleum, allowing tourists to continue to be moved by viewing an empty sarcophagus. (Rumors flew around Springfield that the tomb was empty.) Mary Todd Lincoln joined him there after her death in 1882. The custodians opened the coffin in 1887 to make sure it was really Lincoln in there and then reburied it. There was a final reburial in 1901, and the style of reburial was borrowed from that of George Pullman, who because of his relations with labor at his company was one of the most despised men in America and who fretted that his own grave would be robbed. The Lincolns, with the blessing of their son Robert, were encased in lead, then in a cage of steel, and then in tons of cement. It's a good bet that they will rest in peace now, but the story does not quite end there. The sarcophagus that had previously held the body was being held for history's sake when the tomb was repaired in 1930. The sarcophagus was left outside, and was smashed to bits by vandals, parts of it carried off, possibly for souvenirs. Perhaps it was as close to robbing the graves as the vandals could get. Craughwell's wide-ranging, brightly written history puts this and other bizarre incidents into context. The story of Lincoln postmortem is surprisingly full of lively incidents and hilarious, macabre folly.



4. You can tell by the title that this is going to be a weird book, especially since it's nonfiction. Thomas Craughwell does a great job of telling the story of the man who not once, but twice, tried to steal President Abraham Lincoln's body and hold it for ransom.
   
   The book was a smooth read and interesting. However, I think Craughwell might have padded it a bit with history that wasn't directly related to the story. While I found the history of U.S. counterfeiting interesting, it distracted from the story.
   
   It's an unusual story that you will enjoy reading, though. I hope Craughwell comes up with another story just as good.



5. If history is a mighty river, this book is about one of the smaller eddies. Books of this type can be great fun and provide a view that you seldom see. We all know the story of Lincoln's murder, state funeral and the train to Springfield. What we do not know is the story of Lincoln's body, how Springfield tried to capitalize on it and how it came to a final resting place.
   Along the way, the author treats us to a short history of the Secret Service, Counterfeiting, Lincoln's wife and son. This is included in a look at the underworld in Illinois, manners and morals. These little side trips place the main story in the larger picture providing a more complete story.
   The main story is what happened to Lincoln's body from 1865 to 1901. The attempt to steal the body, while important, is only part of the story. Springfield's attempts to make a tourist attraction and Mary Lincoln's plans collide at once. Robert Lincoln is detached but involved making him a question mark for history. Lincoln's associates, Springfield's leading citizens, members of the underworld, fear, greed and respect all combine in history that reads like a novel.
   This is an easy and fun read. The author has a very readable style that can move from subject to subject with few problems. He has the ability to produce word portraits of the people that make them understandable. This is well worth reading for Civil War buffs, Lincoln admirers and those that enjoy history.