No comments about Margaret Thatcher - The Iron Lady (Biography).

No comments about Abraham Lincoln: A Life.

5 comments about The Avenger Takes His Place: Andrew Johnson and the 45 Days That Changed the Nation.

1. Well, I wasn't sure if I liked Andrew Johnson before I read this book. (I actually knew very little about him.) Traditionally, he is portrayed (when he is portrayed) as the brave successor of Lincoln who "stood up" to those mean old Radical Republicans in Congress, who wanted to punish the South and open the door to all their carpetbagger and scalliwag friends. He made his stand; saved the presidency; and then faded into obscurity. Well, of course it wasn't that simple: Johnson, while admirable for his pluck and courage, was in the main, a hard-headed zealot of limited intellectual and creative range, who kept his own counsel, did what he pleased, and ended up as perhaps the least effective president in American history. It's still probably a good thing that the attempt to remove him from office failed; such would have been a blow from which the presidency might never have recovered. But certainly Johnson's pig-headedness and inability to compromise did as much to weaken the office as anything the Radicals could have done.
   
   This book concerns itself mainly with a very brief period (45 days, the subtitle says) in American history wedged between the assassination of Lincoln and Johnson's impeachment by Congress and trial in the Senate. As such, its focus is somewhat limited. Readers wanting more information on either of those epic events in U.S. history will have to look elsewhere. But it does help to identify the significance of the former, while providing important groundwork for the latter. As such, it is certainly worth reading. Means is a splendid writer, and his text marches swiftly acorss the pages. His research and scholarship seem flawless; but he also is unafraid to draw comparisons with contemporary events in American history and provide the occasional bit of humor and irony. This book is not long (just over 200 pages, exclusive of endnotes) and it moves along very fast. It's worth the read in and of itself, but more importantly as background for later developments in Reconstruction, a too often overlooked (but critcally important, as Means infers) period in our national history.



2. Andrew Johnson was one of our worst Presidents. In this book, author Means relates the personality of Andy Johnson, and his failings in the leadership role. Johnson was the aftermath of the great Presidency of Abraham Lincoln. To be judged according to what Lincoln did was a gave injustice to Johnson. However, Johnson's personality was not suited to a leadership role in such a viotile time. Johnson was personally brave, and was a thoughtful man. However, once he took a position, he never changed or compromised. This made him an unsuccessful leader in a time when the nation was changing so much. His moderate policies pleased no one, least of all his former enemies.
   
   This is a nice read about a transition time in American history. There have been many, but this one was probably the foremost time when a personality did not take charge and shape the destiny of the country.



3. Shortly after Lincoln's murder, while the entire country reeled from rumors that Lincoln's death was the result of a huge conspiracy that involved Confederate leaders, Herman Melville published "The Martyr," an ominous warning to all those who might've been involved. The "Forgiver"--Lincoln--has been murdered. "But the People in their weeping/ Bare the iron hand/Beware the People weeping/When they bare the iron hand." Why? Because "The Avenger [now] takes [Lincoln's] place."
   
   Andrew Jackson was that terrible Avenger--or so the radical Republicans who wanted the South punished even before Lincoln's assassination hoped. There was good cause to think that Johnson was the man to crush the South. Few politicians had been as vocal about the need to punish treason with a hangman's noose than Andy Johnson, Tennessee's military governor. Moreover, the Republicans believed they could control Johnson in a way that Lincoln always successfully resisted: after all, Johnson was a backwoods lout who'd actually been drunk at his own inauguration! So the consensus was that the Avenger was in place: a President who on his own wanted to punish the South, and who could be manipulated by bloodier-minded, vengeance-seeking northern Republicans.
   
   As author Howard Means points out, however, things didn't quite work out as planned. Johnson proved much more independent than Washington powerbrokers anticipated, and his hang-'em-high attitude toward the South proved to be more rhetorical than real. In fact, his plan for reconstruction pretty closely mirrored the 1863 suggestions Lincoln had left: a 10% solution (readmittance to the Union upon the election of new state governments voted in by at least 10% of eligible voters), and constitutionally guaranteed freedom for blacks. Johnson's stubborn refusal to endorse radical Republican plans to enfranchise blacks led to congressional resistance and then impeachment. After the first 45 days of his presidency, Johnson was increasingly powerless. It would take several administrations for the presidency to recover.
   
   Means' account of the "45 days that changed the nation," as his book's subtitle has it, is well-written. The trouble, however, is that it says virtually nothing that hasn't been written about elsewhere, is severely limited in its documentation, and (bizarrely) doesn't really begin to focus on the 45 days until midway through. It's almost as if there are the beginnings of three books crammed between two covers: a bio of Johnson, an account of the national chaos and confusion following Lincoln's murder (Means shines here, and is to be commended), and (finally!) the conflict between Johnson and the Republican congress over Reconstruction. When it comes to this final point, Means' argument ultimately is that Lincoln probably could've pulled off what Johnson attempted. "It wasn't policy that would bring [Johnson] down so much as it was lack of political skills" (p. 212).* Perhaps. But it takes a lot more arguing than Means supplies to give this conjecture weight.
   
   All in all, then, an interesting but not terribly essential book.
   ________
   * To his credit, Means goes on to provide three other reasons besides lack of diplomacy for why Johnson's moderate Lincoln-inspired plan for Reconstruction failed (pp. 206-225)



4. This is a nice survey about Johnson and the situation he found himself in April 1865. This is partially a Johnson bio -the start of the book, though interesting, focuses on Johnson pre-presidency, leaving less time for the 45 days of the start of his administration (or, rather, finishing Lincoln's plans). So, if you are looking for super in-depth coverage or brand new research material, this is not your cup of tea. But, it's a well written book, and some of the the old newspaper clippings dealing with Lincoln and Johnson are fun to read.



5. I was looking forward to reading this book as I wanted to expand my knowledge of Andrew Johnson and the period immediately after Lincoln's death. Unfortunately this book is neither successful popular nor serious history. It is not particularly well-written and the author lacks the authority or gravitas to make his judgments seem trustworthy. If time is our most valuable commodity, then save yourself a little and read something else on this period.

5 comments about The Final Days.

1. 
   a good historical review of Nixon. Especially how tape crazy he was. A little tough reading in few pages but picks up after a while. It should be required reading for college to show what cn really happen in the White House.



2. I was absorbed by this book. It's story is so compelling and amazing, I couldn't put it down. I also appreciate the writing style that made difficult content easier to understand and follow. I consider this one of the best books I have ever read and an incredible insight into the Nixon mind.



3. This gripping narrative takes us inside the White House during the last days of the Nixon administration in 1974. From inside we see President Nixon, his advisors, family, and congressional allies trying to stave off his inevitable downfall from the Watergate scandal. Readers see how Nixon tried to claim executive privilege to avoid releasing the "smoking gun" tape that proved he'd ordered the cover-up. Even after he surrendered the tape (by Supreme Court order) Nixon refused to resign until his fast-deserting congressional allies warned him that his impeachment and conviction were now certain. The authors credit General Alexander Haig for holding the White House together as Nixon unraveled, but pay less attention to Vice President Gerald Ford, a non-participant except for later when he gave Nixon a questionable full pardon. There's also a review of the two-year scandal and the President's adversaries (Leon Jaworski, Sam Ervin, John Dean, etc.) but this narrative is based inside the White House. Readers see that Nixon was very capable but also a lying, crooked tax cheat, one whose administration was awash in payoffs, hush money, bribes, and political espionage.
   
   Authors Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein first uncovered the Watergate Scandal as reporters for the Washington Post in June of 1972. Having begun Nixon's downfall, perhaps it's fitting that they should chronicle that descent with this superb narrative, plus their earlier effort ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN.



4. This is a fascinating book regardless of your political persuasion or feelings about Richard Nixon. The detailed account of the last days of the administration reveals the human side of the names and faces you saw on the news everyday back then or read about in other books since then.



5. The American body politic cuts the president a great deal of error slack. We witnessed that during the Watergate years of Richard Nixon and we see it again in the presidency of George W. Bush. Both instances also point out one major fact of the American political landscape. No matter what they achieve or how high their popularity, if a President does the wrong things, they can crash down with great force.
   This book is one of the greatest political chronicles of all time. So great that no fiction writer could possibly create a story with such dynamism, force and sheer magnitude. Woodward and Bernstein were the reporting team that kept the Watergate story alive and ultimately led to Nixon's resignation. In this book, they describe the final days of the Nixon presidency and how the people involved tried to salvage what value they could and move on to the next phase.
   The greatest message of the book is the demonstration of how powerful and resilient the American political system is. Despite the slow pace of discovery, tortuous maneuvers by the prosecution and countermoves by the Nixon defense team, the system worked and worked well. The highest government official in the United States was a party to criminal acts and was removed without a shot being fired. There are few countries in the world where that could have taken place. It is one more demonstration of how extraordinary the writers of the American constitution were. Despite all of the changes in how the world works, advances in technology and other marvels of the age, a system put in place nearly two hundred years earlier functioned to near perfection.

5 comments about The Rise of Napoleon Bonaparte.

1. All the major events are covered, but there is little or no analysis/detailed description of those events. If you have little or no previous knowledge of Napoleon, this book would leave you thinking that the battle of Austerlitz was really not a big deal at all.
   
   Very disappointing read.



2. I am a high school senior who is planning to major in history in college I thought that it was a very engaging book even for my limited vocabulary and reading ability. It is truly an unbiased essay on Napoleon's life and adds an element I've never found before. Asprey shows what we are all missing out on when people write biased biographies. A must have if you want a book on Napoleon's life, military battles, and his destructive relationship with Josephine. Hope you guys like it.



3. Robert Asprey has delivered an outstanding look at one of the world's greatest military minds and leaders.
   
   Not focusing simply on Napolean's personal life, Asprey paints his character's life and actions against the canvas of then-current events, such as the French Revolution.
   
   Asprey's literary style is efficient but entertaining, and he does not encumber the reader with military minutia -- an accomplishment considering his subject.
   
   If you seek a biography to explain who Napolean was and what he did -- this is a great start.



4. Napoleon Bonaparte was born in Corsican obscurity in 1769. He was involved in patriotic struggle in Corsica; studied at a French military school and won his fame during the French Revolution. Napoleon has had millions upon millions of words and thousands of books written upon his fabled career. In his life he became emperor of the French; fought the major powers of the nineteenth century such as Britain, Austria, Prussia, Austria and Russia; wed and divorced Josephine; married Maria Louise of Austria; lost at Waterloo and died in exile on the island of St. Helena.
   Robert Asprey is an American historian who has authored several books of military history. This book is the first volume in a brisk two volume work. Asprey has a plain style; briefly covers major battles such as
   the Battle of the Nile, Maregno and Austerlitz and delves into the love life and mecurial character of the little corporal who was the cynosure of so much adulation and hatred in the nineteenth century world.
   Asprey does not go into excessive detail in describing military actions and his maps are few and far between. His coverage of diplomacy is not filled with details but does give the general reader an idea of the issues involved. If you seek a more scholarly and detailed look at the battles pick up the hefty tome "The Campaigns of Napoleon" by the eminent David Chandler; if you want more of the life of the average soldier in the French army turn to John Elting and if you want all the sexy intrigue of the Napoleonic court turn to Evangeline Bruce.
   If, however, you are a student or a neophyte to Napoleonic study this fine general biography will be a good place to begin study of the Napoleon era.
   Asprey is balanced in his portrait of Napoleon who was neither saint nor sinner but a tough, brilliant battlefield commander who worshipped at the shrine of power and egomania.I recommend this book and the second volume "The Reign of Napoleon Bonaparte." Good reading!



5. Perhaps my letdown by this book was inevitable coming as it did immediately after my reading of Doris Kearns Goodwin's demythification of Lincoln's human leadership power (see my review of Team of Rivals). Neither subject nor author could measure up here.
   
   In any case, this "battlefield biography" never really tells who Napoleon was, but what he did on the field of battle, and that with an over-reliance on secondary sources and unsupported generalizations and opinions.
   
   This book was followed by "The Fall of Napoleon Bonaparte" by the author, but not by me.
   
   The most enlightening part of the book was the statement Napoleon purportedly made at his coronation as Emperor of France, leaning over to his brother and whispering: "If only our father could see us now." That one quote tells more of the personality and motivation then hundreds of pages of battlefield maneuvering. Here was not a monster or maniac, or even a masterful monarch, doing great things on a great stage, here was a young man with verve and vigor emulating and now far exceeding his father, and wishing for his approval and adoration.
   
   Skip this one.

5 comments about Millard Fillmore: Biography of a President (Signature Series).

1. This book narrates the life of Millard Fillmore through the lens of Unionism and the formation of the many political parties in which he was involved (Antimasonic, Whig, American [aka Know-Nothing]) or to which he was opposed (Liberty, Free Soil, Republican). Fillmore's dedication to the Union, especially in passing and implementing the Compromise of 1850, is well told. This book also serves to explain the rise and fall of a number of lesser known American political parties.
   
   The book is well-written--one of the better ones, perhaps the best, in this series of American political biographies. It was one of the last written. The author relies on letters to Fillmore as one of the main sources, since his own letters are mostly missing. Generally the author is fair and balanced, although he portrays the struggle between Fillmore and Thurlow Weed rather naively as the battle between Good and Evil. He also brushes over Fillmore's willingness to allow slavery to exist as the price for preserving the Union--an opinion that was common at the start of Fillmore's career but increasingly anathema by the end of it.
   
   The review on the dust jacket, quoted on this item's Amazon page, written by Roy Nichols, is manifestly unfair to the book and to Fillmore. The author is not nearly so naive as Nichols makes him out to be, and Fillmore, while not a great president, was not nearly the mediocrity and indecisive man as Nichols portrays him. Read the book (it's worth it) but not the dust jacket!



2. Like many other students of history, I'm reading a biography of each president. Fillmore's life and the events of his day are laid out more clearly than any other author I've read so far. I learned (should I say 'understood') more from this reading than all the others. Highly recommended.



3. An excellent biography of a little known President. I was pleasantly surprised to find a well written and articulated biography. I think Robert Raybach, did a thorough job in his research and it shows in the detail of his writing. Millard Fillmore, is a better President then some of those who proceeded him and who immediately followed after him. His integrity was beyond reproach and he was a self made man. He was a pragmatist where as his successor treated the white house as a waffle house instead of with the same courage as Millard Fillmore. I highly recommend this biography to anyone who wishes to become more familiar with the 13th President of the United States. This biography should be in every high school and college and university across the country.



4. I am currently reading a biography of every President in order. For Millard Fillmore the selection of Rayback's (amazon.com has spelling incrrect) one volume biography of our thirteenth President was an easy choice given the lack of alternatives and the positive reviews this book has received from other readers.
   
   I am happy to say that I concur regarding the quality of this book. Rayback has written a comprehensive and interesting biography of Millard Fillmore that is a highly enjoyable read. Rayback get's the detail level just right and succeed's at painting a thorough portrait of Millard Fillmore's life, political career, and the times and issues in which he lived. The writing style is very readable and rarely does the book get dull.
   
   The only criticism I have regarding this book is that it does seem to be slightly biased in favor of Fillmore and makes some assumptions regarding Fillmore's inner feelings and thoughts on certain events for which I am quite sure the author would be hard pressed to find definitive documentation. The book also portrays Fillmore as always being selfless, good intentioned and often a victim of his own magnaminity while his enemies (namely Thurlow Weed and William Seward) were motivated only by the pursuit of political power. My suspicion is the story is not quite as one sided as this but Rayback, in my opinion, does not adequately explain fully the motivations behind Weed's enmity towards Fillmore. My guess is Weed's abolitionism and sectionalism was at odds with Fillmore's more pragmatic opposition to slavery and conviction of the primacy of preserving the Union. With the hindsight of history I believe good points can be argued about both positions however Rayback defaults to Fillmore's point of view.
   
   These criticisms aside, this is still a great biography and highly recommended.



5. the name millard fillmore often is used as part of a joke. however this biography shows that this obscure president actually helped postpone the civil war and may have been one of our most effective presidents. the book also gives an interesting backround to the civil war and the beginnings of the republican party. it was a suprisingly good read .

5 comments about The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.

1. If there was ever a book showing that one person can make a difference, it is "The Crusader," by Paul Kengor. It is amazing how many times Ronald Reagan went against the advice of most if not all of his advisors, and in the end proved to be correct.(Most advisors did not want Reagan to tell Garbachev to "tear down this wall," during his now famous speech.)
   Today, President Bush often gets criticized for unilateral inclinations. The book shows that Ronald Reagan was the unilateralsit of all unilateralists. It was even humorous to read how Reagan would go through the motions during his cabinet meetings and often in press conferences, while at the same time he had this whole separate operation going on to bring down the Soviet Union, that very few, even very few of his cabinet members, knew about. Can anyone say leader? It also shows, that even though Reagan was calling the shots, how important Bill Casey and Bill Clark were to the entire operation.
   This is the best book I have read on Ronald Reagan, and the best book that I have read on the process that actually ended the Cold War.
   It really does put the final nail in the coffin for those clueless "intellectuals" who say that the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and even the Berlin Wall would have fallen anyway. The book gives an amazingly detailed step by step account of the economic war against the Soviets and all of the National Security Decision Directives that Reagan virtually single-handedly initiated.
   The book shows that Ronald Reagan would often go against conventional wisdom. For example, he had great disdain for the Yalta agreements, and for the policy of containment, and eventually, virtually reversed them.
   The book also shows how Reagan's anti-communist passions go way back in his life, and how those sentiments are based on his respect for the human being. It tells of a time when he was in East Germany and saw a lady shopper accosted by an East German guard, and how this incident and others firmed his resolve against the evil of communism. It is pointed out how Reagan was actually motivated to act when others weren't, and how Reagan had an inborn sense of the right thing to do. And the book shows that Reagan's pattern to rescue those in distress goes back to his early days when saved 77 people over 7 summers from the swift currents of the Rock River in Dixon Illinois.
   "The Crusader" goes into great detail about the relationship between President Reagan and the great Pope John Paul II, and his role in bringing down communism. And it details Reagan's great admiration for the Polish people, and how they admired him in return, and how Poland's Solidarity Movement was one of the major factors in Reagan's and the Pope's effort to bring down communism. And how the people of Poland, the rest of Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union gave great credit to Reagan for bringing them freedom.
   The book also details how Reagan brought freedom to Central and South America.
   Before I read "The Crusader," I thought that President Ronald Reagan was our greatest U.S. President. After reading the book, my opinion of him only improved. In fact, he and Pope John Paul II have to be two of the great men of the millenium.
   It was often said that Reagan had very few, if any, close friends, except Nancy. Probably my favorite story in the book was when, in 1989, just before the previously unimaginable free elections in Poland, Reagan welcomed two members of Solidarity and the two Polish Americans who were hosting them, to his office in California. Reagan pointed to a picture of Pope John Paul II on his office wall and said: "He is my best friend. Yes, you know I am a Protestant, but he's still my best friend." If you are going to have a best friend, not a bad on to have. Thankyou.
   
   Mark S.Robertson
   Independence, Mo.



2. The late President Reagan's crusade against Communism in Russia freed millions of innocent people around the world, and in the end made the world a much better place when he died.
   
   History will record that Reagan was one of the greatest presidents in American history, and we should all take his example in both moral leadership, and courageousness.
   
   All future American leaders should look to Reagan as an example of honesty, sacrifice, and fortitude for taking on the problems of the 21rst century.
   
   God rest the soul of President Ronald Reagan, and may God bless America.



3. I have been a supporter of Ronald Reagan since his first run for the Presidency in 1976. I learned things about President Reagan that I did not know before reading this book. Most notably, this book details and documents just how President Reagan was in charge of his agenda, notwithstanding the best efforts of the American left to portray him otherwise, particularly the defeat and destruction of the Soviet Union.
   
   The book is extremely well written and is a page turner from the first chapter on. This is a must read for any fan of the greatest president of the last century. Reagan haters and deniers will want to avoid this book so as not to have to confront real history and all its implications.



4. Ronald Reagan is one of the rare figures in history who transcends political ideology. Often portrayed as more communicator than true statesman, The Crusader presents a far different picture. Paul Kengor does a masterful work of combining Reagan's own words with seldom published source material. The picture that develops is of a man who truly believed communism was evil and dedicated the later part of his life to seeing its downfall.
   
   Since President Reagan's death, more and more historians have begun to change their opinion of his effectiveness and influence as leader of the free world. No matter what your political leanings, The Crusader is a fine example of historical writing done right.



5. As long as you are not prejudiced or politically bigoted, it makes little difference if you are liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican as you cogitate purchasing Dr. Paul Kengor's work, CRUSADER, Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. The treatment is built on such solid research credentials, that it would be adolescent to dismiss it as another conservative woo-woo tabloid.
   
   Before I read it, I had not encountered any information about Dr. Kengor that would trigger speculation regarding his conservative perspective. I thought that he had approached his subject objectively. 'A fair-minded liberal could have written this,' I thought. Now, after discovering his political bent, and what he could have said but didn't, I am thoroughly convinced of his objectivity. He must have had to work hard at it. His scholarship speaks for itself.
   
   There is much sappy literature available in the bookstores on both sides of the liberal/conservative debate. This is not one of those books. If you want an engaging, supportable and honest interpretation of history, this work has it. If you want a straight-up appraisal of Reagan's presidency and his impact on the Soviets and communism, this work has it.
   
   Ronald Reagan was not a god, but he did the work of one. Dr. Kengor shows us how in a definitive work that will likely go down as the most significant work on President Reagan in political literature.
   
   Paul D. Morris

5 comments about On the Trail of the Assassins.

1. Jim Garrison's book "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was one of two books used as the basis for Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" (the other was Kim Marrs' "Crossfire"). On that basis alone, highly recommended (for it led to the JFK Act and the ARRB). That said, this is a very good but not a great book. I would put James DiEugenio's book ON Garrison ahead of this one. Still, a good "read" with some good moments.
   Vince Palamara



2. The late Jim Garrison's book "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was in large part the basis for Oliver Stone's 1991 motion picture "JFK", which is a film containing so many lies, half-truths, and misrepresentations of the facts surrounding John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination, it's literally difficult to keep up with all of them.
   
   I cannot watch one single scene of Oliver Stone's film without finding some distortion of the evidence in the real JFK or J.D. Tippit murder cases. Some are small things being distorted; and some are great big ones. One example (among dozens) being: Oliver Stone's version of shoe clerk Johnny Brewer's testimony re. Lee Harvey Oswald's manner of dress when Brewer encountered Oswald shortly after Oswald had shot and killed policeman Tippit.
   
   Stone, in his film, has Oswald (Gary Oldman) wearing a jacket as he enters the Texas Theater and is seen by Brewer....and in one of the movie's "Deleted Scenes" (on the DVD version of the film), Kevin Costner (playing Garrison) even does a voice-over (lie) re. Brewer's testimony, with Costner saying "Brewer said the man was wearing a jacket".
   
   Brewer, in reality, said exactly the opposite during his Warren Commission testimony:
   
   Mr. BELIN -- "Will you describe the man you saw?"
   Mr. BREWER -- "He was a little man, about 5'9", and weighed about 150 pounds is all. ... And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out."
   Mr. BELIN -- "Any jacket?"
   Mr. BREWER -- "No."
   
   Another interesting part of the Tippit portion of the movie "JFK" is Oliver Stone's Audio Commentary during this part of the film, which is riddled with inaccuracies. Stone has the audacity to spout the following lie re. the Tippit shooting on the DVD's Commentary soundtrack:
   
   "Not one credible witness has really identified Oswald as a single shooter {of Officer Tippit}. In fact, the only significant testimony applies two to three shooters." -- O. Stone
   
   Therefore, per Mr. Stone (and Garrison said pretty much the same thing years earlier), the "only credible" witness must have been Acquilla Clemmons, who, as far as I am aware, was THE ONLY witness who ever said there was more than one person involved in the Tippit slaying.
   
   Stone, like Jim Garrison before him, would simply rather believe his OWN version of events, rather than the multiple witnesses who never saw more than one shooter (with that one single shooter being positively identified as Oswald by said witnesses).
   
   It's interesting, indeed, that Stone thinks the "only significant testimony" re. the Tippit crime came from Clemmons. Whereas, people like Markham, Tatum, and Scoggins (who were all closer than Clemmons to the scene of the murder) are deemed less "significant", merely, no doubt, because they don't fit into Stone's (or Garrison's) "CT Landscape" surrounding the murder.
   
   I wonder if people realize just how many outright lies are contained in Oliver Stone's 3-hour, 15-minute motion picture? The number is simply staggering. And that number of distortions is increased considerably on the DVD version of the film, when the Audio Commentary Track by Mr. Stone and all of the "Deleted and Extended Scenes" are included as well.
   
   And a great deal of this deliberate misinformation put forth on the movie screen came directly out of this book authored by Jim Garrison.
   
   Another great place to see more of Mr. Garrison's skewed views of the JFK case is to read Garrison's 1967 "Playboy Magazine" interview. Like Stone's movie, that Playboy article will keep you busy as you try to keep up with the inaccurate things Garrison keeps saying in that lengthy piece. The whole interview can be read here:
   
   www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html
   
   
   Selected examples of Mr. Garrison's paranoia and loony-toon conspiracy talk, taken from that Playboy interview, are provided via the quotes below. My own rebuttal arguments follow each quote:
   
   
   "Though he {Oswald} may not have known why he was instructed to do so, this was undoubtedly why he got the job at the Texas School Book Depository Building. The conspirators knew this would place him on the scene and convince the world that a demented Marxist was the real assassin." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   The above Garrison gem totally distorts (or just flat-out ignores) the true and documented facts about how Oswald got his job at the Depository in mid-October of '63. It was suburban Dallas housewives Linnie Mae Randle and Ruth Paine who were directly responsible for placing Lee Harvey Oswald in the TSBD, by way of ordinary garden-variety happenstance.
   
   Garrison must, therefore, believe that Mrs. Paine, who arranged Oswald's job interview with Depository boss Roy Truly, was one of the main "conspirators" who was setting up Oswald to take the fall for JFK's murder the following month (which would also have to mean that Paine had detailed knowledge of the President's motorcade route more than a month before November 22). Garrison must also think that Roy Truly was a big part of the patsy plot, because it was Mr. Truly who actually hired Oswald (even though nobody was holding a shotgun to Truly's head forcing him to hire Lee).
   
   The commonly-held belief that Lee Oswald was "placed" in the Texas School Book Depository by evil plotters prior to 11/22/63 is a desperate attempt by CTers like Mr. Garrison to attach unprovable and unsupportable conspiratorial "strings" to a random event that involved several individuals...individuals whose collective and synchronized actions could not possibly have been foreseen and controlled by a group of behind-the-scenes conspirators.
   
   ---------------
   
   "Anyone who takes the time to read the Warren Report will find that of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza who were able to assess the origin of the shots, almost two-thirds said they came from the grassy-knoll area in front and to the right of the Presidential limousine and not from the Book Depository." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   This is pure nonsense. There were, indeed, several witnesses who said they heard shots coming from in front of JFK's car, but Garrison has severely skewed the stats to support his claim of Knoll shooters. His "almost two-thirds" figure is not even close to being accurate when talking about the number of witnesses who said they heard frontal shots. And even amongst other CTers, virtually no other pro-conspiracy author has ever rigged those stats in such an out-of-whack manner.
   
   The fact is that more than half of all earwitnesses heard shots coming from the direction of the Book Depository, and not from the Knoll. And an even more illuminating statistic reveals that less than 5% of all earwitnesses heard shots from more than just a single general location (front vs. rear). That stat speaks volumes....because even CTers admit to SOME rear shots.
   
   An interesting tabulation of this data can be found below:
   
   http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
   
   http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
   
   ---------------
   
   "The second shot struck the President in the back; the location of this wound can be verified not by consulting the official autopsy report, but by perusing the reports filed by two FBI agents who were present at the President's autopsy. Both stated unequivocally that the bullet in question entered President Kennedy's back and did not continue through his body." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   Therefore, Mr. Garrison is, in essence, saying that he is much more likely to trust the word of FBI agents (who, of course, were not doctors and were not conducting the President's autopsy) rather than take the word of the three physicians who each signed the official autopsy report. After all, why believe the autopsy doctors when you COULD just trust as Gospel the word of a bystander? ~sarcasm alert~
   
   Plus: Why didn't these two FBI agents get the conspirators' memo which, if CTers are right about the success of the Patsy Plot, must have been passed out to nearly everyone in Officialdom on 11/22, a memo that probably said: "Attn. All Agents -- We're framing Oswald tomorrow; so remember to falsify as much evidence as humanly possible to ensure conviction of patsy".
   
   Evidently some people who needed to see it never received that important document.
   
   ---------------
   
   "We have also located another man who was not involved in the shooting but created a diversionary action in order to distract people's attention from the snipers. This individual screamed, fell to the ground, and simulated an epileptic fit, drawing people away from the vicinity of the knoll just before the President's motorcade reached the ambush point." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   Yet another outright lie from the lips of District Attorney Garrison. The man who had the so-called "simulated epileptic fit" was fully identified by the FBI on May 26, 1964. His name was Jerry Belknap, a man who had a history of epilepsy since childhood. Belknap also proved to the FBI that he had paid the ambulance bill ($12.50) after he was taken to Parkland Hospital.
   
   ---------------
   
   "President Kennedy was killed for one reason: because he was working for a reconciliation with the U.S.S.R. and Castro's Cuba. His assassins were a group of fanatic anti-Communists with a fusion of interests in preventing Kennedy from achieving peaceful relations with the Communist world." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   Any solid, verifiable proof of such accusations, Mr. Garrison? Any physical evidence whatsoever that shows JFK was killed by more than one gun? .... The answers to those two questions are: No and No.
   
   But the lack of physical evidence never stopped a hard-boiled CTer....that's been proven over and over again by a vast assortment of conspiracists who have more theories up their sleeve than a dog has fleas.
   
   ---------------
   
   "In summation, there were at least five or six shots fired at the President from front and rear by at least four gunmen, assisted by several accomplices. At this stage of events, Lee Harvey Oswald was no more than a spectator to the assassination -- perhaps in a very literal sense. James Altgens snapped a picture that shows a man with a remarkable resemblance to Oswald, standing in the doorway of the Depository. The Altgens photograph indicates the very real possibility that at the moment Oswald was supposed to have been shooting Kennedy, he may actually have been standing outside the front door watching the motorcade. .... I don't believe that Oswald shot anybody on November 22nd -- not the President and not Tippit." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
   
   It seems as though these devilishly-clever conspirators forgot one important thing when they were setting up LHO -- they forgot their brains. For, who WITH brains would allow their lone "Patsy" to casually drift outside and be photographed and seen by countless witnesses when the plotters need to have Lee Harvey on the 6th Floor at 12:30? Per Mr. Garrison's account of Oswald possibly being "Doorway Man", evidently the real assassins were indeed brainless and lacked the common sense to keep Oswald where he wouldn't be able to establish a credible alibi for his 12:30 whereabouts.
   
   Just think about these Garrison remarks for a moment longer too -- "At least five or six shots were fired at the President from front and rear ... by at least four gunmen".
   
   Doesn't a "4-Shooter, 6-Shot, 1-Patsy" assassination plot seem a bit unlikely to anyone else but this writer? Would any professional killers actually attempt to "frame" a lone fall guy in that type of overkill fashion? In my opinion, no pro hit men would go about the complicated task of setting up Oswald (or anybody else) in such a needlessly-reckless way.
   
   A single "pro" hit man could have easily killed JFK with one or two shots (probably just one) from Oswald's "nest", without the need to clog the works with needless back-up gunmen hiding all around Dealey Plaza.
   
   There is no possible way the conspirators could have ensured the success of a multi-shooter plot to frame JUST Oswald in the minutes during and after the shooting. No way. There are way too many uncontrollable factors that could block the success of that One-Patsy venture that Jim Garrison placed his faith in.
   
   "Uncontrollable" items such as:
   
   1.) A frontal shooter might very well have been seen by witnesses (and to think that EVERY witness under the sun could be easily "bought", "taken care of", and/or coerced by these plotters is, again, just too much wishful thinking on the conspirators' part, IMO).
   
   2.) A frontal shooter might strike other occupants in the car, or strike somebody else in Dealey Plaza. But even if ONLY Kennedy is hit by a frontal gunman, there are massive problems to be "corrected" by the conspirators....bullets to be hidden and, of course, who knows how many obvious frontal wounds on the victim to be (somehow) eliminated -- and eliminated immediately before any non-conspirators can spill any beans. .... Only a person straight out of the booby hatch could believe that anyone, regardless of "power" or "pull", could get away with such a thing. It's just plain loony.
   
   3.) The one "Patsy" (Oswald) could have easily, by pure accident and happenstance, established a perfect alibi for himself at the time when he was supposed to be on the 6th Floor shooting the President (as Mr. Garrison apparently DID think occurred, with Oswald being seen in a photo taken as the bullets were flying; even though all reasonable researchers know full well that "Doorway Man" was actually Billy Lovelady, and not Oswald; Lovelady even testified to that effect in 1964). ....
   
   Plus -- If Oswald had really been in that doorway at 12:30, WHY ON EARTH DIDN'T HE SAY HE WAS THERE?! If he's got an ironclad alibi like that, why wouldn't he use it? Instead, he says not a word about being outside on the steps at 12:30, and even tells the police a provable lie re. his whereabouts (the lie about "having lunch with Junior {Jarman}" at the time of the shooting). How much sense does that make if Oswald had really been in the Depository doorway? ....
   
   And the very fact that Oswald did NOT have a usable, provable alibi for exactly 12:30 PM is absolutely remarkable IF he had really been wandering around on the lower floors of the Depository (or was outside the building), as many CTers firmly believe; and even the most rabid of conspiracy theorists have got to admit, that from the "CT/Patsy" POV, Oswald's not having a usable/believable/solid alibi is certainly, by far, the biggest piece of LUCK in the whole "Patsy Plot". ....
   
   These amazing Patsy Plotters just lucked out, evidently, in that Oswald was not seen by a single person inside or outside the TSBD at precisely the time of the assassination -- except by Howard Brennan, Ron Fischer, and Robert Edwards, of course, who saw Oswald or a nicely-arranged Oswald "imposter" in the Sniper's Nest at 12:30 or just seconds before 12:30.
   
   4.) And the likelihood that all of the non-TSBD bullets are going to somehow get swept under the rug is extremely remote, especially in a Bob Groden-like scenario. Mr. Groden (per his book "The Killing Of A President"), incredibly, has ZERO of the shots coming from the Oswald window, and a total of up to TEN shots being fired...and ALL OF THEM coming from rifles other than the one rifle these idiot plotters are going to attempt to frame Oswald with! Could Groden's scenario BE any more reckless and preposterous?! I doubt it.
   
   5.) And a biggie, that most CTers evidently don't think could have ever happened before 12:30 on November 22nd -- The one Patsy (Mr. LHO) could "get wise" to the plot that is brewing all around him and take measures to guarantee he could never be blamed for the actual assassination of John Kennedy.
   
   When thinking about any "Frame Lee Oswald As The One Patsy" plan, I just cannot visualize any professional assassins (even for a minute) contemplating the use of multiple shooters; let alone some gunmen firing from the Grassy Knoll, i.e., the exact opposite direction from where their single dupe is supposed to be located.
   
   ---------------------
   
   As the previously-mentioned quotes from the mouth of Mr. Garrison amply demonstate, if anyone has a desire to set out "On The Trail Of A Lunatic Conspiracy Theorist" -- look no further than Earling Carothers (Jim) Garrison.



3. I avoided reading this book when it was first published thinking it was but a mere rehash of Garrison's earlier book "A Heritage of Stone." However, thirty years on, I have pleasantly discovered that I was greatly mistaken. "On the Trail of the Assassins" is not a rehash, but stands quite sufficiently on its own.
   
   More than anything else, it is first a devastating critique of the Warren Commission's Report; perhaps the best there is so far. Second, it is written by a first-class legal mind. And whatever else one might say about Jim Garrison, it is difficult to ignore the fact that he has one of the best legal minds in this nation. Third, it is a summary report of the Garrison investigation, which again, it is difficult to ignore that Garrison, on a shoe string budget, and with a handful of mostly volunteers, did a much better job investigating the JFK assassination than all of the nation's institutional police and intelligence machinery combined. And finally, the book is Garrison's own defense of the case he lost against the only man ever to be charged with JFK's assassination, Clay Shaw.
   
   As a critique, Garrison attacks the slipshod way in which federal and Texas investigations pursued (or failed to pursue) the evidence and suspects -- other than the "carefully prepared patsy" Lee Harvey Oswald. Among these ways is the fact that Oswald was interrogated for more than 30 hours without a transcript; that the three tramps found in the rail car a few feet from the grassy knoll were released without even recording their names; and the general lack of curiosity on the part of the FBI and Dallas police authorities in following leads, protecting evidence, and in interrogating witnesses.
   
   Garrison's legal astuteness is on display in a number of ways in the book: in the way he corralled information from informants; the way he collated and peeled back his evidence to attain maximum courtroom effect; the way he shaped theories based on where the evidence led; and in the way he parried defense moves and the counter-moves against him made generally by the federal authorities, who curiously always viewed him as a threat and hindrance to their limp but "predetermined" investigation.
   
   With only a handful of investigators, researchers and contributors, Garrison fell just short of cracking the crime of the century. One must wonder out loud what would have happened if, instead of trying to derail and undermine his investigation, the government would have supported him?
   
   It seemed clear even to Garrison, that his case against Clay Shaw was a lost cause even before he entered the courtroom. However, if one looks carefully at the theoretical framework Garrison constructed, in which Shaw was just one of a number of important elements, it is clear that Garrison was on the right track; and that Shaw's acquittal was more about the lack of witnesses to confirm Garrison's evidence, than it was about Shaw's guilt or innocence. That is why after forty years, a great deal, if not all of Garrison's theory has been borne out.
   
   .Whether you believe Garrison's theories or not, this book is a report on investigative, legal, and police work of a very high order. Five Stars.



4. Now, maybe some people aren't interested in Mr. Garrison's point of view - but I am. And so are many others who repeatedly give On The Trail Of The Assassins a deservedly high mark. He was there in New Orleans and KNEW PERSONALLY most of the major players. How many investigators can say that? His overall conclusion of conspiracy is the same as many, many other independent researchers and the conclusion of 80 percent of the general public (Bugliosi be damned), only he was way ahead of his time. Had he known nothing of the truth surrounding the assassination, the CIA would never have bothered to smear his character or try ruin his investigation of JFK's murder by stealing his files for the trial of Clay Shaw. And yet it is Garrison who is accused of not playing fair. That's right... black is white, and white is black.
   
   This book is one of my favorites in the assassination canon. It is brilliantly written, soulful, human, and full of observations about gov't and how it sometimes changes without the people being invited to the party. He knew of Oswald (murdered by Ruby), Ferrie ("suicide"), Bannister ("heart attack" in 1964) and Shaw (no autopsy ever done) - and had most of them not died under conspicuously strange circumstances, Garrison would never have been placed in the position of being the Lone-Nut scape goat for their lack of honesty and insight into this murder investigation - an investigation that is still continuing, though with little help from some of the people who should have known better after all these years.
   
   Garrison's investigation and the trial of Clay Shaw were the inevitable result of the corrupt Warren Commission cover-up. Had the Warren Commission done its job and followed up leads in the first place, Garrison would never have ended up in the position of being the whipping boy for the Oswald as Lone-nut contingent. It was only through the efforts of Garrison that the Zapruder film ("back... and to the left") was viewed for the first time and the public began to see how dishonest the Warren Commision and the CIA were in lying to the American people about at least one more shooter.
   
   Recent revelations about secret CIA assassinations plots can no longer be denied and now are out in the open in recent news events. It's your country. You might think of the 40-year tailspin the country has been in since our president was killed and the efforts of private citizens who've tried to expose the CIA skullduggery during the Kennedy years and beyond. Garrison took on these covert agencies in the name of justice, and had not Clay Shaw lied his head off under oath during his trial, it's conceivable that Garrison would have won and Shaw end up on a chain-gang where he belonged. In a conversation with Oliver Stone, Judge Haggarty, who presided over the Shaw trial, said that he himself never believed a word Shaw said. (This is discussed on the JFK special features dvd.)
   
   The people of the country know all too well that Oswald didn't act alone - that is, if he shot anyone at all - and they're not about to let this conspiracy investigation end until the Federal gov't comes clean with what it knows. Every year more is being found out about certain participants, such as H. Howard Hunt's involvement, or David Morales, who was quoted as saying he was involved with the assassination of both JFK and RFK. Such revelations further vindicate Garrision's conclusion that the CIA was involved in the murder of Kennedy. Hunt and Morales (a man Hunt mentions) were both CIA. Gee, there seems to be a pattern here unless one has been playing ostrich with these recent CIA revelations.
   
   In the meantime, those who continue to smear Garrison are only making themselves small in comparison. They're not worthy to shine the shoes of this great man - a hero in every sense of the word in this sordid tale of political corruption, murder and media cover-up. Ten stars for On The Trail Of The Assassins and Jim Garrision. ZERO stars for the now documented CIA interference of Garrison's investigation and the perjury on the witness-stand of Clay Shaw. Even certain pro-conspiracy researchers wrongly denegrate Garrison and they should be ashamed of themselves now that Garrison's conclusions are being vindicated. They haven't half the courage of a Garrison, and no one other than he and Mark Lane have ever had the balls to take any of these arrogant, politically criminal jerks to trial (H. Howard Hunt by Lane) for lying about their complicity in the murder and cover-up of Kennedy's assassination. And I'm not the only citizen who feels this way. For more information on the coup d'etat in Dallas, read District Attorney Garrison's revealing book and witness courage under fire.... Grow up, America.



5. The year was 1969, and New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison was preparing to make history. The often criticized Garrison had arrested local/international businessman Clay Shaw in conspiring to assassinate the President of The United States, John F. Kennedy. Garrison would accuse Shaw of Conspiring primarily with the CIA, to overthrow the Kennedy regime so that the Military/Industrial Complex could invade and overthrow Cuba and start a war in Southeast Asia. A mere three days after President Kennedy had been gunned down, the new President (Lyndon Baines Johnson) signed National Security Action Memo 273, which reversed Kennedy's withdrawl plans from Viet Nam and escalated the conflict, which eventually led to what is now known as the Viet Nam War. This outline is the backdrop for Garrison's book.
   
   As is well-known, "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was one of two books credited in creating the motion picture and Academy Award Nominated Movie: JFK (along with Jim Marr's fine book "Crossfire"; please see my review of that book too!). So if you're looking for an exact duplication of the movie, you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that Garrison goes into much more detail and background then even the three-hour movie-thriller could provide. The one drawback and criticism that I have of the movie, the book, and of Garrison himself, was the lack of detailed information surrounding Jack Ruby's connections and associates who may have assisted the CIA in murdering the President. There are very few investigators these days who would rebuke Garrison on suggesting that the intelligence community within the United States orchestrated and carried out the murder of our 35th President. However, without even mentioning Ruby's role, even if it was only in taking orders from our government, Garrison undermines his own investigation and therefore this otherwise excellent book.
   
   In closing, this is an extremely well written book, with lots of behind-the-scenes info that only a very few were privy to. Garrison is an excellent writer, and more importantly, was most likely correct in almost all aspects of the conspiracy. If this book is not in your own personal library, then most likely you're not fully aware of all the nuances of this case. This book is a must read!

5 comments about Jefferson Davis, American.

1. With so many reviews already, it is hard to add much so I'll keep this short and sweet. This is a great book and the seminal biography of Davis. Historians will be hard pressed to top Cooper's work. The book on the years preceding the Civil War were, at times, not overly inspiring, but the chapters on the war years and Davis' post-war life more than made up for it. Page turning reading and solid research to boot. This book is the best kind of history--readable, entertaining, yet solidly researched and educational as well. Having read other books that discussed Davis in varying capacities, I feel like I have a much better grasp on Davis the man than ever before. Highly recommended for any and all history buffs.



2. I thought this was a good book. William Davis' "Davis" was better in that it gave a more honest personal portrayal. However, and editors do listen up, most of us in the real world don't have time to read an immense book. Keep succinct; keep around 300-350 pages. Thank you.



3. Alone among historical events from which the participants are all dead, our Civil War continues to ignite passions. Many treat the issues as current, and see the personages as a still-living presence. Trust me; I live in a suburb of Richmond, and see it all the time. Up front, let me say that I respect President Davis; I visit his house and grave, and contribute to the maintenance of both.
   
   Was Davis the right man for the job? He was probably the best man available. Bob Toombs? He would have been perfect if he could have been depended on to be sober. Breckinridge? Sure, but he was Vice President of the United States when the Confederacy was formed, and he also knew which end the bottle poured out of. Louis Wigfall? Brilliant, loyal, but an alcoholic hot-head. Alex Stephens? Please. A brilliant man; a good and decent man, but not a true leader.
   
   This is an absolutely outstanding biography of a very difficult man to study. Sure, it's a long book, but Davis' life was long, and complicated. Reading it, one doesn't notice the length; Cooper is such a superb writer that this is a "page turner". Davis gets full cradle to grave coverage. The tough issues are in no wise avoided. His early education, West Point training, and U.S. Army career are all well documented. The stories of Davis' all too brief marriage to Sarah Knox Taylor, and the subsequent seven years of isolation are particularly poignant. Marriage to Varina gave him a second start, and he made the most of it. To my mind, Varina Davis is the absolute definition of "First Lady".
   
   Jeff Davis was a man of his time and place. Before anyone would criticize him, it is well to reflect on the danger of applying the standards of our day to a man from another; Thomas Jefferson, Ty Cobb, even FDR, all came from a different age; so did Jeff. In his day, the right [NOT wisdom] of secession was assumed; the White man's right to own, and obligation to care for, the Black were instilled from birth. On the record, Davis was probably as humane a slave owner as existed anywhere. Only once did he ever break up a family, and that was after much begging by the slave. Davis DID NOT want secession; he followed reluctantly.
   
   The tragedy of Jefferson Davis is that he was called to lead a country founded on State's Rights, which was then done-in by State's Rights. Vain, obstinate, and difficult, he was loyal and devoted. His mistakes are not glossed over. His loyalty to a fool like Lucius Northrop, and his tragic inability to get the most out of Joe Johnston and Beauregard are both part and parcel of the man. One of Jeff's flaws was the inability to work with people he didn't like, which FDR, for example, did quite well. One of his very worst errors was in thinking that Braxton Bragg was a field commander; placed behind a desk in Richmond, Bragg could have done for Davis what Marshall did for Roosevelt. By the time Bragg got his desk, it was too late. Davis could also be unwaveringly supportive of great men, like Robert E. Lee, and Judah Benjamin. Was his overall strategic vision the correct one? Who knows? A case can certainly be made either way. Jeff tried his best; I doubt anyone could have done better. Though some may call him obstinate, his strength and refusal to quit kept the country going long after others would have given up.
   
   If I have to criticize something about a great book, it's this: Jeff had a lot of health problems [which may well have affected his job performance], and they are documented as if writing for physicians. No problem here, but...while Plasmodium falciparum and herpetic keratoiritis may be perfectly understandable to me, others may need explanation. You may know a lot about the Civil War, but your knowledge is incomplete unless you know something about the political leaders behind the Generals. Reading this book will be time well spent.



4. It is rare that a biographer can capture both the essence of his/her subject and the historical context of that particular subject's time. Cooper not only does so, he does so brilliantly, like no other biographer of Davis has done to date. Cooper focuses less on Davis's role as leader of a doomed Confederate Nation and more on his accomplishments as a Mississippi politician. That is not to say that Cooper ignores Davis's role in the Confederate war effort and national politics. He writes extenisvely on the friction between Davis and two of his leading Generals, explaining how Davis went from being a luke-warm secessionist to the most ardent Confederate Nationalist in the South. Cooper also focuses on Davis's role in the Mexican War and his youth at West Point, his managing of slaves, his friction with his wife, and his constant battles with weak health. Cooper also focuses rather extensively on Davis's time after the war and his travels abroad. In this excellent biography, Cooper captures Davis the man, not Davis the symbol of a lost cause, setteling ultimately on Davis as a patriot and American.



5. Like many of the reviewers, I think this is very good. I came to this biography because I wanted to understand The Civil War better from the perspective of the South. This book covers that well in that it does provide a good overview of how Davis viewed equality as being about equality and balance between the states in the union and not equality between people. For Davis, the Constitution was primarily about the interactions between states.
   
   On the reviews that say that the book glosses over Davis's owning of slaves, I saw these sections differently. It appears that Cooper did not have any evidence that Davis had abused his slaves in the cruel sense. So, he can't write that. However, just the simple description of how many slaves Davis owned, how old they were (adult, old, and children), and how Davis's slave "assets" grew from the birth of children was disgusting to me. There did not need to be cruelty for the idea that a child born into slavery could not decide on their own future. While it is hard for me to fathom how Davis could speak of liberty while owning slaves, Cooper did a good job of framing how Davis probably thought about slavery. In the end, the overview made me more thankful to have not lived in those times, just as living in even more ancient times would have been even worse.
   
   The other sections that I found interesting were the descriptions of Davis' participation in the Mexican War. Having recently read a biography of James Polk and now this, I think I will have to look for a good history of the Mexican War.
   
   Lastly, I agree with the reviewer that the book needed an epilogue that spoke to Varina Davis's last years. Throughout the book, she is a large part of the story and to stop the book with Jefferson's death just didn't work.

5 comments about Theodore Roosevelt: A Life.

1. He assumed the Presidency at the untimely death of President McKinley and for 7 1/2 years, Theodore Roosevelt made history. He was the first American to win the Nobel Peace Prize (Russo-Japanese War) and he put The Panama Canal project back on the rails when it stalled. He entered into a treaty with Japan that forbade Japanese involvement with the Philippines, Hawaii and US interests in China but that enabled Japan to annex Korea later. He negotiated with France, Spain and Germany regarding Morocco that resulted in France and Spain dividing up Morocco and that convinced Germany to build up its navy for war at another time. He also negotiated to reposition the dividing line between Alaska and Canada. On the home front, his administration created laws regulating food and drugs, supervision of insurance companies, investigation of child labor, regulation of the packing houses, establishing standards for meat processing and opened up competition by breaking up the railway, steamship and coal mine joint ownership. TR had the States set up conservation programs for parklands but also for power sites (Niagara Falls) and natural resources such as oil and coal. Roosevelt was the first President to bring the people of the press into the White House to field their questions and also to acknowledge and welcome visitors of artistic/creative talents to the White House. There is so much more. This is not a full biography but centers predominantly on his activities as President. The writer's style is never pedantic or sentimental. Recommended.



2. Having read a biography of Theodore Roosevelt 20 years ago it's amazing the light years biographies have come. Biographies until recent times had been little more than recitations of their life and times, but now are delving much more deeply into original source documents and completing a much fuller and more comprehensive picture of that subject. Biographers are also taking a much more multi-disciplinary approach pulling in sociology, psychology, history, political science and economics that make biographies a much richer read. You feel like you really understand them in the context of their times.
   
   Theodore Roosevelt by Nathan Miller is just such a read. Theodore Roosevelt is already a lively and entertaining figure and his life was like a movie anyways. Sickly child to Wildman of the West, Society Dandy to wily politician, scorned outsider to President. Miller captures it all in style that fairly crackles with life. His writing on the period of TR's entry to politics through to the Spanish-American War was so gripping I could hardly put it down. Miller pulls in a great number of archival and original sources to paint a much more complete comprehensive and engaging portrait of TR. I haven't read Edmund Morris's Theodore Rex yet, but hear it's equally good. The anecdotes Miller throws in showcases what a manic bundle of energy TR was, yet he lets TR live in his era. Too often revisionist historians try and impose today's standards on past figures. Miller eschews that and TR is really seen for the man he is.
   
   Theodore Roosevelt is a compelling read for those interested in learning more on him and the Progressive Era. I'd read this book as a companion piece to two courses I was taking last semester, Gilded Age and Progressive Era (HIST 4461) and US Diplomatic History 1890 to Present (HIST 3321) and it tied to both exceedingly well, providing great insight into the context of the times. As far as insight into TR himself I dare say Miller is far more objective than TR was in his autobiography and truly captures TR in most every respect.



3. Whether studying the presidents or just looking for enjoyable reading, this book is a must. From the young boy, to his young bride, to his adventurous days in the American frontier, the Charge, the presidency and until the disappointing decisions of his old age, this book can not be put down. It reads more like a novel than a biography of a historical figure. A larger than life historical figure. Bravo!



4. I am reading all the presential bios in order.
   
   This was by FAR one of the greatest bios I have read thus far. The author does a magnificent job in showing us what TR was like. I got very close to the subject and really *felt* this book.
   
   He provides LOTS of detail and anecdotes, but in such a readable way. I would find myself reading 75 to 100 pages in one sitting without even realizing it.
   
   If you are reading all the presidential bios like I am, THIS is the book to read for TR. After you are done, you can go back and read the series currently out (Theodore Rex, When the Trumpets Call, etc) to fill in the rest.
   
   This book does TR great justice. A great book for a great person!



5. I feel the same as some of the other reviewers here. The coverage of Roosevelts presidency was somewhat limited as was his post presidential accomplishments. It seems as if Miller was rushed for time when writing the conclusion. Had this been a two volume set and each part of Roosevelts life given the same concern, this would have been delightful. I was also taken aback that the book just ended. I would loved to have known how the public responded to this great man's death, and seen a little more enlightenment into how his legacy grew beyond his mortality.
   Positively though, the book at times made me laugh out loud, especially at the thought of a ten year old Theodore finding that his latest science experiment had been chucked out the window by the maid. "Oh, the loss to science, the loss!"
   I so wish that another great American like Theodore Roosevelt would step up to the plate. His legacy is even stronger nearly one hundred years after his presidency.