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.

No comments about Thinking How to Live.

1 comments about Herndon's Lincoln (Knox College Lincoln Studies Center).

1. This is a reprint of the Lincoln biography published in the 1880s by his former law partner, Billy Herndon. Lincoln biographers have spent 95 years telling why Herndon was mistaken about this or that--until recently. Now they are beginning to say the earlier historians were wrong and Herndon was probably right. I had never read Herndon, but only had seen him quoted selectively. Billy comes through as a very honest man and a bit like Lincoln. One can see why the latter asked him to be his partner, and stuck it out in partnership with him for a good 20 years. The editors say Herndon was a better back-room lawyer than Lincoln, but Lincoln a much better courtroom lawyer, and the partnership complemented itself that way. Billy was better at research, and that suggests Billy did very good research on his Lincoln biography, too. Shortly after Lincoln was shot Herndon interviewed and corresponded with scores of people from Lincoln's family and his early life. It's easy to see why the law firm was successful, because Billy was a real bulldog. But his book was not well received in the 1880s when first published, largely because many thought it too crude in those days to point out Abe's mother's illegitmacy, etc. But Herndon was going to put down whatever the facts bore out. He adored Lincoln, and believed his greatness would be enhanced more by the truth than by lies... I now have a much higher regard for Herndon than formerly... On the other hand, the editors and publisher deserve low marks for the smallness of the type face, which goes down even smaller in the footnotes, making this important book more difficult to read than it should be. Don't be put off by the first Preface, either, which should be either buried at the end of the book or deleted.

4 comments about The Presidency of Richard Nixon (American Presidency Series).

1. The author has written a refreshing account about Richard Nixon's years in office. He traces Nixon's rise as a politician, his failures, presidency, and ultimate demise. The reader gains insight about Nixon's successes with China, the Soviet Union, along with failures in Chile and the Third World. In contrast, the writer argues that Nixon made significant achievements in domestic affairs--welfare reform, environmental improvements, and conservation--that have not received adequate recognition. Next, we learn that Nixon reluctantly approved wage and price controls for political reasons. Nonetheless, the most interesting chapter about Watergate reveals the rampant corruption in Nixon's administration. Also, the author criticizes Nixon for his Vietnam strategy.

   This book does a good job of summarizing Nixon's accomplishments, failures, and foibles. The excessive quoting makes it sometimes tedious to read. In addition, it seems as though the book only scratches the surface on a much disparaged president.




2. The only reason to give this a bad review would be due to its lack of getting down to the juicy Nixon facts. Other than that, it is a marvelous journey into the Nixon administration. For the most part, it is unbiased and I enjoyed it. If you want to get a look at the Nixon administration from a more or less politcal standpoint, then go for it. If you would like an Enquirer/novel type "tell all" book, then look again. 4/5



3. I read this book for a graduate class in American history. Few U.S. presidents have had as many books written about them and their administrations as Richard Milhous Nixon. Nixon's presidency was defined by the historian Stephen E. Ambrose as a Shakespearean tragedy. Nixon is credited by many historians with great success in foreign and domestic policy. These achievements by themselves would normally rank him near the top of the list of America's great presidents. However, his psychological deficiencies were responsible for dragging the country through its worst constitutional crisis in its history--Watergate. Nixon's involvement in the Watergate cover up culminated in his being the only president to resign from office. This saved him from the humiliation of surely becoming the only president who would have been impeached and thrown out of office. It is against this historical backdrop, that Melvin Small wrote The Presidency of Richard Nixon. Small succeeded in writing an objectively fair history of America's thirty-seventh president. At the end of his book, Small astutely noted why a history of Nixon is so important. "The period from the end of World War II to the end of the cold war was in good measure an age of Nixon" (311).
   
   No historian writing about Nixon can avoid trying to understand and explain his psychological profile. One would think with all the biographies from historians and memoirs from close aides, the voluminous presidential papers, and thousands of hours of tape recordings, one could get a clear understanding of Nixon's psyche. Most historians and close friends and aides of Nixon still admit that they never fully understood him. Both Nixon historians Theodore H. White and Nixon speechwriter William Safire, wrote that they were still perplexed by Nixon's multi-faceted psyche. Small recognized this conundrum while writing his biography, and like most biographers, searched Nixon's early life and upbringing to try to understand his psychological character traits. Nixon was born on January 9, 1913 in Yorba Linda, California. He was the second of five brothers. Two of his brothers died from respiratory diseases. Nixon remarked that these traumatic events in his life caused him to champion the government's involvement in health care. Nixon's family was lower middle class Quaker. During the Depression they struggled like millions of other families. Richard was an intelligent child who learned to read before entering grade school. He had a photographic memory that allowed him to excel in both his academic and political careers. He was famous for remembering the names of thousands of politicians from across the country and could memorize speeches; thus making it seem he was talking extemporaneously. Although he had the grades to attend a more prestigious college, due to financial considerations, Nixon settled on attending Whittier, a local college. He graduated second in his class in 1934, and received a partial scholarship to attend Duke University Law School. He was a very serious student in law school and never dated during his three years in attendance. "Many of his peers at Duke thought that Nixon was destined for the scholarly life, considering his powerful intellect and remote personality" (5). He was appalled by the segregated south and racism displayed by classmates. He graduated third in his class from law school in 1937 and traveled to New York to seek employment with prestigious law firms. Since it was the height of the Depression and because Nixon did not posses a law degree from an elite Northeastern law school, he found that doors would remain shut to him. Nixon was turned down by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as well. Feeling disappointed from his rejections, he went back to Whittier, California and joined a small law firm where he became a partner within two years. In 1938, Nixon met his future wife Pat, while both were performing in a community theater. For Nixon, it was love at first sight and they married in 1940. During World War II, he was an airfield operations officer in the Navy. More importantly, he proved to be a very accomplished poker player, which he claimed prepared him to become a skilled negotiator. After the war, he accepted an invitation from a group of Republican businessmen to run for Congress in his home district against the incumbent Democrat, Horace (Jerry) Voorhis. Nixon's campaign against Voorhis and his later campaign for the Senate seat against Helen Gahagan Douglass were bare-knuckled affairs which relied on character assassinations painting both opponents as Communist sympathizers.
   
   Nixon soon gained national notoriety as a member of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). During committee hearings, Nixon doggedly pursued Alger Hiss, a well-heeled former State Department employee in the Roosevelt administration who was accused of being an American Communist Party member and Soviet spy. Nixon's work on HUAC garnered him a reputation as a tough anti-Communist which brought him to great prominence in the Republican Party. At the 1952 convention the party leaders prevailed on Dwight Eisenhower to take Nixon as his vice presidential running mate. "Eisenhower was astonished to discover that his running mate was only thirty-nine, which soon made him the second youngest vice president in history" (14). The relationship between the two men was not warm. Nixon wanted to please Eisenhower. However, Eisenhower saw Nixon as a political lightweight and even asked him to consider not running as vice president for the second term, but instead take a cabinet position to gain "executive experience." Despite Eisenhower's treatment of Nixon, he became his party's standard-bearer for president in the 1960 election against John F. Kennedy (JFK). He lost the election in one of the closest races in history; JFK defeated Nixon in the popular vote by a 49.7 to 49.5 percent margin. Just two years later leaders of the Republican Party talked Nixon into running for governor of California, against the Democratic incumbent Edmund "Pat" Brown. Nixon was politically humiliated in another close election. In what he called his last press conference after his stinging defeat, Nixon lashed out at the press, who in days after ran stories predicting the end of Nixon's political career. However, Nixon used his years out of the limelight to build a lucrative law practice in New York City, and traveled around the country making hundreds of speeches, as well as campaigning on behalf of Republican congressional candidates. In addition, he studied and wrote articles on foreign policy issues. All this work in addition to the problems of the Vietnam War made him an attractive candidate and he once again became the Republican candidate for president in1968. The "new Nixon" burst forth on the political scene.
   
   Nixon won the election against the incumbent Vice President Hubert Humphrey, because the Vietnam War became unpopular with the American public, and Nixon promised to restore law and order to a riot torn country. Nixon soon busied himself with building his cabinet before his inauguration. President Johnson was very amicable to Nixon and invited him to the White House for several transition meetings. It would be the first time that Nixon ever saw the living quarters. When Nixon observed Johnson's taping machine in the Oval Office, he ordered a staffer to get it out. He would not use a taping machine until 1971. Small's chapter entitled A Private President's Public Relations, expertly points out Nixon's unusual character traits while he was president, which many historians and politicians have written about in countless books. Two of Nixon's closest aides, Bob Halderman and John Ehrlichman where known as the "Berlin Wall" because it was their duty to reduce strictly access to the president. Nixon was a shy man who hated to meet new people. "Nixon also preferred talking on the phone to seeing people in person" (215). He had an aversion to firing and hiring people, and he would get others to perform these odious functions for him. Nixon was much more at ease working alone in the Executive Office Building than in the Oval Office.
   
   The presidential duty that Nixon was most passionate about was foreign policy; a duty that was so important to him that he virtually became his own Secretary of State for several years, and he never trusted the State Department bureaucrats. What became Nixon's most important staff hiring would be that of Dr. Henry Kissinger as his National Security Advisor and later his Secretary of State. Little did Nixon realize that Kissinger would become "not only the president's chief planner, coordinator, and operator of U.S. foreign policy but also the most popular, respected and internationally famous of all the president's advisers" (50). Together both men would add a new word to the American vocabulary--détente. Small noted that Nixon embarked on a monumental foreign policy shift for America. The consummate Cold War warrior, Nixon was most proud of his two great foreign policy achievements, "the establishment of détente with the Soviet Union and the opening of relations with China" (97). Kissinger, in his book Diplomacy, is very flattering of Nixon's foreign policy acumen. "No American president possessed a greater knowledge of international affairs. None except Theodore Roosevelt had traveled as much abroad, or attempted with such genuine interest to understand the views of other leaders." In Small's chapter titled "Running for Ex-President," he related that in an attempt at rehabilitating his legacy Nixon wrote eight books dealing with foreign policy issues between 1980 and 1992, "almost all of which became best-sellers" (305). Nixon's 1985 book No More Vietnams had an ominously prophetic warning for America. "The most violent and dangerous forces in the Mideast are not Communist revolutionaries taking orders from Moscow but Moslem fundamentalist revolutionaries egged on by Khomeini." Although Nixon as well as most historians focused on his diplomatic successes, Small wrote glowingly about Nixon's domestic policy triumphs in his biography.
   
   Since Nixon spent most of his time dealing with foreign policy, he allowed cabinet heads and White House aides on domestic affairs to propose new legislation. Daniel Patrick Moynihan a former Harvard professor and Johnson aide, started to doubt "big government's approaches to social problems" (45). He accepted a position as advisor on domestic affairs and enjoyed a very friendly relationship with Nixon. Moynihan once quipped that Nixon's administration may have been one of the most progressive ever on domestic issues. Small believed that Moynihan's remark was a bit of a stretch, though for a Republican administration, it was not too far a stretch. Small noted that conservative Republicans "were horrified when Nixon proposed a guaranteed annual wage for poor people disguised as welfare reform and a variety of other social and environmental policies" (185). Nixon doubled the budgets for the National Endowment for the Humanities as well as the Arts. Nixon's administration created the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, and established the Environmental Protection Agency. In a special message delivered to Congress on the environment in February of 1970, Nixon proposed twenty-two pieces of legislation including, regulating automobile emissions, water pollution, pesticides, strip-mining, and ocean dumping. During his first term in office, Nixon approved a 51 percent increase in Social Security benefits and in 1972 signed into law an automatic cost-of-living increase to keep up with inflation. Just in Nixon's first term, "outlays for the elderly increased by 71 percent" (190). Thus, Small contended that by looking at Nixon's domestic policies, "one can understand why observers in the year 2000 might label him the last liberal president" (214).
   Despite all of Nixon's achievements in foreign and domestic policy, his legacy will forever be blackened by the stain of the break in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate building and his direct attempt to cover it up. Small and other historians in explaining the Watergate debacle have opined that Nixon desperately wanted to win re-election in 1972 in a landslide victory. By doing so, Nixon thought that he could remake the Republican Party, and "bring about the New American Revolution" (273). Politically, he wanted to remake the Republican Party by uniting conservative southern Democrats with the working class Americans of the Silent Majority, and traditional Republicans around social issues. In addition, Nixon announced in his second inaugural speech that the federal government needed to be smaller and less paternalistic in its scope with the American people. Unfortunately for Nixon, he and his aides were willing to bring the re-election victory about at any cost, including egregious violations of rights and laws. Small summed up the Watergate debacle in Lincolnesque terms when he wrote about the crimes and misdemeanors that had been committed. "Whereas some presidents participated in some of those illegal activities much of the time, and others did almost all of them on occasion, none of them committed all the illegal acts that constituted Watergate all the time" (273).
   
   In conclusion, Melvin Small did an excellent job using a plethora of primary and secondary sources, and presidential papers from the National Archives to write an engaging and balanced biography of Richard Nixon. In his book, he provided informative notes, one of the best bibliographical essays found in a history book, and a thorough index; all of which will aid readers who want to further research aspects of Nixon's presidency. Small decided to write a topical biography instead of a chronological biography. Since Small told Nixon's story in a little over 300 pages, his topical narrative device worked quite well. Small's biography of Nixon is an excellent introductory work for anyone wishing to gain a better understanding of Richard Nixon, his political career, and the history of the Cold War era.
   
   As a graduate student, I recommend this book for anyone interested in Nixon, American History, and Cold War History.



4. Nixon had a dark side. His Checkers speech in 1952, in which he used a dog as a prop, should have alerted Americans to his character. His loss to Kennedy in 1960 left him with an inferiority complex. Nixon hated the Kennedys and would never have been president if JFK had not been assassinated. He was not all bad. He stood up to Khrushchev. He opened up China and ended the Vietnam War even if it took four years. He was loyal to a fault. He denied any knowledge of the burglary at Democratic Headquarters inside the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. It brought him down. Nixon and Watergate became synonymous. Nixon became the only president to resign as impeachment proceedings were underway. It is ironic that his signature is on the plaque left on the moon by Apollo 11 astronauts. Nixon and Johnson were the worst presidents of the 20th century.

No comments about Best Little Stories of Winston Churchill.

5 comments about Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism.

1. Lee Harvey Oswald was Kennedy's would-be lone assassin. I said "would be lone assassin" because the circumstances surrounding Kennedy's death were a little more outré than those suggested by the Warren Commission. Interested readers should refer to the suppressed out-of-print gem "Mortal Error" by Bonar Menninger.
   
   That having been said, Oswald was as guilty of Kennedy's murder as if he'd fired the shot to the head that killed him and he was the only individual morally responsible for Kennedy's death. He acted as a committed Marxist-Leninist in order to fulfill Marxist-Leninist ends. Those who would argue otherwise are either stupid, ill-informed, or evil (or a combination of the three), and their arguments are a product of their deficiencies.
   
   James Piereson bypasses the conspiracy theorists, musing how fanciful conspiracy theory changed identities after the fifties, becoming a tool of the far left, instead of the far right. This shift was indeed a result of JFK's death, and the change in the appearance of left-liberalism in the aftermath is what Piereson primarily focuses on.
   
   Notwithstanding the Left's control of the news media, the academic theocracy, and the entertainment industry, I'd long wondered how Kennedy's death (largely) at the hands of a committed Communist had somehow merged into a bloody shirt around which the LEFT (not the Right) was able to rally.
   
   Piereson provides as coherent explanation for this development as any. It could have been more concise though. There was no need to fill out his 2006 Commentary article into the size of a small book. By doing so, Piereson allowed his argument to become somewhat repetitious.
   
   Still, his explanation "works" and a lot of it has to do with the loony widow herself, Jacqueline Kennedy. Piereson tries to contrast the cool detachment that the former Mrs. Onassis displayed after the homicide with the mental unraveling displayed by Mrs. Lincoln. But I'd say that both widows were mentally unhinged in their own way -- Mrs. Kennedy maybe a little more so before the fact.
   
   For the pink-pillboxed ditz to decry that her husband didn't even die for "civil rights" but instead died at the hands of "some silly little Communist" shows incredible ignorance of Cold War realities - especially given that her stupid observation was made only a little over a year after that Cold War came close to exploding into a Mega-Hot One. Jackie was a silly little First Lady.
   
   And "Camelot" was entirely a myth created post-mortem by the loony widow, and Piereson shows how that myth helped change the face of liberalism from forward-looking and optimistic to that of dark, brooding, and vengeful after Kennedy's death. After all, the ORIGINAL myth of Camelot, which Piereson goes into an interesting description of here, does suggest that the good times are over with the passing of the kingdom.
   
   But I think that Piereson is exaggerating the change that he describes - liberalism and leftism have always had their dark sides. Maybe Kennedy's death just brought them closer to the surface. But again, his description of the synthesis is well worth reading.
   
   What's needed now are a second and maybe third part to Piereson's narrative. If the Left misappropriated JFK, so did the Right, in general, and the neo-cons, in particular. Piereson doesn't really discuss that misappropriation. But if JFK wasn't really a closeted Cumbaya-singing Sixties peace activist, neither was he a die-hard Reaganaut. He was a consummate Democratic pol who used what means were at his disposal to try to destroy the Right when he was alive.
   
   So why did Reagan and others successfully assume the mantle of JFK and why did they want to, in the first place? More to the point, what can knowledgeable individuals of all stripes who recognize the fraud inherent in the myth of Camelot do to educate the yokels of its dangers and thereby help create a world without Kennedys?



2. The premise of this work is that while assasinating President Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald put American liberalism in its grave. The contortions that liberals had to go through to avoid the idea that their hero had been killed by a communist transformed them, in the end, from the optimistic, future oriented people they were in 1963 to the hateful and hating maniacs that they are today. The irony is that if JFK were to be brought back to life today, he would shortly be drummed out of the modern, Democrat Party.



3. There are no guarantees when buying books. We often eagerly anticipate a release hoping it will be a classic but soon discover that it belongs on the ash heap of history alongside the collected works of Marx, recordings of the Back Street Boys, and every single movie featuring Madonna. Occasionally however, we unfurl a package and find that its contents widely exceed our expectations. One such work is James Piereson's Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism.
   
   Whatever the angle or line of rumor, the one thing for certain is that a sizable plurality of Americans agree that Oswald was who he said he was...just a pawn in the game. Piereson's text dispassionately, but skillfully, refutes this thesis. In one of his strongest chapters, "Assassin," he reexamines the facts of Oswald's life. To say that his case history lacks nuance is an understatement. The man who liquidated our 35th President was a diehard Marxist and anything but a shill for the military. Oswald's acceptance of Marxism came in 1953 after he was handed a bill advocating clemency for the Rosenbergs. His allegiance to communism meant, as it does for so many angry radicals, that this alienated and troubled young man would no longer be alone.
   
   The infamous gunman had nothing but contempt for American history and its institutions. He hated the radical right and attempted to kill segregationist, General Edwin A. Walker, six months before he trained his sights on Kennedy. Oswald went to the Soviet Union to savor the worker's paradise but found a bureaucratic nightmare instead. He returned, albeit begrudgingly, to his homeland. The FBI's refusal to take him seriously was a disgrace and a testament to their incompetence; while the media's refusal to consider the possible significance of his visits to the Cuban and Soviet embassies [in Mexico] is a testament to their bias. That he conferred with KGB agent Valeriy Kostikov a few months before taking aim should be of interest to anyone in pursuit of the truth.
   
   Why did Oswald do it? Mr. Piereson's explanation resonates far more than the conspiracies contaminating our public square. His purpose was to get the attention of Fidel Castro and also to preserve the life of the dictator. The Cuban Marxist was the last leader for whom Mr. Oswald had any faith. After he threatened the president in a 1963 interview, the deluded and alienated communist may have interpreted his words in the same manner as King Henry II's deputies. Oswald happily answered the question, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" by stepping forth to the window of the book depository in Dallas.
   
   By itself, reminding the world of who Oswald actually was is an important achievement, but it is just one of the many rejuvenating and provocative arguments elucidated in Camelot and the Cultural Revolution. His discussion of "punitive liberalism" is potent and completely transferable to the present day. The practitioners of this school deem America--in lieu of its historical crimes--as a land and country in need of punishment. The founding of the new world coincided with slavery, the death of hordes of Indians, and, eventually, the internment of Japanese citizens during the Second World War. The punitive liberal believes that we deserve a comeuppance for what we have done.
   
   Piereson destroys this emotive reasoning with aplomb. Blaming America for the slaughter of the Kennedy brothers is entirely irrational. The punitive liberal hates everything about his homeland, but becomes outraged whenever this is pointed out to him. For some reason, conservatives allow the left to frame the debate on this issue. Many timidly retreat from coming out and saying that left is unpatriotic. This is puzzling because their anti-Americanism is blatantly obvious. When they gaze at Old Glory "jingoism and vengeance and war" come to mind.
   
   Mr. Piereson's concise account is a tour de force and not merely a historical study. It is a theoretical work which increases our understanding of both the past and present. Of a book we can ask for nothing more.



4. Over the years, I have heard many Left-wing people explain that it was the Kennedy assassination of 1963 that destroyed their faith in the system, and radicalized their politics. In this fascinating book, author and political thinker James Piereson examines the mythology that surrounds the Kennedy administration, how it was created, and the strange, unhinging effect it had on the American Left.
   
   This book came highly recommend to me, and I can see why. The author does an excellent job of showing how we got from the intelligent Left of the immediate post-War era to the loony Left of today. In the 50s, the loonies were on the Right, finding Communists under their beds, and fighting such devious plots as fluoride in the water. And now we have Fahrenheit 911 and Leftists seeing a "vast Republican-wing conspiracy." Want to know how we got here? Then read this book and find out!



5. As someone that lived through the events depicted, and someone who was enamored with JFK, I found the book quite good. Its a mixture of fact and opinion and is quite successful in bringing the two together.Its focus is on how the legacy of JFK differs from the facts, and how opinion about him was shaped beginningthe day of his death. I found it to be persuasive.

5 comments about The Long Pursuit: Abraham Lincoln's Thirty-Year Struggle with Stephen Douglas for the Heart and Soul of America.

1. Abraham Lincoln is probably the most famous past president in our history, with the possible exception of George Washington. Lincoln was a great man, but most people don't remember that for much of his life, he was largely a political failure, if a principled one. The chief reason for this was a political rival, a Democrat named Stephen A. Douglas. Douglas was a powerhouse in the Senate for a quarter century, forging compromises and legislation, arguing the cause of compromise with the South so that discord didn't destroy his party and country. Douglas and Lincoln met in debate repeatedly, and were rivals in Illinois politics for a considerable time.
   
   While they were rivals, they were also at least cordial, if not outright friends. Finally, in 1857, Lincoln was nominated for the Senate seat Douglas held, and the two met in a series of debates. Douglas won the election, but had to say things in the debates that alienated the South, while Lincoln managed to engage, even energize the Republican sentiment in much of the country with his side in the debates. Within two years, Douglas was a weak candidate for president, fatally wounded by a rival Democrat nominated by the Southern Democratic party, and so Lincoln triumphed in the presidential election in 1860.
   
   The story of all of this is very well-recounted in this book by Roy Morris Jr. Morris is careful to give Douglas his due. Frankly, Stephen A. Douglas should be a better-known figure in American politics. When Lincoln won the presidency in 1860, Douglas, in spite of the animosity that had permeated the election, immediately endorsed Lincoln, and castigated the South for their threats to secede. This sort of politics is today very unusual, and you wonder whether anyone today thinks they could learn from the past.
   
   I really enjoyed this book and would recommend it to anyone interested in Lincoln or the 19th Century.



2. It is a common observation that we are shaped, morally and intellectually, by the people we choose as friends. As demonstrated by this book, we may be shaped even more dramatically by our enemies and competitors.
   
   Abraham Lincoln was such an amazing president that we often forget how difficult was his climb from obscurity. As Roy Morris makes clear, Stephen Douglas was essential to Lincoln's training. The competition between these two men brought out the best in Lincoln, and forced him to refine his political skills and ideas. In particular, it forced Lincoln to define a moral yet measured approach to limiting the scope of slavery in the territories, with the hope of sending the institution to its ultimate extinction.
   
   My main surprise was Morris' limited treatment of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. However, he makes up for that deficiency with many insights into related issues, such as Douglas' struggles within the Democratic Party at the time of the 1860 presidential election.
   
   Morris weaves into his narrative many interesting opinions and suppositions about Lincoln's subjective reactions to the events swirling around him. However, at times Morris seems to get carried away, and projects onto Lincoln opinions that are inconsistent with the historical record. For example, he makes a passing reference to the "notably irreligious Lincoln," which is hard to reconcile with Lincoln's profound religious beliefs, reflected in his many speeches and letters, and culminating in his powerful Second Inaugural address. (See e.g. White, Lincoln's Greatest Speech)



3. Coming, as I do, from the Land of Lincoln, new books on our 16th president are always of interest. Rarely do they seem to take a new tack on an old story. Though some are better written than others, many seem to cover the same ground. Morris, however, does something interesting in his book, The Long Pursuit. He gives us a look at Lincoln through the long-standing relationship/rivalry between Lincoln and the other important Illinois politician of the time, Stephen Douglas.
   
   In fact, if the truth be told, Douglas was the more important of the two figures right up to the point that Lincoln won the presidency in 1860. Throughout the 1850's, Douglas was the powerhouse Democratic senator from Illinois and perennial candidate for president while Lincoln remained, if not an unknown, certainly a small-time, provincial politician. It was, of course, his series of debates with Douglas and the resulting fallout during the senate election of 1858 that finally took Lincoln to national prominence and gave him his shot at the presidency two years later.
   
   In some ways, it is too bad that Douglas has been all but forgotten except as Lincoln's foil in those all important debates. (Can you tell I'm from one of the cities in which those debates took place?) Considering his impact during those antebellum years, Douglas deserves better. And, to his credit, Morris does him justice here. We are offered plenty of fair insight into Douglas's character here and how he tried to navigate his way through difficult times while being a powerful leader. In many ways, I feel I know Stephen Douglas much better from reading this book.
   
   Still, this is Lincoln's story. And it is Lincoln's story under a spotlight focused on a very particular period of time. We get very little of Lincoln's youth, now well-passed into legend. The story really picks up with Lincoln's arrival at New Salem, Illinois, as a young man, soon to enter political life. It follows Lincoln through his ups and downs in Illinois, his encounters with Douglas (including details on those all important debates), his positioning as the Republican candidate for president, his improbable yet inevitable election, and finishing up with his swearing in as president. Nothing is mentioned of his years in the White House. Which is just what this book needs as it tells a different story. Within months of Lincoln's swearing in, Douglas was dead.
   
   In the end, this is an excellent book. In a well-ploughed field of history, it is unique. Not only that, it is well-written and informative about a period of Lincoln's life that is less well-known and brings back to life Stephen Douglas--a man who, but for some twists of fate, could be as well-remembered as Lincoln (if not as well-respected, perhaps). For anyone interested in Lincoln's life, this is a book that should be read.



4. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas were the two preeminent Illinois politicians of the pre-Civil War era, and their debates are an important part of American political history. On the eve of the 150th anniversary of these debates comes the release of "The Long Pursuit," which chronicles the complicated political relationship of these men far beyond these famous debates. I'm a neophyte to Lincoln history, so I approached this book with some trepidation. Fortunately, the book is well-written and straight-forward enough that I was able to follow along without knowing a great deal of Lincoln history.
   
   The average person knows Douglas mostly through his debates with Lincoln, and Roy Morris Jr. notes with irony that most people think that Douglas lost the political race in which the debates occurred. Instead, Douglas won the Illinois Senate race against Lincoln; he was considered a star in politics, whereas Lincoln remained essentially a relatively obscure country lawyer. When Douglas became an obvious Democratic nominee for the Presidency, these debates actually ended up helping Lincoln, as his supporters in the Republican Party could argue that Lincoln knew Douglas and his debating style so well that he could match up well with Dougles, despite the earlier loss. Fortunately for Lincoln, his stance against the spread of slavery into new territories gained greater acceptance in the North than did Douglas' appeasement approach, and he managed to spring to the Presidency over the better known Douglas (helped by the entry into the race of several third party candidates).
   
   Indeed, throughout his early career, Lincoln seemed to be inexorably tethered to Douglas, although history obviously has dimmed the reputation of Douglas, who was known as the Little Giant in his day. "The Long Pursuit" is interesting reading, and the material is certainly timely given the anniversary of their famous debates. Roy Morris Jr. does a good job placing their relationship in historical context and including enough interesting stories to keep this Lincoln newbie interested. I was a bit disappointed that the Lincoln-Douglas debates were not covered in greater detail; however, that simply may have been beyond the scope of this book, and that material does seem to be covered in many other texts. What this book did do is whet my appetite for more information and to seek out other books on the topic.



5. This title is essentially a dual biography of the political lives of Douglas and Lincoln. Although well-researched and informative, with numerous personal anecdotes covering both men, it never quite brings Lincoln or Douglas to life.
   
   Instead, Morris emphasizes the growing struggle of words, political parties and ideas as America grappled with its "irrepressible conflict." The author conveys Douglas as a capable conventional politician with "practical solutions to political problems" who nonetheless "failed to recognize that many northerners and southerners had moved beyond mere politics into a realm of theoretical certitude as exacting and precise as a hard-shelled Baptist's understanding of sin." (p. 193) Douglas strove to stand on a middle ground that was dividing like a geological fault line. The chasm opened and Douglas fell through - obvious with historical perspective but not so to Douglas and his followers in the late 1850's.
   
   Too intellectually intense to be a simple "good read," this book nonetheless conveys well a recurring theme in politics when a paradigm shift suddenly renders a "reasonable" viewpoint out of date. In ordinary times, the experienced and capable Douglas might have become president. But times were not normal, and so a rustic, funny man with a gift for speaking and a latent consistency of purpose rose to become America's president in its hour of greatest need.

5 comments about Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800 (Pivotal Moments in American History).

1. I picked this up at a discount book store to brush up on my early American history. As I read it, I was surprised I had never heard of Ferling before now. He is concise and well written. His insight into the election illustrates the complexities of our electoral process showing it not to be perfect, but better than most in the world. I have a new sense of respect for Adams now, before I was not too fond of him. I am a big fan of Hamilton, who is portrayed in a negative manner at times. In retrospect it was accurate as Hamilton, like all other politicians then and now were/are opportunists. I look forward to more Ferling works and am glad I found this piece.



2. I simply did not enjoy this book. That's not to say I got nothing out of it, because the information is there. But halfway through the book, I briefly considered putting it down and moving on to something else. It's just not written in a way that is reader friendly. It reads like something written by a historian, not a writer. The best books are written by those who wear both hats.



3. This is a splendid book that not only covers the personalities and the election, it breathes enough life into it to make it all fun. This is a breeze to read yet very informative.
   
   I will be reading more books by Ferling.



4. Among the fifty-plus presidential elections in the United States, there have been four that stand out as particularly controversial. We're all familiar (and have our opinions about) the 2000 election. The 1876 election also involved disputed votes, and while the winner (Hayes) did not have the popular vote, he won in a deal that also ended Reconstruction. In 1824, John Quincy Adams had neither the popular nor electoral majority but won through a seeming corrupt bargain in the House of Representatives; the consequences of this bargain would tarnish Adams's presidency and help Andrew Jackson (who had the plurality of popular and electoral votes in 1824) win in 1828. These three may have had their impacts, but perhaps none were as important as the first controversial election in 1800.
   
   John Ferling discusses this election in his book Adams vs. Jefferson (subtitled The Tumultuous Election of 1800). Kind of like the movie Titanic, the big event doesn't really happen until 2/3 of the way into the book. Unlike Titanic, however, this story is filled with enough interesting characters that you don't need to wait for the climax. The two leads in this book are the title characters. Adams is the unappreciated one and he knows it; while Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Hamilton get the lion's share of acknowledgement for their roles, Adams would be pushed aside. While the others would appear on coins and cash, Adams would be relatively unmemorialized (although that has changed in recent years).
   
   Jefferson, on the other hand, is the high-minded but often duplicitous friend of Adams and a founder of the Republican party (which would eventually evolve into the modern Democratic Party). Adams was a Federalist, albeit a moderate one, but even that was too much for Jefferson and their relationship would get antagonistic especially after 1796, when Adams was elected president and Jefferson vice-president. For Adams, it would be a rough term in office, besieged by Jefferson on one side and Hamilton on the other.
   
   1800 would be a rematch between the two, but the real fireworks would actually occur later. Due to the electoral process at the time, Jefferson and fellow Republican Aaron Burr tied in the electoral college, with Adams a close third. If not for the three-fifths rule in the Constitution at the time (designed to count slaves as three-fifths of a person when determining representation and electoral votes), Adams - the only non-slave holder among the four major candidates (Charles Pinckney being the fourth) - would have won.
   
   With a tie, the election would be decided in the House of Representatives, where views were decidedly mixed as to who should win (although it spoils nothing to give away that Jefferson would be the winner). The results of this election? Among other things, it led to a new Constitutional amendment to avoid these sorts of ties in the future. It also represented the beginning of the end for the Federalists, who would never have much of a shot at the presidency again. What is most significant, however, is the end result: the peaceful transition in leadership from one party to its rival.
   
   This is the second book I've read by Ferling. The first, a biography of John Adams, was wonderful. This one is good but not great; although only 200 pages long, it is an occasionally slow read. There is also the occasional bit of anachronistic language, such as when Ferling refers to Federalist bloggers. Adams vs. Jefferson offers little to those already familiar with the era, but if you haven't really read up on this period, it is a worthwhile book to pick up.



5. Overall Ferling gives a good read. The book is detailed in many areas and does provide a chronology of events very well. Through his establishment of the characters of the men involved, the reader does almost forget he is reading a historical evaluation and not an historical novel (this may be good or bad depending on the reader, but one can not feel a bit emotional while reading the epilogue and the eventual reestalished friendship between Adams and Jefferson).
   
   However like most books that deal with these subjects one can see the biases begin to seep through. Hamilton: Bad Guy. Adams: The Old Blowhard. Washington: Hamilton's puppet. Burr: The Secondary Character. Jefferon: The Hero. Ferling falls into the same traps which at times does hurt the book. He gives credit to Jefferson in many areas where he should have been questioning Jefferson's actions and words (the lack of any indepth evaluation of Jefferson and slavery is a bit daunting). Though Ferling does a good job at spelling out the changes brought about with the election of 1800 in the epilogue, he does in the end fail to address key points (Jefferson's Barbary War, a mere mention of the LA Purchase, no mention at all of Jefferson's embargo, and most importantly the slavery issue...which is virtually ignored, except a pretty interesting discussion of Sally Hemming)and maybe more depth with the chapter could have spelled out and defended Ferling's thesis a bit clearer.
   
   Other areas of criticism for this book have to come from the 10 chapters devoted to events pre-1800, and only, what can be considered an overview, of the election and the subsequent House battle. It is here where depth is needed and at times does not seem to be provided. Another issue is his paragraph devoted to the 3/5's Clause, something I felt he should have expanded on (maybe even devoting a short chapter to it). And, like most reviews, I agree with the poor editing of the book. Long paragraphs with 3-4 different issues being explained, when they should have been broken down to lone paragraph.
   
   Overall it is a good book and topic worth reading about. It's easy to read and it does flow very well.

5 comments about The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler.

1. I do not pretend to be an expert on European History from the end of WWI until the end of WWII. Additionally I hesitate to judge anyone's book as I realize that a book represents a huge amount of work and an author spends a great deal of time crafting conclusions or even questions that the author says cannnot be answered. However, I have read perhaps a dozen books including Toland, Shirer, Fest and even that recent book by Junge that deal directly in large parts with the life of Hitler. I have also read perhaps four dozen academic books dealing with European history in the first half of the 20th century. I am aware of the of the feuding conclusions regarding Hitler's and the German people's culpability and conduct regarding WWII. I thought this book might give me more insight or least throw some weight to one of the sides of the current historical arguments.
   
   After reading the book, I found myslf severely disappointed. This book is so basic, it reads like a high school textbook. Indeed, it deals with areas of historical dispute by simply ignoring arguments in an almost breathtaking ways. For example, the author, absent one passing comment, simply rejects the argument that the Nazis had been behind the burning of the reichtag in 1933. Likewise, the author left out some of the most basic points found in any serious study. For example, he writes that Germans, dressed as Polish military, seized a German radio station. Although perhaps a bit too much to ask, the author totally leaves out the multiple postponements leading to the jump off. Not surprisingly, the auhor left out the fact of the German units that jumped off early and had to come pack over he border. As to the seizure of the German radio station, the author left out that the Germans left dead concentration camp inmates [called



2. Adolf Hitler was one of the most evil leaders in human history.he dreamed of making Germany the most powerful country in the world.Hitler hated Jews,communis,andgypsies.He led to the organized murder of over 6 million men,women,and childern.



3. This book is about Adolf Hitler. Before I hated Hitler blindly only because of the Holocaust. Now I still hate him, but with a bit more understanding. There is no excuse for what he did, but I believe it may not have been entirely his fault. As he had a difficult child, with his father abusing him or his brothers, and later, after his father died, living homeless and poor in Vienna and Munich, I believe he may have been looking for a center to focus anger and to blame for his misfortune, and he found it in the Jewish people. On April 20, 1889, Hitler was born in a small village in Austria named Braunau. His mother pampered him, but his father had a short temper and would yell at and whip his children often. Adolf was not particularly good at school, gaining average grades at best. He was described as thin and pale. Hitler's ambition was to become an artist, but his father refused. Hitler only went to the college his father wished him to go to because that college had drawing classes. Hitler's father died on January 3, 1903, and in 1905, Hitler got a lung infection, and used it as a reason not to go back to school. Therefore, Hitler's education officially ended when he was sixteen. A couple years later, in 1907, Hitler's mother died of breast cancer. Hitler became homeless and had very little money. For years, he survived by painting postcards and then selling them. He barely managed to afford a small one-room apartment. When WWI started forcing Austria to conscript soldiers, Hitler at first avoided being drafted into the army. However, when Germany entered the war, Hitler willingly entered the army. He got many awards, but had to quit when his eyes were damaged. He soon started plotting to become Chancellor of Germany. He didn't want to be President, because the President actually had no power, and the Chancellor was the most powerful. Eventually he got his wish and made the Chancellor and President the same thing and even became the dictator for life of Germany. He wished to expand Germany and moved first into Austria. Austria was given to him to avoid war, and he even got part Czechoslovakia without bloodshed. However, as he moved on Poland, WWII was started. After many defeats and losses, Hitler turned to a goal of his- to destroy the Jewish people. An "option" was suggested and mobilized. Soon hundreds of Jews were being carted to death camps where they were exterminated or sent to factories to make supplies for the war. An attempt to assassinate Hitler failed, but injured him so he diminished. Always a powerful speaker, Hitler remained this, but was so shaky, the effect was diminished somewhat. Eventually, Hitler was pushed into an underground bunker in Berlin. There he shot himself in the head, and his new wife, Eva Hitler, took poison so as not to be captured by Allied troops. They were then cremated and buried. Several of Hitler's followers also killed themselves, preferring not to be killed by Allied persecutors. I would recommend this book to anyone who wished to know a bit more about Hitler or students who want to do a biography on him.
   
   T. Sprock



4. This book is very informative. It gives the background of one of the world's most infamous men. It is not biased in any way. Instead, it gives a clear history of Hitler's life. Readers might be surprised to find out about the many accomplishments of this much-hated man. It made me think about how Adolf Hitler could have contributed to society, instead of hurting so many people. Things could have been VERY different...It is so sad to realize he wasted his talents and destroyed many lives because of hate.



5. This is a vague, basic overview that should not be considered by anyone who is searching for insight or more than general recall.

5 comments about The Clinton Crack-Up: The Boy President's Life After the White House.

1. While I hated to see Clinton move into the presidency, and, of course, hated his actions even more following Lewinsky, it's a wonder that we still have a country at all. I most certainly would not buy anything that might give him (or her, for that matter) any type of grace, and only scanned the pages at a local bookstore. That was quite enough for me, thank you very much. Now, unfortunately, it looks as though Miseries Clinton might be our next president. Hold onto your wallets, people!



2. Moron Tyrell is yet another wingnut who can't accept that Clinton is gone. They must all have a secret yearning for Hillary in '08 to make their pathetic lives seem worthwhile. Maybe they're all in denial after seven years of G. W. Dumbass and the weekly scandals of his crooks and cronies.



3. This is a must read for anyone considering putting another Clinton in the White House.



4. Tyrell has made his living pandering to the neocons who consider sex between a man and a woman to be more important than national security, foreign relations, and domestic policy matters. If you want to get a sense of why the neocons have become the laughing stock of the free world just read this book and then do your own research to find all the fictional statements Tyrell makes on virtually every page. As is typical for neocons they continue their hatred rant about America when American is doing well, but claim to love America when we're being broken apart and the Constitution is thrown in the trash - as the neocons have been trying to do for decades. This is a great book for America-bashing neocons in order to get a false sense of vindication.



5. Perhaps it is because Mr. Tyrrell is, in my opinion, an intelligent and well researched writer, which gives him the factual perspective enabling clear-headed criticism. For many years, there has been embarrassment, humiliation, and utter disbelief surrounding the actions and inactions of this former president, his apologists and enablers. Almost en masse, the media has dutifully carried his water, parroted his lame excuses, giggled at his "bad boy" philanderings, made us all a little smaller for it, and helped to make the highest and most respected office of our land a playground for this sad man. It is thanks to people like Mr. Tyrrell who take on the burden of supplying documented background, so the rest of us can have the proof that unfortunately, many people do not seem to want. Additionally, he maintains a level of humor about darkly disturbing human behavior, which allows an element of pity to be conjured for this former president.