No comments about Lula of Brazil: The Story So Far.

5 comments about Cleopatra - A Biography.

1. When it comes to ancient history, Michael Grant is the greatest! I've read several of his other books and he never fails to amuse and inform. His book on Cleopatra is informative as well as entertaining. Cleopatra was a Greek Macedonian ruler of Egypt with a deep love for culture and powerful men. Her liaisons with Caesar and Antony are very well described, as are her achievements as queen. Mr. Grant is truly the greatest!



2. Cleopatra is a fascinating figure... renowned as a patron of arts and learning, a gifted linguist, and a canny politicians, she is too often remembered as a sex kitten. Grant cuts thru the myths, pro- and anti propaganda to deliver what is probably the best biography on Cleopatra. Writen by one of the marquee lights of classical history, the book is written in academic style, although for the most part it is highly readable. To be honest, I found the first preliminary chapters to be somewhat slow going, but once the story begins it takes off like a grand soap opera. Not as splashy as some other works on the great queen, this is *the* place to go for a detailed, comprehensive look at Cleopatra.



3. It's the splashiest period of all ancient history... a near Jerry Springer opera of lust, betrayal, and tawdry affairs. And yet, Michael Grant makes it about as dull as he possibly can.

   He presents a very factual and well-researched account, though I take exception to several of his assertions and theories, including the one where he asserts that Octavian wanted Cleopatra to commit suicide because he was afraid the Romans would want to free her as they did her sister Arsinoe. Arsinoe was just one random Egyptian princess who defied Julius Caesar. Cleopatra was the occidental temptress who had ensnared and ruined two of Rome's best men. She was probably the most vilified and hated of all Rome's enemies in history, for with Cleopatra, it was intensely personal. The very idea that the bloodthirsty Romans would have a sudden sentimental streak towards her is pretty laughable.

   But on the whole, his theories are soundly researched and well justified, even when I disagree with them. The book has some lovely portraits and a more in depth examination of Cleopatra's forebearers than is usually presented in her biographies. Moreover, he has an excellent perspective on the supposed 'inevitability' of Cleopatra's loss, and how the world may well have been different had things gone another way.

   It's a reasonable and scholarly work that makes a fine addition to my collection. If you're looking for something to move you, you may prefer Margaret George's "The Memoirs of Cleopatra".




4. I'm not a classicist as some of the other reviewers on this site appear to be, but as a layperson I can say that this book was pretty interesting. There are some boring parts, as others noted, but what biography does not have some boring parts? Here's what I found especially interesting:

   Grant gives readers a good idea about how most of the chronicles he consulted were written from one perspective or another and thus tended to be sentimentally biased in one direction or another. Grant points out significantly that as "Westerners" we have clung most closely to the "Occidental" version of matters, rather than anything leaning toward the other side, the "Orient." He points out consistently how ancient writers who disliked Cleopatra changed facts around to disparage her, while the opposite was true of those who liked her.

   The point being, it seems, that you have to take your history with a grain of salt (just as we do the news from the various modern media). Some reviewers seem to feel that Grant himself is slightly biased, in Cleopatra's favor, but as long as we're aware of it, we can perhaps discern the bias and read other viewpoints to get a well-rounded sense of what actually occurred.

   The other interesting point was how many people, mostly men presumably, died during these ancient wars. And how little their deaths accounted for anything. In other words, life was a lot cheaper then than today. In Cleopatra's time, only the top dogs had the sense of individual rights that most of us have today. Is that progress?

   Grant's book, of course, is thoroughly documented for those wishing to do further investigation.

   Diximus.




5. There are naturally times in this book when it reads like a soap opera, but this has got to be the most detailed, believable, and scholarly work on Cleopatra I have ever read. Such is the background Mr. Grant gives on her father Ptolemy Auletes, the Roman situation with Egypt, and the Ptolemaic Dynasty for the first half of the book I almost forgot who it was about.
   
   As with most ancient people little is known of Cleopatra's early life, but the author reconstructs it as best he can, and gives us a view into her world and her mind from her early years to her final days. Included, of course, are detailed retellings of her affairs with Caesar and Marcus Antonius, her fiasco of a marriage to her brother, and the common opinion of her held by the Romans, Egyptians, and even the Jews of her period.
   
   This book really repaints the stereotypical image of this fascinating, but indeed deadly woman. She was, of course, not an Egyptian but a Macedonian by birth and a Greek by language and upbringing, and was known not so much for her beauty as for a combination of her magnetic personality, her keen intelligence, and her large, bent nose; this final feature is depicted in all the few contemporary portraits of her.
   
   Overall this is an excellent and scholarly reference to the life of Cleopatra and the Egypt and Rome of her day, and is not at all dry but an absorbing read. Very highly recommended!

5 comments about Ulysses S. Grant: The Unlikely Hero (Eminent Lives).

1. 
   
   
   Military history is often a tragedy the first time around and a farce when it repeats, as this perceptive book makes abundantly clear in outlining and assessing the career of America's greatest general.
   
   Fans of Robert E. Lee may well argue about the "greatest", the blunt fact is that Grant understood Lee better than Lee understood Grant. Korda makes the point again and again that Grant, except on rare occasions, was able to correctly assess battlefield conditions and quickly exploit every indication of weakness.
   
   Grant was bitterly criticized as a butcher, similar to Gen. George "Blood and Guts" Patton in World War II. Veterans of Patton's armies have told me Patton's success was based on "his guts, our blood". But I've yet to meet anyone who regrets having served with Patton. The same is true of Grant; good soldiers always praise a general who wins, dead soldiers don't complain.
   
   Grant understood that victory meant killing enough soldiers to make the Confederate states quit. He understood the war was won at Gettysburg; just as Gen. Dwight Eisenhower knew World War II was won in Normandy. The tragic legacy of Grant is that too many generals since then have copied his "butcher" qualities without understanding his tactical brilliance; thus the appalling slaughter of World War I.
   
   Grant was the perfect American success story; literally a "barefoot" buy who rose to command the armies of the nation and then serve two terms in the White House. He was also the "perfect" American because of his absolute trust in the essential goodness, decency and honesty of others; politicians and business people took cynical and unlimited advantage of these qualities, which left his administration mired in the deep stink of scandal.
   
   In war, Gen. Grant faced one massive task -- victory. Everything was directed to one goal. In peace, President Grant as a politician faced a thousand simultaneous large and petty challenges, something he was never able to handle. His astounding successes were two great single-minded challenges; the war, and writing his autobiography as he was dying of cancer. Facing these two great challenges, he succeeded brilliantly.
   
   The contrast with today's politicians could not be more dramatic. Grant was instinctively drawn to the sound of the guns fired in anger; too many of today's politicians, who blithely send others to war which they cleverly avoid themselves, have never hear a shot fired in anger let alone a voice raised in anger in the White House.
   
   This book, and the story of Grant, is vividly relevant in today's politics. Everyone who reads it will understand at least some of the fundamentals of success, of America's greatest general and the current military incompetence that has led to another quagmire.



2. These amazon reviews have done their job, in convincing me not to bother reading this book. There are two excellent studies of Grant as a politician and president, both by Brooks Simpson: LET US HAVE PEACE and THE RECONSTRUCTION PRESIDENTS. I highly recommend them.



3. The only books I've previously read about the civil war are All For The Union and Company Aytch. I recommend both if you want to read the memoirs of soldiers. Mr. Grant is a fascinating person and Michael Korda tries to capture his complexity of character. I can't say that I learned much more than I already knew from various Discovery Channel shows or visiting the home of U.S. Grant in Galena. As noted in previous reviews, some of the historical data is questionable. For example, is Mr. Korda correct about the position of forces on a battlefield or the several maps and writings I found on the internet that say otherwise? One thing I could do without is Mr. Kordas need to bring in his obvious dislike of president George Bush and anything whatsoever that has any connection to him. Mr. Korda, if you feel a need to vent your Bush-hatred get a job with the New York Times or Washington Post. I don't know about other folks but when I sit down with a book about U.S. Grant I don't expect to be hammered with the non-too-subtle neo-liberal desire to tie everything to George Bush.



4. Factually deficient. Some errors have been cited in earlier reviews here on Amazon. I will only point out that Korda repeatedly referred to Gen. McClellan as Gen. Mckennen. It gives one no confidence if the author cannot even remember the correct name of such a prominent person. Oddly, Korda seems to remember that Grant once remarked that he often wore a private soldier's jacket with stars on the shoulders so that the army might know who their general is. But then Korda triumphantly points to photos of Grant wearing a full general's frock coat in his meetings with Lincoln. Is this supposed to prove Grant was dishonest? Doesn't it occur to Korda that even Grant might think it appropriate to dress up a bit for a meeting with the President of the United States or for a photo? Some analysis! Korda's commentary on Grant's military decisions is on a par with his remarks on Grant's uniform: not worthy of a high school paper. Finally, it was annoying to see the author dip into academic hippy analysis of major events. Somehow, in a biography of Grant, we are to be dragged into Korda's hatred of President Bush. Aren't we sick of this yet? I couldn't--wouldn't--finish this pathetic book. It's in the garbage can. If the rest of the biographies in this series are this deficient, the publisher would do well to abandon the project.



5. This is a tiny book that one can easily read in a few hours, apparently intended for those (90%) of the current US population for whom the name of Ulysses Grant is unrecognizable. And as usual for a British author writing about American history, many of the facts are wrong and he feels compelled to compare Grant and his other American examples to British figures like Churchill, Wellington and Montgomery.
   
   That being said, this would be a reasonable book to give a 8th grader to hopefully interest him in American history. The writing is crisp and the prose flows easily.
   
   Author Korda essentially relies on two (count 'em, TWO) sources for most of his work; the highly controversial McFeely with its many errors and the 1928 work by Woodward. It does not seem as though Korda read Grant's superb autobiography, but he presents a very sympathetic portrait of Grant that might inspire further interest in his subject.
   
   The best parts of the book are the author's depiction of Grant's childhood, his personal bravery, rock-solid marriage, liberal attitudes (at a time when the Republicans were liberal and the Democrats conservative), and the close of his life when he wrote his autobiography. It is well-known that Grant was an abject business failure, putting the interests of others over his own, and showing a great deal of undeserved trust and loyalty. Although Grant was an extreme example of a military man unable to function as a civilian businessman, one should remember that others such as Patton, Eisenhower, Pershing, Lee etc, were never so tested. An uncommonly brave man, Grant saw and understood the tragedies of war and in spite of personal feelings was able to do his duty to the best of his abilities.
   
   Author Korda mentions one of Grant's problems that has been overlooked by almost all historians and needs reinforcement. Grant suffered frequently from debilitating migraine headaches, even almost missing Appromattox as a result. Grant needed his wife or Rawlins when he was incapacitated by a headache, and they kept him isolated in a darkened tent or room until the headache ran its course. Literally all of these episodes were recorded as Grant being drunk or sleeping off a hangover. The incidence of Grant's drinking was probably a small fraction of what was reported, if at all. It must be remembered that at the time, drinking was not considered as bad as having a mental disorder (like having frequent migraine headaches) and Grant himself apparently used drunkenness as a reason for his incapacitation rather than mentioning his headaches.
   
   As far as judging Grant as a military commander or President, this book is simply inadaquate in scope to support the author's conclusions. Nonetheless, he does not miss a reasoned and defensible scholarly analysis by far. Grant did very well in the Civil War, displaying excellent strategic and tactical sense, and a firm understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of his opponents. At Belmont he was only forced to withdraw when his green troops fell away to plunder the Confederate camp, and his campaigns against Fort Donelson and Vicksburg did not offer much opportunity for criticism. He avoided defeat at Shiloh, won easily at Chattanooga, and was the Federal General to finally bring Lee to bay.
   
   Historians have severely criticized his long casualty list in the 1864 campaign against Lee, but it must be remembered that Meade was in tactical command of the Army of the Potomac, not Grant. An often overlooked item was Grant's elimination of prisoner exchanges. Those exchanges worked to the disadvantage of the Federals due to their numerical superiority. Grant's decision was also more humane; as he said, otherwise the only way to deny the Confederates its soldiers would be to kill them (thus raising battle deaths on both sides.)
   
   As President, Grant was a calming influence, and he did forestall another war with England over Canada. This is an episode overlooked by historians, but Palmerston had once thought of offering Canada to the US in return for recognizing the Confederacy and Canada was definitely in play. Following the Civil War there was a great deal resentment against England for aiding the Confederacy and meddling in US internal affairs, and war over Canada could have easily resulted. Yes, financial scandals rocked Grant's terms of office, but there were also many positive things that Grant contributed. Unfortunately, scandals are much more popular among writers wishing to sell books. A modern reader must surely understand that.
   
   There are many mistakes in the book that are jarring. George B. McClellan is repeatedly given as McClennan and the author makes statements such as; "No American ex-president had ever fallen so low, and except for Harding and Nixon, none would ever again." Well, sorry to say, Harding died in office and would never become an ex-president. Also saying that "...MacArthur can be thought of as a latter-day McClellan,..." is simply ludicrous. And finally, is it required for a writer to include a criticism of Bush "(...a sentiment that might usefully have been followed 133 years later by President George W. Bush)" to get good reviews from the media? Ok, I get it!! You hate Bush! Now can we please produce a scholarly historical work of times and personnel before the 21th century without making negative comments about Bush?
   
   I finished the little book conflicted over this author's reasonable and sympathetic presentation of a much-loved American hero of the 19th century but containing his condescending British Empire attitude and contemporary political opinions. In short, the author lost my good offices at the end. I can readily see why this book is rated from 1 to 5 stars. It all depends on the reader, so I compromised with three.

5 comments about Sworn on the Altar of God: A Religious Biography of Thomas Jefferson (Library of Religious Biography Series).

1. Excellent book As a school board member this book is important to show the importance of saving public education to perserve the American EXperiment. Jefferson was always in favor of a public educational system as a means to perserve the wall of separation between church and state. I would recommend this book for anyone who is oppossed to vouchers and charters schools



2. Thomas Jefferson's thinking hovers over many of today's debates regarding separation of church and state, school prayer, the place of public education, and the place of faith in our own lives.

   This is an excellent exploration of the complexities of Jefferson's beliefs and the even more complex world of how his writings and thoughts continue to impact America today.




3. This book is an excellent compliement to Charles Sanford's "The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson." Whereas Sanford does a scholarly review of the content of Jefferson's religious ideas, Gaustad in this book gives the narrative and context for how Jefferson applied his ideas concerning religion and religious freedom. Most interesting to me in the Gaustad book were the accounts of the political fights Jefferson and Madison waged for religious freedom during the early years of the Republic. Gaustad filled in the historical gaps and gave me context for understanding how momentous the struggle truly was. Also brought to life by Gaustad are the correspondences between the aged ex-presidents Jefferson and Adams about God and religion. I highly recommend this book to those interested in the history of ideas and freedom of thought.



4. Sworn on the Altar of God is an extremely informative look at Thomas Jefferson's faith. As one of the Founding Fathers, politicians and people of faith have so often tried to understand Jefferson's faith. In truth, he was a deist and a rationalist. Understanding the implications of this faith have great ramifications in our current times, especially in relation to a government which seems so intent on glorifying evangelical fundamentalism at the expense of reason. I feel that Jefferson would have been appalled!



5. Gaustad, Edwin S. Sworn on the Altar of God: A Religious Biography of Thomas Jefferson. Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, United Kingdom: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996. 246 pages. Notes on the Sources, index.
   
   Sworn on the Altar of God, is a religious biography (as the subtitle implies) by Edwin S. Gaustad, the critically acclaimed professor of history at the University of California, Riverside. He has written other historical books (also with good reviews I may add) such Documentary History of Religion of America, and in this book he scores again, only if it were a biography of Thomas Jefferson rather than a religious biography.
   
   Gaustad uses many of Jefferson writings and includes it in this biography with citations and context of when it is being said. He does this in a way that makes this book appealing. Right from the start though I noticed a flaw, he states his opinion as fact which is also known as the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. He states "Thomas Jefferson was the most self consciously theological of all America's presidents" [Gaustad, preface XIII]. This is contested by many people today who argue that Abraham Lincoln (a well known deist who spoke on God often) and / or George W. Bush (though I don't agree nor do I wish to resort to argumentum ad populum fallacy) is / are the most self consciously theological of all presidents. While this book isn't supposed to be arguing for ones view, I can forgive this. I liked how in the beginning he pointed out the misconception that everyone has today about Separation of Church and State, in the fact that it is not in our constitution but rather it was just a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists [preface IX]. So he expected to catch the viewer's attention by pointing out that misconception (though I already knew that fact) and worked. The books title is based on the quote from Thomas Jefferson "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny of the mind of man" [189]. He goes on to explain Jefferson's life from child hood to death and how he was very Anglican in his birth but went astray from his roots when he got older during The Enlightenment. He explains that he did this because he read many of Joseph Priestley's and Thomas Paine's works and wrote back to them (in secrecy) with open theological discussions. He does a good job doing this due to his extensive work he put into going out and getting all of Jefferson's writings.
   
   What my main quarrel is with this book, is the fact that only a portion of this book actually is actually a religious biography of Thomas Jefferson. The only chapters I found interesting and valuable (that actually pertained to the title) were chapters: 1, 2, 5, and 8. The other 4 chapters were a complete bore and filled with clutter that has nothing to do with religion and never built up to anything associated with religion. Let me give you a fine example, in chapter 6 "The Educator", all Gaustad talks about is James Madison and Thomas Jefferson building the University of Virginia and what his rules were, and to be more specific, one page is even devoted to his architecture from Monticello and how he applied it to the University of Virginia [174]. I noticed what he tried to do in this chapter, he opened up with a quote from Thomas Priestly about creation and man, then he stuck a bunch of clutter about the establishment of University of Virginia then at the end he puts "What sounded like freedom to Jefferson could sound like Unitarianism to others" [180] even though he hardly touched on that aspect in the chapter itself.
   
   What I like about the 4 chapters that actually related to the title of the book was that it delves deep into his feelings and his theological thinking. Chapter 2 "Student of the Enlightenment", explains his reasoning behind accepting reasoning over scripture, for instance "But those facts in the Bible which contradict laws of nature which must be examined with more care" [33]. Chapter 5 "The Religious Reformer", completely goes through Thomas Jefferson's work The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth with a fine tooth comb explaining what verses he cut out and what he kept. His book is a rehash of the 4 gospels that cuts out all miracles and supernatural and leaves the morals for him to study on his own. This work has now been put together and published as The Jefferson Bible. Chapter 8 "A Religion for the People" focuses on Jefferson's feelings against other religions and explains how he ended up intensely disliking the Anglicans because of their doctrine and charging him as a heathen around election time. It also explains how he liked the Quakers because they possessed no doctrine (thus accepting reason over scripture) but were mainly peaceful.
   Overall, this work by Gaustad does a good job portraying Jefferson's deism and his thoughts on prayer, but the few chapters that actually were related to the title could have been made into a pamphlet or an online article rather than a $14.00 book. It is very mainstream friendly, but I would recommend anyone JUST interested in Jefferson's religion to read the book The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson by Charles B. Sanford instead.

5 comments about The Compleated Autobiography by Benjamin Franklin (1757-1790).

1. I gave this as a gift to my mother. My father read it cover to cover and enjoyed it and my mother is in the process of doing so. It is written in an older style and can be a bit dry, but history buffs (my parents) are really enjoying it.



2. Book received timely and in excellent condition. Am still in the process of reading it.



3. Let's just say I am a Franklin buff. If you really like Franklin or history this is a worth while read. If you want to learn more about Franklin you should start with the Autobiography and then move to one of the many Bios, the most recent of which is Walter Isaacson's "Benjamin Franklin." If you get through those, you may be well ready for this read. To be honest, in my opinion, the author stands in the way of this work a little but it is not bad.



4. This is a review of the audio version of this work.
   
   I found this to be a great disappointment, bordering on annoying. The author was attempting to complete Franklin's autobiography which doesn't cover the second half of his life. I found two very difficult problems with the work.
   
   First, the opening of the audio book presents the author's background including why he wanted to do this. This introduction was distractingly self-serving and provided quite a bit more about the author than any reader would probably expect. He is a descendant of Franklin, which may spurn his motivation....but failed to make the experience any more enlightening.
   
   Second, the book is written "using Franklin's own words"...or so says the notes from the publisher. What it does is try to use the language of Franklin's day including quickly worn out expressions and lines. I tired very quickly of the authors attempt to turn every phrase like a Poor Richard quip. What he may have gained in accuracy, made the audio experience painful.
   
   I do not recommend the audio edition for those two reasons, nor would I recommend the book. One would be better served with Isaacson's (BF: An American Life) book for a look at the second half of Franklin's life....it's simply written better and it offers more insight.
   
   The idea of getting inside Franklin's head and finishing the autobiography is compelling....but this attempt failed in it's lofty goal.
   
   --Cudo



5. I had never read Volume 1 of Benjamin Franklin's autobiography, so I didn't know what to expect when I bought Volume 2, which was compiled from Dr. Franklin's diaries by one of his descendants, Dr. Mark Skousen. I really thought that because 200 years had gone by, it would be rather dry with way too many historical details and that I would never finish it. A good book to help me fall asleep at night. But I was wrong. I simply loved it.
   
   Dr. Franklin was quite a character and this book shows in his own words what he thought of his fellow 'founding fathers,' (especially his opinion of John Adams!!) how he managed to keep some of his English friends in the midst of the Revolutionary War, and the woman who got away (quite possibly the only one).
   
   This is not a book just for a history class. It is most, most entertaining and I finished it in record time. I wish Ben had lived to 100 instead of just 84.
   
   Highly recommended if you like history and even if you don't.
   
   Heidi Walter
   [...]

2 comments about Grant and Twain: The Story of an American Friendship.

1. Despite the author's best efforts, I thought the premise of the book -- that Grant and Twain's friendship was of great importance in both men's lives -- was not well proven in the book. However, the intimate portrayal of Grant in this short book was very interesting to me, and earned the book 4 stars in my mind.



2. This book explores the personal and business relationship between US Grant and Mark Twain, and attempts to advance the thesis that these two men, who were such towering figures of the mid to late 19th century, were profoundly influenced by each other. As a narrative this book succeeds--especially in Perry's description of the dying Grant. His portrait of the ex-president and savior of the Union is touching, and definitely makes the book worth reading on that merit alone. Perry's recounting of the relationship Twain and Grant shared is also interesting, demonstrated mainly from Twain's point of view.
   
   The thesis which is central to this book, unfortunately, was not confirmed for me in Perry's argument. The central argument seems to be that Twain was a deciding factor in Grant's resolution to write his memoirs, and that somehow it may not have happened had Twain not intervened. Perry points out that Twain brought the subject up to Grant several years before the project was actually started, but that alone was not enough to convince me. In fact, Grant was writing a series of articles for the Century magazine, and was already in process of making a deal for the book. Twain's publishing company more or less stole the deal away from Century. And while Twain was able to secure a much better financial compensation plan for Grant than he otherwise would have gotten, this, too, can hardly be attributed purely to the friendship the two shared. The memoirs made both men a lot of money.
   
   There is little doubt that Twain revered Grant and that Grant, in turn, appreciated and was fond of Twain. I just couldn't see, however, the link Perry seemed to want to build between Twain's Huckleberry Finn and Grant's memoirs, and for me that left the premise of the book flawed. Certain elements of the argument also break down under closer scrutiny, for example Perry's claim that the 'GG' appearing at the beginning of Huck Finn stands for 'General Grant,' and that the book was somehow dedicated to his friend.
   
   Perry also attempts to draw parallels between Huck and Grant, which to me seem very far-fetched. He claims that "Grant's journey [South down the Mississippi after he captured Vicksburg] was intended to free the slaves" and that "capturing Vicksburg, Grant had transformed the war for the Union into a war to free the slaves." This is much more than I can swallow. The Emancipation Proclamation had gone into effect 7 months before this event, and had been declared almost a year before. If there was a battle that changed the course of the war it was Antietam, not Vicksburg.
   
   In short, Huck Finn was not General Grant, nor vice-versa. I just can't wrap my mind around that one, and that makes the whole of Perry's argument seem fairly weak. That having been said, the book is very well written, the narrative is excellent, and only the historical analysis/interpretation seems to break down under scrutiny. I bought this book before reading it (something I don't often do), but I can honestly say I don't regret it. Though I'm not convinced by Perry's argument, this book was worth reading.

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

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



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



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



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

5 comments about Andrew Jackson and the Bank War: A Study in the Growth of Presidential Power (Norton Essays in American History.).

1. Remini's book, Andrew Jackson and the Bank War, is a very good book in the way of information. Although it is not a "page turner," it satisfies in giving the information. I would not have purchased this book except it is needed for my American History course.



2. This has to be one of the most boring books I have ever read in my life, therefore making it a waste of my time to read it. I would not have bought the book unless if I wouldn't have had to write an essay on it for my History 1050 class. I do not recommend this book for casual reading, in fact, I do not recommend this book at all. However, if you are involved in History as a profession, or if you are excited by History, then this is a book for you. It provides tons of information, but to me it is all irrelevant. If you are a college student with many other things to do like myself, I will personally tell you right now to leave this book on the shelf.



3. After reading Bray Hammond's "Banks and Politics in America" and his trenchant critique of the Jacksonian assault on the Second Bank of the United States (BUS), I was interested to learn how Robert Remini, a historian known for his pro-Jackson tilt, responded to that attack on the Old Hero.

   The answer is: he responded with a crisp, cogent and remarkably fair and insightful history of the struggle over the BUS.

   The BUS had a profound political, economic, and social impact on American life during its short life (1816-1836). In his book, however, Remini seeks to address just one side of the controversy: the political. He concedes that there was much good in the BUS from a strictly economic perspective and destroying it without a concrete plan to replace the monetary institution undoubtedly did harm to the American economy as a whole. But, Remini argues, it was the political implications of the War - not the Panic of 1837 or the subsequent failure to adopt central banking in the US for nearly a century - that had the more far-reaching consequences.

   It has been argued that Jackson was the first modern president. It is undeniable that the power of the presidency took a giant leap forward during Jackson's two-terms and Remini shows that those monumental gains in power came mostly during and because of the Bank War.

   In particular, Remini argues that the Bank War is directly responsible for three areas of enhanced presidential power: 1) the use of the veto to reject legislation for purely political rather than constitutional reasons, thus inserting the president into the legislative process and, in effect, making his opinion count for two-thirds of both Houses of Congress; 2) even though Remini believes that the majority of Americans didn't support the president's stance on the BUS, Jackson made the election of 1832 a referendum on the bank issue and claimed henceforth that he represented the will of the people and was there one representative; and 3) Jackson's sacking of Secretary of the Treasury Duane for his refusal to remove the government deposits from the BUS exerted the president's right to remove Cabinet members at will, further strengthening the executive's grip over the government.

   In short, there is stunning agreement between Remini and Hammond on a number of issues. For instance, Remini concedes that Jackson's veto of the BUS re-charter in July 1832 was pure demagogic class baiting with indefensible charges against the BUS's operations. He also rejects the notion that Jackson's re-election was a popular show of support for his attack on the BUS and he credits Nicolas Biddle with running an efficient, although by no means perfect, central banking organization. Thus, on economic grounds, Remini really sides with Hammond. But, Remini maintains, the economics of the issue was a distant second to the politics of issue. The cause of the War was political - namely, Jackson's refusal to bend or even appear to bend to a political challenge - and the most significant results of the War were political. Remini's case is sound.




4. It's a hoot to read and as much at home on the beach as in the classroom. Sounds like the one fellow who slammed it in another review here just didn't want to take the course in which it was required reading. (I am very conscious of writing skill and have used Amazon to diss a number of extremely well researched books because they are poorly written. Sacred cows I do not recognize.) Remini takes what should be a deadly dull topic - banking - and turns it into a drama (and comedy) describing the clash between two bone-headed men: Pres. Andrew Jackson and Bank of the United States president, Nicolas Biddle. That clash changed the United States forever. Highly recommended.



5. Remini comes to the conclusion that the Bank was not all bad, it was simply a political struggle between Jackson and Biddle. I don't agree. It's a good detailed acount of the events, and I'd recommend it for such, but if you're a supporter of hard money (the Jackson position) you may consider looking elsewhere or complementing this reading. I'd recommend Murray Rothbard. He addresses some of the authors (mis)information on hard money in "A History of Money and Banking in the US."
   
   It's great to read a book about the President actually checking the power of the Congress and Court in a struggle over what's authorized in the Constitution. A President disagrees with a Supreme Court ruling, and actually challenges it. Not something that happens anymore, and that's unfortunate.

5 comments about President Nixon: Alone in the White House.

1. I found this a fascinating look at presidential power and gave me further insights into Nixon and the power structure that existed around him. I remember the days of Watergate but this gave me new insights and background information about what actually went on. It's truly a slice of living history. Also the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq are almost frightening...perhaps some of those in command should read this too.



2. Reeves delivers an exciting and wonderful book that chronicles Nixon's presidential years. This book begins with Nixon entering office and ends on the day he leaves office. It goes day by day through the presidency and gives you a good sense of what the Nixon administration was thinking and what was happening in the country at the same time. From foreign policy with China and Russia to domestic problems like Kent State this book covers everything you would want to know about the Nixon Administration. It is easily five stars. The book is very readable and is a great reference guide for those who just want to learn about Nixon or those who want to study his administration in depth.



3. Mr. Reeves look at the Nixon presidency from the vantage point of the President himself provides the reader with a fascinating look at one of the most compelling political figures of our time.
   
   To paraphrase Bob Dole, it was a miracle that Nixon ever made it to the pinnacle of political power. From the very first day in office, we are given the picture of a man who is both elated that he has reached his destiny, but at the same time is unable to savor the moment. Although the book does not deal with RN's life, Reeves does a masterful job at painting a portrait of a man embittered by the cut and thrust of politics. We see a man who has his eye on his enemies, real and imagined, and who is bound and determined to triumph over him.
   
   Reeves does indeed show us the "who, what, when, where..." of the Nixon presidency, yet resists the temptation of playing amateur psychologist and does not address the "why" of Richard Nixon.
   
   Instead we are treated to a story of a man who was truly "alone in the White House." However, this title is misleading, for Nixon's penchant for solitude, and secrecy are only part of the story. A better title for this book would have been "President Nixon: The Remaking of the Presidency," because that is exactly what he set out to do.
   
   Reeves presents a balanced look at RN. We see him at his best; statesmen, "architect" of foreign policy, strategic thinker, and visionary for a stable world order.
   
   We also get a look at the man at his worst; the many "horrors" of Watergate, his pathological Jew-baiting, his thin-skinned reaction to the press, his obsession with being seen as a "man of the people," and on and on. In sum, there is much to dislike about Richard Nixon; there is also much to admire.
   
   After reading a book like this, one has to wonder what would the Nixon legacy have been if he chose not to cover up Watergate and lanced the boil, dug deep, and plowed ahead to finish his second term. Reeves' book shows all too clearly, and poignantly, that "the Old Man" was incapable of doing anything but he did at the time, which is a shame. RN's legacy is that he left a stain on the body politic that has engendered a cynacism toward politics.



4. This is a solid work of Presidential scholarship. I appreciated its "worm's eye" view because it allows for the presentation of a great many primary source materials and documents that are invaluable for summing up the bizarre man who was President Richard Nixon. Reeves reveals a fair amount of personal bias and dislike for his subject here, but, fortunately, the intrusions of his point-of-view are not ubiquitous. Reeves seems to unquestionably believe that busing was good for blacks and it appears that he has an affinity for most government programs; a stance that is totally unwarranted. That being said, the work remains well-organized, clear and valuable. Reeves is a biographer and journalist so, unlike some of the other reviewers, I was glad that he did not share with us his psychological observations of the President. In all likelihood, they would have been ungrounded. Alone in the White House is a good, but not great, book.



5. Richard Reeves is a fair author. Having read his previous book on President Kennedy, I was interested in his take on Nixon. This book is not a bio, nor is it a political history per se. Rather this book, like the Kennedy and Reagan books, weaves a path through the first four years of Nixon's presidency. The age old question will always remain: how a guy as smart as Richard Nixon, and he was smart, got caught up in a bevy of intrigue, black ops, and paranoia.

1 comments about Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini: Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century (European History Series (Arlington Heights, Ill.).).

1. This is a great overview of Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. In this book Pauley takes the reader through the evolution of the totalitarian dictators. He starts of by defining the terms under which each ideology fell: Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, and Fascism. From here he shows the reader how each personality gained, maintained and relinquished power. The outline of the chapters adds to readability as well as allowing for comparison and contrast of the three previously mentioned persons. This is an important topic not only to learn about the absolute control that these three wielded, but how they managed to manipulate the masses into not only following them but in some cases actually loving them; as scary as that may seem. There are important lessons to be learned in this study and Pauley has some good insight to get one thinking about them.