5 comments about Franklin Pierce: Young Hickory of the Granite Hills.

1. Over the last several years I have read more than 25 presidential biographies, using Amazon readers' reviews to guide my selections. I was a bit reluctant to try this biography of Franklin Pierce; but, reading it was a pleasant surprise. I found Nichols' work to be well organized and very readable. He did a nice job of weaving together Pierce's private life, his politics, and the times. Pierce was often stymied by misfortune and occasionally by tragedy and was simply is not equipped to be a great leader. Pierce was a charming courtroom lawyer, the inevitable 19th century party stalwart, and became deeply religious, but he lacked the vision or skill to do much more than react to problems. Often, he falls prey to others' subterfuge. He became famous for vacillating from one position to another .
   
   The 1850's were a fascinating but difficult time The Whig Party collapsed, No Nothings rose and fell, the Republicans got their start, and sectionalism was often as important as party loyalty. The country's greatest statesmen - Jackson, Polk, Calhoun, Webster, and Clay - had died off. The US was attempting to come to grips with Western expansion and the opportunity to be a world power, but every foreign policy Pierce tried stalled or failed. He constantly misjudged the North's evolving opinions against slavery. During much of Pierce's administration the Executive and Legislative branches vied for supremacy. But neither branch had the leadership or vision to be effective, and perhaps no leader or party could have found a way to avoid the Civil War. Nichols' biography captures all of this and I strongly recommend it.



2. I just finished this book last night. I am reading one biography on every US President and this was my 30th to read. Unfortunately there are not many choices on this particular president. The book was first written in 1931 and therefore feels a little dated in its structure. I feel I know a lot more about Pierce now and I happen to agree with history's assessment of the man and his one term in office. While his commitment to the Union is beyond question, he does deserve some blame in the deteriorating state of domestic affairs during the decade leading to Civil War. He was a weak, indecisive executive and his decision to form his cabinet to represent all views of the democracy was the deathblow to his administration before it even began. It demonstrated his lack of commitment to one set of principles. In his defense, even the greatest president could not have avoided civil war for ever. Linclon was correct when he said that the union was destined to be either all slave or all free. War was inevitable but Pierce's lack of leadership did not help.
   
   His post presidency of 12 years is given very brief attention. And there is no examination of his relationship with Jefferson Davis either during the war or after the war. It is apparent from the book that Davis was one of his closest advisors. It is a very important relationship in American history that the President of the Confederate states had served as secretary of War in the US cabinet only 4 years before the war. An examination of how the war effected their relationship and what Pierce thought of Davis being the southern president isn't even mentioned.
   
   I would hope some modern author will revisit the subject of Franklin Pierce. Until then, this book is the best we have.



3. Roy Nichols, biography on little known President Franklin Pierce was insightful and extremely detailed. I will admit that of all the biographies I have read on each President in chronological order this so far has been the toughest read as far as maintaining my enthusiasm. I think that Mr. Nichols did the best he could with the material he had meaning that Franklin Pierce was inadequate to the task of being the President of the United States. He did not have the constitution, nor the fortitude to be a strong President and consequently in my estimation his lack of action on dealing with the Kansas/Nebraska act and the south contributed to the oncoming of the Civil War. However, while this is a tough read, I think anyone who wants a thorough understanding on the 14th President of the United States needs to read this biography. Again as in my other reviews I think this biography should be in every library, high school and university. Every American needs to understand the responsibilities that go with this high office and the need to elect men of integrity, and who are leaders morally and courageously. This book in my estimation is exhausted with detail on President Pierce and the reader needs to know that before starting.



4. I am currently reading a biography of every President in order. For Franklin Pierce the choices are limited and Roy Nichols book is the only option for a complete one volume biography (Garry Boullard's book deals with Pierce's post Presidency & Peter Wallner has just completed his two volume offering).
   
   Nichols has done a workman like job with his biography of Pierce and the depth and quality of his research is immediately apparent. This biography is intended as a scholarly level study for an academic audience and certainly succeeds in this objective. This is a comprehensive biography of Pierce with his Presidency receiving particulary detailed focus.
   
   The drawbacks of the book are that it is stylistically dated and the writing can get quite dull at times. The book also suffers somewhat from a fairly mechanistic presentation and better organization would have made the study easier for the reader to digest.
   
   Ultimately this book is a sufficiently detailed treatment of our 14th President and if you must read a one volume biography of Pierce I certainly recommend it. For those who don't mind a longer treatment, that is based on the most current research and has received favorable reviews, Peter Wallner's 2 volume offering might be a more appropriate choice. (While I have personally not read it, the reviews I have read were very favorable and the second volume "Martyr of the Union" is just now available.)



5. This book is poorly written. Worse, Nichols is not able to describe what events in the book mean to history in general or to Franklin Pierce in particular. I found myself frequently consulting the internet to find out what the social subtext was for events that the author describes in unnecessarily extensive, yet unhelpful detail.

5 comments about How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life.

1. Superior insight into the mind of Reagan and the lessons he is still teaching all of us.



2. Inspirational words from the Reagan White House speechwriter who wrote the "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" speech, which was the ammo by which Ronald Reagan defeated Communism without a shot.
   In addition to being inspiring, this book paints a good picture of what it's like if your first real job out of college is putting words in the mouth of the leader of the free world.



3. Wonderfully written book with great insight into one of the greatest men of all time. Insightful look in to the inner workings of the presidency.



4. Before Christmas of the year Peter Robinson's book on Reagan was published, I bought seven copies to give as gifts to my two sons, as well as to each male member of my extended family. The day before Christmas, while I was at our local bookstore hurriedly acquiring yet another copy for someone I had forgotten, a man beside me was ordering a dozen of Robinson's books to give for Christmas presents. Now, years later, I am back again, buying yet another book for a college-bound student.
   Oh, that all our children could have not only Reagan as a role model for living all of life, but also Peter Robinson, whose life, work, and character up to the present time has become even more outstanding over these last few years since he decided to use Reagan as a role model. What a positive impact people like these could have on our heavily sensate, self-absorbed culture.



5. This is a fun book. Robinson's snapshot of Reagan brings back a lot of the things that many of us, including Democrats, admired about Reagan. Reagan's personality which was charming and opptumistic was such a refreshing change from Carter, Ford, Nixon and Johnson. Here was a President who knew what he thought, and seemed completely genuine when he smiled at his detractors.
   
   Robinson says up front that this book is not a memoir, but an analysis of the many things he learned from Reagan. The book is a memoir however, and you can't help but notice who makes it in the book and who does not.
   
   Robininson's lists four of the "most important speaches of the Reagan presidency," Why four? Maybe because these are the four that he and his friends wrote! Amazing. Robinson manages to leave out Peggy Noonan's contribution to the Reagan speechwriting team entirely. In fact her name does not even appear in the book. Think the Challenger speach and the Normandy speach might have been worth mentioning in lessons learned from Reagan? Apparently Robinson didn't learn a thing from them. Given the fact that Robinson was fresh out of college when he went to work for Reagan, its more than a little strange that more experienced writers were left out of the book.
   
   This book is fun and very readable but if you don't know a thing about Reagan's speeches, don't start with this book.

3 comments about George Washington : Writings (Library of America).

1. George Washington is far more revered than known; but, as this splendid book proves, when you come to know him you feel even more admiration for him. This installment in the indispensable LIBRARY OF AMERICA series gathers hundreds of Washington's letters, as well as his more formal public statements as Virginia legislator and revolutionary leader, Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, advocate of federal constitutional reform, and First President of the United States. The formal public statements display the heavy style that Washington fell into when consciously speaking to posterity. It is in his letters that Washington's vigorous mind, strong emotions, and sound judgment emerge most cleary -- and that portray his humanity and his nobility most clearly and accessibly. Readers of this volume would be well-advised to read John Rhodehamel's superb chronology (appearing at the back of the book) first, and then turning to the text. If they do this, they will have! a sound chronological and historical basis for setting Washington's writings, public and private, in context and for seeing the critical founding decades of the American republic as he saw and experienced them.

   -- Richard B. Bernstein, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School; Daniel M. Lyons Visiting Professor in American History, Brooklyn College/CUNY; Book Review Editor for Constitutional Books, H-LAW; and Senior Research Fellow, Council on Citizenship Education, Russell Sage College




2. Like Robert E. Lee, George Washington might be considered the marble man of his time, a revolutionary whose passion doesn't burn as bright on the pages of history as, say, Thomas Paine, or as clear as Thomas Jefferson. He may be admired and revered, but not necessarily loved, certainly not in the way as old Marse Lee.

   Whether Washington the man can be reclaimed from Washington the statue is a task left up to biographers and fiction writers, because after thumbing through this collection of his writings, it is with some certainty that the man from Mount Vernon can't do it himself.

   Once gets the impression that Washington was a man who believed in duty, to himself as an eighteenth-century man of means, and to his country, whether it be England (for whom he participated on several expeditions against the French in Pennsylvania), or his newly created United States. The man who, in 1755, volunteered to join the British commander in chief, General Edward Braddock, on what became a disasterous expedition into western Pennsylvania, became by 1775 the man who would write to his wife announcing his appointment to head the rebel army, that, "I have used every endeavour in my power to avoid it [command]."

   Even his ascention to the presidency was performed in very reluctant steps. In a letter to Henry Knox, he wrote, "I can assure you . . . that my movements to the chair of Government will be accompanied with feelings not unlike those of a culprit who is going to the place of his execution."

   So why serve? "It was utterly out of my power to refuse this appointment without exposing my Character to such censures as would have reflected dishonour upon myself, and given pain to my friends," he wrote Martha Washington.

   Perhaps an early clue to his character can be found in the first entry, a collection of 100 maxims he composed when he was 15, rules for living which range from the practical ("Put not your meat to your Mouth with your Knife in your hand neither Spit forth the Stones of any fruit Pye upon a Dish nor Cast anything under the table"), to the inspirational ("Let your Recreations be Manfull not Sinfull"), and even a bit of the poetic ("Labour to keep alive in your Breast that Little Spark of Celestial fire Called Conscience").

   Sober, practical, firm-minded, George Washington was not a man to inspire devotion through force of personality, only through a far-sighted competence which does not make for glorious history, but to those who cherish the ideals and promise of America, one can be thankful that he was in the right place at the right time.




3. All too often, George Washington comes across as a monument rather than a person. As the victorious general of the American Revolution and as our nation's first president, he is often depicted as the indispensable figure in the struggle to establish America as a nation, with his decisions and actions almost providential in nature. Yet Washington the man is lost amidst the adulation, leaving the reader with an incomplete picture of who he really was.
   
   This collection of Washington's writings is an indispensable aid in the process of understanding the man behind the legend. The editor, John Rhodehamel, has selected 446 key documents from Washington's life, including letters, addresses, and general orders issued to his men. Written in the strictly formal style of the Virginia planter seeking to maintain the dignity of his position in society, his prose often cloaks the anxiety he felt about his status, the revolutionary cause, and the survival of the new republic. Together they convey a distinctly human figure, one whose stature only grows with a better understanding of the difficulties he surmounted. This is the book for anyone seeking to supplement other works on Washington with the original sources, or for those who simply want to read about Washington's life in his own words.

2 comments about Napoleon (Profiles in Power Series).

1. This is my first book on Napoleon, though not my first book on French history. Ellis' book has many good insights and seems to me well-written. He arranged his book according to themes, rather than on a timeline. This is difficult, however, for the beginner, as a basic knowledge of Napoleonic history is assumed. At the end of his book, Ellis recommends Felix Markham's "Napoleon" as a good introductory work, and I will take his advice, then perhaps reread Ellis, as I think it deserves to be read with the details of Napleon's history already in the readers mind.



2. This slender tome is an elegant overview of Napoleon's political and cultural impact on 19th Century Europe. It is not a political or cultural biography of Napoleon, but instead, a collection of essays which addresses Napoleon's roles as a soldier, statesman and patron of the arts during the first French Republic and first French Empire (1792-1815). Ellis demonstrates Napoleon's acquisition and retention of power during the first half of the book. He closes with several fine essays which show how Napoleon's power was depicted artistically and what - if any - was Napoleon's legacy to France and to Europe. This is unquestionably a book of interest to those familiar with Napoleon's career, early 19th Century European history, or both.

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
   [...]

5 comments about Commander in Chief: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, His Lieutenants, and Their War (Bluejacket Books).

1. This is one of the most useful and well written books that I have read on World War II. Larrabee discusses in depth some of the leading American commanders, including: Nimitz, Eisenhower, Lemay, MacArthur, King, Marshall, and Stilwell. His discussion of Vandegrift included a lengthy discussion of Chesty Puller and his exploits on Guadalcanal. Obviously, any discussion of Chesty Puller can be extremely humorous, but Larrabee's anecdotes left me in stitches. I have also read a review on this site alleging that Franklin Roosevelt was aware of the pending attack on Pearl Harbor. The reviewer alleges that based upon the correspondence between the German foreign minister and the Japanese government should have made Roosevelt aware of the attack. My only response is that if German participation was a foregone conclusion, then why did Germany wait until December 11th to declare war? This is an extemely useful overview of the American leaders and the strategy that they employed in World War II. It should be required reading by any American history class studying the 20th century.



2. This is the best book written about the story of World War Two from the perspective of the American military commanders. It won an award from the Society of American Historians called the Francis Parkman Prize for historical excellence. This book is a World War Two classic. You will not find a better one-volume profile of the American commanders in WWII.
   
   Roosevelt was great at picking the right people for the right positions, such as George Marshall, five star general. In Washington D.C., he was the overall commander of the United States military during the war (and later Truman's Secretary of State). His work was superb and, no doubt, ranks him among the greatest American leaders ever. Read about him in the book.
   
   Many expected that Marshall would be given command of the D-Day invasion (and all it's glory), but when Roosevelt told Marshall that he was thinking of hand-picking Dwight Eisenhower and asked Marshall for his advice, leaving the door open for Marshall to lobby FDR, Marshall dutifully told Roosevelt that he should do only what he thought was best for the country. Roosevelt then moved immediately to appoint Eisenhower. It was a great moment of self-sacrifice for Marshall.
   
   The information in this book on Eisenhower is even better. Read about it in the book.
   
   Another great leader that FDR hand-picked was admiral Ernest King, a tough, demanding and resourceful leader. Roosevelt elevated him to commander of the United States Navy shortly after the Pearl Harbor attack, and King proved to be the ideal man at the right time. King was the first aviator to obtain command of the navy, and carrier warfare would emerge as the key to naval warfare during the conflict.
   
   But the best part of this book is how the American commanders led America to victory in World War II. This is great history. It looked very uncertain for years. All of them, including FDR, did a great job. Read the book.



3. Eric Larrabee not only gives the facts about these men and what made them tick, he backs it up with real OFFICIAL memoranda from the time, often from more than just 2 or 3 sources. His study of Douglas MacArthur is outstanding. What MacArthur apologists won't tell you is that this book is required reading at all US military academies. It should be required in all high schools as well. Well written, well done!



4. I purchased this book many years ago when it was first published, but only recently got around to reading much of it. I was extremely impressed at the author's critical analysis of the major players. In terms of detailed biographical sketches and rigorous organization, it lapses from time to time and often spends several pages in diversions about subordinates. What was particularly strong about Commander in Chief, however, was the perspectival discussions on the talents and importance of individual flag officers. I was particularly impressed with the discussion of Eisenhower which was the best I've seen. Larrabee actually gives him more praise and regard than his own son did in the recent Ike: the Soldier. For once, Eisenhower comes across as a powerful and commanding figure in his own right, rather than as a fortunate protege of General Marshall. Indeed, Larrabee explains in a perfectly plausible fashion why Eisenhower was a better choice for overall European command in 1944 and beyond. Although it does tend to wander at times, Commander in Chief is finely written and makes for enjoyable, informative reading. I recommend it highly.



5. I picked this book up not by choice in the beginning. I had to have it for a WWII class; I thought the book was going to put a strain on my already hectic schedule. Not the case at all.
   
   This book was outstanding and Larrabee did an excellent job showing the mental, physical, and emotional strain on our leaders. The book is written in profiles so the book started with FDR and worked its way to Lemay for the ending. The profiles do not have to be read consecutively. The profiles were great descriptions with the Vandergrift profile being my favorite. Larrabee did an excellent job describing the Marines battles through their leader General Vandergrift. The profile on FDR showed that he had more strengths than weaknesses. The only apparent weakness being his health. Larrabee does an excellent portrayal of all the leaders and seemed a bit put off by Macarthur. Macarthur's profile was definately the most damning one in the book.
   
   I agree with the one review that says this book should be read. This was a time when our country was united as one. Larrabee also does an excellent look at the Japanese command in the book. He has an in depth history of the Chinese Burma theatre. The book is a great starting point with WWII because the foundations are laid in leadership. Larrabee shows that the war was one with the competence of many great leaders during that time.
   
   He also lead me to ask myself one question. Could FDR run his type of war in present time. I mean he did intern and imprison thousands of Japanese on the West Coast that had done nothing at all. He attacked Germany who never attacked the U.S. It was Japan who struck us on Dec. 7, 1941 not Germany. FDR saw the impending danger of Hitler and struck his head before there was a chance for attack. Maybe History needs to be read more often so future mistakes are not based on lack of knowledge. Also Larrabee shows that FDR did have enemies and the Chicago Tribune leaked a war plan against the Japanese. Thank God the Japanese did not heed this plan.
   
   Larrabee shows there is always opposition against our leaders. FDR had the fortitude to stand up for what he believed and protect the world. I thoroughly recommend this book to anyone interested in leadership or WWII.

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.

4 comments about Gentleman Boss: The Life of Chester Alan Arthur ([Signature series book]).

1. High school history books tell you Chester "Chet" Arthur was a "dandy," a machine politician and an accidental president, but little more. This highly readable, very informative and interesting biography adds much historical flesh to the bare-bones treatment Arthur gets in text books. A man who is all but a caricature to generations of students is made fully human, with all the positives and negatives that entails. And while chronicling the president's life the author also chronicles a fascinating era in American political history, the day when the party bosses ruled and presidential candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms and not in state primaries; primaries may be more democratic, but they sure are a lot less interesting to read about. If you enjoy presidential history, add this book to your library.



2. He is certainly one of the most obscure Presidents in American history. I enjoy reading about people who achieve high office, fame or fortune, probably because I want to find a link among them that predated their successes. In reading this excellent and very balanced biography, I came away with at least 3 lessons: 1) That blind luck can be the key ingredient in a man's success, for the early life and times of Chester Arthur no more predicted greatness than did those of Harry Truman (Truman, at least, was essentially honorable), 2) that is indeed possible for the Office to make the man, for once he became President, Arthur overcame many of his moral inadequacies, and 3) that for all we complain about American politics today, the state of the State in the late 19th century was more corrupt than most 21st century Americans would ever imagine possible. For these three lessons alone, the book is certainly a worthwhile read.



3. Over the last several years, I've read more than 30 presidential biographies. I would rate Reeves' biography of Chester Arthur in the top ten. Given the subject matter, this is especially noteworthy. It's one thing to write an interesting biography of Teddy Roosevelt. It is something more to write a great book about Chester Arthur. Gentleman Boss is highly readable, well researched, and presents the corruption of the times in detail and in context.
   
   Certainly the post-Civil Wars years were the low point in US politics in terms of the quality of our presidents, the corruption of the elections, and politicians' contemptible disregard for actually addressing any of the problems of the day.
   
   Chester Arthur was probably the most corrupted politician to become President (but most biographies minimize this part of the story - so its often hard to tell). The first two-thirds of Gentleman Boss details Arthur's years prior to his becoming President. He was a spoils man in the New York machine, controlled assessments of public employees, and managed patronage for the Stalwart branch of the Republican Party for more than 20 years. The investigations of the New York customs house and stolen election of 1876 are presented in fascinating detail. As the spoils system got more and more unfavorable press, and various investigations began, Arthur lied again and again. He participated in large vote buying schemes and bragged of this in a famous speech at Delmonico's Restaurant following his election as Vice President. His nomination to be Vice President was an affront to anyone who was interested in cleaning up politics. Even after he was elected Vice President, he worked hard to undermine President Garfield by trying to fix more jobs (and overthrow Garfield appointees in New York).
   
   Arthur was very intelligent and a brilliant organizer. In these regards but almost no other he was well-qualified to be president. The last third of Reeves' book describes Arthur's presidency and his effort to rise above his past and not dishonor the office. This portion of the book seems anti-climatic, but the first 250 pages are not to be missed.



4. The Gentleman Boss covers the turbulent times of the gilded Age through Chester Arthur's eyes. While being very sympathetic to its subject it nonetheless does a phenomenal job of showing how the political system at the time worked. The book tracks the turmoil's and tribulations of the Gilded Age political system. It looks at the formation of the Republican Party and the various factions that threatened to tear it apart. The reform of the system was conducted by its most ardent and staunch defender. Arthur's presidency was defined by trying to prove he was healthy and competent enough for the highest office in the land and although he did not receive the party nomination to continue he was successful in his term of office. While the usual Gilded Age scandals occurred overall it was a move towards the modern political spectrum and a hint of the reforms to come in the progressive era.
   
   Overall the book was very well written an enjoyable for those who enjoy a good discussion of Gilded Age politics and intrigue.

5 comments about Washington's God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of Our Country.

1. An outstanding book that shows clearly that the father of our country was a Christian and not the deist that revisionists would have us believe. For anyone interested in what made up the character of George Washington, this book is a must. Washington's own words and the words of those who knew him speak volumes.



2. The Novaks take on the tough question: Was George Washington a Christian or a Deist? With a thorough approach in an historical context, this work is a must read for anyone looking for this answer or who wants to explore an interesting side of our first President.



3. Was George Washington a deist or a Christian? It is an important question, as Washington was not only the first president but the most respected of all of America's founding fathers.
   
   In their book, "Washington's God," Michael and Jana Novak investigate Washington's public and private life to answer this question. The evidence is mixed:
   
   Toward the view that Washington was a deist: Washington rarely referred to Jesus Christ (although he did write a letter to the Delaware Indians and recommend the religion of Jesus Christ), but instead he preferred the term "Providence," or generic terms like "the Author of our Blessed Religion." Washington regularly refused to take communion at church. When asked point-blank if he believed in Jesus Christ, he would not answer the question. When he died, he did not ask for a minister, and simply said, "'Tis well."
   
   Toward the view that Washington was a Christian: Washington was a member of the Anglican church, which he attended regularly, including overseeing business of his local church. He agreed to be godfather to eight children, something the less religious Thomas Jefferson refused to do. He spoke of "Providence" in Christian terms, not deist terms. A deist believes God is like a watchmaker who makes the world and then is not involved; Washington instead spoke of divine Providence intervening and bringing together the events that led to his victory in the American Revolution. His reluctance to explicitly state his faith in Jesus Christ can be understood as typical for an Anglican who is more reserved about public expressions of faith. Nevertheless, there are reports of him privately praying during the war, and he insisted on having chaplains in the Continental Army. After his death, Martha Washington spoke of it as a Christian death.
   
   On balance, Novak concludes that while he was very private about his faith, George Washington was, indeed, a Christian. He notes that Washington believed in religious liberty and opposed a state church, but Washington supported an accomodationist view of church and state that allows for public expresssions of general faith in the public square, without an endorsement of any particular denomination.



4. Novak & daughter make repeated assumptions that are in no way indicated by the historical record, and at most, his and his fellow Christian Revisionist Historian's wishful thinking are the only basis for this tome. To conclude that a man that does not even USE the word Jesus, in one SINGLE instance in ANY of his known documents, or writings, is a Christian, is disingenuous, and has a political, rather than religious overtone. Save your money, would be my advice, and skip this as the pure propaganda that it most certainly is.



5. I chose this book because I had been reading some shorter biographies on George Washington and I became interested in the "truth" about his faith. This book hits on some interesting points but the writing style is very choppy (the author constantly goes back and forth in time) and the style of narrative just didn't draw this reader in. David McCullough's epic volume on John Adams - as long and detailed as it is - proves that an author can provide tremendous detail and still keep the reader wanting to turn the page to learn more. Still, for some strong evidence that George Washington was no passive deist, but actually had a compelling Christian faith, one can turn to Washington's God as a good source of information.

4 comments about FDR and Lucy: Lovers and Friends.

1. I was expecting a thorough examination of the love affair between FDR and Lucy Mercer. The affair has been common knowledge for forty years and it's always touched upon in Roosevelt biographies and documentaries. But this book is a rather crushing disappointment, padded with much unnecessary and repetitive information. Most of the book consists of boring material relating directly to Lucy's life as Mrs. Rutherford in the 20's and 30's. Personally, I was expecting more details on FDR's affair with her throughout WWI, Eleanor's discovery of her love letters in Franklin's suitcase, and then the hysterical control-monster, Sarah Delano Roosevelt, demanding Franklin dump Lucy or risk losing his inheritance. Now that is the stuff of legend!
   
   Instead we get a dreary narrative with no new information. The book picks up a bit when Lucy re-enters Roosevelt's life in the 30's and spends considerable time with his in the closing years of his life. Most of their meetings took place in Warm Springs, Georgia, and also in the White House. FDR's daughter, Anna, was the one who invited Lucy to the Executive Mansion while Eleanor was away on one of many tours during the war. It's mindful to recall a remark from Alive Roosevelt Longworth in this context: "Franklin deserves a good time. He was married to Eleanor!"
   
   If you know little about the mechanics of the Lucy-Franklin alliance, this is a well-written and entertaining book. But if you know more about the pair, it wouldn't be particularly revealing. The characterization of Eleanor is especially weak. While I'm not advocating adultery, let's face facts: Eleanor was frigid, disinterested in sex and in the 30's took up close "friendships" with people like Lorena Hickock (who makes Yogi Berra look gorgeous in comparison). I really can't blame a man as charming and handsome as Franklin Roosevelt pursuing sex outside of marriage. His choice may not have been the "moral" one (whatever that means), but it was the only logical thing to do under the circumstances.
   
   To sum up, if you're an FDR newbie, this would be nice. If you're not, forget it.



2. Resa Willis tells the story of a time in American history as skillfully, objectively, personally, accurately and compassionately as humanely possible in 152 pages. How refreshing!
   
   You are privileged to hear about all the FDR doings and Eleanor Roosevelt doings along with all the important players.
   
   And, you come to learn how a great man so deeply loved by so many women could be fundamentally lonely.
   
   Some would call it Eleanor's sweet revenge.



3. When I first started graduate school in history, I used to speculate as to how there could be another biography of Lincoln or Washington, or who ever without some newly discovered source of information. I came to learn that historians reevalute existing sources in light of new events and/or place their own unique perspecitve on the materials.
   
   In the case of Resa Willis' FDR AND LUCY, Willis did none of the above. When a new book comes out on a subject in which one has interest, there is always hope that there is some new sources or new perspective. While doing a fine job of research and writing, Willis adds nothing new to a story that came to light in the 1960's after the death of Eleanor.
   
   Willis quotes children and friends of FDR and Lucy Mercer but as another reviewer said - there's nothing new. The story is stretched a bit with the inclusion of lots of basic facts about American history. There is a decent amount of information about the geneology of some of the characters, but other than showing the Mercer and FDR lived in a relatively close circle of friends and relatives, its old hat. She offers some speculation. Did FDR have an hand in arranging the marriage of Lucy and her husband Wintrop Rutherfurd. But she offers no anwers. She talks about FDR's circle of women friends but the author draws no conclusions about these relationships or how they reflected on FDR's personality.
   
   One of the amazing things about the relationship between FDR and Lucy is that the servants never talked. In the 21st century, all of the servants and secret service agents would have published tell all books. As an African American, whose family lived in Aiken, I always found it amazing that no one in the African American community, who clearly would have served as servants, ever mentioned a visit from the President. I've looked for the railroad siding that was suppose to have been built to accomodate the President but have never figure out where it was.
   
   Willis takes no sides in relating her story. She relates the story of two people who had an affair and the came to be great friends. She provides an insight in to life at the White House during the War years but there is little character development.
   
   If you know nothing about FDR and Lucy Mercer, read the book. If you know the least little bit from previous readings, don't bother.



4. Unlike many other traditional biographies, "FDR and Lucy" is a fast read that gives its readers a true overview of FDR's long-term relationship with Mrs. Lucy Rutherfurd. "FDR and Lucy" is a very focused account of someone who was clearly close to Franklin's heart and does not lead the reader astray with too much coverage of the historical events happening at the time.