3 comments about Hugo Chavez: The Definitive Biography of Venezuela's Controversial President.

1. This book has been described as an unbiased look at Hugo Chavez but in my opinion it doesn't quite live up to that description. The Authors' Note touches upon the difficulty of such an endeavor, quoting Georg Lichtenberg from the 18th century: "Even impartiality is partial." My impression is that the authors recognized a need for change in Venezuela in the 1990s -- and may even have had sympathy for such change -- but they don't believe Hugo Chavez is the proper man to lead the nation forward.
   
   The authors' overriding point seems to be that Chavez is power mad, driven by an unquenchable desire for ever more power. An example: "He was the man of the hour and he enjoyed it, though he never lost sight of his real goal: power and everything that went with it." But it would be the rare political leader for whom this claim could not be made, especially one seeking such a major shakeup as Chavez. And while there is little doubt that Chavez enjoys being in the spotlight, it's also true that his antics bring worldwide attention to issues he feels need to be addressed. At another point in the book, the authors relate an unflattering personal incident then add, "All of this, however, remains in the murky terrain of speculation," as if the incident was too juicy to leave out, even though it was perhaps unfounded.
   
   Having said that, the bias I perceived did not much interfere with the book. For one thing, not all of Chavez's life story is admirable, such as the years spent plotting the failed 1992 coup while serving in the the military. As you are perhaps aware, in an odd turn of fate, this failed coup -- or more accurately, the televised "for now" speech given after his surrender -- turned Chavez into a folk hero and served as the springboard to his future political success.
   
   It is important to note that the book is much more a personal biography of Chavez than it is an analysis of his policy initiatives. Some of the most interesting information is from his childhood. One incident regarding his first day of school stands out: He and his grandmother were turned away from the schoolhouse because the boy's shoes were too shabby. Such an event leaves a lasting impression and helps explain Chavez's bonds to the nation's poor. As he grew older, Chavez became a voracious reader and read many books from the political left, these books being readily available at the home of two of his friends.
   
   While roughly the first half of the book is chronological, the chapters in the second half are topic oriented, such as the one devoted to Chavez's relationships with women. The departure from chronology is not much of a problem, but it did distract me earlier in the book when his second wife, Marisabel, was mentioned in passing, then mentioned again as an ex-wife -- all before she'd been introduced to the reader. I was suprised so little was written about the actual campaign leading up to the 1998 presidential election. We read that Chavez is polling at only 7% and then, before you know it, he is being sworn into office, his support having somehow risen to 56%. The 2002 coup attempt was of course covered, and here I felt the authors were quite successful in describing it with impartiality.
   
   This book was originally written in Spanish by the two Venezuelan journalists in 2004, updated in December 2006, and translated into English in 2007. It is packed with interesting quotes about Chavez from friends, foes, and family, and the authors took great pains to point out the quotees' biases toward Chavez, often using descriptive phrases such as "friend of Chavez" or "opponent of the Chavez government." The authors also did a nice job selecting the 30+ photos included in the book.
   
   All in all, the authors did a good job of covering Chavez, and I liked the fact that they were Venezuelan and lived through the times and events described in the book.



2. I bought this book for information for a twenty page college paper on Hugo Chavez, largely on the reccomendation of The Economist. This book was extremely helpful in providing me with an insight into Chavez's personality and potential motives. What I found most interesting was that it demolished the notion of an oil-intoxicated buffoon and replaced it with a shrewd, calculating leader who has mastered the art of theatrics for his own purposes. The authors make a strong case for regarding none of the contreversial president's actions as accidental or the rantings of a madman without sounding like conspiracy types. That being said, they also show a man with a highly unstable personality: volitile, manic,insecure, and in desperate need of affection. Chavez, by their telling, seems to be the product of a brilliant madness, one that produces a control freak who very well knows how to gain the control he needs. The book does not make this argument as carelessly as some; it draws extensively from interviews with those who knew him from childhood, or met him in the army, or through politics. The effect is that the anecdotes vividly potray the transformation from the poor llanero to the conteversial president bashing the rich while dressed in fine Italian suits. As has been stated by a previous reviewer, the book is not a political analysis, but understanding Chavez is crucial to understanding his politics. There is, for him, little seperation between personality and politics. I highly reccomend this book to anyone seeking an in-depth potrayel of the Venezuelan president.



3. this was an interesting biography. the first half of the book does get too involved with names, places, and dates; making it seem like technical reading. however, it does give the impression of an honest attempt to not only portray the man, but to also ponder the question of which way he's taking the country. the authors of the book seem somewhat comfortable with the view that what he says is popularist propaganda in an artistic sense. what hugo does - lives exhorbantly, travels in a giant airbus plane, nepotism for his entire family - leads to the conclusion that the attractions of power and wealth have truly taken over. his friend may be fidel castro, but unlike fidel, he likes money - a whole lot!

No comments about The Legacy of Andrew Jackson: Essays on Democracy, Indian Removal and Slavery (Walter Lynwood Fleming Lectures in Southern History).

1 comments about General Ulysses S. Grant: The Soldier and the Man.

1. A very good overview of Grant's early life thru to the end of the Civil War. Well balanced, points out both the strengths and weaknesses of the man. Dispells the myth of indifference attributed to Grant concerning casualties. Edward Longacre show's Grant's mistakes and how he learned from them. While other generals caved to political pressure, Grant worked to end the war inspite of criticizism and bad press. A soldier worthy of the stars he wore. At the same time it shows Grant's weakness for liquior that could have destroyed him and led to a longer war with a different outcome and continued losses. Not an indepth study, but deep enough to encourage the reader to find more information about the subject. A great starting point for the student of the Civil War interested in Grant.

1 comments about Lincoln: The Presidential Archives.

1. Lincoln: The Presidential Archives, Chuck Wills, Dorling Kindersley Publications, 160 pp, b/w photographs, watercolor maps, bibliography, ephemera, September 2007.
   
   If you wish to hold reproductions of Lincoln's elementary mathematics notebook, the Lincoln-Todd marriage license, Lincoln's letter to Sheilds outlining the terms of their forthcoming duel, Lincoln's patent application, the first piece of mail delivered by the Pony Express from St. Joseph, Missouri to Julesburg, Rocky Mountains, Mary Todd Lincoln's letter from NYC to her husband in which she asks for more cash, the telegram from Tammany Hall to Lincoln informing him of the Draft Riots and many more documents, then this splendid book is for you.
   
   Not just a collection of paper documents, but also a fine biography with period photographs, maps, and illustrations on every other page, Lincoln: The Presidential Archives, is a wonderful book. In particular, rare photographs of Denton Offut's store where Lincoln clerked, the Lincoln and Berry store, and the Edwards' house in which the Abraham and Mary were wed are published.
   
   The book's heavy and glossy paper and a strong binding allows the book to stay open at every page. Lincoln: The Presidential Archives is both an attractive coffee table book and a 'hands-on' biography. The narrative contents are well organized and the eight sturdy, opaque, full-page envelopes that hold the reproductions have a paper flap that allows for easy removal and return of the reproduction documents.
   
   Lincoln: The Presidential Archives is worth every penny and will be a welcomed gift for any Lincoln enthusiast, Civil War buff, American history reader or social science teacher.

5 comments about Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History.

1. Dr. Diggins seems to be an erudite, intelligent man who put some serious time into researching his book. The other reviewers have rightly praised his efforts to look at Reagan through the lense of history and not idealogy, and for his ranking of Reagan with Roosevelt and Lincoln among our greatest presidents.
   
   At the same time, I must confess that having recently read the Reagan Diaries as well as other books dealing with the Reagan legacy like Victory, Bill Bennett's recent second history volume, Reagan "In His Own Hand" etc., I must find that some of the conclusions drawn in this book diverge from the facts and tread familiar academic paths of thought about our great President.
   
   The final negotiations that ended the Cold War occured PRECISELY because Reagan worked on every front to thwart the Soviets. This included Bill Casey flying all over the world covertly, actions to stop Soviet technology acquisition, efforts to make them spend money they didn't have on defense, and a lot more. Reagan mentions anti-communist efforts on a daily basis in the diaries. Also, the preposterous comment that Reagan did nothing to support Solidarity is false on its face - not making speeches about something (even though he did) does not mean inaction. Again, his diaries reveal many efforts on behalf of Solidarity, and Walesa himself gives Reagan great credit for his support. The fact remains that Reagan didn't alter or change his demands on the Soviets when Gorbachev came to power - the final agreement reached was the US STARTING POSITION on disarmement years earlier. His strong stance in negotiations and the arms build up (laughably described as starting under the Carter administration in the book - are you kidding?) drove the Soviets to the table because they literally could not afford to fight anymore. Fighting them on every front was intended from the beginning to realize this result. It is as Reagan described before he became President - his view of the cold war was "we win and they lose".
   
   On a philosophical point, Diggins rightly remarks that Reagan often acted against the conservatives of his time's wishes. This does not make him somehow "less" conservative - just proven right in the argument. All idealogies are constantly in these debates, and Reagan comments on his reviews on the right constantly in his diaries as well, since he was such an avid reader of their writings. Just because the greatest conservative of the last fifty years didn't agree with every midget wonk at National Review or in congress is a comment on the midgets, not him. The line between "classical" and contemporary liberalism also seems to blur in his discussions. Yes, many current conservative thoughts on freedom and liberty are classicly liberal views (as many liberal statist views are classicly conservative), the modern distinctions are all that really matter in current discussion.
   
   I started to read this book with great enthusiasm, as its take on Reagan seemed fresh and interesting, but as I saw conclusion after conclusion follow other tired academic views on Reagan and contradict what I had read him say in his own hand were his views and thoughts, I found it ultimately unhelpful.



2. The dust jacket of this biography claims that John Patrick Diggins is one of America's "most interesting intellectual historians". This description gets two things right - Mr. Diggins is interesting, and Mr. Diggins is undoubtedly a historian. Whether he is much of an intellectual is another matter.
   
   Mr. Diggins' thesis is a peculiar and engaging one - that Reagan is one of the greatest Presidents of our nation, and also one of the most Emersonian, classically liberal Presidents of our time. Diggins, however, does not quite manage to provide definitive proof for either claim, though he does a better job of proving Reagan's intellectual roots than of proving his greatness. The reason for this failure, unfortunately, is not a problem with Diggins' scholarship, but rather an unfortunate case of self-sabotage which begins to show in the latter half of the book. During this section, one wonders if Diggins himself doubts his own thesis. In fact, one wonders if Diggins actually wanted to write a book with said thesis, or if the original argument he wanted to make was as follows: "Ronald Reagan is not a conservative, but even if he was, conservatives can't beat communism in the long run, anyway. Ha ha ha. Neener neener neener."
   
   To this end, many passages within the book are unabashedly, obnoxiously didactic. In fact, one often feels as though one is reading a philosophical essay meant to impugn the purity of American conservatism, rather than a biography of a conservative figure. One of the more absurd of these moments comes near the very end, when Diggins tries to impugn Reagan's conservatism by contrasting his vision with that of Edmund Burke. There are two problems with this analysis - firstly, Diggins misinterprets Burke's quote about the necessity of restraint for rights as implying that a paternalistic government is required to stop people from being greedy. What Burke was actually talking about, of course, was the tendency of people to believe they have a right to everything they want - a dangerous tendency, which often leads to things like the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which contradicts itself numerous times). The second problem with this analysis, however, is that Mr. Diggins is assuming that conservatism's nature has not changed at all since Edmund Burke. It is not as though Burke sat down and wrote out a "Constitution of Conservatism". Many conservative thinkers, in fact, believe that deriving a contemporary position from Edmund Burke's writings is impossible. It doesn't help, of course, that Burke was from England, and the conservative tradition in England is almost completely non-applicable to America.
   
   Furthermore, Diggins seems determined to convince his audience that Reagan was not really all that religious, as though there is something shameful in one of our greatest presidents being religious. Diggins also seems fixated on Reagan's fiscal policy, which he often links with the words "greed" and "selfishness." Finally, though Diggins initially credits Reagan with ending the cold war, he later throws in backhanded implications that it had more to do with Gorbachev than Reagan. It is as though Diggins wrote his thesis that Reagan was one of our greatest Presidents and then choked on it and had to go back and assure his readers that while Reagan was one of our greatest Presidents, he was still the selfish, shortsighted clod that Academics envision him to be.
   
   The existence of these flaws is unfortunate, because the book is historically excellent and so readable that it almost rivals a Harry Potter novel. Ultimately, I must recommend the book, with reservation. I give Mr. Diggins three stars for interesting history, and no stars for his intellectual pretensions. It is a pity. If Mr. Diggins had the courage to stick to his original thesis rather than frantically reassure his audience that he was not one of those awful Reagan-loving freaks, we might be reading the best Reagan biography yet.



3. There is already a vast amount of literature on the life of Ronald Reagan, and it shows no sign of abating. The 40th President of the United States is a continuing subject of fascination as the man who reasserted his country's superpower dominance, engineering the fall of communism and the end of the Cold War.
   
   His domestic policies, dominated by his passionate belief in small government and the ability of individuals to shape their own destinies, earned him the enmity of liberals, yet even on his own side of politics he is not the unquestioned hero as for example his contemporary, Margaret Thatcher, is among British conservatives.
   
   I recall a conversation with a retired American diplomat who preferred the unsuccessful 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater as the true founder of the modern conservative movement in the US, dismissing Reagan as an opportunist, a former Democrat who could see the way the wind was blowing, jumping on the bandwagon in the right place at the right time.
   
   John Patrick Diggins seeks to dismiss this argument. For him Reagan deserves to be rated alongside George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt as one of the greatest presidents of all time. He believes history will vindicate Reagan in the same way it did Lincoln, whose reputation was besmirched for many decades after his death, but more about that relationship later.
   
   The problem that Diggins and any other biographer of Reagan face is proximity. As the author states with some exasperation in the bibliographical notes, more than 80 per cent of the material in the presidential library remains classified and can be obtained only through the laborious and often unsuccessful method of applying under the Freedom of Information Act.
   
   Undeterred, he turns to other sources, notably the evidence emerging from Soviet archives of the relationship with the Soviet Union's last President, Mikhail Gorbachev, as well as the burgeoning amount of literature discussing the origins behind the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union two years after Reagan left office.
   
   The result is a scholarly, meticulously-researched book that seeks to understand not just the president of the 1980s, but the film actor of the 30s, 40s and 50s, the California Governor of the 60s and 70s and the man who passionately believed in a new beginning for his country - a rebirth that came to be called "Morning in America".
   
   For Diggins, the man who took office in January 1981 had three dragons to slay: the nuclear arms race that threatened the world with extinction; the expanding welfare state that increased dependency and lowered self-esteem and the third, most controversially "a joyless religious inheritance that told people their kingdom was not of this world and they needed to be careful about pursuing happiness in case they enjoyed it".
   
   This was hardly the language that the increasingly influential religious right would have wanted to hear but Reagan could see no conflict in embracing the rewards of this world - after all, it was what trade unions had been advocating for their members for half a century. He may have been ushering in the decade of Wall Street and `Greed is Good', but it is the author's insistence that the president wanted Americans to enjoy the pursuit of wealth and not be ashamed of the bounty they accumulated. It was, Diggins asserts, a necessary step in order to restore Americans' confidence in themselves after the debacle of the Vietnam War, Watergate, the Iran hostages humiliation and a decade of economic malaise.
   
   Diggins does not hold back on the obvious black marks of the Reagan presidency, most notably the Iran Contra scandal, occurring deep into Reagan's second term and at least partially resorting from the arrogance that comes from years of unbroken power.
   
   As with the Nixon presidency 15 years previously, there had been the subtle growth of a macho `can do' culture with little regard for moral or ethical objections. The difference being that Reagan quickly shouldered the blame in a televised mea culpa address in which the Great Communicator was at his best: "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not...what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated in its implementation into trading arms for hostages."
   
   I take issue with the final chapter in which the author seeks to link Reagan even closer to Lincoln by likening Reagan's battle against communism to Lincoln's struggle to free the slaves. It is for readers to follow Diggin's closely argued reasoning and come to their conclusions, but the fact is Lincoln went to war not to free slaves but to save the Union and that the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 was a ploy to turn foreign opinion against the Confederacy and disrupt it internally at a time when the conflict was going badly for the North.
   
   However, it is certainly worth noting that the Cold War was won bloodlessly while the Civil War resulted in the deaths of more Americans than have been killed in all conflicts combined in the century-and-a-half since.
   
   There are times when this book stumbles into academic denseness, and I am unconvinced that Diggins has made his case for Reagan to be elevated to the heights of the presidential pantheon, but for those seeking an insight into the mind of the man who radically altered the face of American politics, it is to be recommended.



4. For the most part, the biographies that have been written about Ronald Reagan in the years since he left office have suffered from one of two defects. Either they have been overly critical and dismissive and failed to grasp the truly revolutionary aspects of the Reagan Presidency, or they have been overly worshipful, something more akin to adulation than real scholarship. In both cases, the differing interpretations of Reagan have likely been based on ideological differences and political resentments of the 1980s and beyond.In Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History, John Patrick Diggins takes a worthy first step toward moving beyond either the worshipful or the hate-filled evaluations of the Reagan Presidency and gives America's 40th President the respectful, if not always positive, evaluation that he deserves.
   
   Reagan's singular achievement, Diggins argues, was the role he played in bringing a peaceful end to the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. Though he came into the White House with a promise to rebuild the American military and confronted what his advisers contended were Soviet-sponsored regimes in nations ranging from Nicaragua to Angola, it's clear that, very early in his Administration, if not before then, Reagan became committed to the idea of drastically reducing, if not eliminating, nuclear weapons.
   
   Much to the consternation of his neo-conservative foreign policy team, Reagan made overtures to the Soviets as early as April 1981, when he wrote a letter to Leonid Brezhnev while recovering from an assassination attempt. The Brezhnev dialog never went anywhere, largely because Brezhnev was apparently too stubborn and too ill to actually pursue serious negotiations. Similarly, the short-lived reigns of his two immediate successors made pursuing peace impossible. As Reagan himself once quipped, "They keep dying on me."
   
   It was only with the rise to power of Mikhail Gorbachev, who required reduced tensions with the U.S. to pursue his ultimately doomed strategy of reforming Communism, that Reagan was able to pursue his desire to bring both countries out of the horrifying doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction.
   
   One interesting thing that Diggins' book brings out is the extent to which many of Reagan's conservative supporters became convinced in the late 1980s that their leader had sold America down the river. Many of the same people who, on the occasion of his funeral in 2004, lionized him as the man who had "won" the Cold War. Among the critics were William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, and Henry Kissinger, all of whom seemed convinced at the time that the Cold War and the tensions with the USSR were a permanent and irreversible fact (Jeane Kirkpatrick had in fact said as much in her writings prior to being named U.N. Ambassador).
   
   Reagan, Diggins, argued, never accepted the neo-conservative view of history and rejected the idea that the Cold War was a permanent fact of life that could only end with an exchange of nuclear missiles that would destroy both nations, if not most of the civilized world. In fact, rather than being a true conservative, Diggins persuasively argues that Reagan was really more of a traditional old-style liberal, what we would today call a libertarian, and that his ideas were influenced more by the libertarianism of Thomas Paine and the romanticism of Ralph Waldo Emerson than conservative hero Edmund Burke. While Reagan courted social conservatives and neo-cons, he did not share their views on the inherent sinfulness and fallibility of man.
   
   Diggins goes criticize some aspects of Reagan's record, most notably, in the domestic sphere, and he rightly criticizes him for the mis-handling of the Iran Contra affair. But, like I said, this is a biography not a hagiography. On the whole, though, Diggins does an excellent job of rescuing our 40th President from his detractors and his worshipers. Hopefully, other historians will follow suit.



5. "Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom and the Making of History" is a philosophical study of Ronald Reagan and his place in history. It is not a true biography but employs biographical details to support its points.
   
   Through much of this book I was unsure whether its purpose was to praise Reagan or to debunk his myth. Author John Patrick Diggins cites facts about Reagan to dispute many of the conventional wisdoms about him. He claims that Reagan was not as conservative or as hawkish as is widely believed. He delves into Reagan's days with General Electric, his confrontations with campus radicals in Sacramento, negotiations with Gorbachev, his flirtations with Nicaraguan Contras and Jonas Savimbi of Angola. He presents Reagan as an Emersonian idealist whose distrust of big government guided his political career. At times it is not clear whether Diggins is concluding that Reagan is a hero or a failure. Ultimately he finds Lincolnesque qualities in his subject.
   
   This is not a first book for one searching for the Reagan lore. For biographies, look elsewhere. After you have absorbed those, look here for a deeper dip into the philosophical underpinnings of the Reagan Revolution.

1 comments about FDR: Nothing to Fear.

1. This is a great book. FDR may be a favorite of yours or not, regardless his speeches desereve to be read. FDR was an inspirational speaker who moved the masses with his words. He has left us with many timeless and priceless quotes that can be found in the speeches featured in this book. I would highly recommend this book to any one looking for a boost in confidence. FDR's words make you feel like anything is possible. Remember "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself".

3 comments about Abraham Lincoln: Man Behind the Myths, The.

1. We invented Abraham Lincoln. Not the man, of course, but the myth, that solemn and statuesque giant memorialized eternally overlooking the Capitol mall. The power of that myth and the quiet dignity of its personage dwarfs us all. But the myth is not the man. Myths never are. Stephen Oates in his _Abraham Lincoln, The Man Behind the Myths_, does not seek to diminish the man but rather to clarify him, separating the mythos from the mortal. And it is not an undaunting task, it seems, for overly soon after Lincoln's tragic end the mills began to churn. The public's shredding of the White House interior for mementos while Mary Lincoln lay debilitated in the next room seems symbolic of the wolfpack mentality in Washington even today. And every new memoir published by another family acquaintance of the Lincoln's almost always got it wrong, and tore anew at the heart of the family. We may not have memorialized and glorified our modern-day tragic heroes to such an extent, for we have simultaneously tried to scandalize them. But the tabloid trade it seems has always been a yellow paper. Even Lincoln was vilified in his time and after. He was, Oates, reminds us, one of the most unpopular living presidents of our history. But though the legacy ballooned to heroic proportions after his passing, the man seems to have been lost in it all, remaining only in the hearts of the family leaving quietly and unattended down the steps of the White House never to return.



2. As an amateur genealogist I discovered that I was a sixth cousin, five times removed to President Abraham Lincoln through the Lincoln and Holmes families. On page 21 ( Abraham Lincoln, The man Behind The Myths ) Mr. Oates wrote that there was a mistaken belief that Thomas Lincoln was not Abraham's real father rather it was a Senator John C. Calhoun or a Henry Clay. If this was true it would mean that I was not related to President Abraham Lincoln. How would such a rumour start ? Is there any documented evidence that Nancy Lincoln had an affair with one of these men while being married to Thomas Lincoln. At the time I am trying to locate Stephen B. Oates so I can get this matter cleared up. Sincerely, Mr. Blair E. Bartlett, 87 Shillington Road, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada, E2J 4K7 1-506-696-6175



3. In this small but valuable volume, Oates explores the reality beyond the two sources of Lincoln myth: the primary myth of a saintly and folkloric Lincoln of Carl Sandburg and a secondary myth of the 'white honky' Lincoln of the 1970's revisionists. Oates emphasizes that Lincoln drew deeply upon the "spirit of his age", which was a profoundly revolutionary time across the world. Oates relates how Lincoln absorbed one of the core lessons of America from the example of Henry Clay: : "in this country one can scarcely be so poor, but that, if he will, he can acquire sufficient education to get through the world respectably".
   
   That slavery was the cause of the Civil War is beyond all doubt. As Oates explains, however, the North did not go to war to free the slaves. In the standard phrasing, the North went to war to 'preserve the union'. Oates explores Lincoln's fears that the spread of slavery in the wake of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision would lead to the destruction of democratic society. The debate then still raged on the world stage whether a republican form of government could last. Lincoln rejected the "ingenious sophism" that states could freely leave the Union. "With rebellion thus sugar coated [southern leaders] have been drugging the public mind of their section for more than thirty years." Secession posed nothing less than a final challenge to popular government. If a minority could destroy the government any time it felt aggrieved, then no government could endure. Thus the war had to be fought to preserve not just the American Republic, but the possibility of republican government.
   
   Lincoln did in fact oppose slavery from early on. His views on racial matters apart from slavery became more fully progressive over time. Lincoln, however, hoped that slavery would slowly melt away in a losing competition with free labor and that liberated slaves would resettle in Africa. It is part of Lincoln's greatness that he later gave up these views. Oates explores this evolution in his thinking. Oates debunks the notion that the Emancipation Proclamation was unimportant in liberating the slaves. Oates also refutes the notion that Lincoln would have favored an easy hand during Reconstruction. On the contrary, the evidence strongly suggests he would have led the so-called Radical Republicans.
   
   Highly recommended for any reader with an interest in Lincoln, the Civil War era, or really pretty much any American.

3 comments about Herndon's Informants: Letters, Interviews, and Statements about Abraham Lincoln.

1. In the preface to his "Life of Lincoln", William Herndon expounded that when writing the history of Lincoln's early life "the whole truth concerning him should be known" and there should be "nothing colored or suppressed." Having set the standard Herndon failed to follow it, for there were something's even Herndon must have felt should not be put into print. Scholars wishing to explore Lincoln's early life beyond the insights offered by Herndon's biography had to turn to examining the letters and notes collected for over a twenty year period by himself and his collaborator Jesse Weik. This often proved to be a daunting task. As the editor's in their introduction noted even though available on Micro roll film specific documents are "very hard to locate" and even if located are "very hard to read." To further complicate matters the index to the Herndon collection prepared by the Library of Congress is "neither accurate nor complete." What Editors Douglas L. Wilson and Rodney O. Davis have done in their "Herndon's Informants" is to transcribe all of the known Herndon, Weik letters and notes into a readable and properly indexed Documentary Edition. What they have also done is create a masterpiece of scholarship that will be used by students of Lincoln for decades to come. "Herndon's Informants" offers the student the complete Herndon collection, unabridged and un-editorialized. To anyone who has a strong interest in learning more about Lincoln's early life this is just about all that is available and it simply must become a part of your personal library.



2. Forget authors, historians with agendas. Read what the people who actually knew Abraham Lincoln said about him.
   
   Before Lincoln's body was cold, William Herndon, Lincoln's law partner for 17 years and friend for longer, began interviewing Lincoln's friends, family members, enemies, acquaintances, neighbors, etc. His goal was to collect as much information as possible about his friend, so he could write a completely truthful biography. "Warts and all" Herndon said. Unfortunately, Herndon soon realized he could not use some of the information he collected because it was very personal and Lincoln's image would be tarnished. Fortunately, some of this information he could not use you will find in this book. While 98% of this book contains very interesting information about all aspects of Lincoln's life. It is the remaining 2%, the unsavory stuff, that is so fascinating! For instance, I was surprised to read about the number of Lincoln's friends who told stories about Lincoln's involvement with prostitutes (before his marriage). Some friends even speculate about Lincoln maybe having one or two illegitimate children. This book contains information I never learned in school about Lincoln!



3. With Herndon's Informants Douglas L. Wilson and Rodney O. Davis have made a tremendous contribution to Lincoln scholarship. Much of what we know of Lincoln's pre-presidential years, especially, was compiled through interviews and correspondence by Lincoln's last law partner William H. Herndon. Although many of these items were published decades ago in Emanuel Hertz's anthology The Hidden Lincoln, that collection's limitations have long frustrated Lincoln students. The only alternative was the expensive and awkward-to-use microfilm verison of Herndon's papers available from the Library of Congress.
   
   Now, however, Wilson and Davis have made this treasure trove of firsthand information available in an affordable and convenient format. Moreover, they have carefully tried to reproduce texts exactly, retaining oddities of spelling and punctuation, a feature entertaining to ordinary readers and valuable to scholars. The book's presentation of documents in chronological order is welcome. Scholars will probably be the main consumers using this product.
   
   This volume is a major contribution to Lincoln studies.

No comments about Abraham Lincoln: Great American Historians on Our Sixteenth President.

2 comments about Homes and Libraries of the Presidents - Third Edition ( & Libraries of the Presidents).

1. I didn't read the entire book, and most people I would guess also wouldn't read it cover to cover. This book is more like a travel guide to the burial sites, libraries, and birth homes of the presidents. I was interested in the book to see if there were any presidential sites near me (there are only 2), so the usefulness of this book was limited by the fact that I cannot visit 99% of the places discussed. For each of the presidents the author gives a brief snapshot of the person. There is about 1-2 pages devoted to each of the `lesser known' presidents and about 5-10 pages for the likes of Washington, Lincoln, etc. You are also given travel information - city/street maps to locate the places (which aren't very helpful), and museum hours, admissions, etc. The best part of the book were the color photos of the presidents' homes and the US map that shows the distribution of the presidential monuments. I'm not really sure I even get the purpose of this book - it doesn't offer any information that is new or interesting. I wouldn't recommend this book because all of the information it contains can be found with far better accuracy and depth on the Internet; via the museum or library websites you would get much more background information about the President you need information on with up-to-date info on hours, admissions, etc. *This review is for the 1995 edition*



2. Presidents don't just drop off the face of the earth when their term ends! "Homes and Libraries of the Presidents" takes a look at the homes, libraries, and other endeavors of the presidents. In a newly revised third addition, Homes and Libraries of the Presidents" contains new information that is promoted as less than a week old when the book went to press. A must for anyone looking for the most up to date information possible on the post-administration lives of the presidents, "Homes and Libraries of the Presidents" is highly recommended for community library reference shelves.