5 comments about Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life.

1. In 1939, Dwight Eisenhower was a field grade oficer with a career stuck essentially in neutral in the interwar U.S. Army. By 1945, Eisenhower was a five star general and commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force that liberated Western Europe and in conjunction with the Armies of the Soviet Union, brought about the final defeat of Nazi Germany. Carlo D'Este's highly readable biography describes that remarkable journey.
   
   "Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life," after a brief prologue on Eisenhower's youth, focuses entirely on Eisenhower's long career in uniform. Eisenhower's progression defies easy description. He was afforded few opportunities to command early in his career, but often excelled as a staff officer, culminating in a long tenure with Douglas MacArthur during his time as Army Chief of Staff and in the pre-war Philippines. As the Second World War approached, Eisenhower began to step through a succession of tough jobs, including time on the Army Staff, as Commander in North Africa and Sicily, and finally as Commander at SHAEF.
   
   D'Este resists drawing large conclusions about Eisenhower's success, but it seems clear from the narrative that Eisenhower was not a classic battlefield general. Instead, he was a superbly talented organizer and manager, with the strategic depth of thought to plan the defeat of Germany and the personal and political skills to get a variety of generals and politicians to work together towards that end. Eisenhower was to a significant degree the public face of that effort, and his aw shucks public personna nicely matched that requirement. Most significantly, Eisenhower enjoyed the confidence of George Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff throughout the war.
   
   D'Este's narrative brings out the high price Eisenhower paid for success, repeatedly worn to exhaustion by long hours and by the requirement to sublimate his ego to get the most of often more experienced, egotistical, and competitive officers. We see Ike as a person, missing his wife and son, spending long hours on the job consuming too much coffee and too many cigarettes, carefully juggling all his responsibilities.
   
   D'Este declines to become decisively engaged in the many controversies of Eisenhower's career in Europe, whether over the broad front approach to Germany or the decision to cede the capture of Berlin to the Russians. D'Este does bring out the difficult circumstances and competing demands under which Eisenhower make those decisions.
   
   This book is highly recommended to those interested in a highly readable book about Eisenhower's military career.



2. I am a student of World War II having read scores of books on the subject and I discovered not only many interesting facts that were new to me about this man but also that his legend may be a bit larger than his life. Although I still think Eisenhower was a great leader who was probably the best man for the job of Supreme Allied Commander in the European theater, D'Este reveals him to be someone who struggled near the edge of breakdown to meet the horrendous challenges that were continually set before him. Like many acclaimed leaders of history, he seemed to be swept along by circumstances he was typically ill-equipped to handle. D'Este portrays him as an intrinsically good and moral man whose virtuous attributes may have helped him keep his job more than anything he actually did. Even the famous, though controversial, British Field Commander Bernard Montgomery genuinely liked him, although the feelings were probably not mutual.
   
   Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life recounts Eisenhower's life from birth to the end of WW II and gives insights to where and from whom he learned the things that would eventually aid him in his future life-defining role. D'Este's biography reads like a fast-paced novel and you find yourself disappointed at watching the unread side of the 700 plus pages dwindle. I highly recommend this book!



3. Carlo D'Este's "Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life" is a serious tome, clocking in at 848 pp. But does size matter? In this case very little of the nearly 850 pages is at all wasted or squandered. D'Este's has contributed several significant works to the Second World War genre in his career and "Eisenhower" is not exception. While this reviewer picked up "Eisenhower" with the expressed purpose of seeing what D'Este's had to say about strategic controversies in which Ike was embroiled in NW Europe, mainly those surrounding the 'broad vs. narrow front' arguments between Ike and Monty. Unfortunately D'Este's provided little new insight into or interpretation of these topics. Fortunately, this reviewer was treated to a plethora of information as regards Ike as a man, family member, husband, soldier and commander.
   
   D'Este's breaks down his treatise into eight separate sections: I) The Eisenhowers, 1741-1909; II) The Accidental Soldier, 1910-16; III) World War I, 1917-19; IV) The Interwar Years, 1920-39; V) The United States Prepares for War, 1940-42; VI) A General's Education: The Mediterranean, 1942-43; VII) The Invasion of Europe, 1944; VIII) Crisis in Command: Normandy to the Elbe, 1944-45. As should be obvious from the title, section I discusses the familial history of Ike, and in many ways sets thee tone for the rest of the story - clearly Ike's upbringing and family 'baggage' influenced his outlook on life and war. Given what we learn about Ike and his immediate family (most notably the family lack of money and connection to allow Ike to attend college) it should not be surprising that, despite his mother's strong pacifist beliefs, that Ike chose to enter the US Armed Services in order to go to college? What was new information to this reviewer was the fact that Ike really wished to go to Annapolis rather than West Point, but attended the latter because that was the option open to him; certainly an 'accidental soldier' in more than one way! Sections III-V focus on the early military career of Ike, much of it spent in frustration at not being part of combat action, rather watching the years go by in various staff positions. What becomes clear to the reader is that these sundry of positions provided Ike with much of the necessary administrative 'schooling' that was later to pay dividends to the Allies when he took the reins as Supreme Commander. Section VI can be thought of as representing the critical turning point in Ike's illustrious career as a military commander. He got his first true taste of command of field troops and made his first set of mistakes that refined further his command style that would be employed in NW Europe (and of which he would take components to the White House). This section is also important in that it defines many of the important relationships Ike forged during the Second World War, especially those with our British allies. Sections VII and VIII represent the sections likely most familiar in content to the average WWII genre reader. Yet D'Este's provide enough flair and interpretation to these sections to make them important in their own right.
   
   "Eisenhower" is a massive piece of work that is not for the feint of heart - if long reads are not your thing "Eisenhower" will not be high on your list. If however such things are not bothersome to you and you wish to learn more about one of the most important figures of thee Second World War (a judgment made independent of whether one believes Ike was a great leader or not) this may be a book you should track down. D'Este's is a historian of some note and this work is of similar high quality as others he has penned. Recommended for the serious and curious alike. 4.5 stars.
   



4. This massive biography of Dwight Eisenhower, focusing on his life up until World War II's end (705 pages of text), is a major investment of time--but well worth it. A major strength of this work is the nuanced analysis of Ike, both his strengths and his weaknesses. He had many flaws, but he also had certain character traits that served the nation and the allies well.
   
   The author says of Eisenhower (page 5): "The path from the poverty of turn-of-the-century Abilene, Kansas, to supreme Allied commander was as improbable as it was spectacular." Eisenhower, in short, advanced far further in his military career than almost anyone could have guessed. This volume tries to explain that and to assess his work.
   
   The book is divided into several parts. The first examines the background of the family, from 1741-1909. Part II focuses on "The Accidental Soldier." Ike really had no clear career goals after high school. At the advice of family friends, he worked to get into the military. He finally was admitted to West Point. His career at West Point is outlined (not distinguished, not bad).
   
   During the years of World War I, he missed combat action. Instead, he was involved in training troops. During this time, he also became involved in the development of tanks as weapon systems. On page 137, D'Este notes that "During the rush to return soldiers to civilian life, an appeal was made to induce enough men to form the nucleus of a postwar tank corps to remain on active duty." Eisenhower was one of those.
   
   Part IV examines the interwar years and Eisenhower's role. General Fox Connor took Ike under his wing. Over this period, he became a valued staff officer. In 1933 he (page 217), ". . .commenced what would be nearly seven years as a staff officer and principal assistant to [General Douglas] MacArthur in Washington and Manila." It was not the best of times for Eisenhower, given MacArthur's and his disagreements. He returned to the United States.
   
   Part V focuses on the preparation for war, from 1940-1942. Ike's role was not to be what he desired--combat action. He was coveted for staff support. After seemingly improbable events, Eisenhower became the chief American army commander in North Africa (Part VI outlines his Mediterranean career). There were many frustrations--including working with a variety of prima donnas, from George Patton to Bernard Montgomery. Things started off dismally in North Africa for the American forces, although the troops grew with experience. Then, Sicily and the unfortunate showdown with Patton after his mistreatment of a soldier..
   
   Part VII examines the invasion of Europe and the immense toll that this took on Eisenhower. Part VIII considers the breakout from Normandy to victory.
   
   The book illustrates Ike's weaknesses--lack of command experience, poor record in a number of operations (Anzio and Arnhem, for example), having to spend much of his time trying to negotiate between different commanders with very different views and often letting politics determine the outcome (e.g., Patton versus Montgomery). On the other hand, his patience and diplomacy kept fractious generals working together.
   
   The book makes us aware of his failings--but also his successes. He was a complex person and his record is not an unalloyed success. But he may have been the right person to lead the Allied forces in the later years of World War II in Europe.
   
   All in all, a very strong biography.



5. This is a very difficult book to properly evaluate. Well researched and certainly well written, it is definitely a worthwhile read for those interested in learning about Ike and his European command (ETO). However, one should take D'Este's work with a grain of salt. As a history teacher and a Vietnam veteran, I have studied WWII for the last thirty years and I just don't agree with many of his conclusions and opinions, especially his obviously pro-British attitude. Montgomery was a good general if he happened to outnumber his enemy by ten to one in men, tanks, and aircraft like he did against Rommel in N. Africa, but he wasn't a great one and he certainly wasn't a loyal subordinate. Moreover, I don't think Bradley, Hodges, and Ike were that inapt and out of their league, unless one happens to agree with the British viewpoint. Much like today's television news media, D'Este just doesn't tell the whole story, and what he does tell is rather slanted, misinterpreted, and apologetic.

5 comments about Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter's Story.

1. Although Isikoff is a bit overzealous, he does bring some shocking personality traits of Bill Clinton into light. "Uncovering Clinton" is told in story form and keeps you interested.



2. Isikoff is able to pull off something unusual, not getting placed into the loop of "Bill-Haters". He tells the story with much facts and gives us an excellent view of the players in this drama (L. Tripp, M. Lewinsky, V. Jordan, R. Bennett, B. Clinton, P. Jones, B. Currie). I learned about the "vast conspiracy against WJC", but was disappointed in the lack of any info regarding Hillary. Obviously, she was tangental to the story, but it would have been nice. There was a earlier comment about Isikoff not taking an attorney to task over a blatent lie (Obviously not the first in this case). I would tend to be a bit more charitable: I think Isikoff had an error in judgement. I believe overall Isikoff acted with a great deal of integrity... Far more than you could say about the ex-president.



3. The fifth anniversary of the Monica Lewinsky scandal came and went without little media coverage or public reaction. People seem to have forgotten how the whole world briefly revolved around a blue dress and Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff.

   It is a safe bet Isikoff hasn't forgotten.

   The title and author's name appear in equal size type along the spine of Uncovering Clinton/A Reporter's Story. This technical touch is an appropriate tribute to Isikoff's monumental ego. The reporter's megalomania is on display from the first page to the acknowledgements; one two-page footnote is dedicated to a relatively inconsequential detail that involves Iskoff. The journalist is pretty full of himself.

   So why give such a vanity project three stars? The answer lies in the epilogue. The last pages of Uncovering Clinton probably best summarize the scandal and subsequent impeachment and acquittal of Clinton more than anything written at the time or since. One line about the press coverage, in particular, stands out:

   "Sometimes the best stuff comes from the most unpleasant people."

   Isikoff's summation is dead on.

   Few heroes are to be found here. The "most unpleasant people" make the best sources, the best investigators, the best villians, the best liars, the best conspirators, and the best characters. New details emerge in these pages about Matt Drudge, Sidney Blumenthal, Lucianne Goldberg, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and assorted others, but none are rehabilitated by the fresh information. President Clinton is oddly absent from most pages. Yet when Clinton does appear he is a dark and furtive figure.

   Iskioff, apparently unwittingly, portrays himself as a reporter with an oversized ego and just enough grandiosity to see his work as always for the greater good. Oddly, Paula Jones comes across as a very sympathetic character. Isikoff finds a surprising degree of merit in Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton. On the other hand, Isikoff's acceptance of Kathleen Willey's dubious tale throws this and other observations into some question. The Betty Currie the author portrays is potentially more culpable than she appeared. Without actually stating it, Isikoff's outrage at cyber-muckraker Drudge is an acknowledgement of the transition from the old era of the Establishment press to the Internet age of instant information. Drudge's scoops are a portent of things to come.

   The book effectively is divided into three sections: the Jones lawsuit against the president, which started it all; the Willey accusation, which interjected Isikoff into the story; and the sexual scandal and subsequent cover-up that led to the president's impeachment. The author neatly ties them all together.

   As the title indicates, this is a reporter's story. Neither scholarly nor shallow, Uncovering Clinton chronicles how one egotistical and dogged journalist covered, and in the process helped shape, a historic event that most people seem eager to forget. Given the sordid calamity Isikoff describes, the public reaction is understandable---and regrettable.




4. Poor Michael Isikoff couldn't get a job at the more presigious World Weakly News, instead Newsweek hired him at a bargain rate. And it shows in this boring, half witted book that was written for feebs.



5. Isikoff takes the reader into the inner machinations of the Clinton White House. There is often a tendency to cricify reporters who write on such subject matter, administrations it seems, will continually try to thwart the efforts of dogged reporters. Such is one of the many cat and mouse games of Washington. I will not question Isakoff's authority as a journalist, he has apparently done the legwork and homework that could permit him to write this story. This story is a unique sidebar in the administration's attempts to keep scandal at bay by insighting more scandal, the notorious mistake of presidents past and present. History will determine Clinton's legacy, this book furnishes one of its blemishes.
   Review every book you read- authors deserve your opinions, not just elitist critics.

5 comments about A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy.

1. As the leading civilian authority on the U.S. Secret Service (and President Kennedy's interaction with the agency), I was much interested in this book by Thomas--not relation (thank God!) to Richard---Reeves. This is, quite simply, a hatchet job on JFK, and not a very good one: a better one (!) comes from the poison pen of Seymour Hersh, who at least had better sources and a keener insight. Avoid.
   
   vince palamara



2. Thomas C. Reeves' fine book lays bare the myth of "Camelot"-which the Kennedy family and its sycophants have tried to perpetuate since the day he was shot-as well as the myths surrounding the entire family, which is perhaps the most dysfunctional family ever to achieve significant political power in American history. Fortunately, for America, the Kennedy family's last gasps of any political significance are being uttered by Ted Kennedy, who would probably be finishing his prison term now instead of serving in the U.S. Senate, for having been responsible for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne in 1969, just as she was about to celebrate her 29th birthday.
   
   Today, few young Americans even know who John F. Kennedy was-or care about him-because less than a handful of his positive accomplishments had any lasting significance. Like William McKinley, the fact that an assassin cut short Kennedy's life and presidency might be all that Americans recall about him 50 years from now. More than 40 years after Kennedy's death, the full extent of his life-long medical problems is still being withheld from the American people and conservative scholars, and Reeves recounts many of those problems.
   
   Kennedy launched this nation into Vietnam; and his secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, was the architect of that lost war and the enormous suffering that it produced. More than 50,000 brave Americans died, and it impaled this nation's honor on the horns of a tragedy that still haunts policy makers and citizens alike. Even before Vietnam, Kennedy was responsible for the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, where Fidel Castro humiliated him completely. This led to more than 40 years of enslavement for the Cuban people. The Cuban Missile Crisis, or Kennedy's confrontation with the Soviet Union, might have given rise to a nuclear winter.
   
   His reckless affairs with women were only outdone by his irresponsible and dangerous relationships with mobsters such as Chicago crime boss Sam Giancana. These two character flaws merged when both Kennedy and Giancana had sexual liaisons with Judith Campbell Exner, who was used as their go-between. Indeed, it is doubtful whether Kennedy would have become president in 1960 if the Mob had not helped him in Illinois and West Virginia-and Giancana claimed credit for that. Kennedy was the son of a bootlegger, and the apple did not fall far from the tree, with respect to the three Kennedy brothers who entered national politics.
   
   John F. Kennedy was not someone to look up to, much less deify. Many of us came to that conclusion reluctantly, years ago, with a sense of sadness rather than anger. Like the potentate in Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale, "The Emperor's New Clothes," the myth about Kennedy and his feet of clay have become clear for all to see with the passage of time. Greatness is often achieved in times of war, and Kennedy never won the war with Cuba, much less the Vietnam War that he started, nor did he win the Cold War-which Reagan won. Kennedy was a tragic Shakespearean figure who may be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history, in no small part because of the question of character that Reeves described brilliantly in his terrific book.



3. This book starts with a totally incorrect statement. JFK took the oath of office on Jan 20th, 1961. This is dictated by the 20th. Amendment



4. Too bad there is so much money to be made by trying to assassinate President Kennedy's character. Authors like this guy and Sy Hersh won't get a penny from me.



5. As a "life-time student" of Christianity and culture, a believer in "intentional parenting", and a careful student of history, it is always a concern to see people in high places that have such distortion and conflict between their professed faith and their lives. The Kennedy family acutely displays what continues not only in their own family, but also continues through several of the later Presidents and Presidential candidates of the late 20th century and beginning of the 21st. Perhaps no other President has had such a profound influence in how images are projected; perhaps no other President successfully manufactured such a disconnect with who they really were.
   Reeves is not a poison pen, as some have claimed, but rather he is a well-researched, though at times also a sorrowful reporter of what he had found to be behind the Camelot image. No one can read this or other factual accounts of the family without wondering how the conflicts between their faith, their personna, and their actions came to be. I found the insights into both Joe Sr and Rose and their "brand" of faith are helpful in better understanding not only JFK, but also the rest of the Kennedy family. A religion with an emphasis on sacraments over intentional discipleship made the disconnect we observe in the scandals of many "religious people" more likely. This family was taught to practice a religion instead of living a faith.
   As I write this review, we are in the process of choosing candidates for the next Presidential contest, and the conflicts between their claimed faith and their marketed image, when laid next to their stated policies and histories are again showing that many of them possess questionable character and grave leadership concerns. This book helps to illustrate a deeper insight of how family functions and dysfunctions may lead to questions of character.

5 comments about Mr. Jefferson's Women.

1. There is not a scintilla of evidence linking Thomas Jefferson with Sally Hemings and her brood.Nature magazine TIMIDLY "corrected" itself for its faux pas in 1999, however, the media has continued to ignore the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE.Kukla just capitalizes on the public's juvenille tendency to support these ficto-spectacles,P.T.Barnum was correct about "suckers."



2. Why does even the prospect that Jefferson was with Sally Hemings bother you so much ?



3. Just when you thought you had read everything...Jon Kukla presents a very readable portrait of Jefferson's "relationships" with women--which leads to new insights about this great man--and, more interestingly, his attitudes towards women in general. The final chapters about his broader view of women as a threat to republican government place Jefferson in the context of his time. There is a remarkable discussion of Jefferson and Abigail Adams' letters. The book is eminently fair about Sally Hemings and gives a new meaning to the notion that "all men are created equal". Thank you, Jon Kukla, for beginning a lively conversation that is well worth your engagement.



4. I really enjoyed reading this book. The author wrote it in a way that both educates and compells you to read more. I found it hard to put down. My favorite parts were very personal, real-life events that made Mr. Jefferson even more real to me. My favorite is, during his presidency, an account of his chosen attire while welcoming a Rep. of the British King. He was wearing well worn slippers that he tossed around on his toes (priceless!). I also found the additional quotes and excerpts of letters from people such as Abigail Adams and others a welcome addition. Kudos to the author for such an insighful, wonderful, well thought out book about Jefferson and the various forms of relationships with women during his life.



5. Thomas Jefferson is one of the most troubling characters among America's founding fathers. He penned the immortal ideals of freedom and equality in the Declaration of Independence. We, from our modern perspective, also like the fact that he was an intellectual and that he brought refreshing informality to the White House. In recent years, his reputation has been tarnished by re-examination of his disturbing political tendencies. (See for example, John Adams and Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power). This book provides additional insights into Jefferson's character by examining his relation to the women in his life, and the insights add more tarnish to Jefferson's reputation that go beyond the understandably archaic attitudes that might belong to a man of his time. As clearly documented here, "all men created equal" applied no more to women than to blacks in Jefferson's mind. Each woman discussed here provides additional perspective. As to the Sally Hemings controversy, Kukla carefully lays out enough circumstantial details to undermine the most strident doubter.
   
   A fine book, worthy of a wider audience.

5 comments about Murdering Mr. Lincoln: A New Detection of the 19th Century's Most Famous Crime.

1. Charles Higham's research connects various Copperhead merchants to the Confederate Secret Service, but fails to convincingly tie any of them to John Wilkes Booth. The book is worth reading primarily for its exploration of a new angle to Lincoln's assassination: Copperhead commerce with the South, reluctantly approved by Lincoln as necessary to the Union to finance the war, provided a cloak for an assassination conspiracy.

   Mr. Higham almost certainly has several things wrong. He assumes the plot to kidnap Lincoln was always phony and a cover for murder. But why would Booth write in his diary, "...we sought to capture (and changed to murder at the end)"? Why would Arnold and Surratt, years after they were safe from the law, provide details of Booth's planned abduction? It's also a huge stretch to say Surratt traveled 24 hours from Elmira, N.Y. to Washington on April 13-14 and spent only 5 hours in the city, most of which was devoted to getting his hair cut and watching a transvestite show.

   Finally, as with every single historian to have written on the case since 1865, Mr. Higham is willing to assume that Booth entered Lincoln's box without having determined in advance that Parker, the guard, would be absent. This, despite his precise timing of the gunshot to coincide with a laugh line in "Our American Cousin" and with Paine's assault on Seward. Booth acted according to a presumption to which he was not entitled, i.e. Parker would not be guarding Lincoln. He had to have known this.




2. Charles Higham has long seen conspiracy theories under his bed. For most of us, going to bed means counting sheep and drifting off into a restful sleep, but for Higham it must be an entirely different experience. Perhaps his sheep all wear swastika armbands on their legs, baaing in syncopation with goose-stepping spies on their way to conspire with their Hollywood friends. Now, after a long and fruitless career hacking out spy laden fiction about Hollywood's brightest stars, he turns his attention to Abraham Lincoln. The switch from Hollywood figures to political icons is consistent with Higham's long rumored belief that every celebrity was not only a Nazi spy, but a closet homosexual intent on destroying the pillars of democracy. No matter - Higham's book is without merit. This book is no more than a long supposition bracketed by historical gobbledygook and pounds of manure shoveled up from Higham's seemingly endless supply of self-created excrement. Surely, he needs some fiber in his diet, and a backbone to go with it. A soul would help, too. But we need to keep in mind a fundamental truth when considering Charles Higham's long and lucrative career - he has the right to publish what he wants. Freedom is everything, and we need to accept that, even if it means that any deranged fool raised in a leper colony by a homosexual Franciscan monk from Mars can bellow about the conspiracy that occupies his dreams. Yes, they shoot horses and diseased cattle, but not people, and so the diseased are allowed their bellowing. Such people have the strength of their beliefs, and no dialogue from the rest of us will convince them that they are wrong. We should pity them. In any event, it appears obvious that Higham has reached the end of his career. He will still publish, of course, but he is much reviled. His "lack of journalistic integrity" (as historian Tony Thomas so aptly stated) is well known. At best, we should all pray that one day such illnesses are defeated and that one day Charles Higham will finally rest in peace.



3. Those interested in the politics behind the war will find Higham's work at times fascinating and horrific. The book really brings home what happened apart from the battlefront. As revered as President Lincoln is today, he made some decisions that would make 21st century citizens of a democracy cringe. Alternatively, Lincoln's detractors and political opponents did the same. It seems unfathomable to me now that Lincoln could have been hated by so many, and this book really pierces the veil of the myth surrounding his presidency and the unity of all those in the Union.

   When one really ponders what Lincoln did - suspending the writ of habeas corpus, prosecuting publishers printing unfavorable information, trading with South, etc. - one realizes that Lincoln - just like everyone - is neither complete hero nor complete villain - but a convoluted mix of gray areas.

   But a reflection on Lincoln is not an intended objective of this book. Nor does it foster an argument that Lincoln deserved death. The focus here is the plot to de-throne Lincoln and make peace with the South, hatched by shadowy Confederate sympathizers, fringe Confederate spies, the European aristocracy, and some out-and-out crazies, like the chief villain George Sanders and assassian John Wilkes Booth. This objective is fulfilled in excruciating detail.

   Also deeply disturbing was the revelation of the "Young Americans" Hitler-youth-type organization, the assertion that Stephen Douglas planned for a military coup d'etat over Lincoln, and the whole affair between Confederate exiles conspiring with British/Canadians to incite war with England.

   A fascinating story is marred by the author's continuous barrage of trivial details. He throws so many names, places, and things at the reader that even the most astute Civil War scholar would be overwhelmed.

   The book reads like a novel and while that is good for easy reading, one has to wonder how the author dug up so much granular information 150 years later. The source notes - a paltry half-dozen pages at the end - do nothing to convince me that the author did in fact thoroughly validate the accuracy of his assertions. Personally, while I think the book does contain many facts, I have to consider it more a historical novel, like Gore Vidal's "Lincoln", than a history. "Dark Union", another recent and similar book on Lincoln during the war, is much better annotated.




4. The editorial review says it all:
   
   Conspiracy theorists and Civil War buffs may want to take a gander, but overall this book adds little to our understanding of the assassination.



5. A well written book with a flair for the extreme. The author has taken numerous facts about the assassination and it's particpants and stretched them with assumptions that are conceivable but not proven. A wonderful story, but a disclaimer should be attached allowing readers to understand that some facts have been stretched to offer the story of a dynamic conspiracy, a thrilling hunt and final solution. A great read and it would certainly make a great movie, ala Otto Eisenschiml.

1 comments about Churchill: An Illustrated History (Readers Digest).

1. One of the better biographies of Churchill. Considerable in depth information and well chosen Chuchill quotes.

5 comments about Andrew Jackson: The Course of American Empire, 1767-1821. Vol. 1.

1. This meticulously researched and wonderfully written book is the first volume in a three-part biography of Jackson that will undoubtedly set the standard for years to come.
   Part of what makes Remini's work so useful is that he does not rely solely on American sources but has also dug deep into the Archivo General de Indies in Seville, Spain in order to try to see Jackson from the viewpoint of the Spanish colonial government. It was this research that led Remini to his main thesis in this book which is that Jackson, thru his military exploits against the Indians of the southern United States (notably the Creek, Choctaw, Cherokee, Seminole and Chickasaw tribes) and against the Spanish in Florida did as much or more than any other individual to extend U.S. territory into much of Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and all of Florida. One of the more interesting revelations of the book for me was the mutual admiration and the shared goals at this point in their lives between Jackson and Monroe's Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams.
   In fact, Remini makes a good argument that Jackson's military exploits in that region were is what enabled Adams to deal so successfully with the Spanish in negotiating the Trans-Continental Treaty of 1819. This treaty formalized the recognition of the European powers of the territory added to the U.S. by Jefferson in the Louisiana Purchase. Up until then the purchase was widely recognized as illegal.
   So why don't I give this book a higher rating? I think that Remini falls prey to a common tendency of American historians who take on the task of writing the lives of our great men. As a reading public, we do not seem to want to acknowledge the dark side of our leaders or our history. As a result, it is difficult to write biographies that do not border on hagiography. Remini for the most part avoids this failing. He is clear about Jackson's violent (murderous, really) temper, his tendency to bully others until they gave in and his paternalism. This is not a man I would have wanted to know.
   Where Remini does not quite live up to his own standards is in regards to Jackson's (to my mind) overt racism. Jackson regarded the presence of the Indians anywhere in territory that was being settled by Americans as unacceptable unless the Indians were willing to give up their tribal territories, accept a farming plot and become good little American citizens. Remini tries to convince his readers that Jackson the paternalist hated only the tribes not the individual Indians and that therefore Jackson and his policies were not racist (see the discussion on p. 337). I leave it up to the reader of this review whether this defense is adequate. I think that the last fifty years has amply proved that a racist can befriend individual members of the hated group as long as that individual keeps their place. I think that this is actually a rather common type of racism and Jackson exemplifies to a plentitude. To be fair to both Remini and Jackson he had a life long history of defending the underdog if they applied to him for protection.
   Of course, this makes Jackson a paragon of the southern culture of the time but we also need to be honest about our own history. Jackson was a racist, he initiated Indian policies that were, at the least, marginally genocidal (the Indians called Jackson, Sharp Knife) and he was still one of our greatest men, one who had an enormous influence on our historical destiny. Remini, the good honest scholar that he is, gives us enough material and detail so that we get enough of the story so that we can sort out our own vision of the truth.



2. One might argue that the hallmark of great men is that they fundamentally and permanently alter the world they inherited - its beliefs, its practices, its conception of itself. Andrew Jackson is one of those extremely rare individuals.

   In this first of three volumes, which he subtitles "The Course of American Empire," Remini highlights the central role that Jackson played in opening up the early American frontier in the first decades of the 19th century. Long before the expression "Manifest Destiny" ignited the expansionist and nationalist passions of Americans in the 1840s, Andrew Jackson fought single-handedly - and occasionally circumvented direct military orders, the Constitution, local judges, and officially recognized international treaties - to advance American territorial expansion along the southern border and promote the removal of the Spanish, British and myriad tribes of native Americans.

   Other salient events that Remini chronicles in this volume include Jackson's humble roots and tragic childhood during the American Revolution in the Carolinas; his move westward to the Tennessee territory to start life anew as a lawyer; the "facts" behind Jackson's much-disputed relationship with his wife, Rachel; his entry into local politics and emergence as a militia leader; his military exploits against the Creeks, the British at the Battle of New Orleans and the Seminoles; and, of course, the many duels, fist-fights and other outlandish events of his early life that he somehow managed to survive.

   Much of Volume I reads like a "wild west" novel, but Remini is careful to accentuate how Jackson's natural rough hewn character, along with his experience on the frontier, melded to shape a political philosophy that ultimately altered the course of American government. There is little direct reference to the principles that would become known as Jacksonian Democracy in this volume - an undying faith in the virtue and wisdom of the people, the inviolability of the Union, the pernicious effects of deficit spending and "soft" currency, etc. - but it is easy to understand how and why Jackson cherished those ideals after reading the story of his early life.

   Finally, it must be noted that Remini assiduously avoids holding Jackson's conduct in relation to slavery and the Indians to modern standards. In all fairness, that is understandable and not especially offensive. However, Remini does neither himself nor Jackson any service by going out of his way to stress how relatively humane (in Remini's mind) the president was to his human chattel and explaining that he really had the Indians best interests at heart when he forced them from their land to the barren plains of modern day Oklahoma. In this volume and the others, Remini offers some strongly worded criticism of Jackson's political, military and social performance, but his many heinous crimes against humanity are treated with kid gloves throughout.




3. Andrew Jackson is one of the more complicated figures in American history. On the one hand, his significance to the development of the United States as a nation is large. On the other hand, he was often a very unpleasant person.

   This first volume in Robert Remini's biography follows Jackson's life from his childhood through his governorship of Florida. Along the way, we learn of Jackson's brief roles in both houses of Congress and his period as a judge; it is later, however, when he joined the military (becoming a general through politics rather than merit), that Jackson rose to nationwide prominence, especially his overwhelming humiliation of the British in the Battle of New Orleans and his later dealings with Indians and the Spanish which led eventually to the U.S. acquiring Florida.

   His military victories made him one of the most popular people in American history, but Remini pulls no punches with Jackson's flaws, including his often brutal and bullying nature and his tendency to violence. The ambiguous circumstances involving how he married his wife Rachel would lead to nasty talk during his presidential campaigns and his killing of a man in a duel (was it murder?) wouldn't help either.

   Having been previously exposed to Remini's writing through his brilliant biographies of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, I knew this book would be a pleasure to read, and it was. Remini has written the definitive biography of Jackson, very detailed but always objective and always entertaining. If you want to learn of this era and of one its pivotal figures, this is the book to read (plus the other two in the series).




4. In the first of three volumes, Remini carries Jackson from birth to the tragic loss of much of his family in the Revolution, through his early years in politics, his duels, and the Battle of New Orleans, up to his term as first American Governor of the territory of Florida, acquired by his own military victories.
   
   Remini admires Jackson, and argues persuasively for his huge historic importance - not just President Jackson, but the younger Jackson of this book, responsible for acquiring a large chunk of what ultimately became the Southeast USA in several Indian wars and treaty negotiations, the campaigns of the War of 1812, and his subsequent attacks on the Spanish colony of Florida. Many historians have condemned Jackson for siezing Florida without the explicit approval of the Monroe administration; Remini is convincing in his argument that Monroe must have known and encouraged Jackson's actions, although he was careful not to say so directly, since Spain and the US were not at war.
   
   Remini doesn't by any means try to whitewash Jackson. The man shown in these pages is impressive but often distinctly unpleasant. Remini quite directly calls him a 'bully', and the story of his feuds and duels shows a man who is ruthless and foolishly ill-tempered. The ugliest part of the Jackson story is his treatment of the native tribes; Remini offers some half-hearted apologias for Jackson's ruthless treatment even of those natives who fought with him in his campaigns, but tells the facts frankly enough that most readers will come to a harsher conclusion.
   
   Remini shows that Jackson's famous victory in the Battle of New Orleans was a closer thing than is generally supposed. Jackson carelessly left a crucial avenue open to the British, and a more determined general would have marched on the city and probably taken it before Jackson had his defenses properly prepared. As it was, the British foolishly gave Jackson sufficient time to settle in and fortify his line, only then attacking it with disastrous results. Although this battle is often viewed as an afterthought (the Treaty of Ghent, ending the war, was actually signed a few days before the battle was fought), Remini also shows that a British victory would have had real, and catastrophic, consequences for the US.
   
   Along with the colorful and often complex story of Jackson's life and activities, Remini fills in the story with good explanations of the conditions of the period. In particular, he gives a good explanation of the values and traits of westerners, and East-West conflicts, at an early time in the country's history when the Pacific was barely dreamed of and the 'Far West' meant the Mississippi.
   
   Remini's writing is excellent, and the biography is detailed and exhaustively researched without being pedantic or boring.



5. I almost picked a shorter book about Jackson rather than try to tackle this three volume set, but judging by the first volume there is no question I made the right choice!
   
   This is one of the best biographies I've ever read; not only is the subject compelling, but it is superbly written and the balance of information (like the selection of anecdotes and quotes) is perfect. It even includes a timeline and family trees (why don't more authors do this?). Also, Remini isn't afraid to offer analysis as he goes; it makes the book more interesting and I think it ultimately makes it more objective because you understand his biases.
   
   My only quibble, and this is very minor, is the author (or publisher's) decision to blank out the swear words. Jackson swore to great effect, and this quasi-censorship diminishes that effect a little.

5 comments about Slavemaster President: The Double Career of James Polk.

1. James Polk is usually the least familiar president to appear on historiansý top 10 lists. But for William Dusinberre, Polk firmly holds a spot near the very bottom. For Dusinberre, Polk and his ideological brethren set the country on a course that unnecessarily led to the Civil War, the violent fall of the South, and the self-destruction of his own class.

   Polk annexed Texas and was the instigator of the Mexican American War, which led to acquisition of most of the southwest for the United States. Polk also took the Oregon territory, which encompassed much of what is now the northwestern United States. Dusinberre suggests that there was a certain inevitability to some of this, but the way it all played out, and the final border results were far from certain. Polkýs overly aggressive expansionism was, to Dusinberre the worst possible way for the country to stretch from sea to shinning sea because it infused militarism and obstinacy into the debate about the future of slavery.

   Dusinberre convincingly argues that Polkýs, and the Southern ruling classesý mores about slavery as a tool of social order, southern honor, and states rights were all subservient to the economic benefits reaped by slave owners such as Polk. This economic incentive was so great, that it blinded Polk to what Dusinberre believes to be the inevitable fall of slavery. A more forward-looking advocate of the Southern ruling class could have promoted a plan for a soft landing and perhaps sought alliances with moderates, rather than painting everyone who had any problems with slavery as extreme ýabolitionists.ý

   Polkýs military adventurism, intolerance for even discussion of issues related to slavery, and insistence that slave ownersý so-called rights should be expanded (or the South would lose its dominance in the Senate) was coupled by his implicit threat of secession in the event of almost any sort of compromise. Dusinberre argues that before Polk and his war, different gradations of opinion existed in the south, but afterward existed only unithought. The Civil War followed.

   SLAVEMASTER PRESIDENT is not really a biography as much as it is a study of how slave ownership may have affected the ideology of pre-Civil War southern Democrats such as and including Polk, and how that ideology in turn contributed to the conditions that led to the Civil War. It is a compelling argument. Dusinberre also achieves a heart-rending description of slave life on the Polk plantation. The book achieves what it set out to do.

   Still, I would have liked the book to be a bit more biographical. Dusinberre expains up front that his book ýdoes not discuss Polkýs role as a congressman in President Andrew Jacksonýs war against the Bank of the United States. Nor does it portray President Polkýs part in securing the Tariff of 1846, nor his diplomacy with Britain, which led to the establishment of the northwestern boundary dividing the United States from Canada. These stories,ý explains Dusinberre, ýhave been told elsewhere.ý Maybe they have, but there is remarkably little popular literature on this influential, if wrongheaded president. I am satisfied with Dusinberreýs book such that it is, but it also left me wanting to read more about Polk.




2. For American history buffs in general, and Civil War enthusiasts in particular, William Dusinberre has produced a volume worthy of your attention. Dusinberre argues with great vigor that James Polk helped to plant the seeds of civil war while he was President during the late 1840's. While pursuing the Presidency, Polk presented himself as a moderate on the issue of slavery. All the while, he was quietly engaged in the buying and selling of slaves for his Mississippi plantation. Dusinberre argues that throughout his four years in office, Polk advocated policies designed to perpetuate slavery for the forseable future. He cites in particular the annexation of Texas as a major issue. The book also chronicles the appalling working and living conditions many slaves were forced to live under and the total disregard that most slavemasters (Polk included) for the slaves family lives. In most instances, if it was a profitable transaction, slaves were sold off to the highest bidder and families were torn apart. Polk always portrayed himself as the benevolent master but the facts seem to dispute his claims. The book can be slow moving and at times I wondered if I would have the endurance to finish it. But I am glad I did. This book gives us an entirely new perspective on the events of that period and as such is a welcome addition.



3. I'm not sure if I would have been better off reading a general bio on Polk first, becuase this book is very biased, as the author admits. The argument is that Polk's policy was stronly influenced by him being a slaveowner. That Polk had conflicting interests because he ran several plantations in Tn and Miss and he was using the money from the plantations to secure himself a post-presidential retirement.

   The book is organized in an interesting way. It begins by describing Polk's plantations and what it was like for the slaves , plus gives details regarding the overseers,a nd Polk's policies regarding purchasing and selling of slaves. Polk endeavored to hide what he was doing from the general public and his reasons for selling and guying were definitley not always patriarchal, but monetary.

   Polk died a few months after leaving office, and none or few of his papers were destroyed, hence we have a record of what ocurred on the plantations.

   the second half of the book covers the main aspects of Polk's presidential career --annexation of Tx and the MX War. The author discusses the events through the lens of slavery and tried to argue Polk's descisions were heavily influenced by Polk being a slaveowner. the author presents many what-ifs, discussing a vairety of other scenarios that could have happened during Polk's presidency had he made other choices. I found these diversions to be a strength of the book instead of an irritant. The book gave me a lot to think about,a nd it was particulary interesting to learn the details of what Polk plantation life was like.




4. This book was not written by a fan or supporter of this Tennessee president, but released by a Yankee group who hides behind "Oxford" so we might think Mississippi or England. Not so, William Dusinberre must be fuddies with the university professors who tore apart Nathan Bedford Forrest in the same way. Overlooked completely he status and the part these Tennesseans played in the history of this nation. It's best to consider character assassination with the conflicting thins these writers emphasize while leaving out the real story, the facts of the matter. James K. Polk had been Governor of Tehhessee and Speaker of the House of Representatives before becoming U. S. president. It was not a secret that he owned slaves to work on his cotton plantation in Mississippi. We didn't have such in Tennessee, but I have an old post card of the 11th President's bust which stands in the State Capitol in Nashville. We visited Polk's ancestral home in downtown Columbia, Tennessee. It was not out in the country, though a famous one is in that county owned by a female physician. She did not have slaves. Forrest's family were fine, upstanding natives of Chapel Hill, not so far east from Columbia. It infuriates me when I innocently find weird subverted stuff like thos on the public library shelves. I wish the reference librarians who ordered these fiction pretending to be non-fiction before putting them out for just anybody to read. Polk was duly elected and in the White House from 1845 to 1849, before the Civil War. He was not responsible for that war.
   
   This person from Cape Town used the false writings of professor Wayne Cutler when he came to this Republican town, and thought that what he was reading was truth. Polk was a Southern Democrat. What would he write about Huey B. Long, George Wallace, and other governors who stood tall for what the South stands for. The politics of slavery did not have any substance whatsoever in the war which divided this country. It was states' rights -- the Southern states, which Northerners would not understand. I learned more than I had planned that there is a conspiracy going on to deride Southern leaders and presidents. They were statesmen and war heroes and lived to be a part of the history of America. Modern history-writing is all wrong, when the author makes up "facts" as he is inclined, and not factually.



5. This is a not uninteresting, well written and well researched look at a very narrow aspect of the life and career of James Polk, detailing very thoroughly his role as an owner of a deep-south plantation and his relationships with his slaves. If that interests you, this is an ideal book for you to read. If you're looking for an in-depth full life biography of James Polk, or even a book that gives much insight into his career as a politician and president, or any other facet of his life than that of slaveowner, this is definitely NOT what you're looking for.

4 comments about Zapata.

1. Zapata: Unsung Hero of the Mexican Revolution Another Steinbeckian Leader of the People by Robert F. Schambier, Ed.D.

   "Any previously unpublished work of John Steinbeck is a welcome gift to American letters." --Budd Schulberg, as cited in Zapata

   John Steinbeck's Zapata is a little known but well-crafted narrative about one of Mexico's legendary heroes of the Mexican Revolution. The story--which the author later turned into the critically acclaimed screenplay Viva Zapata! --tells of Emiliano Zapata's courageous efforts to halt political oppression. Known affectionately in his native southern state of Morelos as "the Little Tiger," Zapata took up the cause of downtrodden peasants when reform laws were totally flouted by the Establishment. The Diaz regime had virtually turned Mexico into a police state as the peasants grew hungrier and hungrier. Nearly single-handedly Zapata succeeded in empowering his fellow countrymen. At length he was able to instigate a formidable armed rebellion.

   As portrayed by Steinbeck, Emiliano Zapata was a young and promising leader. He could neither read nor write, but he possessed an intuitive sense of justice and fair play. Often misguided--even deceived by his own--and eventually betrayed, Zapata pushed relentlessly for social and agrarian reform. In the Camus tradition he was a true rebel fighting for human rights, never showing interest in acquiring power for its own sake.

   Initially Zapata joined forces with Venustiano Carranza and Pancho Villa to overthrow president/dictator Porfirio Diaz. But as soon as Carranza became president, he too turned into a power-hungry elitist.

   Carranza's administration under a new Constitution quickly became counterproductive. He abused his presidential powers and, in effect, confiscated yet more land under the pretense of "national ownership." When Villa and Zapata discovered that he was reneging on his promises, they continued their armed resistance against the fledgling regime. Then Zapata was assassinated in 1919. And the young leader of the people grew into legend.

   To give us a better portrait of Emiliano Zapata--man versus myth--Steinbeck goes to some length in his "Introduction" to reveal the Zeitgeist or general climate. Mexico at the time was plagued by outdated and disastrous land policies. By 1910, nearly 97% of the rural heads of families owned no real property. Violence and suppression were rampant everywhere. To fully understand the underlying causes, one must review Mexican history beginning with the Spanish conquistadors. Suffice it to say that, traditionally, land had been issued as payback to those who had fought for, or shown loyalty to, the state. At length, in a feudal system gone awry, haciendas (or estates) grew larger and larger at the expense of the peasantry. In spite of years of protests lasting into the 20th century, little could be achieved by way of effective agrarian reform.

   Enter such folk heroes as Zapata. Although Steinbeck's account is episodic at times--as chronicles tend to be--the author does succeed in capturing the essence of the young rebel. We see Emiliano Zapata as a husband, a family man, a lover, a faithful ally in war if not in love--even a machiavellian leader. "A man of individual conscience," Elia Kazan nevertheless labels him. Although some accounts may seem to conflict with history, together the vignettes (or film scenes) reveal a man quite capable of taking care of himself and his own. But no one is infallible.

   The ending is especially poignant, characteristic of Steinbeck's dramatic finales. Metaphor and symbolism prevail as Zapata's famous horse Blanco gallops riderless back into the mountains. The horse remains a free spirit--haughty and untamable--defying all attempts at capture. Its indomitable spirit emboldens the people, further cementing their patriotic zeal. They keep encountering one setback after another. But they persist, confident that sooner or later the voice of freedom will ring out. In the meantime, Zapata lives. "Viva Zapata!"




2. I found the extensive introductory material more informative than the script itself.



3. This is the actual script Steinbeck wrote for the movie "Viva Zapata. " Actually, the book is broken up into two parts; part one is complete with John Steinbeck's observations of the Mexican Revolution, the culture and the existing system that allowed Zapata to rise and become a leader. This narrative of Steinbeck's is interspersed throughout the rough initial script.The foundation for the book is featured in part one whereas part two is the actual script. Steinbeck's personal narrative is very interesting and I found his recomendation on who to play the part of the legendary Zapata insightful and accurate in suggestion. He did not recommend Marlon Brando , who was Zapata in the classic movie, but rather wanted a Mexcian actor. He felt that none other than Pedro Armendariz should take the lead. He would have made a great Zapata. Anyway Steinbeck makes many astute observations and demonstrates his affinity for scholarship, as well as his understanding of the Mexican psyche during the turbulent times of the Porfirio Diaz regime. Steinbeck illustrates his scenes with an authentic cinematic brush reflected in his mastery of language. He details the nuances of individuals in the larger scope of an epic historical event, tying all the elements together as only a master story teller can do. Zapata, known as "El Tigre," is a man of immense stature in Mexcian history and Steinbeck understands this. Zapata comes to life, the illiterate peasant who marries a woman of a higher social status and testifies to his own human frailities.His mythical yet factual life is accentuated by stories of a currandera who "sees" his life unfolding. The relationship with his brother Eufemio also shows the respect Zapata has for family. Zapata the reluctant but sure leader feels a sense of purpose in destiny alongside other great men who shaped history. Zapata becomes bigger than life; rising to legendary status thoughout the book with anecdotal information based on research, Zapata the man and myth become one indistinguishable person. An excellent book for students to use for research, this book serves as a general guide to the life of Emiliano Zapata. For more in depth analysis for research, I would recommend the outstanding book by John Womack and the equally compelling, if not better work , by Enrique Krauze , which is available in Spanish, has well as English. If you ever wonder how do classic movies develop check out this book.



4. Zapata contains two versions of a screenplay which was nominated for an Academy Award in 1952. In both versions the main character is the Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, who fought for the rights of peasants against the wealthy Mexican aristocracy in the early 1900's. Steinbeck spent years conducting research on Zapata in Mexico, and the first version of his story is rich with historical detail. The second version is the actual screenplay, where the reality has been parsed and tweaked to make a better story. It was fascinating to see this process of creation, the art involved in making a simple, compelling movie script from a convoluted history. The first version was also fascinating to read, full as it was of small details about peasant life in Mexico. The overarching theme of both is the eternal fight of humanity against the powerful, always a worthwhile subject, and presented here in a historical and literary context that makes these screenplays worth reading.

2 comments about Affair of Honor: Woodrow Wilson and the Occupation of Veracruz.

1. Very well written book about an incident in American history that the American Government would rather forget. The book is savage in its accessment of Wilson and the reasons that America chose to interfere in the affairs of another country.



2. During the Mexican Revolution, Woodrow Wilson needed a pretext to seize the Mexican port of Veracruz from the forces of the dictator Huerta. His basic intentions was to prevent the port from supplying Huerta with arms for his fight with the rebels. In deciding to intervene, he uses the detainment of American sailors for one hour as the justification. Events then slide out of control with the capture of Veracruz. Twenty US soldiers and hundreds of Mexican citizens become the victims of Wilson's policy. This book portrays Wilson negatively, because his policy was not justified. Mexicans remember this event more than the earlier wars with the United States. Although Wilson may have been an idealist, the portrait in the book is of a self righteous man, not capable of understanding another viewpoint. Accounts in the book show the American occupation as being progressive and in the best interests of the people of Veracruz. Wilson returned the port to the rebels after nine months.

   This is a nice read for a little known chapter in American and Mexican history. People would be wise to read it, especially in light of the use of American forces worldwide.