3 comments about Churchill and Chartwell: The Untold Story.

1. Mr. Buczacki provides a nice, well-written history of the various houses and gardens directly associated with the long life of Winston Churchill. In doing so, the author also reveals important elements of the non-political side of this most remarkable man.
   
   Many general histories of Churchill speak in passing of the domestic trials imposed after the purchase of the family's most important home, Chartwell. Reading this book gives one a keen understanding of what Mrs. Churchill endured as Chartwell and its grounds were slowly, slowly brought into good shape.
   
   If you have a friend who is interested in English landscaping and gardens, this is a book to consider. If that friend also is an admirer of Sir Winston, then it is a must purchase.



2. a great book one of the must have for any churchill library . great anecdotes good pictures .recommended by the churchill society



3. I am a huge fan of Winston Churchill (I'm even tackling Martin Gilbert's eight volume biography at the moment!). Since WSC loved Chartwell so much, and spent so much of his time there, I come to this subject with some interest. My wife visited Chartwell a couple of years ago -- what a treat. That experience only heightened my interest and great appreciation for the house and its history. Leaving no stone unturned, this book provides a complete (if sometimes a bit dry) history of the house. It also has some great photos of the house at various points in history. If you want to know nearly everything about this ancient, though modern, house and home to WSC then this is the book for you.

No comments about Abraham Lincoln: A Biography.

5 comments about Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington.

1. A kind of a biography, but with a difference. There have been quite a number of excellent biographies published down through the years, but that has not reduced the level of interest in the country. This book starts with the assumption that you know quite a bit about Washington's life, it then has ten essays that open almost as many questions as it answers about Washington as a man.
   
   Perhaps the most interesting is the chapter on religion. It seems that every religion seems to want to gain some kind of historic acceptance by claiming Washington was of their faith. This includes Roman Catholics , Mormons (a religion which hadn't been invented then, but which allows posthumous conversion), Presbyterians, Baptists and more. Perhaps the strongest claiments are the evangelical Christians who assertain that the founders of the country were creating a Christian nation (in spite of the First Ammendment), especially Washington.
   
   The author discusses Washington's letters where he mentions religion, and comes to the conclusion that as Washington himself said, his 'tenets are few and simple.' -- Kind of strange, I had always thought Washington was a Deist (The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.) as apparently were Jefferson and John Hancock.
   
   Anyway, that's the tone of the book. Ten points worthy of discussion on ten subjects, well backed up by Washington's writing.



2. I won't duplicate what the other reviews state, but will say I recommend this one for sure. Its thematic not strictly chronological, much like Joe Ellis' book on Thomas Jefferson, "American Sphinx." Very nicely written, and even after I have read many, many GW books, I still learned some interesting new things about him from Henriques (such as the details about GW & Sally Fairfax, and GW's death.) The one thing the author botches is any discussion on Washington as a Freemason, which was one of the most important things in his life. This should have been expounded upon in the chapter on Washington & religion, but was not. Its certainly not a fatal flaw in this book, but is a glaring omission.



3. This book puts a realistic face on George. It exposes his weaknesses and emphasizes his strengths. It makes one proud to be an American and to have George Washington as the Father of our country. It details many little known experiences of our First President and makes us better appreciate our system of government that was only possible because of the integrity, the love of freedom and the love of country of this great American.



4. If you have already read a couple books about George Washington, you'll find this one a re-hash of many of the things you already know about him.
   
   If you think you know a lot about him, you'll still learn a few things. There is a chapter about his attitude toward slavery and how he handled his own slaves as well as a chapter about the details of the pain and suffering of his death.



5. Henriques book is a very good read, but does lack in historical language and does make a personal assertions throughout the book that at times lacks concrete evidence.
   
   The book does flow and does delve into the history of Washington in a manner that is more agreeable than a chronology of the mans life (as with many books on Washington. He does discuss issues in the first two chapters that are rehashes of any Washington biography, but devoted more time to many of these issues in later chapters.
   
   The only area of the book that leave the reader questioning Henriques research and conclusions and where the book turns into quasi Micky Spillane detective story are the chapters devoted to Sally Fairfax and Martha Washington. Though some will argue that Henriques comes to these conclusions based on the evidence he had, for me, it seemed that Henriques had a thesis and at times selectively chose his evidence to support his thesis. Henriques admits that he is piecing the evidence together, but by the simple fact of admiting this, one is left wondering what evidence he left out or did not have access to. The addition of some random website in his chapter to Martha Washington, along with the addition of a fictional story, is questionable inclusions to say the least, and would have been best left out. A futher issue with his book is what seems to be his over reliance on secondary sources and lack of primary sources throughout the book.
   
   Overall it is a good read and a good inclusion in the story of Washington, but does lack in many areas.

2 comments about Gerald Ford and the Challenges of the 1970s.

1. An entertaining and historically necessary re-evaluation of one of our most underrated Presidents. Largely remembered for falling down, Mieczkowski shows how Ford's personal honesty, lack of arrogance or secrecy and willingness to let Congress, despite their largely successful attempt to thwart Ford's policy initiatives to regain their sense of power after four terms of an "Imperial Presidency" was exactly what America needed after the trauma of Watergate and Vietnam.
   
   Ford never had any interest in seeking the Presidency. He was happy to stay in Congress, dreaming of being Speaker of the House. As Mieczkowski mentions, it takes a pretty big ego and a lot of ruthlessness to decide to run for President, make through the primaries and come out on top in November. As an "accidental" President who was never elected, Ford has perhaps the unique distinction of having smallest ego of any sitting President, an important bending of the stick after years of Nixon and Johnson.
   
   Ironically despite being one of the most open Presidents when it came to press, he was mercilessly ridiculed by them, leading to his klutzy reputation. After Watergate and the 60's rebellion, no one was willing to trust anyone in authority and Ford had the bad luck to come into office when he did. Many who did attack him (even Chevy Chase as the book recounts) would latter regret it.
   
   Mieczkowski also does a good job of reminding readers was a state of crisis America was in the mid- 1970's. Rampart inflation, out of control energy prices and a generalized lack of confidence in the future and our leaders were all problems Ford inherited and tried his best to confront. A combative Democratic controlled Congress, with a high percentage of "new Democrat" freshmen made sure that Ford spent more time in veto wars with the House and Senate instead signing his name to bills, so in terms of policy he accomplished little, but he did succeed in bringing back some sense of trust to the White House. In the end Ford was a man who never labored to sit in the White House, but when called upon to try to rebuild the broken trust America had in the Executive branch after the lies of Johnson and Nixon, Mieczkowski shows how Ford stepped into one of the more difficult positions any President has ever faced and left an important mark. His pardon of Nixon largely killed his chances to be re-elected, but Mieczkowski makes a well-argued defense of Ford's decision *whether you agree with it or not) and that Ford did it out of a need to move America onto issues beyond Watergate; not becuase of any "secret deal" with Nixon as some had rumoured. Even then, during his re-election campaign, he managed to cut Carter's intial dominating lead to mere points making the 76 election one of the closest in the 20th century. His openness, moderation and dialogue when dealing with opponents and scrupulous honesty are characteristics that I'm sure many of would like to see make a comeback in Washington.



2. This is a very good book that looks back at the Ford presidency in an unbiased way and examines almost every aspect of Ford's term in office, including his foreign policy and leadership style. Ford actually understood economic policy better than any postwar president, having spent fourteen years on the House Appropriations Committee in Congress - his actual goal had been to be Speaker of the House. Facing unprecedented increases in inflation and the rate of unemployment, Ford insisted that controlling inflation would serve the country better in the long run than trying to reach full employment. Therefore, he fought hard to decrease government spending and deregulate industry rather than promoting jobs programs or accepting the price controls advocated by many in Congress, which his predecessor had attempted with disastrous results. Before he left office, inflation had been cut by more than one half and the number of Americans without jobs was declining. However, it was not enough to save him from defeat in the 1976 elections. Only after the disastrous Carter administration did the federal government and the nation actually have the political will to implement Ford's original suggestions more fully during the Reagan years - and they worked.
   
   The book does a good job of detailing how the energy problems and inflation that plagued Ford were not of his making, and would have caused problems for any president. Also detailed are the unparalleled expectations of the American public at that time, having just finished exiting the unprecedented 25 year-long post-war boom as well as the radical nature of the Congress that Ford had to work with that was ushered in during the 1974 elections almost immediately post-Watergate. The author makes a good case that if you had members of this Congress trying to introduce legislation that would outlaw the spanking of children by their own parents, it is unlikely that Ford would be able to get this bunch to compromise on Congressional spending. The author's analysis also points to the need to consider Ford's presidency in the context of other threads of conservative thought, such as the rise of the religious right and the later growth of the GOP. I would recommend this well-written book to anyone wanting to understand Ford's presidency in the context of the unique decade of the 1970's. Recognize, however, that this is not a biography of President Ford. It's entire focus is his presidency.

No comments about Fdr's Body Politics: The Rhetoric of Disability (Presidential Rhetoric Series, No. 8).

5 comments about The Greatest Communicator: What Ronald Reagan Taught Me About Politics, Leadership, and Life.

1. This was a fascinating account about the rise to the US presidency, and what drove his policies of one of the greatest world leaders of his century. This book lays out clearly the vision Reagan had when he came to office, and how his policies and actions, fit into that aspirational goal/vision. Younger people may lack the vantage point that those of us who grew from childhood with the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union as a daily and real threat to our existence and life itself. Reagan's leadership and legacy is that he may have perhaps eliminated that threat. Wirthlin's insight and record from his proximity to the decisions and what drove them provides yet another glimpse of the character and leadership principles that guided Ronald Reagon's policies and actions. While we stuggle again today with threats and challenges to our democracy and freedom around the globe, the lesson here is that we should not underestimate the good that can come from a bold vision and dedication to a noble cause even if it may take sacrifice and overcoming significant adversity, and time to achieve it!



2. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and it really held my attention throughout. It is a personal portrayal of a man that provides unique insight into how his values truly drove his behavior and how his personality and vision built the foundation for successful communications. Dick Wirthlin does a wonderful job of communicating friendship and of creating a very human connection in the reader's mind with President Reagan.



3. Most reviews submitted are friends of the author or work for him. This makes their reviews a bit unfair to the rest of the reading world. However, the book was well written and interesting. I love Reagan and always enjoy reading about him. It's interesting to see from an insider's point of view.



4. Dick Wirthlin's myriad experience with the Reagan presidency, including a three-decade relationship with the "Greatest Communicator," is eloquently recounted by Wynton Hall, Wirthlin's co-author and an expert in presidential rhetoric. To say that this book is a must read for anyone wanting to know the man behind the politician is an understatement. Read Chapter 7, "Three Goodbyes," for a poignant and uplifting account of Reagan's bravery in his battle with Alzheimer's.



5. This author does a great job of putting us beside him as he interacts with President Reagan. What surprised me most was how different Reagan really was compared to the image the "drive-by media" gave us.
   
   Wirthlin is someone who's name we've heard but this reallly solidifies him as an important insider and confidant to the greatest president in the 20th century.
   
   Well done Mr. Wirthlin!

3 comments about An Autobiography of George Washington.

1. I found this book to be really amazing and carefully researched. The authenticity is really incredible. It turned George Washington from a wooden stick figure, into the really amazing person he was. I know some people will question the authencity of the material. But, to me, the wealth of detail, emotions, make it an unquestionably good read.



2. This book was written several decades ago, but there was a small readership in those days for information channeled from the Other Side. Thanks to an ever-growing acceptance of this type of writing, we are able to gain access to valuable information.
   Here is the story of George Washington's life, told by the man himself from the Other Side. I was fascinated from start to finish. Perhaps there are those who would argue that this was not channeled, but that instead, Edith Ellis concocted the whole story. This seems implausible, given the wealth of detail and feeling that comes across. Of course, it is up to the reader to decide.
   I had Amazon send this book to my mother, and after she read it, she sent it to me. There was something strange in the ending of the book, and on closer inspection, I found that the last 2 chapters were missing, and the void was filled with a repeated section of pages from earlier in the book. I asked Amazon to replace it, and I also asked them to send me a copy as well.
   My copy had all the correct pages--but apparently Amazon sent my mother another defective copy; the important last 2 chapters are once again missing, thus cutting out Mr. Washington's presidency and his death.
   Of the three copies I requested, two were defective. I was surprised that Amazon did not take the trouble to see how many of these defective books they have in stock; they replaced a defective book with just another defective book. I wonder if they have notified the Hay House Publishing Company of this.
   Amazon's service is usually outstanding, but until they work this glitch out, save yourself a hassle and order it directly from Hay House Publishers.



3. Yes, this book is channeled literature. However, if you have an open mind and can get past the messenger, you'll find the message is both entertaining and enlightening. Personally, I find the realistic detail of this book to be very refreshing. It seems we all too often look upon George Washington as a hero and leader without par and forget to actually get to know the man. In this book you'll get to know the man and Mason that was the father of our country.

5 comments about Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant.

1. "Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant" is the kind of radical right-wing piece of hate speech so commonly published and rarely ever read or taken seriously except by radical right-wingers who've already made their mind up about the subject. Do the research and you will see that most of Humberto Fontova's facts are completely off. Che Guevara for example was not a Stalinist, he was a Marxist, true, but he even cautioned against implementing EVERY Marxist idea to a society (this is outlined in "The Che Guevara Reader"). Fontova's claims of the Cuban system are also off, Cuba has the highest life expectancy rate in Latin America and even the purest water sources for the population. Fontova obviously belongs to the hateful Miami Cuban Mafia that would be happy to see Cuba return to it's previous status of a virtual U.S. colony and racist state. Fontova rarely ever touches upon the fact that the United States waged an illegal terrorist campaign on Cuba that has killed hundreds (unlike the false "genocide" numbers Fontova provides here which are ludicrous), in fact, one of the key terrorist, Luis Posada Carrilles, is in U.S. custody and has admitted to blowing up a Cuban airliner with 75 civilians onboard, the Bush White House refuses to extradite him. Fontova calls popular figures such as Oliver Stone "idiots," eventhough he probably couldn't hold his own on a debate with Stone and goes on to lash at other cultural figures (I suppose Fontova also considers Nobel-Prize winner Gabriel Garcia Marquez to be a half-wit for his friendship with Castro). To make matters worse, Fontova has a dead writing style that borders on the monotone. The use of language is bare and simplistic, throwing accusations without facts, attacking others without valid reason and supporting terrorist actions against a sovereign nation. For the real facts on Cuba I would recommend the titles published by Ocean including "Fidel: My Early Years," "Che Guevara Reader," "Latin America: A Continent Awakens" and many others. If you want to read radical right-wing propaganda that would make the likes of Oliver North and Pat Robertson proud, this is the book for you.



2. This author is incredibly biased and left Cuba when he was a child- too young to remember or understand anything. I don't know his family's story, but the truth is that most of the Miamians have never even been to Cuba and are 2nd and 3rd generation, and that the first wave of Cubans was not poor people on rafts- it was fascists who supported Batista, rich brothel and casino owners, mobsters, etc. Not a great crowd, to say the least. People love Fidel Castro throughout the world for a reason... check out "Fidel, the Untold Story" for a good documentary that gives the other side. I'm not saying Fidel hasn't done some bad things, but he's not even close to the Stalin that the liars in Miami paint him as. For all my anti-Communist sentiment, I have to say, this book is ridiculous. Anyone who actually believes that Cuba was better under Batista had better think twice about the sources they are hearing.



3. I love this book and cannot wait for Humberto's next book on Che. I find his information very well researched and reflective of his extensive and informed studies in Latin American History in which he has his Masters degree from Tulane University.
   
   I am a first generation American. My mother left Cuba in 1960 at age 15 and she, like so many other Cuban exiles,have in fact been back to visit Cuba recently, and we have had several family members in Cuba visit and keep in touch.
   
   Before Castro, Cuba was a very enlightened country. As indicated in Humberto's book, the per-capita income was high and the standards of living were high also. This was because Batista encouraged unionization and established a minimum wage in Cuba.
   
   This did not go over well with the wealthy property owners or business owners. When Castro came about and promised reform, it was primarily the upper classes that supported him. They wanted to do away with the unions and minimum wage for their own economic gain.
   
   The people that supported Castro were not the poor farm workers or laborors. The poor people opposed Castro as indicated in Humberto's book. They had more to gain by keeping Batista then they did by having Castro take over the country.
   
   The Cuban people that backed Castro and Che were expecting socio-economic reform, not the political reform that was the end result.
   
   I think more people should read this book. Hollywood glamorizes Che and Castro as heros that liberated the poor people of Cuba. Reading this book may help people to the realization that Castro and Che took this beautiful, tourist magnet of a country and turned it into a third world country that "not even Hatians" (per Humberto) ant to immigrate to.



4. Back in the early 80's I was a stupid liberal who believed the propaganda in the media (agitprop) regarding Fidel being a "benevolent" dictator after reading a glowing book extolling his many virtues and painting a picture of a utopian Cuba. When my Nicarguan and El Salvadoran immigrant friends vociferously disagreed with me, I read "Against All Hope" by Armando Valladeros, my first book on Communist dictatorsip, which shook me to the core. I began to question my preconceived notions and embarked on a journey through the rich genre of anti-Communist literature by those who actually LIVED under the brutal regimes--Nien Cheng, Haing Ngor and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, among others. Their stories are distressingly similar, harrowing and painful to read, about the malignant ideology which crushes the human spirit and justifies beatings, murder, incarceration, and all manner of evil while masquerading as good, just and humane. I also read books by American authors who had been Communists, had second thoughts and left the "progressive" faith: Collier and Horowitz, Whittaker Chambers, etc. These wonderful authors turned me around politically and philosophically, and helped me to start thinking critically. I now apologize to the Cuban people (and all the victims of Communist repression and genocide in the 20th Century) for my previous naivete, but in my defense I was young, Democrat and had tried hallucinogens and marijuana, all of which clouded my judgement back then. Plus, I used to believe Mike Wallace and the liberal media. Big mistake! For some reason they are vested in their "progressive" fantasies and do not let the truth disturb them...and they all seem to hate this country which has given them so much. Very sad.
   
   "Fidel, Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant" by Herbert Fontova is a very important addition to this genre because it offers history, facts, and story after story by witness after witness, about Cuba, Che, Fidel, and many of the prominent American sycophants who toady up to this corrupt, murderous, barbaric dictator. Did you know Fidel is one of the world's richest men (Forbe's magazine) and a master of propaganda, having learned from the masters (Soviets). This is a bitingly funny, touching and comprehenive book. Fontova is clearly passionate about this subject, which to me makes this book even more enjoyable. It is sorely needed because Fidel is finally going to his just reward in the netherworld--and the Cuban people may finally get a reprieve after 50 years (a half century!) of suffering and countless deaths. What happens next--in the very near future--is history in the making. I will be watching closely, hoping and praying for Cuban freedom, for the USA and the rest of the free world, and to see how the liberals in Hollywood and the media react. Will they hysterically mourn his passing or finally TELL THE TRUTH about this monster? Their reactions will say more about them than Fidel. Who do you believe--a rich American who flies to Cuba on a private jet and has a "personal audience," with Fidel, sumptuous food and living accommodations for a few days--or the average Cuban who has actually lived the nightmare? It will be very illuminating, especially when the obituaries and books are written and hidden stories emerge, as they always do after the death of a tyrant...Can anyone now alive remember how sweet life was before the revolution?



5. Just wanted to weigh in here as a liberal who also teaches Spanish.
   I loved both books, the one on Che and this one. I teach my advanced students not to buy into the mythology of Motorcycle Diaries. We study Cuba and Latin America, and the history of dictators such as Peron and Pinochet. We study the Dirty War and students come away with a much better idea about these two men who somehow have become symbols of freedom or revolution instead of the oppressors they are.
   
   So be careful of buying into the propoganda that all liberals love Che and Fidel.

2 comments about Mao: A Reinterpretation.

1. Lee Feigon's book is not an in-depth analysis of the underlying Chinese and western political philosophies that influenced Mao. (For intro into that, see the outstanding _Maoism and Chinese Culture_ by Zongli Tang and Bing Zuo for the diverse Chinese philosophic influences; Maurice Meisner's and Nick Knight's writings for two opposing takes on the nature of Mao's Marxism; Stuart Schram for a general overview; Anita Andrew and John Rapp for an argument that Mao's ruling style was native autocracy). Feigon chooses to focus on the narrower questions--Was Mao China's Stalin, and his intra-party opponents always more benevolent? Was the Cultural Revolution simply a repeat of Stalin's purges of the late 1930s, or was their some other purpose?
   
   In the 1970s, it was trendy to uncritically praise Mao's China as a new kind of society where everyone selflessly struggled for the common good and avoided the usual social blights associated with development. Even those with a more balanced view still understated the repressive side. Through the mid-1980s a more ambivalent view prevailed. Now, the common view is that Mao was a monster like Stalin who pushed more reasonable leaders like Liu Shaoqi out of the way in the process of destroying China. Some even say Mao was much worse than Stalin. Feigon's purpose is to argue against this new popular view. He does so well, but the book lacks balance, which is a significant flaw, and the fact that others like Jung Chang, Jasper Becker, Zhengyuan Fu or Steven Mosher are polemical in the other direction is no justification, nor is the fact that most people have heard that side repeatedly already. For this kind of subject matter, one should write assuming the book may be the only book on the subject for a particular reader.
   
   Half of this book is a biography of Mao and a history of the Chinese revolution up to 1949. It seems directed at those with only a moderate degree of knowledge about 20th century China. Yet for the well read, a few conventional wisdoms are debunked. For more detail on this period, see Philip Short's biography.
   
   For the post-1949 period, Feigon argues that: a) Mao and the PRC were Stalinist through 1957, after which Mao tried to break with Stalinism b) The break with Stalinism left an important residual impact that indirectly contributed to the struggle for democracy and modernization.
   
   Feigon describes the establishment of a Soviet-style state in the early to mid-1950s, and how the 1956 "Hundred Flowers" period was a minor and very limited break with this model. The party pressured Mao to let them silence those daring to criticize the infallible Leninist vanguard. Unsurprisingly, Mao caved and endorsed the "anti-rightist" witch hunts of 1957-58, led with great relish by Deng Xiaoping. The "pragmatists" used the campaign to silence intellectuals and repress workers, even though Mao had insisted that workers be free to strike (later having it written into the constitution, which Deng removed in 1982).
   
   In the Cultural Revolution chapter, Feigon argues that Mao, realizing how entrenched and elitist the party's bureaucracy had become, came to believe only a period of (managed) mass rebellion could shake things up enough to prevent the permanent Sovietization of the PRC. Though Feigon concedes that the CR did not leave any lasting new institutions that could serve as even a basis for future democratic reforms, he argues for two positive political legacies of the CR: 1) a weakened bureaucracy 2) permanent infusion into the political culture the idea that the people have a right to criticize or rebel against autocratic or corrupt officials. Even the exiled dissident intellectual Fang Lizhi acknowledged the latter (though doesn't give Mao credit). The CR also wiped out a lot of rural illiteracy, bridged the rural/urban health care gap, and left a basic industrial base for the reformers to build on.
   
   This argument has some validity, but is oversimplified. There was a lot of bottom-up populism, and the conservative (party-defending "red class") red guards were different from the rebel (anti-pre-CR officials) red guards and worker rebel groups, an often ignored fact. (The latter were the primary victims of the CR, at the hands of the anti-CR army). However, there was also a lot of unprincipled horizontal factional warfare (Andrew Walder has recently challenged the class-based "social interpretation" for Beijing). And more crucially, Mao was apparently no great friend of the rebels, double crossing them repeatedly and doing nothing to prevent their large scale repression and massacre. (For more on this, see Anita Chan "Dispelling Misconceptions About the Red Guard Movement", Journal of Contemporary China, Fall 1992; and Peter Moody Jr.'s follow-up, Fall 1993, and the classic volume on the CR by Hong Yung Lee). Further, exactly how anti-bureaucratic was Mao? The post-1969 reconstructed bureaucracy remained as enormous, intrusive, and arbitrary as ever (though particular rural micro examples can be found to support the argument, e.g. Han Dongping's village study, which Feigon cites extensively).
   
   Should Mao get at least a little credit for planting the seeds of populist anti-Stalinist outlooks, even if he betrayed them, because others took them much further in 1974, 1976, 1979-80, 1989 and 2002, or was it all just a Legalist power play? This is an interesting question debated by scholars on Mao and the CR. Feigon's book is a contribution, though one-sided.



2. Mao: A Reinterpretation is a new political biography of Mao which provides a different view of the leader as a committed revolutionary who contributed to China's history and culture. The real Mao wasn't a genius, nor the evil leader later biographies have portrayed. This reinterpretation examines both his life and the lasting effects of his ideals.

5 comments about The Lincoln Enigma: The Changing Faces of an American Icon.

1. Attractively produced compilation with highest scholarship.... Boritt directs Lincoln studies at Center,(civil War) Gettysburg site. Has more than 60 pages illustrating portraiture of Lincoln, diverse forms. Mt.Rushmore,& tourist type statues- in NY, Abe greets girl who suggested he grow a beard. An 'abandoned' forlorn 62' statue stands at a closed campground,Charleston,IL. Best source for,trivia/folklore. More of same,short paperback,Gordon Leidner's collection,2001.



2. "Look at me and I'll tell you without blinkin' this southerner prefers Abraham Lincoln"

   goes a rap at the start of this book, and it is aimed at those of like mind, southerner or not.

   A warning - half the book consists of illustrations of Lincolniana so that this is one for the specialist. The Lincoln- seeker should read David Donald's excellent biography before opening this book.

   That said, does this book tell us anything new about Lincoln? The answer is yes, without being final or definitive. I liked particularly the article on Lincoln and the Constitution, showing that he was not the 'dictator' of Copperhead legend, nor the conscious revolutionary of Garry Wills' 'Lincoln at Gettysburg'. However, did his actions not have revolutionary results?

   The article on the Lincoln marriage I felt a bit limited, but also a good corrective to the image of Lincoln the hen-pecked husband trapped in a loveless union. 'Mary, Mary, we are elected!" he cried to his wife on arriving home that great day, showing the essential nature of the partnership between them. However, this essay does not use Mariah Vance's remininscences, though written very much later that the 1850s, which show Mary Todd Lincoln as addicted to paregoric (which contained opium) and subject to alternating fits of drugged lassitiude, and withdrawal-induced sickness. However, even the Vance memoirs (she was the Lincoln's servant) are not entirely negative on Mary Lincoln.

   Other essays cover the Lincoln youth, his fascination with death, his status as war leader and finally his image in American art. The enigma is somewhat clarified but somehow the enigma, and the continuing fascination, remains.




3. The US is so protective of Formosa. Why should China not use the Lincoln example. The solution to an area wanting to secede is to reduce it to rubble cause the death of one million people, civilian and military, declare total war on both the military and civilian population. Once conquered, the cause of the war is to say that Formosa cannot be independent, is that Formosa is no longer a part of China. Install military dictators, take away the vote of most of the citizens and dictate that they must approve certain amendments to the constitution, even though they are not a part of China, before they can re-enter the union. During the conflict shred the constitution, lock up millions without benefit of trial, and close any news outlet that does not agree with the destruction of Formosa. Once the destruction of Formosa is over most certainly the victors write the history and within 100 years or less the current president of China will be considered one of the greatest presidents of China. So it takes Formosa 80 years to recover we will always know how evil they were for wanting to attain self determination.

   Most certainly the Founders of this Republic seceeded from the British Empire. What was the diference?




4. Reread your history, hun. Or at least try thinking about it from a different angle.

   Great book, by the way.




5. What were Lincoln's views on death, afterlife and religion? Did he really have a loveless marriage? Would things have been different if he and Jeff Davis had swapped places?
   
   Speculative thought, and some answers, are to be found in this new volume, along with a wealth of perspective of Lincoln in artwork.
   
   The reason I only four-starred this book is that the body copy of text, before the artwork appendices, is only about 160 pages. This book could have used at least 50, if not 100, pages of additional meat on his bones.
   
   AND, this is LINCOLN! It's not like that would have been that hard to do.