5 comments about Franklin and Lucy: President Roosevelt, Mrs. Rutherfurd, and the Other Remarkable Women in His Life.

1. Biography is a form of archeology. Over 60 years after Franklin Roosevelt's death, new information is still coming to light, including recently discovered correspondence with Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd. Persico, who authored the superb "Roosevelt's Secret War", uses this and previously discovered documents (including the diary of Margaret "Daisy" Suckley, FDR's cousin) to draw a portrait of a man whose Byzantine personality has baffled researchers and biographers for decades. FDR preferred the presence of women over men, not only romantically but for ordinary company. Perhaps because with women, he did not feel the need to prove anything, perhaps because he loved gossip, FDR revealed himself and the workings of his mind more to women than to men. Previous biographers have referred to the sinuosity of FDR's thought process and his "feminine" mind (this is not meant as an aspersion against his essential masculinity, but reflects a flexibility of which many men are not capable). Persico reveals much of that by detailing his relationships with several women, including his mother Sara, Eleanor, Lucy (truly the love of his life), Missy LeHand, Daisy Suckley, Dorothy Schiff, and his daughter Anna. He also details Eleanor's relationships with Earl Miller, Lorena Hickok, and David Gurewitsch (the latter a younger doctor on whom Eleanor had something of a schoolgirl crush on during her later life.) Persico is impartial, and neither tries to obfuscate nor sensationalize the nature of these relationships. He presents the facts as they are and lets the reader draw the conclusions.
   
   Now the bad news...
   
   There are so many factual errors in this book it's hard to keep track of them, errors which could have been easily avoided with some quick fact checking. Persico refers to FDR's half-nephew, James "Taddy" Roosevelt, as Sara Roosevelt's stepson - - he was her step-grandson while Taddy's father, James "Rosy" Roosevelt was her stepson. He states that Eleanor suffered a case of hives during her honeymoon - - it was FDR who came down with hives. FDR's second inauguration is stated as having occurred on March 4, 1937, it took place on January 20 of that year - - the first January inauguration to happen after passage of the 21st Amendment. (Persico repeats the error with the 1941 inauguration, claiming that as the first January inauguration). Persico also misstates the circumstances under which Harry Truman learned that FDR was dead and Truman was President. Most of the above are so well documented it's hard to fathom how these mistakes were missed. Well, perhaps not: In the acknowledgements, Persico credits his wife and daughter as research assistants. But an impartial, unrelated editor, might have caught these errors.



2. Having read but a single work by author Persico prior to this (Piercing The Reich), I was unsure of what to expect in a book ostensiby about a man and his relationships with women. Having read a number of books on Roosevelt describing his disingenuous, Byzantine, unforthcoming dealings with men, I was not surprised that he ran true to form with women. However, this book broke some new ground.
   
   First and foremost was the particular stress on FDR's being crippled and unable to walk and how that worked out to be both a hindrance and a blessing. Here the narrative was extremely productive.
   
   Second, this book discusses FDR and his female entourage from the point of view of a very sympathetic woman. One wonders if this book was actually written by Persico or by his wife or daughter. For example, considered this discourse on page 246: "Schiff's fascination with FDR further displayed the superiority of women in their attitude toward men in that they consider the whole man, his intelligence, power, (wealth??) humor, and charm as producing attractiveness, not simply physical appeal, an approach that cannot always be said of male attitudes toward women." Wow! Who wrote this? Gloria Steinem?
   
   Nonetheless, this books brings together FDR's relationships with those women close to him into fascinating focus with but a passing mention of the world around them. Persico presents the facts carefully, particularly when it comes to "Did they or didn't they?" -- very much in line with the motto of Fox News; "We report -- You decide." Sometimes he begins to moralize as "... Missy was all to ready to ....", but then draws back without passing judgment. I liked that.
   
   There are two negatives in my opinion: a number of facts and dates are incorrect, and he fails to draw a sufficiently complete portrait of Missy LeHand, Lucy Mercer, Daisy Suckley or Dorothy Schiff for the reader to fully relate to them. These were all actresses with staring roles yet their characters remained clouded in mystery. Perhaps he ran out of time, perhaps out of sources. In these cases he needed to indicate where the reader should go to draw in the missing lines.
   
   In this book FDR is truly as Holmes said; "A second class intellect [with] a first class temperament." Eleanor, the lady who loved the Tartars but not herself is summed up by, "...[she had] great compassion for the masses... but not much interest in the individual."
   
   All in all, a valuable read.



3. With all these politicians screwing around on their wives these days, why exactly do we need to know the gritty details of one from like a century ago? I guess because he's FDR and he became a super important president, and one personal decision of his might have changed A LOT of things from a historical perspective. The bulk of what I know about the Roosevelts came from History class. My teacher mentioned once that FDR supposedly died in the arms of his mistress, which I found kind of interesting, so I decided to see what the big deal was about. At the time, I definitely felt for Eleanor being the wronged wife who did all this crap for her husband and that was how he repaid her? Of course, the story is never that simple. It's never just one person's fault.
   
   I guess the first thing is this Roosevelt marriage that seems to puzzle a lot of people. How they got together in the first place is kind of a mystery. FDR, in his youth to middle age, is always described as kind of a McDreamy-- really handsome, rich, charming, good pedigree, etc. Eleanor, as much as I love all that she did, was never much of a looker even in her younger days. On top of that, she was passive, shy, and had serious self-esteem problems. It makes you wonder how these two ever got together and what they had in common other than a distant relation. The book mentions that FDR had quite a few love interests before Eleanor and probably could've picked any girl he wanted, yet somehow he ended up married to her. In retrospect, knowing what eventually happened to their marriage, perhaps he should've just stuck to his beauty queen debutantes. Or maybe he should've waited a few more years before getting married.
   
   It's not until about 10 years into the Roosevelt marriage that Lucy Mercer even appears though she's billed as the female lead in this. The fact is, there just isn't enough known about her to garner her that role. If this were a movie and they were allowed to embellish/play with the facts, maybe it would work. But since they're going on hard evidence, there's not much out there. However, it's hard to deny that they had a genuine love affair. And I agree with the author that they probably had sex since they were two attractive people who were in love and alone a lot. What else would happen? Still, in the end, FDR chose to stay with his wife. If this were such an all-consuming passion, I would think he'd just go for it. And other than her physical beauty and apparent "niceness", there isn't really that much that distinguishes Lucy Mercer. What exactly made their relationship so special and long-lasting? Other than the fact that she was young, pretty, available and he wanted sex.
   
   I can kind of see why people think stuff went on with Missy Lehand but it's all too much speculation. Who really knows what they were doing on that boat? It wasn't like the Lucy Mercer thing where the consequences were an almost divorce and eternal separation from the marriage bed.
   
   And while I did feel for Eleanor, I can't help but give her a little blame on this too. Okay, so FDR probably didn't love her as much as she loved him to begin with.. but what did she really expect after they stopped having sex? That just "talking" would be enough to sustain a marriage? Sorry but she shouldn't have been that naive. And while it totally sucks how she found out about his death, she was the one who essentially gave up on marriage. They could've used a good marriage counselor.



4. Joseph Persico's "Franklin and Lucy" (Random House 2008) is a shallow collection of anecdotes centered around FDR's affair with, and later relationship with, Lucy Mercer. The stated theme of the book is the women in FDR's life, but Persico's theme ends up as nothing more than idle conjecture about how certain women, including his mother, Sara, his wife, Eleanor, and his faithful assistant, Missy LeHand, might have affected FDR as a person. Most of this has already been covered ad nauseam in prior books on FDR, and this effort ends up as a weak series of gossips, such as whether FDR's relationship with Missy LeHand was amorous.
   In addition to its failure to bring any new information to the table, the book is filled with factual errors. For example, Persico has Theodore Roosevelt's first election to the presidency in 1902 (p. 51), FDR's second inaugural on March 4, 1937 (rather than the correct date of Jan. 20, 1937) (pp. 227, 249), and the Roosevelts' 20th wedding anniversary on March 17, 1926 (p. 164). This is very disappointing from an author who is well respected and who has authored a prior book on FDR, "Roosevelt's Secret War" (Random House 2001). Admittedly, these are minor errors, but one has to wonder whether this lack of attention to detail infects the entire book.



5. In this biography, Persico paints an intimate portrait of Franklin Delano Roosevelt through the lens of his relationships with various women over the course of his life, including his mother, Eleanor, Lucy Rutherfurd, and others. I came to this book without much information about the Roosevelts, and I was pleased to find an assessable and thoroughly entertaining biography. Persico approaches his subject with sensitivity and balance, as deserved by this great family, but he does not avoid the tough issues.
   
   Persico clearly has done his research but has refrained from overburdening the book with details. Although Persico remains focused on his theme throughout the book (FDR's relationships with women), the book is not a narrow treatment of FDR's life. All of the important events are included, along with the less well-known events that give us a glimpse into FDR's true character. This book's only misstep is a strange first chapter that seems to have been plucked from the middle of the book and stuck on the front, probably as a clumsy editor's last-minute attempt to force a "catchy" beginning.

5 comments about Young Stalin.

1. It is well known that Trotsky for a long time fatally underestimated Stalin, whom he thought colourless and plodding. The flamboyant Trotsky was for years more famous than the laconic provincial from Georgia, but if he had familiarized himself with Stalin's early career, he would have realized, as Lenin did, that Stalin was ruthless and efficient. This book documents Stalin's early career in great detail. It shows the charisma, leadership qualities, toughness and ambition that he had displayed from his schooldays onwards; how he was hardened by the brutality of his drunken father and by the violent nature of Georgian society; what a genius he had for organizing strikes, the burning of oil refineries, murderous bank raids and piracy, protection rackets and kidnappings, while himself not taking a direct part. Sebag Montefiore says that Stalin's involvement in some of these crimes has never been conclusively proved; but he has little doubt that they all bore his stamp. Stalin frequently used disguises and aliases, and several times escaped from prison or from exile.
   
   The frequent inefficiencies of the Okhrana and the Tsarist police emerge strongly in this account; but it was not always inefficiency: Stalin had many informers inside the security forces, just as they had many informers inside all revolutionary parties - so much so that some have suspected Stalin himself of at times having been a Tsarist agent, which Sebag Montefiore does not believe. But Stalin did have many people murdered whom he suspected of being agents for the security forces, sometimes perhaps because real agents planted such suspicions in his mind. The worst traitor was Roman Malinovsky, a man whom Stalin trusted implicitly, but who was instrumental in getting him sent to the worst of his exiles in 1913 and then betrayed Stalin's attempts to escape from there also. Malinovsky's treachery was exposed in 1914. Sebag Montefiore says that Stalin's future suspicions of even his closest comrades was rooted in this experience.
   
   The book is a prequel of the author's The Court of the Red Tsar, and, as in that book, Sebag Montefiore pays little attention to ideology. He consistently calls Stalin's followers gangsters, and some of them indeed were no more than that: Stalin certainly made use of the criminal underworld. But he himself and many of his followers (women as well as men) were more than simply gangsters. Of course they believed - as do the followers of Bin Laden today - that the ends justify the most brutal and ruthless means; but the ends were ideological. Stalin fought for Bolshevism when among the Georgian (Marxist) Social Democrats, the Mensheviks were in a majority; he was prepared to challenge (successfully) even his hero Lenin when Lenin thought the Bolsheviks should take part in the elections after the 1905 Revolution. He was not interested in personal enrichment, and the bulk of the proceeds of the bank-raids he organized went to Lenin or to the Bolshevik cause in the Caucasus, keeping back only a little to celebrate each successful heist in a wild party.
   
   We see Stalin becoming the leading Bolshevik inside Russia while Lenin was abroad: he joined the Bolshevik Central Committee in 1912 with special responsibility for Bolshevik policy on nationalities; he edited Pravda (where he sometimes took a different line from Lenin's and indeed turned down forty-seven of articles Lenin sent in!) But then he was sent into exile, and the description of his four years (1913 to 1917) near the Arctic Circle is one of the most graphic parts of the book. In October 1916, with the war going badly, the exiles were conscripted. Before they had left Siberia, the Tsar had fallen, and the Kerensky's government ordered their release, March 1917, and Stalin returned to Petrograd.
   
   Claiming seniority, he resumed the editorship of Pravda and was the most dominant Bolshevik until Lenin arrived in Russia three weeks later; then he aligned himself with Lenin's determination to fight the Provisional Government. In July, afer a failed Bolshevik uprising, Kerensky's government struck at the Bolsheviks. Trotsky, Kamenev and other leaders were imprisoned; Lenin and Zinoviev went into hiding. Stalin, for some reason left at liberty, was once again briefly in charge. In September the imprisoned leaders were released when Kerensky needed their help against General Kornilov; and then began the struggle inside the Bolshevik Party between Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin on the one hand who now wanted an immediate uprising, and `the Waverers', Kamenev and Zinoviev on the other who thought it too dangerous. But Lenin had his way, and the Bolsheviks seized power. Sebag Montefiore enjoys himself describing some of the farcical elements of the take-over: `the reality of October was more farce than glory. Tragically, the real Revolution, pitiless and bloody, started the moment this comedy ended.'
   
   



2. Even with today's conveniences of travel, it would take an extraordinary person simply to get around all the transit points and destinations in Stalin's young life. And as to personal networking skills, he seemed both to command the underground while using little effort to find support casually walking on the street.
   
   The writing and historical story-telling by the author were outstanding. While having read and viewed quite a bit on this epoch in history, I never previously got the significance of Stalin throughout the entire revolutionary ordeal. Presently, with this book's influence, I pivot from from viewing him as a crude power grabber in the later phases as we are inclined to think based on past western accounts. There was a great deal more depth to the character and story, as this historian reveals.
   
   This is a monumental contribution to straightening out modern history. It clarifies a great deal.



3. 
   First of all this is probably the best non-fiction book I've read in recent memory. Montefiore's portrait of a young criminal virtuoso measures up favourably to some of the best biographies ever written, works like Sylvia Nasar's 'A Beautiful Mind' and Martin Gilbert's 'Churchill', .
   
   The style of writing is unique in that it is both direct and elegant, a combination of clipped factual biography and sensational prose that succeeds in turning a historical document into a novel that puts your modern day bestselling thriller to shame (I'm looking at you Da Vinci Code). Stalin's days growing up in a provincial Georgian town, from the traditional yearly town brawls, to being a choirboy in the church, to fomenting anarchy in the seminary after his discovery of Marxism (Stalin probably wouldn't have made a great priest anyway), the author's diligently researched work gives the reader an often hilarious portrait of a surprisingly likeable young Georgian who, with some luck and charisma, just happened to become one of the most callous and paranoid autocrats in the history of the Russian empire.
   
   I thought it unfortunate that the author didn't really expand upon the particular brand of Marxism that Stalin espoused. Although to be fair he does remark that Stalin could quote and paraphrase Marx effectively enough to convince anyone of the cogency of his arguments, which is probably more revealing than any ideological claims. Like most fanatics, he expropriated the facts that suited him. In any case the book is about the Stalin, and not the revolution or Marxism.
   
   Another difficulty that people might encounter is the deluge of Georgian and Russian names that flit in and out of Stalin's life. Spandarian, Shaumian, Egnatashvili, Davrichewy, Alliluyeva, Svanidze, Mukhtarov, Sverdlov, Lunarcharsky, Dybenko, Kamenev...keeping track of everyone is like being Kirstie Alley's nutritionist, the shear quantitiy and variety is overwhelming. Sometimes people show up just so they can get killed a few pages later, but I suppose we can blame Stalin for that and not Sebag-Montefiore. In any case the author is adept at separating the important figures from more minor actors, without wasting much space on repetition or lengthy digressions.
   
   A few minor editing mistakes and the aforementioned quibbles however, do not detract from the fact that this is a first rate work of scholarship and writing. Easy five stars.



4. I'm probably in agreement with most in saying this is one of the most entertaining reads about such a dreadful subject as "Soso". As with Potemkin's biography, Mr. Montefiore's ability to unearth biographical details gives life to the characters. I'll mention just a few juicy anecdotes about the book (in no particular order): the author manages to interview an old man aged 109 at the time who 100 years earlier had seen Soso bereave his first bride, Kato; he reveals that the Okhrana was foresightfully worried that airplanes, back then, could be used for suicide attacks on the seat of government; he walks us through the various fathers Stalin could have had; and he takes us to Soso's last, longest and harshest Siberian exile beyond the arctic circle.



5. This is great action/adventure in the same vain as Georg Lucas's Young Indiana Jones series. Follow the exploits and exciting adventures of a young Joseph Stalin as he travels the world with a cadre of friends, including an wacky funny version of 12-year old Leon Trotsky...and in regards to that, you will perhaps laugh uneasily at the forshadowing when the 14 year old Stalin jokes to his 12-year old pal: "if you keep making those bad jokes, I am going to have you killed!" I especially enjoyed the love interest of the young Stalin, 13-year old Ameila Earhart, who takes Stalin barnstorming as they steal one of the Wright Brother's early planes. This novel is suitable for the whole family, and I think it is only a matter of time before Disney or one of the studies pick this up and makes a family movie out of it!

5 comments about Andrew Jackson.

1. 
   He's on most lists of our best presidents as well as our $20 bill. Democrats hail him as a founder. After reading this book, and attempting a few others, it's still hard to understand why Jackson has been accorded such respect.
   
   I started both the Brand and Remini bios. Through them I came to understand his childhood and how the American Revolution shaped his character and views. The psychological toll of losing his nuclear family at a young age had to be enormous. His mother's heroic search and rescue of him in a very abusive British POW camp illustrates the love and family loyalty he lost.
   
   Wilentz quickly outlines the child/youth/military and plunges into the presidency, which was what I was seeking when I started reading the others.
   
   Wilentz cleary states the complicated facts of Jackson's war on the bank. To Jackson it was a war on the aristrocracy. It is not within the scope of Wilentz's book to editorialize, but were Biddle and his cronies really controling the US economy? Could the land issues have been settled with (Lincolnesque) homestead acts, which undoubtedly would have been very popular? Could he have fought for legislative mini-changes (Clintonesque) to curb certain powers, such as bidding out government banking needs. Jackson and Biddle were clearly obstinate equals, but as Pres, it would seem that there were other paths to take leadership on this since he deemed it important. How necessary and/or effective was this bank war? Did it really save the "little guy" in the short or long run?
   
   In his tooth and nail fight on nullification, Jackson may have been as instrumental as Lincoln in holding the union together. Jackson's stand against nullification not only solidified the sentiment for his day, but also built precedent for future times. This and stopping the British in New Orleans, may be worthy of his stature among historians, Democrats and currency commemoration but, they don't explain the genesis of the phrase "Jacksonian Democracy".
   
   From admitedly limited knowledge, I still don't see enough to assign this man's name as an adjective to democracy. The author alludes to the changing of executive staff and to a future unfolding of more direct elections of public officials. I assume, in the nature of things, appointment prerogative would have evolved, but where is the chapter on how AJ worked on behalf of more direct election? Are not the Trail of Tears and his actions on behalf of those supporting slavery anti-democratic endeavors? I still don't see how the war on the bank, which admittedly has "little guy" overtones, balances all this out.



2. Clear and consise prose; well documented; theories of future effects well substantiated.



3. Today's historians are still in a quandary on why Andrew Jackson, the Seventh President of the United States and one of this nation's greatest leaders, was a man of complete contradictions in his public life.
   
   Was he the populist politician who championed the rights of all citizens in the growing republic, yet owned slaves to do the hard work on his own property?
   
   Was he the grandiose dictator who tried to crush his political enemies whom he viewed as elitist or just a man from the working class battling those seeking to dominate the masses?
   
   Was he the brilliant military genius who defeated the British in the War of 1812 for America's only major victory in that ill-conceived conflict against England? Or was he the racist extremist who conquered the Indian Tribes and removed them from their homelands in the south because it was good for his own political career?
   
   Was he all of that and more?
   
   Sean Wilentz is a Professor of History at Princeton University and has written a new examination of Jackson in `The American Presidents' series that are published by Times Books which are edited by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Schlesinger had previously written about the famed chief executive sixty years ago in the Pulitzer Prize winning biography `The Age of Jackson.'
   
   Wilentz tries to explain in the brief 195 page tome those many contradictions of the Tennessee military commander nicknamed `Old Hickory' for his toughness who is generally accepted as one of our nation's top half-dozen greatest presidents.
   
   Jackson served as chief executive from 1829 to 1837, when America was transitioning from having leaders who had participated in the Revolutionary War and the immediate years after to those politicians who would serve in the two decades leading up to our nation's civil war. Jackson was a soldier in America's struggle for independence against the British in his early teens, earning a scar on his head when he was struck by a sword belonging to a British officer and is the only American president to ever have been a prisoner of war.
   
   His greatest military triumph came in January, 1815; albeit two months after the War of 1812 had officially ended with a peace treaty signing, when troops under his command defeated an invading force of British soldiers twice their size landing near the southern port city of New Orleans, Louisiana. He then spent a few years in battle with several of the Indian tribes in the southern states which culminated in those tribes' relocation to the Midwest part of the country that came to be known as `The Trail of Tears.'
   
   Jackson first ran for president in 1824 and got the highest tally of popular votes in the election. But none of the multiple candidates running that year were able to get a majority of the Electoral College votes to claim victory. The contest was then decided in the House of Representatives where runner-up John Quincy Adams was selected as the new chief executive after he made a deal with third-place candidate Henry Clay to gain his votes in exchange for Clay being promised the job of Secretary of State.
   
   Jackson was livid on what happened to him that year and vowed revenge against what he considered to be the thievery by those politicians belonging to the New England aristocracy he so hated.
   
   He ran again in 1828 and soundly defeated Adams in a re-match. But that victory turned bitter sweet when his wife Rachel died a few weeks before the March, 1837 inauguration which the president-elect believed was caused by stress when his political enemies spoke ill of her and her marriage to Jackson before her divorce to another man became final.
   
   Wilentz writes that once in office, Jackson was a champion of the concept of the republic, meaning the will of the majority ruled while he attempted to re-structure the functions of national government into how he believed it should operate.
   
   Modern pundits complain that today's politicians can be nasty and uncivil towards each other in their rancorous discussions on the issues of the day. But today's media sound bite zingers are tepid and restrained compared to how those of the different political parties and viewpoints treated each other two centuries ago when many disagreements ended with the two participants settling their feud with a duel.
   
   The political opponents of the president referred to Jackson as ruling like a king or dictator, since the new chief executive did his best to re-tool the government into a bureaucracy of his liking such as making multiple changes in his cabinet to get those advisors he desired and would do what he wanted. The colloquial phrase `to the victor goes the spoils,' refers to Jackson's selection of those political supporters of his choosing into specific national government posts to do his bidding.
   
   Jackson considered himself to be a man of honor and believed his words and those spoken by others to be a reflection of their firm beliefs. That's why he terminated the relationship with John Calhoun, his own vice-president, in 1832 when he determined the South Carolina politician had crossed him when Calhoun supported that state's desire to secede from the union in seeking nullification of certain laws over keeping the union together.
   
   Calhoun resigned as vice-president, the first national officer to do so, got himself appointed as a senator from South Carolina while that state made plans to secede from the union if the federal government continued to demand its share of taxes through tariffs. Jackson mobilized federal troops to send into that state and let it be known that he would publicly hang his former vice-president if cessation plans went forth.
   
   They didn't.
   
   Compare that to today's politicians who say or do anything to keep their particular electorate happy, even it will hurt the nation in the long-term as long as it keeps them being re-elected.
   
   Jackson also hated bankers and the concept of paper money that's not based on gold or silver. He closed down the Second Bank of the United States, (today's version of the Federal Reserve) and paid off the national debt in 1835 which endeared him to the masses. So it is with much irony that his image ended up on our twenty dollar bill, the most popular American paper currency that is issued by today's Federal Reserve Bank which is privately owned and makes a profit from the public debt that increases every year and has no chance of ever being paid off.
   
   Wilentz states that Jackson put the nation on the road to true democracy for all the people, although the democracy he believed in is not what we have today because that process evolved over time with the work of the many presidents who would follow.
   
   By the end of Jackson's second term, his popularity and large group of supporters across the country helped to start the creation of the modern Democratic Party and he was able through his influence to get his second vice-president, Martin Van Buren, elected to the presidency in 1836. Jackson's own political beliefs also led to the formation of the political parties movement when the Whig Party, mainly composed of those politicians who opposed Jackson on just about everything during his time in office, was created in 1834. They lasted for twenty years until it was replaced by the Republican Party in 1856 for the continuation of the two major political party system this nation still has today.
   
   Can it be considered unfair for those of us now alive two centuries later to judge Jackson and the other early 19th Century presidents on their stands regarding personal liberty when slavery was still prevalent to today's standards of freedom for all citizens? Yes. But that's not Jackson's fault. He made the decisions he believed on what was best for the country's long-term survival without compromise to any special interest group seeking favors for their particular cause to the detriment of the nation as a whole.
   
   What politician of today can make that same claim?



4. Nice book and an easy read. Not very much depth, but well written and informative. I would recommend to the casual reader, but not any historian.



5. The 2008 Presidential race is in full swing, and interest in the contest runs high. In order to keep my own bearings, I wanted to try to take a short but broader view of our Presidents and our nation's history. One way to do this is by reading some of the volumes in the recent "American Presidents" series edited by the late Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Each volume in this series offers, in short compass, the life and accomplishments of an American president together with an evaluation of his achievement.
   
   I chose Sean Wilentz' biography of Andrew Jackson (1767 -- 1845) because of our seventh President's role in broadening the basis of American democracy and because of the controversy he inspired and continues to inspire. Jackson was a flamboyant, larger-than-life figure with great virtues and as many faults. He was orphaned at an early age and bore for life the physical and emotional scars inflicted upon him by a sword gash to the head by a British officer during the Revolutionary War. Jackson fought off poverty and his own impulsive nature to serve an early term in Congress and in the Senate before the 19th century. He became a lawyer, a judge and a large plantation owner of the Hermitage in Tennessee. He became famous as an Indian fighter in wars against the Southeast Tribes such as the Creeks and Cherokees and against the Florida Seminoles. Jackson won a great victory against the British at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, (the War of 1812 was officially over at the time) which secured his fame.
   
   Jackson ran for President in 1824 but, following a close election, he was denied the presidency in the House of Representatives as a result of what he claimed was a "corrupt bargain" between John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay. In 1828, Jackson defeated Adams, inauguarating what he and many American people believed was a new age for American democracy. Wilentz describes the themes of Jackson's presidency as including:
   
   "robust nationalism on constitutional issues tempered by a restraint on federal support for economic development and a strict construction; a distrust of what Jackson called the corrputed power of 'associated wealth'; and a celebration of what one pro-Jackson newspaper called 'the democratic theory that the people's voice is the supreme law." (p. 112)
   
   In his biography, Wllentz reminds the reader that Jackson's age was not our own. Thus, the issues Jackson faced cannot be transferred directly to our current situation with the label of "liberal" or "conservative". Jackson was an enemy of big government. But in Jackson's time, this position made him a foe to the power of wealthy and powerful people and businesses who had a close relationship to the government and who, Jackson, believed, were gaining too much privilege at the expense of the people. Thus, a major activity of Jackson's presidency was his destruction of the Second Bank of the United States, a private bank which had been chartered by Congress and which exercised strong power over the American economy.
   
   Jackson thought that American government up to his time had been the province of the leisured and elite. His avowed goal was to make the government responsive to the will of the majority and to expand the basis of democracy. He did so, in part, and at a terrible cost. Jackson's democracy was formed by a coalition between Southern planters and northerners. This coalition inevitably led to compromises with slavery and to sectional tension. Jackson censored the mails to prevent anti-slavery tracts from flooding the South and opposed attempts to curtail slavery.
   
   In his younger days, Jackson had been a cruel Indian fighter, and in his Presidency he set in motion the removal of the Southeastern Tribes across the Mississippi over what became known as the "Trail of Tears." Wilentz, together with many other scholars, has some sympathy for the goals of the removal policy, but he emphasizes the cruelty and carelessness with which it was carried out, resulting in the death of thousands of Indian people.
   
   Jackson was a strong, even autocratic, excecutive. Perhaps his finest hour was in defusing, with a mixture of strength, compromise, and cunning, the "nullification controversy" resulting from South Carolina's attempt to set aside a Federal tariff with which it disagreed. Jackson was also an expansionist president who foresaw the acquition of Texas and the West even though no new territory was added to the United States during his two terms.
   
   Wilentz praises Jackson for his democratic vision and for his early version of egalitarianism even while he recognizes that, in its treatment of Indians, African Americans, and women it was quite different from our own ideals. Wilentz is favorably disposed towards Jackson's economic policies, including his war on the Bank. Many historians have different, less favorable views of Jackson. Those readers wanting an in-depth view of the period might want to compare two lengthy studies: Wilentz' own "The Rise of American Democracy" (2005) with the more recent study by Daniel Walker Howe "What hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848", which takes a less favorable view of Jackson and a more positive view of his predecessor in the presidency, John Quincy Adams, and of Jackson's opponents, the Whigs.
   
   Those readers wanting to reflect upon the history of our country and on where it may be going during this election year will enjoy reading this short study of Andrew Jackson and its companions in the American Presidents series.
   
   Robin Friedman

5 comments about Mr. Adams's Last Crusade: John Quincy Adams's Extraordinary Post-Presidential Life in Congress.

1. The product was sent in satisfactory time. It will be a gift and has not been read.



2. John Quincy Adams is traditionally remembered for two things, that he was the son of the 2nd President of the U.S. and that he was a failure as a President. However, this book takes that into account, the tremendous amount of pressure he felt living up to the "Adams" name, and that he found himself as a politician in the House of Representatives. This wonderful portrait of man who has lived in the long shadow of his famous father, never disappoints. His fight against slavery and his defense against censure are insightful, giving the reader a clearer picture of a man who was governed by the principles created by the Founding Fathers. I enjoyed it very much!



3. This is avery enjoyable read. I took the challenge after seeing the mini-series John Adams. The son is as key to a great American as his father. This book should raise Mr. JQ Adams on the list of great Americans.



4. John Quincy Adams was the son of John Adams, the second President of the United States, and a critical Founding Father. The younger John went to Europe with his father as a youth, hobnobbing in the courts of King George III, Empress Catherine II (the Great), and King Louis XVI. As an adult, he served as American ambassador to the Netherlands, Prussia, Russia, and the United Kingdom, negotiating the end of the War of 1812, was sent to the US Senate from Massachusetts for one term, and spent eight years as Secretary of State to President James Monroe. Then, in the controversial election of 1824, he was elected the sixth President by the House of Representatives. His tenure was highly flawed, and, after one term, he lost reelection. Thereafter, he spent his remaining years in the House, never having lived up to his potential.
   
   This is Adams' traditional biographical narrative, as Joseph Wheelan sees it, with the emphasis placed on his failed presidency, and his 17 years in the House of Representatives largely an afterthought (albeit one wherein he acquitted himself adequately). Wheelan devotes about sixty pages to his career up until his election to the House of Representatives in 1830, and then spends the remainder of the book on his 17 years ther, ending with his death in 1847 (in the Speaker's office, no less). Wheelan here proposes a different narrative: in Hollywood terms, the failed presidency is the big setback the catalyzes the hero's final triumph. And "hero" is the key word, because Wheelan explicitly states in the introduction that he believes we can take from Adams' example in the 21st century when looking for leaders. Herbert Butterfield would undoubtedly have clucked his tongue at this, but as I've always thought Butterfield was being far too severe in discouraging people from trying to find lessons and heroes in history. I find Wheelan's thesis very attractive. The result is a profile of Adams that focusses on his many positive qualities; it is not a hagiography, as it makes allowance for personality flaws, but these will not have much impact on how the reader sees Adams. Most relate to his presidency, and a lot of that, through this presentation at least, results from Andrew Jackson's bitterness and Adams' own overly-developed sense of fair play in the face of political reality (which most people would think as much a virtue as a flaw).
   
   Wheelan's John Quincy Adams is a tremendously appealing figure: dedicated to being a man "of the whole country" (though he, by the point Wheelan focusses on, has really become a man of "the abolitionist North", because he revels in antagonizing the slaveholding Southern states, not that they didn't deserve it), with a very old-fashioned (in the early 19th century!) view of public service, and a strong devotion to the ideals of the Constitution's framers (he knew most of them, after all). Wheelan singles out his various causes championed during his time in Congress:
   
   1) The First Amendment - through his nearly decade-long campaign to repeal the Southern-backed gag rule in the House that quashed the right to petition the House against slavery.
   2) Womens' rights - through his defence of women involving themselves in politics (though he was not so far ahead of his time as to argue for giving them the vote).
   3) Science - Adams was a lifelong proponent of the sciences, and of government sponsorship of them, and Wheelan spends some time detailing his role in the creation of the Smithsonian Institute, whcih I was not aware of.
   4) The big one, his campaign against slavery. Indeed, he was perhaps the first great political opponent of the Slave Power, a friend and inspiration to future player William Seward (Lincoln's Secretary of State), and astonishingly foresighted in predicting the Civil War decades in advance (and, ultimately, welcoming it as a necessary bloodletting to purge ill from the land).
   
   Adams is remembered today mainly as the son of another president who squeaked into office via a "corrupt bargain" (a fiction of his opponents that Wheelan spends some time arguing against) - Wheelan makes a very persuasive case for his worth as a principled politician. Certainly it makes one wish for eight years of John Quincy Adams over another son of a one-term president we are all too familiar with.



5. Wheelan has written an excellent book on the post-presidential career of John Quincy Adams. Some attention is given to Adams as our nation's sixth president, if merely to conform to other historians' assessments of the Adams presidency, who have mainly considered it a failure. The one problem with books like these is the obvious effort to throw the most favorable light on the author's subject. That being said, I found much to admire in John Quincy Adams and the author makes a good effort in bringing those qualities to light.
   
   As would be shown later in this book, John Quincy Adams would come to represent one of the last vestiges of the founding generation. His father's career needs no mention from me. Any student of the American Revolutionary War period and the early republic will (hopefully) know about John Adams for his influential role. His son became a well-traveled and educated young man who would serve later administrations, perhaps most notably as James Monroe's Secretary of State.
   
   I found it interesting how John Quincy Adams played with political parties; he didn't really follow any party line completely. He was a principled man who seemed to be moved more by his conscience than partisan politics. His ambivalence towards political parties, as the author mentioned, was one of the factors that inhibited his presidency. Adams, as the author mentioned, just could not adapt to the changing political realities. His ascendency to the presidency was certainly controversial enough, being he did not win a plurality of the popular vote and his electoral victory was decided by the Congress.
   
   His post-presidential career was marked by 16 (roughly) years in the House of Representatives. In this capacity he fought for the right to petition, attacked slavery, gave vocal support to women and Native Americans, and opposed the annexation of Texas as a slave state and the resulting events leading to the Mexican-American War. Adams displayed a fearlessness in confronting his opponents in the House with often very little support. He fought a censure motion and won, and he eventually helped overturn the Gag rule, which had limited the right to bring petitions to the House. He became hated by many, seen as a champion by others, but usually won the respect of his colleagues through his forceful intellect and character.
   
   It was during this period that Adams assisted the defense team for the black crewmen of the Amistad, who were trying to regain their freedom after being taken from their homeland illegally to be sold into slavery by Spanish authorities. Eventually, the U.S. courts decided for releasing these Africans and allowing them to return to their homeland.
   
   It wasn't hard after reading this book to come to have a sympathetic view of this man. It is indeed a remarkable story of a remarkable life. Even if this book is overly praiseworthy of its subject, I think John Quincy Adams probably deserves some favorable press. A really good read.

5 comments about The Wicked Wit of Winston Churchill.

1. I received this book as a birthday gift from my lovely wife. I loved this book so much I bought is twice more as a gift for a departing superior and for a friend of 10 years. Anyone who has a love of history (particularly this era) will love this book, anyone in possession of a sense of humor will appreciate this book as well.
   
   Recommended for a quick, witty read and as a gift for anyone you know with an 'off' sense of humor. We all know someone like that, are related or married to them, or publicly disavow any association with them. Regardless, buy them or yourself (ii case its you who is openly disowned) this book.



2. 
   The wise and witty words of Winston Churchill ring throughout the 20th Century.Any that knew him personally or had anything to do with him must have waited with anticipation of hearing what he would say anytime he opened his mouth.This held true for Kings,Presidents,Generals and yes even for his family,including his grandaughter.At times, his use of silence could be as cutting
   a reply as anything he could say.No doubt, he took as much enjoyment in his words as anyone he was aiming them at.It wasn't all one way either,he seemed to love a well delivered line,even if he was the object.
   He neither claimed to be nor in fact was an'educated man',he
   was similar to Mark Twain,in that he could cut to pieces,people of much greater formal education,if they tried to engage him in 'a battle of words'.
   In his book "My Early Life" he said."It's a good thing for an
   uneducated man to read books of quotations" and described how he read "Bartlett's Quotations".It is obvious that he often used and modified others quotations.
   His friend Lord Brinkenhead quipped,"Winston has devoted the best years of his life to preparing his impromptu speeches."
   "One of Churchill's most famous speeches is that of June
   1940:'We shall fight on the beaches,we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,we shall fight in the hills...' It is said that,as he paused in the great uproar that greeted these words,Churchill muttered to a colleague next to him,'And We'll fight them with the butt ends of broken beer bottles because that's bloody well all we've got!"
   A great little book reminding us of the words of one of the great voices of the 20th Century.



3. You do have to think about many of his quips, most are very funny in a dry, perhaps a bit cynical manner. It is sometimes difficult to place his statements in the context of WW-II (I was born in 1944 and I do have a memory of that era because it was the biggest event in my parents lives - they talked about it all the time).
   
   After a session with Mr. Churchill, I often wish American politicians had a bit of his prespective (though I reall doubt they would ever get elected).



4. I am a long-time admirer of Sir Winston Churchill. As a leader he had few (if any) equals, but I have always been impressed with his sharp wit and stinging retorts. One can learn much about the man from what is found in this little book, not only from the quotes attributed to him, but also from those zingers hurled his way by friend and foe alike.
   This book is an easy read. It can be picked up for a few moments' pleasure without distracting from the greatness that is Sir Winston Churchill.



5. A good review and background of famous quotes of Churchill. It also showed him to be a good husband and sober man, despite the rumor otherwise.

5 comments about The Secret History (Penguin Classics).

1. This is one of THE classic primary sources from the Byzantine empire. It was written by Procopius who was the emperor Justinian's offician chronicler. And indeed, in the official histories according to Procopius, Justinian is the holy and wise emperor who could do no wrong. Unable to give his real opinion (or at least the flip side of the coin to any of Justinian's achievements) in this state-sanctioned propaganda, Procopius went on to write a "Secret History" aimed for publication after Justinian's death.
   
   The result is something that reads like an ancient tabloid (see his descriptions on the sexual perversions of Justinian's wife Theodora!), an endless tirade of hyperbole, rhetoric as Procopius claims Justinian to be literally the son of a demon, purposely intent on bringing havoc on Byzantium and as a vicious SOB. It is here that the reader can dismiss the whole thing as the rantings of a lunatic who had a personal grudge against Justinian (which is true). But this does not make it a worthless document.
   
   Firstly, it's genuinely interesting. A quick read made more lively by the extreme rhetoric describing Justinian's viciousness and greed - which is different to many other more "methodical" Byzantine sources. Secondly as you read it, you really do get a good look at some parts of Byzantine life, from prostitution to constant legal disputes over wills in the aristocracy to the attempts to revive/keep up the notion of a Roman empire.
   
   Thirdly and most importantly, I see Procopius in this book as more of a political commentator rather than a historian. The text does read like a modern day op-ed piece criticising a contemporary reader. I did not expect to find in the authoritarian and dogmatic world of Byzantium a voice like Procopius - who opposes torture (even of "heretics"), who thinks that women should marry who they love and who even opposed Justinian's persecutions of the Jews. All of these things make him a unique voice in his era and his work an important milestone in the history of human rights.
   
   Yes, he certainly does exaggerate. But there's no question that a lot of it is due to Justinian really being a murdering SOB and Procopius having a totally different worldview. So, besides being an interesting read, the Secret History revealed to me much about our own world and the ideas of authority, dissent and human rights - not bad for a "historical" work!



2. The Secret History was a book written about the behind the scenes life of Emperor Justinian and his wife Empress Theodora. Procopius also documents the exploits of top general Belisarus and his quest to rebuild the Roman Empire (on a shoe string budget of course). If you want to
   hear classical dirt, here it is!
   
   Highly recommended.



3. I actually read partway through G.A. Williamson's translation of The Secret History, then read H.B. Dewing's translation cover to cover. In either case, it's amusing reading. Not all of it is as hilarious as the parts which describe Theodora's early years as a total whorebag, but certainly interesting how many people Justinian killed or just outright stole from. Though I do doubt Procopius's figures of one trillion victims of Justinian: that seems a little high even by today's standards. But I won't spoil it for you, it's simply too crazy to describe.
   
   This is an important work from the ancient world that gives us a unique insight into the reign of Justinian and Theodora: not the glowing, offical, propagandist view that often emperors have written for them by official court historians, but what Procopius alleges is the "real" story behind all the propaganda. The odd thing was, that Procopius WAS the court historian responsible for that official propaganda...meanwhile he was secretly working on this book, which he insists was the "real" story, to be published after his death.
   
   I highly recommend this as one of the great insights into the ancient world. It reads like a soap opera gone mad.



4. 
   In which an apparently loyal aide gets a mountain of bile off his chest and proves that no man is a hero to his private secretary ...
   
   Procopius was the Byzantine equivalent of a White House staffer. Among other things he was secretary to the great general Belisarius. Throughout his life, and in the books which he published in his lifetime, he appeared to be totally loyal to Belisarius, and even more so to Emperor Justinian.
   
   He wrote an eight-volume history of Belisarius's campaigns, usually referred to as "The Histories" which is one of the definitive historial sources. Later he wrote an an account of the great works of architecture construced under Justinian's regime. That book, known as "The Buildings," is so nauseatingly sycophantic to Emperor Justinian that it to describe is as toadying would risk a class action from toads.
   
   But in "The secret history" which he wrote to be published after his death, Procopius got off his chest all the negative comments about Belisarius, Justinian, and their wives which he ruthlessly suppressed himself from making anywhere where they might get to hear about them. The book is pure undiluted poison, in a horribly fascinating way.
   
   This book accuses Belisarius of being a trusting fool, but he gets off lightly. His wife Antonina is accused of fornication (including with her adopted son) and murder. Justinian is accused of being quite literally a demon in human form, and his Empress Theodosia of being a Messalina: both Justinian and Theodosia are represented as mass murderers.
   
   Heaven only knows how much truth there is in this account. It seems unlikely that the people Procopius worked for could have been either as perfect as he presented them in the books he published openly or as demonic as he describes them in this book written behind their backs.
   
   Personally I suspect the real Belisarius was much closer to the man presented in Graves' novel "Count Belisarius" than the figure in this book. Nevertheless "The Secret History" will continue to be read for two reasons.
   
   First, it is probably the most devastating - and successful - exercise in character assassination ever written. And secondly if you should ever need a critical account of anything in the reign or life of Justinian, you are guaranteed to find it here.



5. Of the few primary sources on the early Byzantine Empire, Procopius' account of the reign of Justinian and Theodora is more "tell-all scandal sheet" than a document of reliable historical significance. Why Procopius was so venemous remains a mystery (for a time he enjoyed the good graces of the Imperial Court), but his version of the Royals is hardly reliable. For example, the sexual exploits attributed to Theodora are almost superhuman (if a bit humorous in their detail - "On the field of pleasure she was never defeated ...") Justinian is vilified in a similar vein (Justinian is described as "a fiend in human form.")
   
   Procopius expects the reader has some knowledge of Byzantine society (referring, among other things, to the "Blues" and "Greens" of the Hippodrome for example), as well as some familiarity with the geography of the city and other important personalities (such as Belisarius.) For the non-expert or serious fan of the time period, there is little of interest here. Even for the historian, aside from the vehemence and gall of the author, the direct historial value is questionable. With this said, _The Secret History_ is a short and interesting (if somewhat bizarre) account of one man's vendetta against the Imperial household.

5 comments about Lincoln's Melancholy: How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled His Greatness.

1. Over the years, Abraham Lincoln's story has been told so many times in a reverential, almost worshipful, way that he has come down to us as more of a larger-than-life demigod than as a living, breathing, human being. Putting all the tales together, one might easily conclude that Lincoln was simply a great leader; a brilliant orator; a humble humanitarian; and a man with few, if any, faults. But Abraham Lincoln was much more than that. He was once one of us: a man whose thoughts, feelings, fears, troubles and concerns were much like ours and, like us, he had to live his life day-to-day struggling with his own personal demons.
   
   This author takes us inside the living Lincoln and, based upon the recollections of those who knew him both intimately and casually, lets us see a side of Lincoln which is largely unknown today. To some extent, we get to see Lincoln as he saw himself and as he saw the world around him, much of it long before he came to national prominence. In a sense, we get to glimpse the real Abraham Lincoln up close and personal, warts and all.
   
   According to this author: Virtually all of Lincoln's friends, associates, and acquaintances perceived him as a man suffering from a deep sadness which most termed a "melancholy," but melancholy as the term was understood in the mid-19th century. According to the evidence, this melancholy often overwhelmed Lincoln, sometimes to the point that he locked himself away and at times considered suicide. This may, in part, be due to the fact that for most of his life Lincoln considered himself an abject failure and struggled mightily to overcome what we might now call depression.
   
   What appears to have kept him going was that he felt he had to do something worthwhile for mankind, although he had no idea what that something might be. Of course, as we all know, he eventually concluded that to save the Union slavery had to be eliminated one way or another. He hoped that this could be done peacefully over time, but his actions and words created an impression of him among Southerners which, upon his election as America's 16th President, precipitated America's Civil War.
   
   I truly enjoyed this book and learned a lot more about Lincoln, his life and times, and the sequence of events which brought about the Civil War. I must admit, however, that I found the book to be something of a difficult read, primarily because it cloaked Lincoln's mental illness in the language of the past rather than in modern day terminology and, as a result, would frequently would go off on lengthy explanations in relation to more modern theories. In my view, the book would be much more lay-reader friendly if the differences in language were explained up front and modern terminology then used throughout.
   
   In any event, although I don't think this book is for the casual reader, I feel it is a work which may very well help shape the way Lincoln is viewed in the future. So, if you are interested in Abraham Lincoln, I highly recommend it.



2. This is a beautifully written book about Lincoln--the complete man. Joshua Wolf Shank does a lovely job of describing how Lincoln learned from his bouts with depression and could only have persevered through his difficult, war-time presidency with the wisdom he gained from his melancholy. We often think of Lincoln solely as a pillar of strength; seeing him at his weakest paradoxically deepens his image of strength.



3. Shenk's study of Lincoln and depression is fascinating, and Richard Davidson does an excellent narration. I found the audiobook entertaining and thought-provoking.
   
   Shenk provides a detailed biography of Lincoln interspersed with musings on psychology and related topics. He points out that modern culture has unfairly criticized depressives as negative people, with only a minority of scientists pointing out that depressed people may actually be more realistic than optimists. In light of the threats facing mid-19th century America, Lincoln was more in touch with what was likely to happen than his happier peers. Shenk also shows that Lincoln's long-standing depression contributed to some of his outstanding character traits, such as his desire to be of service to his country and an unwavering determination to complete necessary tasks, no matter how unpleasant. This made him strong enough to lead his country through an incredibly bloody war.
   
   Shenk finishes the book with a discussion on Lincoln's biographers and how historians inject their own prejudices into published research. The final CD concludes with an interesting interview with the author.



4. Carl Becker said that every man is his own historian, and so it seems fitting that Lincoln be reinterpreted in the light of modern approaches to depression and mental illness. What is most admirable about this book is the author's respectful approach to Lincoln and the past; he insists on viewing Lincoln's behaviors in the context of the mores and culture of his time, which were far different from those prevailing today. The author persuasively argues that there was a romantic connotation to melancholy back then. This, combined with the cultural acceptance of greater emotion from single young men, explains some of Lincoln's publicly expressed emotional troubles as a young man
   
   On the other hand, the author insists on defining Lincoln as suffering two "breakdowns." It's not clear what relevance this modern term has, nor can the author distinguish between mental illness and the culturally acceptable level of melancholy and love-sickness a young man was permitted to manifest at the time.
   
   In short, given the lack of data (most notably the inability to interview the subject, Mr. Lincoln) and the different culture back then, why even try to import these modern day notions of depression to the 1830's-1860's?
   
   Still, the book does make three points exceptionally well, which makes this a very worthwhile effort.
   
   First, he destroys the idiotic notions that Lincoln was gay by virtue of close emotional relationships with men that were permitted and encouraged by the culture back then. Superficial modern day notions of sexual identity have no place in a different time with different (and perhaps healthier) approaches toward the permissibility of emotional intimacy between men.
   
   Second, he argues that Lincoln's struggles with melancholy were part of his larger struggles against adversity that toughened him up for the greatest trial faced by any American President since Washington. This is an old theme, but it is well constructed here. On paper, hugely successful men like Buchanan, Jefferson Davis, and General McClellan should have been the ones to lead successfully during this crisis. But in some ways their previous success was a curse. The depressive's realism and ability to solider on during adversity is perhaps far better preparation. A fascinating point and one that is completley lost in modern Presidential races.
   
   Third, the author argues that Lincoln's mental makeup allowed him to resist the compromises and stop gap measures that seduced men like Buchanan, Douglas, and Crittenden. Lincoln saw that the country had to recognize the evil of slavery and put it on the path to ultimate extinction. This was, of course, Lincoln's greatest insight, though I'm not convinced that his melancholia necessarily predisposed him to accept it. But there is some appeal in the contention that depressives can be curiously more disposed to realism in a world that is frequently evil and unfair.
   
   This is an insightful book, though the ability to analyze Lincoln's psyche given the absence of data and intervening culutural changes is, of course, a doomed venture.



5. I can truthfully say that this is the first book I have ever read about A. Lincoln. I loved it! It had intimate deatils and insight looks into the depression of the former President himself. I would reccommend this book to anyone wanting to read something "different, appeal'n" on Lincoln. Great book.

5 comments about Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, (Vintage).

1. Caro is a master writer. I found his book 'The Power Broker' about Robert Moses easily one of my top ten reads of all time, five star all the way. Johnson to me was not quite as interesting, but nevertheless this is a top notch book showing how Johnson came into the Senate and transformed it. No matter what one thinks of Johnson, if one is a student of American politics, this is a worthwhile book as it shows the influence of one man and what can be done. He was no saint, but he did manage to get things done. I am slowly working my way through it, it's been about 2 years, I keep picking it up and putting it down, but learn something every time.



2. Despite what you think of LBJ, and I don't think much of him, Robert Caro's series on Johnson far surpasses any other books that have come before or after on Lyndon Johnson. In all three of Caro's volumes, he includes mini biographies of important people in Lyndon's life. In this volume, Senator Richard Russell, jr. of Georgia is given his due, and his importance as friend and adviser to LBJ. Also, the first 100 pages include a history of the US senate that could stand alone as a book unto itself. I can't wait for Caro's fourth volume, alas it probably won't be out for another five years.



3. Anyone know? This is a masterful book series. The one on LBJ's presidency should be the best.



4. I had read Robert Caro's book on Robert Moses, and I found Master of the Senate to be an equally well-written and insightful read about an even more complicated figure. Readers get a real sense of the dark character of Lyndon Johnson. The book also offers a revealing view of the inner workings of the U.S. Senate. His portraits of Richard Russell and Sam Rayburn are particularly poignant. This book is highly recommended for anyone interested in 20th-century U.S. history, and for anyone who enjoys monumental biographies.



5. Caro's triology on LBJ is unrivaled, and this volume might lay claim to the best of the bunch. LBJ's genius in leading the Senate is put on display, but also his raw ambition and dishonesty. Caro shows how LBJ is a model of how to lead and not to lead at the same time.

1 comments about The Era of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933-1945: A Brief History with Documents (The Bedford Series in History and Culture).

1. According to its title, the book compiles documents from 1933-1945, the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but the contents are strongly tilted toward the 1933-1941 period. Maybe that's justified, given Polenberg's clear focus on domestic social and political issues and given, of course, that the New Deal period consituted more years than World War II. But I felt more than a little disappointed by the brief treatment the war effort received. And the documents pertaining to the war focused largely on Japanese internment and the issue of bombing the concentration camps. These are both important topics and worthy of attention, particularly the latter which I fear is sometimes overlooked (and which is in many ways a telling issue). FDR's Four Freedoms speech is not included, nor the Atlantic Charter, nor the Pearl Harbor speech. The book would definitely have profited from inclusion of these documents and perhaps also of documents pertaining to strategy or military policy.

   Nevertheless, the book has three strong points that make it worthwhile. One, Polenberg includes a wide variety of primary sources: speeches, photographs, Supreme Court decisions, letters, posters, poems, songs, press conferences, etc. The sources also come from a range of people, left and right, "large and small." This makes the book particularly useful as a teaching tool for showing students how to tackle primary documents of all types.

   Two, in the book's imbalance lies its strongest element--it covers the Depression and the New Deal thoroughly, offering new perspectives and carving new dimensions. We hear from the Roosevelts, both Franklin and Eleanor. We read the views of writers John Steinbeck and Upton Sinclair, and of Roosevelt opponents Charles Coughlin and Huey Long. Administration officials provide their opinions on New Deal legislation (including the frequently ignored Federal Theatre Project). Dorothea Lange's photographs depict the misery and poverty of the Depression. Mexican-American, African-American, and Native American viewpoints also receive attention. Polenberg successfully draws documents to paint a multi-dimensional, in-depth portrait of the 1930s.

   And three, Polenberg concludes with a fine bibliography for further reading on the various topics of spanned by the documents.

   All in all, despite the weak coverage of World War II, the book is eminently useful for readers interested in the period and especially for teachers and students. Had Polenberg covered the war years in the same detail as the Depression/New Deal, this would be a thoroughly excellent sourcebook. Nevertheless, it is a worthwhile book and could function quite well in an AP history course, or as a complement to reading, say, David Kennedy's Freedom from Fear.

No comments about Harry S. Truman: The American Presidents Series: The 33rd President, 1945-1953 (The American Presidents Series).