2 comments about Private Lives/Public Consequences: Personality and Politics in Modern America.

1. Chafe has produced a highly literate, totally engaging collection of eight essays on six recent presidents plus Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. As the author freely admits, these essays do not reflect new research or close examination of primary sources. Yet they do capture the heroic essence of each man (and they are all men, despite cameo appearances by Eleanor and Hillary) and they persuasively argue that each was deeply affected by a particular and profound personal crisis in his early years which, if properly understood, could have predicted how each would respond to the difficult choices they faced once in office. Perhaps Chafe is a better historian than psychologist but after reading this book it is hard to believe that the public has no reason or right to know not just the politics of candidates for high office but their most personal histories.



2. I will admit this book left me confused.
   
   It is not that William H. Chafe failed to articulate his point. Quite the contrary, the history professor and former faculty dean at Duke University communicates his theme clearly and concisely. His premise - that childhood events mold and influence the direction, personality and life choices of our national leaders - is an intriguing thought.
   
   It is, however, not history. Historians - and Dr. Chafe is a distinguished one -
   spend their hours probing primary sources for clues of how social movements swept up individuals and used them in their dialectic march towards a preordained future. Once done with their research, historians then hide their conclusions in books and articles distinguished by long couplings of footnote-festooned, incomprehensible complex-compound sentences.
   
   That is not this book. There are no primary sources; there are no footnotes. You can read these provocative essays and understand them. The author admits it is a departure from his academic training and practice.
   
   Based on his reading and observations, Dr. Chafe offers his thoughts on how the personal lives and political fortunes of Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Jr., John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Hilary and Bill Clinton intersected to shape the United States.
   
   For the moment, I will discount the fact that the author was three years old when Franklin Roosevelt died. This book is a fascinating read. As a professor of modern American history, I have no doubt Dr. Chafee has read many books on his subjects. His observations deserve a thoughtful consideration. It is difficult to document the psychological influences on a life. Nevertheless, Dr. Chafee produces poignant portrayals of vision and paranoia; moral strengths and weakness; sincerity and artificiality.
   
   I admit my Hegelian biases. They grow stronger as I age. Yet, I do not find it a stretch to believe the Muse of history recruits individuals it has equipped with the tools and experiences it required to continue its movement.
   
   History or not, this book will spark a new appreciation of the joys and heartaches of our country's recent past.

2 comments about Calvin Coolidge: A Biography (Signature Series).

1. Believe it or not I frequently as I read this book laughed aloud--sometimes with Coolidge, sometimes at him. While three presidents (Jefferson, John Adams, and Monroe) have died on the 4th of July, Coolidge is the only president to have been born on the 4th of July. His rise to the presidency is actually a story of amazing luck, and McCoy tells the story very well. While in hindsight it is easy to see that Coolidge was not a great president, at the time he did everything seemingly right, and was very successful in making people think he was a good president. I found this book held my interest throughout and was a very satisfying read. I will admit that there were a few chapters on his presidency which were on topics not of interest (can one be intrigued today by, e.g., the Kellogg-Briand pact?) but since one wants to cover the entire life they have to be there. For those of you reading a biography of every president, this does very adequately for Coolidge. (Actually, I read William Allen White's A Puritan in Babylon: The Story of Calvin Coolidge, but that was back on May 5, 1947, and my memory of that was not too fresh, so I thought I should read this more recent bio, and am glad I did.)



2. On my journey to read at least one biography on each president, I was not impressed by this effort. It could be that the Coolidge wasn't that dynamic, but the writing style required more concentration that I've found with other presidential biographies. Was our country better off from having Coolidge in the White House? I don't think so because he was so averse to controversy that he was inaffective. Was my study of the presidents enhanced by reading this book? I guess so, but does it have to be so painful?

4 comments about Man of the Century: Winston Churchill and His Legend Since 1945.

1. Sir Winston Churchill had no shortage of admirers among the generation that knew, or saw, him during his Finest Hour, 1940-1941. And they have remained legion among later generations. But in the wake of the September 11 attacks, many people -- and especially many politicians in need of stirring rhetoric -- have turned to WSC again, attracted to his reputation, perhaps, more than to the strict details of his long and eventful life.

   John Ramsden's fascinating book is an analysis of how Churchill's reputation was born, was consciously shaped by the man himself, and how it has evolved in the years since his death. The bulk of the analysis focuses on the five English-Speaking nations, though Europe is included as well. Another large section looks at the famous "Iron Curtain" or "Sinews of Peace" speech at Fulton, Missouri, in 1946, and how it -- precisely as WSC intended -- transformed the world's view of him from heroic-but-passé war leader to very-much-active statesman, politician, and geopolitical strategist.

   A final section, which I found the most interesting, analyses many of the key Churchill biographies written over the years, from Randolph Churchill and Martin Gilbert's official biography, to Lord Moran, to Manchester, to Roy Jenkins' "Churchill: A Biography" (2001), which Ramsden predicts will remain "the authoritative single text for years to come" (p. 545). Ramsden also seems to have counted every Churchill memorial statue, street, pub, and park bench in the world. And while a catalog of these things could easily become tiresome, this author skillfully keeps it from doing so.

   This is no small accomplishment. People who write about Churchill are forced to deal with the sheer immensity of his life. Many respond by being prolix, or trite, or they oversimplify, or caricaturize, or fall into either blind hero-worship or equally unnuanced destructiveness. Ramsden does none of these. One way he manages this, of course, is by being fairly sparing of the details of most of WSC's life. Thus, this book will make a lot more sense to someone who already has a fairly good understanding of who the man was, what he did, and when. Another way is by filling his text with stories about, and insights into, Churchill and his contemporaries that are nearly all some combination of fascinating, entertaining, and memorable. Thus, while he's dealing with some Grand Themes, the author surrounds them with a bodyguard of anecdotes that in and of themselves almost guarantee this will be a fun read for any Churchill student or fan.

   Significantly, Ramsden is not an *uncritical* admirer of Churchill, though he is clearly an admirer. The Winston we encounter here is not sugarcoated, and some of his unattractive features do come through. That and the mountainous research on display are two signs of Ramsden's chops as a historian.

   Finally, as a many-year member of The Churchill Centre and its preceding organization the International Churchill Societies, I should note and commend Ramsden's coverage of this worthy organization. Far from the worshipful society of star-struck fans it is sometimes painted to be, Ramsden shows the CC to be a reputable and respectable association of clear-eyed admirers of the man of the century, warts and all.

   I am always amazed at the new aspects or corners of Churchill's life and impact that people can find to write books about. This one, no question, was a book that needed to be written. And for any Churchill student or fan, it's one that needs to be read.




2. THis is not a biography of Winston Churchill. This is something new and fascinating. Here we have a text that seeks to examine Churchill the legend, the man, the history of him and his relationship with the english speaking world since 1945. Chapters include investigations of Churchills funeral, 'operation Hope Not' and Churchill 'failure' to lose World War Two, the Finest Hour. Here we learn of Churchill's FUlton speech and also his famous relationship with America, as an honorary citizen no less.
   
   Most interesting are chapters on Churchills relationship with Australia and Canada as well as new anecdotes about why Castro and Guliani, who agree on nothing, both are admirers of Winston. This book also examines the many biographers of Churchill, including Manchester, Gilbert and Jenkins.
   
   THe conlusion is that Churchill is not simply the 'man of the century' but perhaps of the next one as well. This is a tour de force and every Churchill admirer must read it, in fact anyone interested in histiography or in the western egnlish speaking world since 1945 will enjoy this. Every conceivable person stars in this cast, from Isiah Berlin to Dean Acheson and Robert Menzies. The English speaking world will enjoy this book about one of its greatest champions.
   
   A last note, the chapter on Churchill and Europe and Churchill and the Irish are extraordinary in their new takes on the British and their relationship with these two neighboors.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman



3. Notwithstanding Time magazine's famous judgement, I think Winston Churchill was the man of the last century. So does John Ramsden, who has written a book that will be deeply appreciated by those with a lively interest in Churchill's impact on politics and culture following World War II and up to the present. The text is somewhat uneven in that the author meanders between quite keen insights on important issues, such as Churchill's role toward what became the EU, and the more dubious, such as listing the various streets named for the great man in Australia. While a first time reader on Churchill should read a good biography like that of Sir Roy Jenkins, this book will be worthy of purchase by any true acolyte of this great, and still relevant, figure of history.



4. John Ramsden wrote a book of uneven quality about Winston Churchill's legend since 1945. Ramsden clearly does not target readers with no prior, in-depth knowledge of this towering presence. In some chapters, Ramsden gets bogged down in detail that, over time, annoys readers. Ramsden should have written shorter chapters about Churchill and his relationship with countries such as Australia and New Zealand. Enumerating a large number of streets, pubs, parks, etc. named after Churchill in these different countries does not add much to the narrative. Ramsden is at his best in Part One when he focuses on the controversial personality of Churchill. Churchill understood very well that he had to write his side of the story to mold the minds of his contemporaries and remain relevant to future generations. Churchill has outshined most other memorable men and women in this enterprise. Many people around the world still want to claim a piece of Churchill by quoting him in a wide variety of settings. The ultimate power of Churchill lies in the richness of his parley and writings which can still stir emotions when reason fails to mobilize for decisive action.

5 comments about Hand of Providence: The Strong and Quiet Faith of Ronald Reagan.

1. Hand of Providence is an awesome book, and when I opened and read the Forward by Michael Reagan, I couldn't put the book down.
   
   I was an admirer of President Reagan before, but this book shows how he was used by God throughout his life. Now I understand how extraordinary a man he really was. I learned thing I never knew about him before.
   
   The book is not about policy, and it isn't about government, it is about how one man faces the diffuculties of life and overcomes them with the power of prayer and reliance on his Savior, Jesus Christ.
   
   I could see this book upsetting many secular humanists that also admire President Reagan.
   
   In the final analysis, this book strengthened my own faith, as I learned how President Reagan overcame many trials. Read it and be inspired on nearly every page.



2. The "Hand of Providence" is a pretty good read, just know that Mary Beth Brown brings little new research or insight to Ronald Reagan. This collection is largely the work of other Reagan biographers. If you are looking for a biography that deals with the political side of Reagan go to Lou Cannon and Peggy Noonan for character & faith. Mary Beth Brown does add some new info with her discussions with Michael Reagan. I understood a little bit more about President Reagan and Jane Wyman's divorce.
   
   In terms of Reagan himself there is no doubt that faith deeply influenced his presidency and strategy during the Cold War, he says as much in his autobiography. Look, Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century. He destroyed communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Reagan is really a throw back in terms of his values, he symbolizes Americana, westward expansion, eternal optimism, faith in God and values.
   
   Brown's contribution with her book is that she recognizes the importance of Reagan's appeal in terms of faith with the "Reagan Democrats," her premise is that they were more attracted to his spiritual and faith politics than his economic ideas. This is no doubt very true, but they still work together for the kind of vast coalitions Reagan built. Another contribution by Brown, although not completely new was that Reagan knew how to win the votes of evangelical protestants and Roman Catholics at the same time. She was good to point that note out. She has some new information on Nelle Reagan as well. Overall this is a little simplified but largely accurate account of President Reagan and his faith. It's an interesting and very quick read, you could read it an afternoon. I wish she would have expanded her thoughts and had notes. I am glad Reagan's faith is getting more play in terms of publishing. It was so obvious with the language he used during the Cold War that there were obvious and overt spiritual overtones at work within the entire administration and their rhetoric.
   
   Overall if you are just getting started in this area, this is a good place to start. After that check out the original sources.



3. We had a copy of Mary Beth Brown's book sitting on the coffee table when a cousin - who holds a master's degree in history - came for a visit. He took the book down to the guest room and spent all night reading it. I think this earns Hand of Providence the accolade of being a "page turner." It is also a spiritual experience and a most revelatory glimpse into the soul of a man who changed the world forever. Even the jaded will be moved. The cousin began to pray for the first time in decades.



4. In my humble opinion, Mary Beth Brown has written a very readable account of the role of faith in Jesus Christ in President Ronald Reagan's long life. I have heard some things of President Reagan's faith but had never read anything intensive on the subject until this book.
   
   The title is not a political treatise of conservatism but rather the faith of a truly humble president. Politics are covered mainly in the context of Reagan's faith and why he believed and acted as he did.
   
   The book covers the following periods of Reagan's life:
   
   1. Early childhood and great love for his mother and respect for his father despite his father's struggle with the bottle and making a living.
   2. College years at Eureka College and early broadcasting days.
   3. Years in Hollywood and his role as president of the Screen Actor's Guild and how he became acquainted with the influence of communism.
   4. Failed marriage to Jane Wyman.
   5. Second and extremely successful marriage to Nancy Davis.
   6. Raising his children.
   7. His various ranches and he thoroughly enjoyed being there.
   8. Role faith played in combatting communism and how he worked closely with Pope John Paul in the 1980s to bring about communism's demise in Europe.
   9. His years as governor of California.
   10. Years as president of the United States.
   11. Post-president years.
   
   Apparently the book was written just before his death and perhaps would have included more information on his faith.
   
   If you are not a Reagan fan or are a political junkie, then this book is not for you. If you like to read on the role of faith in famous people, then this book is for you.
   
   Highly recommended. Read and enjoy!



5. A hagiographic biography of the spiritual life of Ronald Reagan written by a close friend of Reagan's son, Michael. While this book is from time to time excessively sectarian (evangelical, conservative Christian) and borders on preachy, it does provide helpful insight into the spiritual beliefs and hopes of President Reagan and their foundational (fundamental) role in shaping his private and public lives.

5 comments about Grant (Great Generals).

1. Mosier has done something few historians are willing to do- he compares the achievements of U.S. Grant with other great generals, namely Wellington and Napoleon. He also compares Grant's eye for strategy with later developments in American strategic doctrine. I.E., the notion of overwhelming an enemy's forces with eye to destruction as opposed to capturing territory are direct descendants of Grant's strategy to defeat the confederacy.
   
   Mosier spends to much time on Grant's early career and not enough for a curious reader on his leadership of all Union forces post 1864. All in all- this is a great introduction to a great general. Mosier often draws the ire of military historians for his methods and his desire to write about the things that people really want to learn about (namely, how does Grant compare across time as a general?)- to often historians are unwilling to make any such comparisons. This is a great intro to Grant.



2. Have to concur that the book abounds in factual errors and this is a shame because the overall approach and observations about Grant's genius are sound. Mosier dispels the myth that Grant was a dullard at West Point (not challenged enough) or a chronic alcoholic-- more likely an "episodic alcohol abuser" who had it under control by war. Other points: Casualties were as great, and often greater, in the Napoleonic Wars but armies were made up of the dregs of society and most of the dead weren't missed--harsh but probably some truth in that. So Grant wasn't a "butcher" but all strata of society was now represented even in the lower ranks and, coupled with a literate society and a lively press, deaths shook the nation, especially starting with Shiloh. Halleck comes off even worse than in most works: he set Grant up for Shiloh. Anyway, the novice really needs to get his facts elsewhere--and some decent maps--elsewhere but should eventually read this book.



3. I wish that I read these reviews before purchasing this book and hope that a few will save their dough by reading this. Not only is the book filled with basic factual errors it paints such a saintly figure of General Grant that one would suspect Mosier is related. From the author's perspective, Grant is not only a genius but his alchoholism and depression were actually assets! U.S. Grant was an excellent commander, far better on the offense than on the defense but Mosier's treatment would lead one to believe that he won the war single handedly. Again, I urge you to save your time and money, and find a good copy of Grant's Memoirs.



4. In my humble opinion, while Mosier has written a book with interesting insights and conclusions about Grant's ability as a general, I feel that he got too much into analysis of his personality and why he did what he did. I say this because at the beginning of the book, Mosier admits that he does not have much information on Grant the man. So why draw all of these conclusions if you do not know much of the man's personality? Why not just instead analyze his successes and failures?
   
   Another point of contention I have are the lack of good maps. While Mosier does have some good descriptions of Grant's campaigns, there are not nearly enough maps to detail his Civil War movements.
   
   Granted, while I am a lifelong Civil War buff, I am by no means and expert on the period. However, I do believe readers will get more out of reading other titles on Grant, specficially: "Grant" by Jean Smith, "Grant and Lee" by JFC Fuller, or the titles by Bruce Catton (Grant Moves South, Grant Takes Command).
   
   Complaints aside, I do believe that Mosier has written a book that will challenge the reader to further assess Grant's ability as a general and president.



5. I admire Washington, Lincoln and Grant. While the former two have garnered numerous accolades, Grant has been unjustifiably denigrated personally (alcoholic, fool, depressed) and professionally (butcher). His presidency has been unappreciated. Mosier makes a persuasive case that General Grant was probably a genius. In the final chapter, he briefly discusses Grant's undervalued presidency. I would highly recommend two other brief succinct biographies one by Korda and another by Bunting both of which explore Grant's presidency.
   
   Mosier dispels many Grant myths. He was not an alcoholic in a medical sense. He was self-taught in algebra. He entered West Point which was one of the best educational institutions in the world. West Point entrance examination had a 50% failure rate. He graduated 21st in a class of 39 but 40 of them failed to graduate so he was in the top 25%. He was a good artist with a great 3-D vision which was essential for a commander during battle. He was a great horseman.
   In the Mexican war, Grant was a quartermaster who demonstrated tremendous skill in logistics. This experience was vital when he commanded the Union armies and he made sure his men got enough ammunition, food etc. He displayed tremendous personal courage during the Mexican war (riding away to get ammunition) and ingenuity (dragging cannon to a church steeple).
   
   Mosier compares U.S. Grant favorably with other great generals, namely Wellington, Napoleon and Foch. He finds Grant to be superior all of them. Without him, the North would have lost the war. Grant never lost a battle. Mosier defends Grant against charges of butchery by comparing Civil War casualties with those suffered by the British and French in World War I. Robert E. Lee said, "I have carefully searched the military records of ancient and modern history, and have never found Grant's superior as a general". Grant's magnanimity in victory is still an American tradition.
   
   The book contains some historical errors which other reviewers have pointed out and I will not belabor here. This prevents me from awarding 5 stars. I am happy to find a book that appreciates this good, decent, honest everyman, great general and undervalued president.

1 comments about Thomas Jefferson's Architectural Drawings.

1. Jefferson's architectural drawings, edited and compiled by a noted architectural historian who taught at the university which Jefferson founded, give the general reader a perfect opportunity to observe Jefferson's talents not just as an architect but as a draftsman and artist. The drawings of the 1st and 2nd Monticello convincingly reveal to a general audience how the design and shape of his beloved home evolved from that of a two-story villa derived from the designs of the famous Italian Renaissance architect Andrea Palladio to the red-bricked, octagonal, and domed three-story Neoclassical building that we see today. The drawings of Jefferson's other architectural masterpieces like the University of Virginia, Virginia State Capitol, and Poplar Forest also show this extraordinary Virginian's knowledge and mastery of the concepts of Classical architecture. This book is a must for all who admire Thomas Jefferson the architect and for all who want to know how he designed and built such beautiful buildings without any professional training as an architect.

1 comments about The Presidency of James Earl Carter, Jr. (American Presidency Series).

1. Several years ago, a young co-worker asked me about Jimmy Carter and my response was that he was a much better ex-president than he was a president. His subsequent work in areas such as Habitat for Humanity as well as international relations has been excellent. He has served as a goodwill ambassador, election monitor and has negotiated several international agreements that favored the United States. He has also continued to be a champion of human rights causes throughout the world.
   Contrasting his success after his presidency with his performance while in office demonstrates the reasons why his presidency is generally assigned a mediocre grade. His idealism in championing human rights was the most obvious example of the truism that idealism may help get you elected, but it gets in the way of governing effectively. In the age of the cold war and international tensions, a cold, heartless pragmatism seems to be the only thing that works.
   I found Kaufman's explanations of the Carter presidency to be the most even-handed and honest that I have read. Carter made many mistakes, had some made for him and in other cases was just the victim of circumstances. Nevertheless, he did have some striking successes, the two most notable being the Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt and the treaty relinquishing the Panama canal. In these events, Carter showed how much potential he really had as a president. I remember when the networks pre-empted their regular programming as Carter, Sadat and Begin came back from Camp David with the agreement in hand. It was a stunning achievement and it amazed the world. The magic of that moment is captured in the book, as well as the subsequent problems that continue to plague the region. Despite all the violence in the area of Palestine and Lebanon in the years since the accords were signed, the fact that Israel and Egypt still continue to have formal relations and are at peace show how sturdy those agreements are.
   As someone who lived through those years and followed the Carter presidency in great detail, reading this book brought back a great deal of memories. Without attempting to boast, I do have an excellent memory, and the recounting of the events are all exactly as I remember them.
   The author closes with a very important and often overlooked point. Carter's presidency is considered a failure, and yet he refused to negotiate away anything in order to release the hostages in Iran. Reagan's presidency is considered a success and yet he attempted a bribe for the release of the hostages in Lebanon by selling armaments to Iran. There is no doubt that on that point, Carter bests Reagan.
   I would like to close this review with a personal point. Yes, Carter's pushing of human rights did create problems. But, when you consider that some of those whose rights were being violated, Walesa in Poland and Havel in the Czech Republic, rose to the leadership of their nations, perhaps he was just ahead of his time.

5 comments about Second Acts: Presidential Lives and Legacies After the White House.

1. Second Acts: Presidential Lives and Legacies After the White House chronicles the activities of former presidents who, far from retiring from office, are making important contributions. Now ex-presidents perform valuable services such as international emissaries, taking their own agendas overseas. Interviews with former presidents, first ladies, family member and staff members not only present these activities, but analyze how ex-presidents are continuing to shape the politics and events of the Oval Office. Essential for any collection strong in American history or politics.
   
   Diane C. Donovan
   California Bookwatch



2. This book tells of the post-presidential years of all the Presidents beginning with Truman. It is jam packed with interesting information, and while it may break no new ground it does a superlative job of summing the times and men involved. It is a very easy read, and I found it fun to read.



3. Second Acts tells the very human stories of the transitions Presidents Truman through Clinton made from president to private citizen--albeit very public ones. The book is highly readable, revealing the character of the men it covers in ways more illuminating than standard historical tomes. The Library Journal proclaimed it "highly recommended." So do I.



4. This book makes for light reading but it does offer a unique insight into what president's have done after leaving office and how the role has evolved and differed over the years. It also offers interesting insights into how the various presidents have interacted with one another and with the public at large including how they seem to regain or obtain a measure of respect that eluded them in office. One flaw that kept this from being a five star review was the number of editorial mistakes including a number of incorrect dates listed through out the book that ultimately made a perfect book slightly imperfect. But don't let that stop you from reading this!



5. An intriguing title for an uninspired book. Though the writing style is crisp, the content merely consists of a recitation of commonly-known facts and anecdotes. There is too much regurgitation of the high- and low-lights of the presidential years and too little new ground covered in the "retirement" years. The most serious flaw of the book, however, is the sloppy research; basic and unpardonable factual errors repeatedly leap off the pages, casting doubt about the author's knowledge and reliability. A sampling of the more blatant examples include:
   * Updegrove cites November 20, 1963 as the date of JFK's assassination!
   * He refers to vice presdient Alben Barkley as "Alvin".
   * At one point he identifies Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn as "Senate Majority Leader".
   * Six Crises, the book Richard Nixon wrote following his 1960s defeats, is erroneously included in the list of books he penned from "1979 to 1992".
   * According to Updegrove, Gerald Ford uttered his famous "I am a Ford, not a Lincoln" after taking the oath of office as vice president when, in fact, it happened after succeeding Nixon as president.
   * President Andrew Johnson, the first president to be impeached, was successful in "dodging impeachment", in the author's distorted version of the episode.
   * Updegrove claims that Winthrop Rockefeller, Nelson's brother, was governeor of West Virginia when he actually was governor of Arkansas.
   * He refers to the prestigious Wellesley College, Hillary Clinton's alma mater, as "Wellesley University".
   These are unforgivable factual errors. As teacher I cringe at the thought that unsuspecting readers will be misinformed when relying on this book for authoritative information.
   A suggestion for the author and editor at the Lyons Press: do a fact check before releasing books on biography and history.

2 comments about The Presidency of Calvin Coolidge (American Presidency Series).

1. The thirty-second volume in the acclaimed American Presidency Series presents a complex man and his struggles to solidify the economy and use cautious diplomacy in foreign affairs. Contrary to popular opinion, Robert Ferrell argues that Calvin Coolidge worked vigorously to achieve successful legislation and his dedication to public service provided him with a good background for the presidency from 1923 to 1929. The author, however, does recognize that Coolidge sometimes waited out troubles, acted indecisively, and displayed inactivity in foreign relations. For example, Ferrell avers that the president and his ministers incompetently handled political problems in Nicaragua and economic instability in Mexico. Also, the author acknowledges that Coolidge did not grasp the economic currents of his time.

   Ferrell raises the question in this study: "Why did Coolidge not do more to deal with economic matters and consult with his advisors?" Perhaps the author answers this question in mentioning the Federal Reserve's reluctance to intervene in monetary policy and stock market speculation. In addition, Ferrell analyzes Coolidge's political philosophy on two counts: his opposition to governmental paternalism and belief in laissez-faire economy. In fact, Ferrell writes that Coolidge cut income taxes drastically; by 1927, 98 percent of the population paid no income tax.

   The Presidency of Calvin Coolidge judges the president in an objective manner and uses extensively researched primary and secondary sources. The author, however, does tend to use quotes excessively and this may irritate some readers. Besides, Ferrell gives a vivid account about society in the 1920s, but his information about automobiles appears repetitive at times in this book. Furthermore, Ferrell suggests that to blame Coolidge for lack of foresight in not preventing the holocausts of our time seems unhistorical. Yet, a historian does indeed judge people and historical events both diachronically and synchronically. Overall, Fer! rell admirably addresses Coolidge's strengths and weaknesses in an analytical framework. Finally, the photographs add a realistic vision about Coolidge and his times.




2. This is an awful book for two primary reasons: 1. It portrays Coolidge in the unfair, stereotypical light that people have done for decades. (thus it lacks any new thought) 2. The book, mechanically speaking, is also poor. It is difficult to read, dry, and gives the reader no incentive to continue reading. The only reason I gave Ferrell a second star is because he is smart enough to pick a good topic to write his book about.

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.