1 comments about Yeltsin: A Life.

1. Colton has provided a smart, well-researched and well-written account of a pivotal figure in Russian history.

4 comments about Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson.

1. I was a bit disappointed in this book. Having read and relished The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, I was anxious to read the native narrative of another of the Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, where as Franklin's book combines delightful personal details along with perspectives on the man's government service, Jefferson's autobiography is quite dry and seems to be more an official catalog of committee deliberations than a story about his own life. The rear cover of the books states, in addition to other things, that the book "...presents a detailed account of his young life..." and "...his life in retirement." I think that one would be hard pressed to identify more than a couple paragraphs in this 101 page book in which Jefferson describes his youth or his retirement. The book was interesting, though more from the historical and political perspectives than from any insight it offers into the inner philosophy or personal life of the man.



2. This brief "autobiography" is not a self-promotion, an expose, or a book designed for the purpose of keeping the reader turning the pages in suspense. In fact, it has very little personal information about Jefferson or his life outside of the political happenings in which he was involved concerning the American and French revolutions. Certainly, there is no mention of his black lover, Sally Hemings, and for that matter little mention of his "real" family. Nonetheless it was to me a gripping tale that kept me reading, as I felt privy to the inner workings of the Continental Congress and the French Revolution from an influential American who was on the spot (and in the midst) of the events as they occurred. Perhaps, as a direct descendant of a signer of the Declaration of Independence, of which Jefferson was the author, I had a natural interest in this book. But I think not, as it had been sitting gathering dust on my shelf as I read lots of classic American fiction that I thought would be more rewarding. Despite (because of?) its dry, blunt, intelligent but factual style, the debates and events are center stage, with Jefferson's occasional but not obtrusive opinions being much appreciated. My great experience reading Jefferson's brief book led me to pick up W.E.B. DuBois' The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade, which covers some of the same ground although from a different perspective, and is equally rewarding.



3. Few autobiographies offer such a candid and vivid view of the mind of the author. In this, Thomas Jefferson's autobiography, there is no doubt as to the authenticity of the man, the revolutionary and the statesman: the virtue, wisdom and strength that is visible as Jefferson describes both the minor and major events and moments in his public life of service where his reliance upon the essence of the early Republic's laws and the spirit of the national consciousness were blended with the author's unique insight as to how to maintain the delicate balance of Federal necessity, states rights and the influence of the foreign powers and their affairs upon the young nation.
   
   Unlike the autobiographies of other founding fathers (Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, etc.), whose own accounts are more personal and revealing about themselves as well as judgmental and temperamental about their personal experience with their peers, Jefferson has crafted an autobiography, which is true to form: the form of the man and his beliefs, which influenced national policy without every being advanced to replace it, which served a nation selfishly without requiring anything else in return except for the promise of posterity to "preserve, protect and defend" the liberties achieved and to forever more "admire, relish and respect" the eternal need to defend and uphold, at any cost, both the people and the commonwealth for future generations to behold.
   
   I think it funny that today's democratic-socialists have adopted Thomas Jefferson as their "founding father". If anything, this book redeems the reputation and spirit of Jefferson, not as a democrat or democratic-socialist, but as a Republican, dedicated and sworn to instituting a democratic-republican form of government free from the tyranny of dictators and protected from the ill-conceived attempts of men and women from within to manipulate and pervert a form of government conceived as "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."



4. Written in 1821, TJ writes very quickly about his parents, childhood, and the time period before the revolution and spends way more time on the declaration of independence, articles of confederation, his presidency and the early 1800s.
   
   He does include an original draft of the declaration of independence which is neat. And his section on the articles of confederation shows the many problems the states had to deal with upon becoming independent.
   
   While Bill Clinton's autobiography was way too long, this autobio was way too short.
   
   But the perspective is one that the history books do not often show you.

5 comments about Abraham Lincoln and Civil War America: A Biography.

1. This book is a welcome addition ot the already crowded Lincolnia bookself. The author is the presumed successor to the retired David Herbert Donald at Harvard University. Gienapp has produced a highly readable and concise version of a Lincoln biography that can be completed on a moderately long airplane trip(and it's quite portable unlike most hardcover books). While relatively short,this book is a sufficiently thorough treatment of the Civil War Lincoln. I especially enjoyed the author's analysis of the politician Lincoln who mastered his rivals, both Republican and Democrat. This a good book for either a new Lincoln /Civil War "buff" or a good refresher for a scholar of the times.



2. William Gienapp's Abraham Lincoln and Civil War America answers a longstanding need for a biography of Lincoln manageable in size, accessible in style, and wise and balanced in content. Lincoln appers on every page of the book and is never lost sight of in the welter of events. He emerges from the text a real believable person, an individual and persuasive assessment of Lincoln's leadership abilities, the finest such appraisal avilable anywhere.



3. A good short, solid political biography. While Lincoln and the Civil War is its focus, by no means is this a battle history: Gettysburg is described in one paragraph.
   
   Professor Gienapp has written a book that will introduce one to, or remind one of, the long and trying path traveled by Abraham Lincoln toward ultimate greatness.



4. A short, but very well biography of Lincoln. It counts only 250 pages, but it gives an excellent overwiew and superb analyse of the life of AL. The bibliography is also very interesting. One of the best books about the 16th president. A must for a Lincolnhistorian.



5. Bill Gienapp was a brilliant historian, and his work "The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856" is a pillar of American political history. Unfortunately, his final work, "Abraham Lincoln and Civil War America," is a tremendous let-down. It is perhaps one of the worst examinations of Lincoln's life, and has almost nothing to do with "Civil War America." Essentially, it is an unqualified love poem to Lincoln, and strives only to prove his greatness -- there is no critical analysis at all. Lincoln is given credit for every political and military success 1861-1865 and is absolved from blame for all his mistakes. In reality, Lincoln was a complex personality and his public career was much more tumultuous than Gienapp proposes. It is disappointing that Gienapp, a man who dedicated his life to exhaustive, nearly flawless historical research would resort to such frivolous, uncritical "pop history" at the end of his tragically short life. Skip Gienapp's Lincoln and, instead, read Stephen Oates's "With Malice Toward None" or Don Fehrenbacher's "Prelude to Greatness: Lincoln in the 1850s."

5 comments about Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power.

1. Dallek frames Nixon and Kissinger as a "cautionary tale that the country forgets at its peril." He sees both men as arrogant and self-serving. Additionally, it is Dallek's feeling that both men used each other for political purposes. The great foreign policy victories of the Nixon administration - opening of China, détente and the peace in the Vietnam War - are all merely political moves by both men to win elections and prove that they are the smartest people in the country. Yet, the worst comes during the Watergate crisis, where actual foreign policy decisions have to be made including the Yom Kippur War. Nixon is merely seen as a second hand player in these dramas, thwarting when not ignoring Kissinger. It was a dangerous time with little oversight from outside the White House that we should all remember least it not be repeated.
   
   This good analysis drives the book. However, Dallek has the annoying habit of calling Kissinger "Henry." Its not like I'm gonna get him confused with the other major characters called Kissinger. Secondly, the most important foreign policy event between VJ Day and the fall of the Berlin Wall is the end of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates - where the United States basically used a steady dollar to keep the world economy on an even keel. On August 15, 1971 Nixon ended the convertibility of dollars to gold by closing the gold window. Yet, if you only read this book you would never have known. I am aghast at such an omission.
   
   Despite these problems, the book is still a good read. It attempts to conquer the myth that while Nixon was a bad domestic executive he was still great in foreign policy. Read it together with All the President's Men and you'll never like Nixon again.



2. Robert Dallek, biographer of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, has now written an account of the Nixon presidency, but it is not as good as Seymour Hersh's magnificent The Price of Power.
   
   In July 1968 Nixon and Kissinger told President Thieu of South Vietnam to reject US calls to begin participating in peace talks. In doing so, they broke the US law against private citizens conducting diplomatic negotiations.
   
   Nixon campaigned on a platform of ending the war, yet sabotaged Johnson's final efforts to negotiate, and then escalated the war. Nixon and Kissinger always opposed unilateral withdrawal. They aimed to continue the US aggression against Vietnam until victory could be achieved. When they talked of an `honourable settlement', they meant one that achieved all the USA's war aims. More US soldiers would have to die so that the earlier deaths would not have been in vain, which, absurdly, equates to saving the dead.
   
   Nixon and Kissinger cruelly indulged in sunshine talk about the war, promising the American people that one last push, one more invasion, would bring victory. But the truth was that the USA had lost. There was no alternative to withdrawal: their only choice was whether to end the war swiftly, or end it a bit later after killing yet more Vietnamese and having even more American soldiers killed pointlessly (20,000 were killed under Nixon).
   
   Nixon and Kissinger never grasped that a quick exit from Vietnam would have helped, not undermined, US credibility. They never asked other governments what they thought about a speedy exit. Détente was just a cynical device to try to divide Vietnam from its allies, and it failed.
   
   Dallek concludes that Nixon and Kissinger's policy towards Vietnam "was a disaster. Administration actions destabilized Cambodia, expended thousands of American, Vietnamese and Cambodian lives, gained no real advantage and divided the country." Actually, Nixon virtually united the country against him and against the war: by 1969, 71% of the American people wanted Nixon to withdraw 100,000 troops from Vietnam by the end of the year.
   
   Nixon and Kissinger claimed that their policies were realistic and intelligent, but neither could see that the Vietnamese people were justly fighting for their national liberation. Nixon and Kissinger were not the tragic, flawed heroes that Dallek portrays but despicable war criminals.



3. The relationship of these two incredibly insecure men is interesting to explore. Both were looking for constant reassurance from one another. Nixon seemed incredibly unsure of himself in Robert Dallek's book.
   
   Dallek explores other good biographies of Nixon and previously unreleased material to go in more depth.
   
   The problems faced by Nixon and Kissinger were varied, and handled with varied success. The failure in Vietnam sticks out like a sore thumb and is a major theme of the book. Smaller problems that they dealt with including Chile where the U.S. intervened to take a democratically elected leader out of power shed light on the deception and secretive measures used by the administration. The Nixon administration did more than stretch the rules...they broke many of them.
   
   Henry Kissinger appears as the hero of this book. Domestic issues are in the background of this book with Foreign policy as the star.



4. This book is a great history of the Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy. However, even more than that, it also shows how our government makes (or fails to make) foreign policy. It shows the day to day infighting, trivialities, and ego-stroking involved at the highest levels of government. In particular, Dallek details how Nixon and Kissinger sought to wrest foreign policy control from the bureaucracy for themselves, essentially personalizing foreign policy. They also had a tendency to ignore experts and keep others in the administration in the dark over major decisions. This book would have been useful before the Iraq War to understand how Cheney and Rumsfeld undertook a similar effort to seize control of national security policy and ignore intelligence experts.
   
   My only criticism of the book is that sometimes Dallek seems inject his own political views into the analysis. While I am sure Nixon and Kissinger often played politics improperly, and Dallek provides much evidence for this, there are times when I think he goes too far. For example, he blames their insistence on continuing the Vietnam War largely to their personal insecurities, but I think they had legitimate (if ultimately wrong) arguments about the world's perception of U.S. power. I think applaud Dallek for criticizing the administration's tilt toward Pakistan, but thought his argument could have benefitted from more discussion of US-India relations before and during Nixon. The final chapter of the book I think frames the author's overall arguments more coherently, but throughout the book they sometimes seem disjointed.
   
   If you are a die-hard Nixon/Kissinger fan, you might resent such asides. For most readers though, I think the book is overall balanced and well-reasoned.



5. I like this book
   Anyway to show that Nixon was A GREAT PRESIDENT is in my opinion OK

4 comments about Golda.

1. Burkett, Elinor. "Golda". Harper, 2008.
   
   Remembering Golda Meir
   
   
   Amos Lassen
   
   I doubt there are many people that do not recognize the name of Golda Meir. Many say she was more of a man then many men, others remember as the Prime Minister of Israel, some blame her for the disastrous Yom Kippur War in 1973. One thing is that there are few who have neutral feelings about her. She was quite a person and I have my own memories of her as she was Prime Minister for many of the years that I lived in Israel. In fact, when I lived in Tel Aviv, she lived right around the corner and we shopped at the same mini-market. Yes, Golda did her own shopping.
   Pulitzer Prize finalist, Elinor Burkett takes a look at Golda in her new biography of the former world leader. Golda Meir was the first female head of state in the Western world and without question a woman who exerted a great deal of influence. She was a founder of the State of Israel, helped to develop the infrastructure of the tiny country. She defended Israel as if it were her own child and she was utterly and completely devoted to keeping Israel safe. She changed the face of the politics of the Middle East in ways that are still felt today. She had the stamina of a bulldozer and when her mind was made up she did what she felt was the right thing to do. She also baked cookies and cakes and steeped tea She was the first to make the world aware of international terrorism and she could hold her own against powerful men like Henry Kissinger and others. Even as she pleaded for peace, she led Israel through the bloodiest war in its existence. Golda had the ability to raise funds and even while she, herself, was battling cancer, was able to steer Israel's ship of state.
   Burkett looks at the life of Golda (and she was always Golda) and writes of her victories and her disappointments, of her wins and her losses. We read of Golda as an idealistic girl in Milwaukee as a product of an immigrant family and we read of a woman who is what legends are made of. Golda had almost no definition unless we define her by her own contradictions. She was hard as nails and as sweet as sugar. She was the personification of the Jewish mother to a nation of people and she was also their leader She was tough and she was kind but most of all she loved Israel even though the populace did not always love her.
   Burkett has done serious research here including interviewing members of Golda's family who had never agreed to be interviewed before and she provides us with a picture of the woman who changed the course of history. I do not agree with all she writes but I find the book to be as honest as it can be. It is stylishly written and I t makes its point. The problem is that the legend of Golda Meir has been tainted by the terrible losses of October, 1973.



2. I heard the author discuss this book on my local NPR station. GOlda had always fascinated me so I purchased the book. I have almost finished it. It is very readable. GOlda was a complex woman, fiercely devoted to Israel, much to the detriment of her family. She was probably Israel's number one fund raiser, which enabled the country to assimilated hundreds of thousands of Jews from all over the world. Israel was also able to purchase the military hardward needed to defend itself against its hostile neighbors. She was the first woman head of state in the western world. Although she was flawed she managed to hold Israel together in trying times. I loved this book.



3. When I got this book, I was hoping for a personal look at Golda, the person. Having read it, I feel I learned more about Israel's long complicated history than about Golda as a person. Maybe that is because the woman did not have much of a personal life and her story was tied to that of her country. She lived and breathed politics and the book's lengthy description of Israeli politics (with countless parties and coalitions) is confusing and doesn't tell us much about her.
   
   It is as though the author couldn't find enough information about Golda's private life (which Golda guarded) and so the book becomes a history lesson in Israeli and Mid-East politics. No maps included which would have helped the reader a great deal in understanding some of this stuff.
   
   The author should have gotten more material from Golda's children, who didn't think much of Golda as a mother (she was MIA when it came to parenting).
   
   Time to read: It took me a little more than a week (with a lot of free time)



4. This is a well done and very readable book about one of the most important leaders of Israel and one of the most accomplished female political leaders anywhere, ever.
   The fact that Golda Meir was born in Russia in abysmal poverty as many of our families were in the time of the Czar, then emigrated to and lived in the United States and worked as a school teacher in Milwaukee and then later became the Prime Minister of Israel should be beyond any one book to fully capture. However this author Elinor Burkett has successfully accomplished a reasonable and comfortable presentation of history recreating the place of Israel and the Jewish people and the life, role and participation of Golda Meir. It appears the documentation and research is carefully done.
   
   Many of us remember Golda Meir because we lived during her time of conflict, most memorably the extraordinary 1973 war when Israel and the Jewish people were faced with tests and choices of the greatest danger and risk. When the then Defense Minister Moshe Dayan was unable to function and became incompetent (to this day I do not understand what happened to the mind of Dayan at that time) somehow this "Ich bin a Yiddischer tochter", who had become Prime Minister of Israel a land in perpetual war, was able to lead the Country and People. There are many extraordinary events, which although previously known are again recounted in this book. Some of them may bring you to tears.
   The story of the visits by Golda Meir as the then Ambassador to the Soviet Union from Israel, to the Choral Synagogue in Moscow during the time of the Stalin terror can leave you dazed. Tears and tears of joy are the memory of those Soviet Jews that haunts you. During one of her visits Golda Meir cried out "Thank you for having remained Jews". As is well known the Jews paid a heavy price for having done so. By the way the above quote "Ich bin a Yiddischer tochter" was from the wife of the Soviet Foreign Minister as one of the last words spoken to Golda Meir before Minister Molotov's wife was taken away and exiled to Kazakhstan.
   
   This is a worthy and useful biography of a significant woman who accomplished many things and showed great leadership and courage in defense of her people whom I believe she loved.
   It is unfortunate that political figures like her are all too uncommon in any country.
   There is much to commend this book as an introduction to times and places not that long ago yet which are all too easily forgotten. It is very easy to understand, follow and enjoy. You will not want to put it down.
   Kenneth Ellman email:ke@kennethellman.com

5 comments about The Final Days.

1. 
   a good historical review of Nixon. Especially how tape crazy he was. A little tough reading in few pages but picks up after a while. It should be required reading for college to show what cn really happen in the White House.



2. I was absorbed by this book. It's story is so compelling and amazing, I couldn't put it down. I also appreciate the writing style that made difficult content easier to understand and follow. I consider this one of the best books I have ever read and an incredible insight into the Nixon mind.



3. This gripping narrative takes us inside the White House during the last days of the Nixon administration in 1974. From inside we see President Nixon, his advisors, family, and congressional allies trying to stave off his inevitable downfall from the Watergate scandal. Readers see how Nixon tried to claim executive privilege to avoid releasing the "smoking gun" tape that proved he'd ordered the cover-up. Even after he surrendered the tape (by Supreme Court order) Nixon refused to resign until his fast-deserting congressional allies warned him that his impeachment and conviction were now certain. The authors credit General Alexander Haig for holding the White House together as Nixon unraveled, but pay less attention to Vice President Gerald Ford, a non-participant except for later when he gave Nixon a questionable full pardon. There's also a review of the two-year scandal and the President's adversaries (Leon Jaworski, Sam Ervin, John Dean, etc.) but this narrative is based inside the White House. Readers see that Nixon was very capable but also a lying, crooked tax cheat, one whose administration was awash in payoffs, hush money, bribes, and political espionage.
   
   Authors Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein first uncovered the Watergate Scandal as reporters for the Washington Post in June of 1972. Having begun Nixon's downfall, perhaps it's fitting that they should chronicle that descent with this superb narrative, plus their earlier effort ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN.



4. This is a fascinating book regardless of your political persuasion or feelings about Richard Nixon. The detailed account of the last days of the administration reveals the human side of the names and faces you saw on the news everyday back then or read about in other books since then.



5. The American body politic cuts the president a great deal of error slack. We witnessed that during the Watergate years of Richard Nixon and we see it again in the presidency of George W. Bush. Both instances also point out one major fact of the American political landscape. No matter what they achieve or how high their popularity, if a President does the wrong things, they can crash down with great force.
   This book is one of the greatest political chronicles of all time. So great that no fiction writer could possibly create a story with such dynamism, force and sheer magnitude. Woodward and Bernstein were the reporting team that kept the Watergate story alive and ultimately led to Nixon's resignation. In this book, they describe the final days of the Nixon presidency and how the people involved tried to salvage what value they could and move on to the next phase.
   The greatest message of the book is the demonstration of how powerful and resilient the American political system is. Despite the slow pace of discovery, tortuous maneuvers by the prosecution and countermoves by the Nixon defense team, the system worked and worked well. The highest government official in the United States was a party to criminal acts and was removed without a shot being fired. There are few countries in the world where that could have taken place. It is one more demonstration of how extraordinary the writers of the American constitution were. Despite all of the changes in how the world works, advances in technology and other marvels of the age, a system put in place nearly two hundred years earlier functioned to near perfection.

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 Grant.

1. This is one of the most fascinating books i've read in a while. Smith has a clear grasp of Grant's life. Both his virtues and flaws are given equal attention. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in either the Civil War or the Presidency.



2. This is an excellent and highly readable biography of Grant. However if you are considering the Kindle edition, note that there are some transcription problems:
   
   * Footnotes have been transcribed as inline paragraphs within the main text flow. They are normally included closely after the relevant paragraph, but they sometimes lag by a screen (or even two) and in one place surfaced in a prior screen.
   
   * The maps have been omitted.
   
   * The full original index is included. But since it includes neither hyperlinks to the text, nor Kindle locations, nor even paper page numbers, it is essentially useless.
   
   * The paper version uses indented paragraphs to indicate extended quotes. Unfortunately these show up as normal undistinguished paragraphs in the Kindle version, so I was sometimes surprised to discover I was in a quote, or that I had left one.
   
   * There are also occasional minor transcription glitches such as words being erroneously joined together or erroneously split apart; or sentences erroneously broken into separate paragraphs. But these are relatively minor.
   
   Note that most of these issues aren't due to the Kindle itself: for example it handle footnotes and textual links just fine. The issues are mostly with how this particular book has been converted.
   
   I don't want to overstate the issues: the book is still quite readable in the Kindle edition, and suitable for (say) travel reading. However the various glitches are sufficiently annoying (and the book sufficiently good!) that I have ended up also buying a hardcover version, for browsing and reference.
   
   For the biography itself 5 stars. For the Kindle transcription, only two.



3. After reading Professor Smith's Grant biography, two apparent things come to mind: the same cult of ignorance that has removed George Washington and Eisenhower from the lips of children and TV ditto-heads was responsible for the "overlooking" of this great leader; and, they, the racist, largely-white Establishment is on the march as we wage unnecessary war today with clue-less leaders in charge. This southern biography in one volume does great justice to that 19th Century and our 21st Century that stands on a precipice,serving as a trumpet call-to-arms. From the middle of Grant's memoirs at Vicksburg, I went headlong into this thrilling read, moved many times by its revelations,riveting insertions of quotes that dramatize the action with tremendous clarity. Insightful, balanced and engrossing from beginning to end. Clearly, U.S. Grant was forgotten by those whose sensibilities were offended that one man could be charged with being a Negro-lover, Indian-lover and a unifier. And for once, Jean Edward Smith got it right: the man who masters the battlefield challenges can deftly handle the administrative ones as well, without the meddling of professional politicians and slicksters. Until reading this biography, I was led to believe that the Confederacy was more noble defending the genteel plantation ways and pleasantries against the crudities of Northern pride. Like, how dare they attack Miss Scarlett! The Civil War was much larger than Margaret Mitchell, and Jean Smith builds this biography to a deeper understanding about the war and its cost. Not only does Grant rise in dimension, but he levels off and enjoys a special relationship with Lincoln that is unique and illuminating, before moving into his White House years and retirement.If one needs to know why leadership is empty in the Executive Branch since Eisenhower, you need not look beyond the enemies of Grant's legacy. The standards of conduct,on and off the battlefield, by all participants, their levels of understanding of the cause, especially their civility was so moving and numerous that one is shocked to return to 21st century conduct. There is much to admire about those times and the great man, U.S. Grant. Read this, keep it and learn plenty.



4. I really loved this book. What a great General he was. Very underrated President. Should be ranked right up there. His battlefield skills saved the country.



5. Jean Edward Smith has written an outstanding biography of Ulysses S. Grant, one of the more complex heroes of American history. Grant's complexity does not stem from his own actions, but from the fact that his career as a general is considered such a success while his presidency has always been looked at as an abject failure. Henry Adams had even written that denunciation of Grant, saying, "The Progress of evolution from President Washington to President Grant was enough to upset Darwin." Mr. Smith had the good sense to compare what Adams wrote to the earlier thoughts of his brother Charles Francis Adams Jr. who admired the general and called him "an extraordinary man."
   Sometimes history needs to unfold over a longer period of time before a figure can be properly judged. With Grant the fact was that for over 100-years he came out on the losing end of history because he was for Reconstruction and the civil rights of the freed blacks. When Rutherford B. Hayes came into power in 1877 the freedoms of blacks had become a dead issue and Grant was destined to appear a failure in the eyes of history. It has only been with the success of the Civil Rights movement throughout the 1960s that Grant was in a large way vindicated. Finally southern biographers were unable to point to him as a man who picked the losing side of history, and a man who sympathized with blacks and therefore was wrong.
   It is always difficult to attempt to judge anyone or any act of the past by the standards of today. That is why it is hard to condemn George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves because it was common-place at the time. They don't deserve any positive press for owning slaves, BUT if they had turned over their slaves while they lived and fought for the freedom of all then they would have been so far ahead of their time to almost not have been real. There was no-such-thing as Virginia planters of the 18th and 19th centuries who refused to embrace the benefits of free slave labor. At least, I do not recall anything of such people.
   Grant is different because while he was President he WAS popular and DID protect the freedoms of people (which is correct even though it was judged as wrong in the south from 1877 to the 1960s). Mr. Smith is actually righting a historic wrong by trying to view Grant as the people of his time viewed him rather than those who came after and detested him for taking what was for 100-years the losing side of history. For instance, if George W. Bush has many biographies written by his supporters (now less than 28% of the population) that help to shape how he is looked at in the future, it would require a writer like Mr. Smith to come in and show that DURING the vast majority of his term, he was not exactly what one would call "popular."
   Re-writing history is a dangerous game and it takes writers like Mr. Smith to set the story straight after it has gone too far astray. In the south for instance, it was around a century or more before there started to be seen positive views of Abraham Lincoln. It is said that history is written by the winner, but really history is written by whoever happens to be holding the pen, and it isn't always the winner. How else could one explain the "Lost Cause" mythology that turned Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman into villains? It is only after carefully dissecting what actually took place that the story can be set straight.
   In "Grant" Mr. Smith has written a biography of the 18th President and first four-star general in the nation's history that is more accurate than a great majority of those that have come before. His biography is free from the anti-Grant bias that flooded the view for so long. However he also does not gloss over faults of Grant. Grant was a man who sometimes drank too much, and Mr. Smith doesn't hide it. But neither does he extrapolate and assume (as many anti-Grant biographers have done) that Grant was a hopeless drunk who stumbled around at all-times and was hardly ever sober. That such views have been accepted by many historians as fact is absolutely ridiculous, and Mr. Smith finally sets things to right.
   In closing, what we get from Mr. Smith is not a biography that overlooks all Grant's faults and pretends that he was a man heaven-sent who never made a wrong turn in his life. Instead we are given the portrait of a man who sometimes trusted the wrong kinds of people too much and who would other times have been better off as President had he sounded his views out amongst the public (especially the Cabinet and Congress). We see a man who as general came close to defeat more than a few times, but who had the nerves and calm to stand his ground. We get an accurate view of a man whose best traits as a general (indeed the fact that he was not easily perturbed in the most trying moments) are what got him into such trouble with historians for over a century. Not only did Grant wind up on the losing side by supporting the rights of black Americans, he showed no remorse for having done so (nor should he have, though it hurt his legacy).
   Time has vindicated Grant in the end and given Mr. Smith the clarity to write a definitive biography of the man from Galena, IL. Finally Grant can be reassessed and while he may never crack the top ten or even top twenty on the list of the greatest presidents of all-time, he at least can leave the likes of Buchanan, Harding, Pierce, and (something tells me) George W. Bush behind at the bottom forever.

5 comments about Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington.

1. The purpose of this book, according to the author's introduction, is "a moral biography" rather than "a life history." His point is that there is a "distancing" between ourselves and Washington; that he has become more myth and metaphor than man. The book aims to connect us today with Washington's character and personality.
   
   The author goes into great depth about the literary works (such as Addison's Cato, Bollingbroke and Filmer) that Washington read, but I feel Brookhiser is reading too much into these and provides no evidence of how Washington reacted to these works. The effect is to continue the distancing between us and Washington by not discussing the man himself; just the influences around him.
   
   I think also the author misses some very important points. For example, in the Introduction, the author says "it is not important to Washington's public career...what his stepchildren were like" but then devotes the entire last section of the book to metaphorical fatherhood of the Nation without discussing Washington in the role of an actual parent. I'm sorry, it is important! It tells more about his character than do the books he read.
   
   Another tool the author uses to connect us to Washington is to use modern-day examples. At first I appreciated references to Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan. However, after about a half-dozen of these it just makes the book seem dated.
   
   This is the first biography of Washington that I have read. I finished the book not knowing much more about him than when I started. I learned more about him reading Joseph Ellis' American Sphinx (about Jefferson) and David McCollough's John Adams. Which is sad; it is clear that Brookhiser had high hopes for this book and gave it a lot of thought. I just thought it missed the mark and didn't serve its own objectives.



2. Richard Brookhiser's "Founding Father" is one of several recent biographies of America's revolutionary generation that seeks too capture what he believes was the essence of George Washington's wisdom and character. Brookhiser offers moral lessons for a new generation of Americans that he believes have not been exposed to these virtues, but could profit by drawing lessons from Washington's life and career. At some level "Founding Father" is a reaction to Brookhiser's repulsion at the current state of history in the nation's universities.
   
   He is reacting, at least in part, to a culture war that has been underway in the United States over the nature of the past, one fundamentally about identity and whether U.S. history would be viewed as a one people, one nation narrative or with a multicultural, in some cases divisive, perspective. That the past might be divisive deeply troubled some national opinion leaders who questioned the reexamination of traditional interpretations, and the more multicultural, relativistic, and conflict-oriented approach to delving into history.
   
   This debate represented a battle for control of the national memory. Would it be one that is unified--one people, one nation--or one that was fragmented and conflict-oriented? This is an important issue and fully worthy of consideration by all in the marketplace of ideas. And the jury is still out.
   
   Some critics of the dominant approach to the past taken by academic historians reacted by providing their own versions of history that emphasized unity and morality. Richard Brookhiser's biography of George Washington is in this category. Brookhiser, a political operative and scholar associated with the National Review, emphasized on the "New Hour with Jim Lehrer on March 28, 1996, that "for all the efforts of, of the historians and the standard biographers, there's still this, this blankness to the man's image. So I thought it would be worthwhile to go back and, you know, not to uncover any new, new facts but to just put the ones that we know into a different light and to focus especially on the highlights of this public career and what it was about, about his character that enabled him to do them. You know, I'm not interested in details, if they don't relate directly to that."
   
   Brookhiser's selective retelling of the story of George Washington in this book is a blatant attempt to draw lessons from Washington's career that serve the larger public good as Brookhiser understands it. It is essentially a late twentieth century version of Mason Weems's "The Life of Washington," but without fabricated tales such as the cherry tree episode included. As a study of Washington's morals and virtues this work is most welcome. Having a point of view is not entirely a bad thing, and Brookhiser offers an eloquent one in this work. At the same time, as a work of history this is a decidedly less useful study of Washington than many others such as James Thomas Flexner's magisterial multivolume biography. Knowing that most people will only read one book on Washington I would recommend a collective biography, Joseph Ellis' "His Excellency: George Washington" (Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), which is a tour de force of historical insight.



3. This book was a fast little read and was mildly enjoyable. I didn't really gain any knowledge or special insight into Washington though. I learned more about Washington from reading Chernow's Hamilton bio. If you know absolutely nothing about Washington, this might be an OK starting point to get a feel for his character, if not much knowledge of his actual life.



4. Richard Brookhiser, news-magazine editor, columnist, and author, realizes the emotional disconnect between modern Americans and George Washington. While other presidents (Jefferson, T. Roosevelt, F. D. Roosevelt, Lincoln) are more respected because of their emotional condor, George Washington is often thought of as a stone-faced enigma. His resume wouldn't indicate as much: he started the battle that started the French-and-Indian War; he was a wealthy Virginia farmer; served in the Virginia House of Burgess; he served as the head of the Continental Army; he served as the chairman of the Constitutional Convention; and he served as the first President of the United States. His personal gravitas caused even the greatest men of the Americas (Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Franklin) to stand in awe of him; one speech, powerfully delivered, turned soldiers from a desire to revolt to a desire to see their government succeed; even his enemies in foreign nations (Britain and France) marveled at the man. So, how could modern Americans be so disconnected from George Washington?
   
   Brookhiser's "Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington" is a "moral biography, in the tradition of Plutarch (11)..." That is to say, it does not so much examine the life of the subject (what he did), but the mental and emotional makeup of the subject (why he did it). He continues that "a moral biography has two purposes: to explain its subject, and to shape the hearts and minds of those who read it (12)." So, Brookhiser's lofty goal is to make you a better person by holding up Washington for your examination.
   
   The first (and lengthiest) part of "Founding Father" is a sketch of Washington's career. He shows what Washington did during the Revolutionary War, during the Constitutional Convention, and during his Presidency. During this time, the events are given brief, thumbnail treatments, and Washington's motivations are emphasized. The second part examines Washington's personal character through analyzing his God-given nature, his morals, and the ideas he entertained. The final part examines Washington in the light of fatherhood. How did the fact that he was childless influence him? How did the early death of his father influence him? How did the popular concept that a monarch is father of his country influence Washington? What is the relationship between Washington's morality and the fact that he owned slaves?
   
   The overall answer to why Washington is such an enigma to modern Americans (advanced by Brookhiser) is that he was a man of great passion who was prone to lash out in anger, and spent a lifetime counteracting that tendency through emotional distancing ("holding his cards close," choosing his words carefully, and being deliberately slow in committing himself). Thus, Washington's constant (and successful) struggle to restrain his passions, his continuous efforts to improve himself (body, mind, and soul), and his genuine love for others makes him an inspirational figure the reader is moved to emulate.
   
   Brookhiser has achieved his unique objectives in a unique way. Although modern readers may be unfamiliar with Roman figures (who were "pop culture" to the Founders), the way slavery suffocated the souls of both slaves and owners, and the details of 18th Century warfare, Brookhiser does an outstanding job in explaining these foreign concepts in such a way as to make them understandable to the modern reader. Indeed, he does the same for Washington.
   
   While Brookhiser's prose is a joy to read--high-minded yet accessible and witty--he does tend to contrast 18th century with 20th century culture in such a way as to distract. He takes subtle digs as President Clinton, expresses confusion at Newt Gingrich, and crudely comments on the fact that science has made intercourse unnecessary for procreation. Further, Brookhiser's endnotes are sporadic, direct quotes are not properly cited, and other interesting facts are not referenced. The editor would do well to provide better footnotes (not endnotes) in future editions.
   
   In all, this book comes highly recommended. The cultural distance between the late 1700s and early 2000s and the emotional distance Washington established make him an inaccessible man, but Brookhiser accomplishes his goal of making Washington both understandable and inspiring.



5. I am an avid history buff, and read many books. This was an illuminating adventure into the soul of our countries' father!

5 comments about James Madison: (The American Presidents Series).

1. As stated in the Editor's Note, the American President series, of which this book is a part, aims to ".... present the grand panorama of our chief executive in volumes compact enough for the busy reader, lucid enough for the student, authoritative enough for the scholar." At 164 pages of text, this book is certainly compact. It is quite lucid and it is surly authoritative. The book is not, however, an analysis of the life of James Madison, or even a comprehensive presentation of his whole life. It discusses the many facets of his life in terms of his contribution to the United States. As the man considered to be the "Father of the Constitution", a co-author of The Federalist (the series of essays that were instrumental in getting the Constitution ratified), as a leader in the first Congress, Secretary of State (under Thomas Jefferson) and then as a two term President, Madison made immense contributions to the founding and early government of the Untied States. All these facets of his career are discussed, but given the compactness of the book they are only discussed briefly.
   
   The primary thing that I came away with was the feeling that Madison was an enigma. I guess that this just shows my ignorance of the finer points of American history, as historians have been trying, largely unsuccessfully, for the last two hundred years to explain the enigma that was James Madison. Indeed, Madison was also vexed with the difficulty of trying to explain his many contradictory actions. In working on the Constitution he unsuccessfully tried to give the federal government the power to veto state laws. Yet he later was secretly the author of the Virginia Resolutions that promulgated the idea that the states had the right to nullify federal law. He opposed Hamilton's Bank of the US, but then tried to renew the charter and when this failed he supported the formation of the second Bank of the US. He opposed war, yet he led the US into a war with Britain for which it was completely unprepared. Garry Wills tries to come to grips with these, and other contradictions, but I do not think that he was completely successful, but then again neither has anyone else. For me, just realizing that this conundrum exits was worth the price of the book.



2. Garry Wills is an exceptional documentarian, and this effort is a fine example. A very comprehensive review of the formative years of this Founding Father is provided, those years that helped define the political system and policy of early America. Madison's contribution to the constitutional constructs of Virginia and the U.S. are well-woven, even if his presidency is less a focus of Wills energies. Portrayal is of a deeply insightful humanist who performed best as a thinker than an administrator, WIlls has captured the essence of the man himself.



3. Garry Wills, eminent author on the American mind, writes a literate and compelling political biography of James Madison, "Jemmy" as he was called earlier in his life. Here was someone whose resume seems made to become president. Yet this man, "the Father of the Constitution," was not near the success that one might have guessed from his background.
   
   His pedigree includes: key figure in the Constitutional Convention--from getting George Washington to attend (a coup) to helping structure the agenda (from amending the Articles of Confederation to trashing the extant constitution and replacing it with something very different); to serving as a major figure in the early Congress (including helping to produce a Bill of Rights), to organizing the first political party (along with Thomas Jefferson, although it took Martin Van Buren and his circle to perfect the arrangement).
   
   Wills begins by observing that there is consensus that (Page 1) ". . .Madison, though one of the nation's greatest founders, is not one of its greatest presidents." Wills suggests that one can account for this by (a) bad luck falling Madison's way (which Wills discounts); (b) his temperament (he had more legislative than executive talent--more apt an explanation in Wills' view); (c) errors (a very poor reading of the British Empire, leading to foolish foreign policy and the War of 1812).
   
   As with other in "The American Presidents" series, this begins with a brief sketch of the future president's youth, his early career, and his rise to the presidency (from the Constitutional Convention to Congress to Jefferson's Secretary of State). Trivia is included: Madison was the shortest American President ever.
   
   This represents a standard, literate Wills' work. His literary approach is as expected (what a wonderful command of the language!). The work nicely lays out why Madison was not as good a President as one might have guessed--as well as his later life.
   
   All in all, an estimable addition to this valuable series.



4. James Madison(1751 -- 1836) is revered for his role as one of our nation's Founders. Madison played a major role in organizing the Constitutional Convention, in drafting the Constitution, and in securing its ratification through cowriting "The Federalist" (with Hamilton) and through winning a difficult debate with Patrick Henry which led to the narrow ratification of the Constitution in his home state of Virginia. Madison also worked valiantly for the separation of church and state.
   
   Madison's accomplishments as the fourth President (1808 -- 1817) are less well remembered. Madison's presidency is the focus of this brief book by Garry Wills as part of the American Presidents series. Wills tries to explain why Madison's presidency was less successful that his brilliant earlier career. Wills points to Madison's provincialism, shyness, lack of executive experience, and tendencies toward idealism rather than practical politics to conclude that Madison's talents and prodigious learning made him better suited for a legislative, behind-the-scenes role than for a position as the nation's chief executive.
   
   After brief consideration of Madison's earlier accomplishments and his roles under the presidencies of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson (he was Jefferson's Secretary of State), Wills examines Madison's two terms as president. Early in his administration, Madison showed poor judgment about people in selecting his cabinet members, Supreme Court Justices, and military leaders. He also displayed weaknesses of leadership and administration in coordinating the efforts and minimizing the feuding of his subordinates. Even thought he came to see the wisdom of the Bank of the United States, (he had opposed Hamilton on the formation of the Bank) Madison foolishly allowed its charter to lapse, when any sort of endorsement on his part would likely have saved the bank in Congress. This mistake haunted Madison throughout his administration.
   
   Most of Wills's study of Madison's presidency is devoted, as it must be, to the War of 1812. If Madison's presidency is little-known, the War of 1812 remains our country's most confusing, obscure, and little understood conflict. The War had its roots in the conflict between England and Napoleon as Jefferson tried to steer clear of war. At the end of his presidency, at Madison's urging, Jefferson imposed an embargo with near disastrous results.
   
   Wills traces the complex course of events that led Madison into war. Some of these events were due to misunderstanding and to slowness of communication (Britain had repealed the Articles in Council to which the United States had taken offense in declaring war. The ship bringing the repeal to the United States crossed the Atlantic at the same time as the United States ship sailing to England with news that war had been declared.) But, Wills argues, Madison was active in bringing on the War, in part because he had grandiose visions of annexing Canada. The result was a conflict for which the United States was ill-prepared. The country had a weak army, only six frigates built during the Washington administration, no generals with military experience, and, with the end of the First Bank of the United States, no money to conduct the war. It was a harrowing conflict for the United States.
   
   The United States and Madison were fortunate to be able to end the War of 1812 without loss of territory. For Wills, Madison led the Nation into an unnecessary war for which it was ill-prepared. But Wills praises Madison for conducting the war without treading upon the constitutional rights of Americans. This was an important and difficult accomplishment which partially redeems Madison's presidency. And the United States came together as a nation following the conflict for the first time in its history.
   
   Wills's book is both more reflective and more detailed than most of the works in the American President's series. Indeed, Wills has written extensively about this period of our history. Readers of this volume may wish to turn to Wills's study "Henry Adams and the Making of America" which examines Henry Adams' monumental history of the Jefferson and Madison administrations. Wills' short study is heavily indebted to Adams's history. Ambitious readers may want to explore Adams's history of this period for themselves. It is available in a two-volume set from the Library of America.
   
   Robin Friedman



5. James Madison is often one of the least remembered founding fathers. However Madison was very important in the early years of the United States of America. Known as "the father of the Constitution" he was influential in the convention and is one of the best legislators of all-time. The book also reminds readers that George Washington asked for Madison's advice on Constitutional matters because he knew he would be setting precidents that would be followed by other holders of the Executive office.
   
   The book quickly addresses his pre-Presidential years but mostly focuses on his time in the Executive office. The book gives a good quick look at the interesting if lackluster Presidency. The war often referred to as "Mr. Madison's war" dominated his Presidency and he deserves some of the blame for beginning the war, even though the country was completely unprepared. His embargos were disasterous and left the U.S. economy in ruins for a short while.
   
   The book does a very good job at showing that Madison was a very good legislator perhaps one of the greatest in US History, but Madison was not made for the Executive office. He had the political knowledge, but lacked the size, leadership, and ability to stand up and announce what was going to happen (in an authoritative voice, perhaps because of his stature). Overall Madison was a very important man to the founding of the country although his 'flip-flops' are also shown throughout the book. Overall this is a good quick introduction to the Presidency of James Madison.