2 comments about Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev: Commissar (1918-1945).

1. a Don Quixote, the Ego, and a Sancho Panza, the Self."
   
   W.H. Auden's aphorism forms an appropriate framework for reviewing The Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev: Volume I. Although the Memoirs have more Don Quixote than Sancho Panza they are compelling, informative, and insightful.
   
   Volume I consists of two sections: Khrushchev's Memoirs from the early days of the Russian Revolution through the end of the Second World War and Sergei Khrushchev's (Nikita's son) essay on the creation of the memoirs and the decades long struggle to see it published in the USSR.
   
   Khrushchev's memoirs are fascinating for a number of reasons. As set out in Sergei's essay, these Memoirs were dictated and not written. As a result, the Memoirs have a very conversational tone whcih, for me, brought the Memoirs to life. Khrushchev had a prodigious memory and his Memoirs bear this out. Each chapter of Khrushchev's life is rich with the type of detail that one doesn't expect in a memoir written decades later. The bulk of Volume I is devoted to World War II. Khrushchev served as a member of the Military Council and as Commissar in the Ukraine (a political hierarchy that paralleled the military chain of command). Khrushchev played a critical role in the Ukraine during the war, lived and worked through the horrendous battle of Stalingrad, the enormous victory at Kursk, and the liberation of Kiev. Khrushchev is at his narrative best when describing these events. At the same time, Khrushchev does not shy away from discussing the chaos and confusion that reigned at the beginning of the war. Stalin (rightfully I think) bears the brunt of this criticism but Khrushchev did not shy away from brutal assessments of soldiers and political leaders who displayed cowardice or put their own interests above those of the state. Interestingly, Khrushchev does not stint in his praise for Marshall Zhukov, despite the fact that Khrushchev had Zhukov removed from a top party post in the 1950s when he became a threat to Khrushchev's power base.
   
   The Memoirs are fascinating not only for what is said but also what is left unsaid. George Orwell once wrote that "[a]utobiography is only to be trusted when it reveals something disgraceful." There is nothing to distrust in these Memoirs as they relate to Khrushchev's external life, most of which can easily be confirmed by the available records. However, missing from the Memoirs (at least in this Volume) is a detailed examination of Khrushchev's inner life. We know he survived the purges and we know he began to question Stalin's actions. Khrushchev writes convincingly of Stalin's mistakes but we never quite find out what he knew and when. Khrushchev was (seemingly) at the time a devoted servant to Stalin. He participated in party purges and in these Memoirs he ruefully acknowledges his then belief that many of his colleagues were enemies of the state. Yet this was the same Khrushchev who took a tremendous leap of faith in revealing Stalin's `crimes' at the famous Party Congress in 1956. What is missing is some indication of the inner reflections (the Sancho Panza-like reflections if you will) on the survival mechanisms that led an intelligent and clearly decent person to suspend disbelief for such a long period of time. However, Sergei Khrushchev's fascinating essay on the fight to publish these Memoirs leads to some valuable insights.
   
   Sergei's essay is an intriguing story in its own right. The Kremlin put pressure on the family to get Nikita to stop writing. They were followed and interrogated by the KGB. Khrushchev seethed at these attempts to suppress his memoirs. Khrushchev defended his rights as a Soviet citizen and fulminated against these affronts to his dignity and self respect. There is no small amount of irony in reading about Khrushchev's struggle with the Politburo. Despite the fact that he was primarily responsible for "the thaw", Khrushchev also managed to crack down on artists and writers who he thought "went too far". The illicit export of a copy of the manuscript placed him in the same company as such writers as Pasternak, Solzhenitsyn, Voinovich, and Grossman.
   
   More importantly, however, the essay portrays Khrushchev's struggle as one compelled in part by his sense of dignity and self-respect. The historical record and the Memoirs are filled with references to Khrushchev and other leaders abasing themselves before Stalin. I think Sergei's essay goes a long way toward fleshing out (at least implicitly) Important parts of Khrushchev's internal life that are missing from the Memoirs. Khrushchev was a figure of great substance and no small amount of talent (despite some glaring failures during his premiership). He was a man who with only four years of formal education but he had enough talent and ambition to lead a nation. But along the way he had to endure almost daily humiliations at the hands of his `master'. These humiliations, along with his participation in the development of the cult of Stalin all constitute part of what may be called `the sin of survival'. Although not uncommon in Gulag memoirs they strike a jarring note in the memoirs of the leader of a nation. Khrushchev's actions at the 20th-Party Congress and his fight during his last days to preserve his right to publish seem, to me at least, to be an attempt to reclaim some part of that dignity that was voluntarily (if by necessity) forfeited years ago.
   
   Nikita's Memoirs, together with Sergei's essay, provide a profoundly interesting and informative examination of one of the 20th-Cenntury's most complex and misunderstood leaders. The Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev Volume I should be required reading for anyone with an interest in the history of the USSR and its place in world history.



2. Last week we listened to the `messages' given in the UN by many heads of states.
   Hugo Chavez president of Venezuela and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, in particular, have been quite interesting and extremely filled most of us with fun and enjoyment.
   
   They have spoken with great presumptuousness.
   
   Their intention has been to insult and accuse their opponent head of state - USA President Bush, and they did it in such a way that their words, taken literally, sounded innocent.
   Those who are not familiar with the background and meaning of `being garrulous' will find nothing odd about their sentences, until they could get the hidden implications.
   
   Perhaps we should `exhume' one simple example of what we are talking about.
   During the Cuban missile crises in the early sixties of the twentieth century, Nikita Khrushchev, the leader of the Soviet Union, used to pound his desk at the UN General Assembly to interrupt British and American heads of states from giving their speeches. The frustrated NK even pulled off and waved his shoe and banged it on his desk in front of shocked and amused world delegates occupying the large UN hall.
   Nevertheless, the annals of history has recorded that in 1964 Brezhenev ousted NK.
   Twenty-seven years later the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics was dissolved after some seventy-five years, since the Russian Revolution in 1917, of acting as the second principal world super power.
   
   You see, in the tug of will, the point is not in pronouncing words of strength, because at the end of the day what really counts is `Who' is able to bind the economic noose tighter until decided to pull the rope.
   
   This memoirs is not a Mrs Love's poem that we are talking of. This is a tough fight of crucial struggle for world supremacy; this is the tug of war, like a Greek salad, if one is not able to notice a dropped olive seed lurking beneath the cheese and the green succulent lettuce, and if one cannot realize how strong and durable the seed is, one will lose one's tooth.

3 comments about My Twelve Years with John F. Kennedy.

1. The book was really great and I have read a lot of books on John F Kennedy. The book gave a human aspect of the campaign and the day to day life of the kennedy administration.



2. my twelve years is a very interesting book because
   it's the remembering of his secratary who know him.
   we can learn how he was and not only his politics.
   so read it!



3. I have this book Its a great book and gives you a glimps of the Man John Kennedy who was also President.Its a well rounded book giving the reader the feel of being there.

4 comments about Nehru: The Invention of India.

1. Hits all the high points. Tharoor's occasional protestations of objectivity about Nehru ring hollow; this book is objective only in tone. Nehru's contradictions are glossed over as if merely a source of amusement, but Jinna is treated as a pathological cynic, and the British are alternately inept and reactionary. Tharoor's treatment of Churchill is as harsh as it is shallow. This book reads very quickly, and is good for people who want a quick bio of Nehru. For people who want a real examination of the man, look elsewhere.



2. Shashi Tharoor's latest book is a most enjoyable interpretive history of Nehru's amazing life. I felt as if Tharoor was travelling with me as I read in trains and planes, talking directly to me. He brought me to tears when Nehru died -- very hard to do using non-fiction. A delightful book -- warm, generous and globally aware, it's a wonderful reading experience. Tharoor gives us a better context for understanding a contradictory statesman, and made me wonder what Nehru and the freedom fighters would think of India and the world today. My only criticism: it's too short!



3. An excellent and much needed book. The major works on Nehru were written several decades ago. I will use this in my graduate
   course. It is written in a clear and straight forward style
   that makes it easy to read. I particularly appreciate Tharoor's
   picture of the power of Nehru in India and internationally.
   Nehru's tremendous influence on the decolonial movement is
   often forgotten today. If there is any weakness, I would have
   liked Tharoor to have explored more Gandhi's influence on Nehru.



4. This book, written by Shashi Tharoor, an official candidate to succeed Kofi Annan as Secretary General of the United Nations, focuses on one of India's leaders and its fight for independence, Jawaharlal Nehru. While in India over the summer, I picked up this book because I wanted to learn more about my native country's First Prime Minister, his ideals, and how he came to become such a great man revered by so many today. An extraordinary individual he was no doubt. Someone who refused to remain complacent despite his high social class and who worked hard for everything he achieved despite great loss and adversity. Yet after reading this book, I discovered a leader who was more than just that. Nehru, despite his immortal legacy, was always human, with idealistic and inevitably contradicting political and religious philosophies, with strong love and compassion for all, and with amazing contributions to what India is today.
   Shashi Tharoor does not only approach Nehru as the subject of his biography, but almost as a character in a novel with heroic qualities and noticeable flaws. Anecdotes all the way from Nehru's childhood to his protests of British rule end up driving this work. One that stood out showed one of Nehru's defining qualities as a man and leader: taking responsibility for his actions. One day thinking that father Motilial Nehru would not be using a second pen lying on his desk, Jawaharlal took it for one of his lessons. When Motilal found out that the pen was missing and that his eldest son had taken it, Jawaharlal receives a beating he would never forget. Tharoor writes "He learned much from this experience:...not to lay claim to what was not his, not to conceal evidence of his own wrong doing, if ever he were to do wrong--and never to assume he could simply `get away with it'"(7). Not surprisingly, Nehru was jailed at total of seven years during India's fight for independence from Britain all because of his courage and responsibility, engraved by his father.
   Nehru's father Motilal also instills into his son many secular, democratic ideals which become the very core of Jawaharlal's beliefs for a new, independent India and still stand in part today. Once India finally gained independence in 1947, it was still much divided across religious lines. Jawaharlal opposed a partition and instead pushed for a secular, united India which thrived on democratic ideals. His ironically God-like presence had the power of suspending Hindu mobs of millions against Muslims.
   Tharoor brings both Nehru's successes and failures to the fore and intertwines them nicely. His love for his family and for his India, his desire to educate the poor and idolizing Indian masses in democracy are all highly admirable qualities. Yet Nehru's failures especially his socialist economics platforms which brought only economic stagnation, poverty, and corruption are also analyzed.
   Nevertheless, Nehru is a big reason why India is what it is today: the world's largest democracy and growing economic superpower. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to have a glimpse into this man's life, his ideals, and his India.

3 comments about George Washington: Man of Prayer and Courage (The Sowers) (The Sowers).

1. George Washington was born on a snowy day, Febuary 11(22 on new calendar), 1732. From then on he was a devout christian and a great leader. His father taught him how to ride a horse, shoot a rifle, and hired a tutor to prepare him for his schooling in Appleby. Appleby was an elegant boarding school in England. When 11 year-old George was visiting his cousin's mansion on the Chotank River about 20 miles away from hsi home in Ferry Farm, a servant from his home burst onto the amnsion lawn and told him that his father was deathly ill. Shortly after he arrived his father died. This was only the childhood part on George but the book goes on about how he got interested in surveying, how he became a great military leader, and how he eventually became the U.S.'s first presedent. The book showed his great leadership and his commitment to the Lord and the teachings of the Bible. Overall it was a great book and made you experience George Washington and his beliefs.



2. Starting with George Washington as a boy, this book follows him throughout his life. It focuses on his early military career fighting with the British against the French and Indians, working his plantation, and responding when his new country needed a general and first President.

   Unfortunately, this book aimed at kids could have been better. The narrative is uneven, making it hard to follow how much time has passed between stories we're reading. Furthermore, the style is choppy with too many simple sentences strung together. On the other hand, there are some thrilling stories from his days fighting in armies that will keep young readers interested. And his writing is used creatively to show his belief in God without interrupting the flow.

   George Washington was a great man we can all learn from. This biography gives some interesting information and a good overview of his life and times. Unfortunately, it's not quite polished enough to get a full recommendation.




3. This is an excellent, interesting, easy to read biography. Though it is written primarily for the young reader, it is fascinating to a history buff of any age. The author clearly did her research and did an excellent job of representing the spiritual life of George Washington.

3 comments about Woodrow Wilson and World Politics: America's Response to War and Revolution (Galaxy Books).

1. This is a fundamental book on U.S. foreign policy in the 20th century, its premises and contradictions. It is also an acute account of Wilsonian "idealism." It has general as well as specific value and is not in the least dated.

   It is one of a handful of basic books on the making of American foreign policy.




2. I am going to write an unfair review. This book is probably useful for scholars or fans of Woodrow Wilson. However, I did not find it very interesting. Woodrow Wilson was not one of my favorite presidents. The book did not change my mind about him. It was not a good "read" and it was not sufficiently informative to me to justify reading through the pedestrian prose. In addition, I am told that Wilson scholarship is now more advanced and perhaps kinder to Wilson in this particular area. If you are deeply interested in this subject, do not let me put you off reading this book. If you have a more general interest in Wilson, I would suggest reading a different book.



3. Woodrow Wilson believed that American foreign policy should aim to spread democratic capitalism to every corner of the world. He thought that democratic capitalist countries would eschew war, uplift their populations, accept American leadership, and open their markets to American trade and investment. The upshot would be a peaceful capitalist world order regulated by morality and international law, where American firms could sell their surpluses and make productive investments. The main threats to his vision were reactionary imperialism on the right (as exemplified by Imperial Germany) and communist revolution on the left (as exemplified by Lenin and the Bolsheviks).
   
   "Woodrow Wilson and World Politics" shows how Wilson's worldview played out Germany, Russia and the Far East in the aftermath of World War I. It is based on solid archival work and is alive to the nuances and ambiguities of real-world foreign policy. I knocked off on star only because the book's lack of biographical detail or other "color" makes it a fairly dry read. Readers should know, moreover, that the book is mainly a treatment of Wilsonian ideology and its application in specific cases. It is not a detailed reconstruction of Woodrow Wilson's entire foreign policy.
   
   It is impossible to read "Woodrow Wilson and World Politics" in 2008 without drawing comparisons to the foreign policy of George Bush. Bush shares with Wilson a moralistic approach to world affairs that grates on foreigners and gives rise to charges of hypocrisy. He also shares the belief that long-term American well-being requires that all states (at least in the Islamic world) adopt American-style political and economic systems. But whereas Wilson put his faith in international law and the League of Nations, Bush has opted for unilateralism and aggressive war. His goals and rhetoric may be Wilsonian but his methods come straight from the playbook of Big Power diplomacy.

2 comments about The Taste Is in My Mouth a Little... Lincoln's Victuals and Potables.

1. Written by an internationally recognized and award-winning scholar especially known for his expertise concerning the life of Abraham Lincoln, "The Taste Is In My Mouth A Little...": Lincoln's Victuals and Potables is a most unusual historical discussion of what Lincoln ate and drank, what foods most whetted his appetite, and recipies known to have appeared on his table. Also included is a full reproduction of the 1843 edition of Miss Leslie's "Directions for Cookery, in its Various Branches", which the Lincolns were known to possess. A useful and minutely detailed guide for the day-to-day understanding of the profound historical figure that is Abraham Lincoln.



2. Written by an internationally recognized and award-winning scholar especially known for his expertise concerning the life of Abraham Lincoln, "The Taste Is In My Mouth A Little...": Lincoln's Victuals and Potables is a most unusual historical discussion of what Lincoln ate and drank, what foods most whetted his appetite, and recipes known to have appeared on his table. Also included is a full reproduction of the 1843 edition of Miss Leslie's "Directions for Cookery, in its Various Branches", which the Lincolns were known to possess. A useful and minutely detailed guide for the day-to-day understanding of the profound historical figure that is Abraham Lincoln.

5 comments about Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity: The Search for Saladin.

1. Excellent book! Any fair-minded person cannot deny the fact that Jinnah is one of the greatest political leaders from South Asia. I do realize that India-Pakistan tensions make it very difficult for both sides to accept Jinnah (for Indians) and Gandhi (for Pakistanis) as great leaders but both sides cannot deny these great men their due place in history.

   For an American reader, the book presents a fascinating story of a leader who single-handedly changed the course of history by creating a nation and a country in just one lifetime. The author rightly emphasizes the fact that Jinnah was a secular leader and demanded Pakistan on the basis of ground realities. I do agree with Jinnah's vision that a Hindu dominated society, with extreme elements on both sides, would have caused a civil war for decades to come. Hindu fundamentalism is on rise in India and burning of churches / mosques and killings of Christians / Muslims in various parts of India is very common. For example, last year 2000+ Muslims were killed (women raped, properties torched etc.) by Hindu mob (in just 2 days) in Indian state of Gujrat. I think the current sad plight of minorities in India (especially Muslims!) and Hindu fundamentalist BJP government in power clearly indicates that Jinnah was so right in demanding a separate homeland for his people and he did it with great success and got freedom for about 2/3 of Muslims of South Asia (living in Pakistan and Bangladesh).




2. The title of the book definitely gives the impression that it is one of the best attempts to reveal a lot of details about the life and times of Jinnah. The methodology used to present Jinnah and the idea of Pakistan is to some extent shameful. The use of derogatory tendencies towards some Indian leaders such as the Nehru and Edwina episode (no one knows if it is true) are quite typical of socio political writings emerging from Pakistan. These things were not warranted at least to portray the legal luminary and his notion of Pakistan. It throws an impression about the author trying to use the theory of self justification to portray such an important personality in the history of the Indian subcontinent. The portrayal of Muslims as tyrants towards Hindus and vice versa is not quite appropriate and once again seems typical of the socio political atmosphere there. A lot of facts (many of which are not accurate) about the political environment of the time is used to come to a conclusion about Jinnah. This does not surprise me considering the fact that so little has officially been documented about Jinnah by the Pakistani government itself. The book begins by trying to clear the air about various misconceptions about Jinnah's life. It would have been better off if the author could have done much research and laid down facts about the life and times of Jinnah rather than trying to drive to conclusions clearing the air and misconceptions. The author has definitely drawn a lot from personal interviews with Jinnahs close family members. However these have not been portrayed properly giving an impression that the author is trying to hide facts especially about Jinnah's true notions about Pakistan and the Islamic identity. One thing very cleverly hidden is Jinnah's personal and professional attachment with the city of Bombay. A lot many other literary works that have emerged about Jinnah have portrayed this angle very well and this book curiously seems to miss them. The attempt of gratification of the Quaid-e-Azam could have been handled in a much better way. The impression one gets is that the author has written the book keeping in mind the Pakistani audience.



3. If ever I had a chance to meet a personality from the past my first and only choice would be a chance to have an evening tea with Mr. Jinnah. Many times I have been approached by my fellow Pakistani citizens claiming that creation of Pakistan was a historical blunder of immense proportions. Their claim that in a unified India; a larger muslim minority would be better able to project their interests. After all emotional and rational explanations to the defense of Pakistan I recluse with a potent exclamation from my dad "Had I been in India I would have been a peon in a government office serving tea". My residence is in the Silicon Valley; which inhabits many residents from the sub-continent; interestingly enough out of the 1000's of desis I get in contact with I have only met with one muslim from India. His despairing accounts of continual police harassment; the unsaid discrimination at official levels and the lack of job opportunities there; has created a deeper conviction within me to philosophy of Pakistan. I am indebted to Mr. Jinnah for the gift he gave us all in the form of a state where we can freely partake in the pleasures of life often denied to the muslims to the east. If it had not happened I would be reading Anandamath (a tale of Hindu lords massacring muslims).
   
   Mr. Ahmed has accomplished a marvelous effort in the writings of Jinnah. He very clearly presents the general situation and tensions prevalent during the times; and the decisions that were made.



4. Reading this book character or Jinnah as well as Mr. Akbar Ahmed is exposed. This book is a desperate attempt of putting a positive twists on greed and cruelty of some of the Muslim leaders. Mr. Ahmed has no regards of other people or other cultures. He hails intolerance of leaders like Aurangzeb, Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi, for practicing exclusive superiority of Muslims over non Muslims and condemns tolerant leaders like Akbar who was comparatively tolerant to non Muslims. He sees Muslim men marring non Muslim woman, in past, as pride of Islam and non Muslim man marring Muslim woman, in present times, as decline of Islam.
   
   He claims Jinnah was not as cold and arrogant as history makes him to be because
   he smiled when he met a British dignitary for the fist time
   he became emotional when his wife died
   "many of Jinnah's pictures in his biographies show him smiling"
   If this was best Mr. Ahmed could do to put a humane face on Jinnah, some one should have told him it might not work. some of the statements in the book are deliberately truncated to hide the truth while some are out right lies.
   eg. he writes " ..By losing half of the country in 1971" failing to mentioned what cause the 'losing', no mention what so ever why east Pakistan a Muslim majority chose to part away from west Pakistan creating Bangladesh.
   Lies like ".. Gandhi's son became Muslim". As he did not care to mention the first name it could be any Gandhi. But if Mr. Ahmed was talking about Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi he should have done some basic research before making such ridiculous claims. Research like this.
   http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/genealogical_table/page9/page9.html
   
   If such is a scorn for non Muslims, of this western educated scholar, Mr. Ahmed, one must wonder what hate and intolerance must be brewing in the madrasa educated Muslims around the world.
   
   Definatly a must read if you wish to understand mindset of some of the modern day 'muslim elites'. A waste of time if you need to learn something about Jinnah.



5. I would like to respond to your comments with respect to muslims in India. It a shame that you have only met 1 Indian Muslim in Silicon Valley...but have you ever thought why?
   Maybe because the 130 million + muslims in India have stayed in India, unlike the abundant Pakistani population that migrated West. I feel very bad for your Indian Muslim friend, who has suffered under the tyranny of Indian Hindu's. It strange, because my family, who are all Indian muslims, are very succesful and hold have very successful careers, my grandfather was the head architect of the state, my other grandfather was a civil engineer, head of his department, my aunt has a great job with a leading hotel, we have many relatives, who hold highly prominent and respectful positions in the government, army, and airforce. Its unfortunate that in 50+ years of Indian history the only 2 major communial riots heard in India, were of Babri Masjid and Godhra riots, but I must read 5 articles a year on sunni vs shia vs ahmadi vs ismaili vs christian violence in pakistan, the blessed muslim country.
   AS far as your tales of hindu lords massacring muslims, have you ever heard of a king named aurangzeb?, please read on the history of his massacring and forced converting. Thank god my grandparents stayed in India, where every religion is legal, and every person is a first class citizen. Please do your research before making statements based on the 1 indian muslim you have ever met. I have lived in India and Canada and I am as free to practice my religion in India as I am in Canada.
   Yours truly, Proud Muslim Indian, Jai Hind.

3 comments about Did Lincoln Own Slaves?: And Other Frequently Asked Questions About Abraham Lincoln.

1. This is a great book to browse through and pick up fascinating facts about Lincoln. The format is enjoyable, and the author uses clever humor throughout. In addition to facts about Lincoln's life, he gives opinions on the best and worst books and movies about Abe. Highly readable and educational!



2. Did Lincoln Own Slaves? And Other Frequently Asked Questions About Abraham Lincoln,Gerald J. Prokopowicz, Pantheon Books, 311 pp., illustrations, photographs, bibliographic and reference notes, index, 2008, $24.95
   
   Well, when Civil War Librarian received a first notice of the book, a stereotype was placed in a mental pidgeon hole. Probably a slim book published for the middle school-high school library. Probably lots of often published photographs. Maybe a 'Dummy's Guide to Abraham Lincoln'. But, there was the author's name: Gerald J. Prokopowicz. Civil War Librarian is a listener and fan of Civil War Talk Radio and its host and faculty member of East Carolina University. Hmmmm.
   
   Prokopowicz doesn't write/talk down to the reader of Did Lincoln Own Slaves; it is as if the reader is in a seminar on Lincoln and the author is the the discussion leader and instructor. Aristotle and Socrates would be pleased; Prokopowicz employs questions to bring the reader through the implications of the simplest question. What are the assumptions implied in the questions? How has this question been answered previously? What is the current scholarship on the question?
   
   As scholar-in-residence at the Lincoln Museum of Fort Wayne, Indiana for nine years, Prokopowicz probably had to handle this questions. The book is organized somewhat chronologically but also topically. In the sections 'Boy Lincoln,' 'Rail Splitter,' 'Springfield,' 'Politician,' 'Speaker' and seven other chapters, the author organizes the material in chronological fashion but also explores the implications of the questions and stretches outside the confines of the immediate dates.
   
   In the section 'Speaker' an articulate essay on Stephen Douglas brings the reader into the historical context of competitive politics. The answers to such questions as 'What was his greatest speech?' four pages long and contains a note and portions of Lincoln's remarks. Wonderfully, Prokopowicz conditions his answer with the remark "You already know about his presidential speeches, like the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural Address . . ." and then presents 11 paragraphs of cogent description and discussion of the October 16, 1854 Peoria, Illinois speech addressing the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
   
   Chapter Six, 'President,' Prokopowicz begins with 'How old was Lincoln when he became president?' He deals with the answer in one declarative sentence and then a remark that Lincoln was the third youngest president up to that time. The chapter builds to longer answers in the middle then wind downs to shorter answers. The author leads the reader into an in depth discussion and out again. At the end of the each chapter, a section 'For Further Reading' not only suggests books in the field but also offers a brief historiographical discussion of the resources.
   
   From first to last, the author is not a sage-on-a-stage but a guide-by-the-side. A clear writing style and a concise delivery of the facts presents the reader with an enjoyable experience. A foundation of facts with citations offers the reader a thoughtful and scholarly return on the time invested. Each of the chapters leads the reader to the next; Civil War Librarian at times could not put it down missed several hours of sleep. Of the many satisfying chapters, 'Legacy' is the most appreciated; Prokopowicz's discussion of the variety of interpretations and the climate of the times in which each interpretation was written, capped 'Did Lincoln Own Slaves?'
   
   With Andrew Ferguson's Land of Lincoln in 2007 and Prokopowicz's 'Did Lincoln Own Slaves?, both the general reader of biography and the dedicated reader of Lincoln books will have a Lincoln book in both their hands.



3. This work is practically an encyclopedia in scope. Propowicz synthesizes, assesses and summarizes, in a well-divided, Q&A format, the latest scholarship and views on Lincoln issues and shows how, when you blend all that we factually know, Lincoln was a true pragmatist; ahead of many in thought but practical in deed, and commited to no idealogue's camp.
   Thanks to the book's division of life and time subjects, it can almost be read like a life sketch. There is also a section that dicusses Lincoln museums, newly-found Lincoln artifacts, and even "fun" stuff, like Lincoln impersonators, movies, etc.
   The book is generously illustrated with a good selection of relevant photos.
   OK, why would I minus half a star? C'mon, LINCOLN OWN A SLAVE? Who ever seriously considered that? A better title should have been chosen so the book isn't mistaken for one of these recent "Lost Cause" racism defenders.

No comments about Jefferson & His Time.

No comments about The Nazi Hydra in America: Suppressed History of a Century.