5 comments about We'll Never Be Young Again: Remembering the Last Days of John F. Kennedy.

1. I thoroughly enjoyed the many comments by people great and small on their remembrances of November 22, 1963. This well-written narrative of the last days of JFK also provided some unusual comments and insights from friends of JFK from Robert McNamara to Jerry Lewis that I had not read before, as well as the the feelings of shock and despair that prevailed with ordinary people on hearing the horrific news of the assasination. This book has certainly supplemented my information on this well documented tragedy.



2. Growing up I remember two prominent portraits on the wall of my home. Jesus and JFK. I almost didn't read this book. I felt I already knew everything there was to know about that fateful day and I didn't want to remember the painful details. But I did and I don't regret a minute of it. This book is filled with vivid recollections from a cross-section of people that moved me from tears to laughter with a flip of a page. I found the narrative fresh and the timeline helpful. I know what I'm buying my loved ones for Christmas -- this book!



3. This isn't really my kind of book, but it's nicely crafted and attractive to flip through. I bought copies for my grandparents for Christmas.



4. I was moved and emotionally caught up in the great memories of JFK and Camelot from the thoughts and stories of the many great people interviewed here. The selections here are terrific, and rather than the oft-told, dry history of our greatest president, the personal reflections that are recounted in the excellent book reflect who what and where we were as a country then, what we lost, and what we can aspire to be in the future. An amazing book.



5. The collaborative effort of Chuck Fries, Irv Wilson, and Spencer Green, "We'll Never Be Young Again": Remembering The Last Days of John F. Kennedy combines history, narratives, and personal testimonies of the final days of America's 35th President. Over 125 letters written by notable individuals such as Senator John Kerry, Jerry Lewis, Dominick Dunne, Liz Smith and more offer a compelling, collective human testimony to the loss of a charismatic, strong-willed and truly unforgettable and martyred "Camelot" era political leader. "We'll Never Be Young Again" is a superb and highly commended contribution to the growing library books on and about JFK.

5 comments about The Conviction of Richard Nixon: The Untold Story of the Frost/Nixon Interviews.

1. This is a fast and entertaining read. Reston writes that people wondered whether David Frost was up to confronting President Nixon about his Watergate deceptions as Frost was seen as something of a charming lightweight. Frost bore down and did his homework and the result was a stunning success for Frost. Richard Nixon during these interviews came as close as he ever would to admitting his role. The book unpacks Nixon's patterns of defensiveness and sheds light on the psychological machinations behind those patterns. While this may seem like material that's been exhausted over the years, the insights are fresh and interesting.
   
   I have one point of disagreement with the author. He says the interviews finished off any change of a Nixon rehabilitation. While it's true that Nixon never again held elected or appointed office, he wrote a number of foreign policy books, visited with world leaders and gave solicited advice to Bill Clinton, among others. Americans love a comeback and Nixon did live to enjoy some measure of restoration. I'm sure this exceeded what even he thought possible.
   
   I watched the interviews in 1977 as I was in my last year of college. This book brings back the intrigue and the drama.



2. James Reston's experiences preparing David Frost for the Watergate segment of his Nixon interviews may have been exciting for the college professor, but his tale is disjointed and badly in need of citations. It appears his manuscript went to print unedited.



3. I returned the book - I didn't want to read it -- I kept the DVD



4. Reston's splendid little book is a behind the scenes tour de force of the Frost-Nixon interviews. Coming into the interview many thought that Frost was not up to the task of breaking down a President that was known for his tenacious survival instincts. After all, Nixon survived crisis after crisis before he came to the Presidency in 1969, and if Frost and his crew had not done their research, this interview could have provided a launching pad for any future Nixon ambitions. Reston recounts how the Frost team combed over tons of Watergate evidence, and newly discovered tapes detailing what the President knew and when he knew it. After reading this book however, the reader is understandably confused as to what drove Nixon to give his final mea culpa. Reston reveals here that this mea culpa was not spontaneous as some would believe, but took place right after a break in the taping. Was the apology really heartfelt after a withering cross examination by Frost, or was this just another cold calculating Nixonian maneuver? Did Nixon intend to do this when he signed up for the interview in the first place? Reston does not reach a conclusion as to what Nixon was thinking at the time, but with any book about Nixon the truth is always a slippery thing indeed.



5. I got this book and thought "what a good couple of evenings I am going to have reading this." Wrong. It is mainly author Reston letting us know how intelligent and coy he and the "clectic" group he assembled are-but mainly himself. A two page letter of reccomendation from his mother would have sufficed for the 207 pages of this book.

5 comments about The Reconstruction Presidents.

1. Simpson makes us wonder what Lincoln's post-war policies would have been, had a carriage accident kept him from his appointment at Ford's Theatre on April 14, 1865. How would he have resolved the conflict between two of his goals, reconciling the (white) elites of North and South on the one hand, protecting the newly freed men and women on the other? What would "reconstruction" have meant to him? In his second inaugural address, Lincoln spoke of "malice toward none" and "charity for all." But that is an aspiration, not a program. Would it have been possible to act in a way that both the old plantation aristocracy and their former chattels would have regarded as charitable?! Simpson reminds us that by the end of 1865, President Johnson and the Republican Party had gone their separate ways. The leaders of the party, firmly in control of Congress, theorized that the states that had seceded had committed a sort of juridical 'suicide' and could only be restored to life when it, the Congress, thought they had proven their fitness. In the meantime, military occupation and control would continue. That was a difficult policy to pursue, though, if the commander in chief of that military thought reconstruction ought to end, the freedmen left to their fate in the face of the Klan. Congress tried to address this situation by ensuring that it had in the President's cabinet a friendly secretary of war, thus short-circuiting the chain of command. Johnson is in many ways the "heavy" of Simpson's reading of the period. Simpson is, accordingly, sympathetic to the difficulties faced by the leaders of that Congress and to their eventual decision to end those difficulties through the extraordinary process of impeachment and trial. All in all, this is not a perfect, but it is a fascinating, book.



2. One of the most intriguing possibilities one can surrender to is the notion of how history may have differed if consequences were altered. The Reconstruction Presidents examines the lives of the 4 men faced with the challenge of tightening the newly formed knot of the once more Unified States. Beginning with Lincoln, who may have had the vision of the plan before a precise bullet wound dimmed it, Simpson ponders how reconstruction may have begun under Lincoln's reign. With the abrupt arrival of Andrew Johnson and his blatently racist views, reconstruction was lost during these formidable years. The torch passed to Ulysses Grant, who lives in infamy as one of the nation's least effective presidents. He was forced to clean up the damage and mistrust done by Johnson and unify not only blacks and whites, but political and demographic groups alike avoiding the chance of offending any particular group. Simpson poses the question, if Grant had not been in office, who would have and where would the country have gone? I enjoyed the notion of perhaps reanalyzing Grant's presidency. The least known, Rutherford B. Hayes, some would say was the benefactor of a nation willing to surrender and come together. Simpson presents a man who may not be remembered in history by the common citizen, but makes him no less important. An interesting viewpoint on a debated subject.



3. Reconstruction was AFTER Lincoln. Someone needs to point this out to Mr. Simpson. Andrew Johnson attempted to do the same type of Reconstruction Lincoln wanted, "let'em up easy". The Radicals hated Johnson, as Johnson turned out NOT to be their puppet, and he REALLY was a Democrat. Simpson feels the need to bash Johnson, as HIS HERO, GENERAL Grant,[look at his books] was the NEXT President. According to Simpson Grant was in fact one of the BEST Presidents!! (Right!!!LOL) Finally, Simpson pushes all the blame on those Southern people. Get real Mr. Simpson, contrary to your writing, (just because YOU write something, does NOT mean it is fact), the South was not wearing black hats, and the North was not wearing white hats. This book is full of anti-southern propaganda, hoping gullible readers will take it as fact. It's a waste of money. I give it only one star, as I can't give it a zero, which it deserves.



4. Anyone who knows anything about Reconstruction would agree that it began during the Civil War: Lincoln himself spoke of his Reconstruction proposals. Setting aside tripe from neo-Confederate propaganists and KKK defenders, I'd read the book and judge for yourself.



5. No study of Reconstruction has ever offered such a perceptive comparative analysis. The sole critic among these reviews appears to have something of an obsession with the author, as evidenced on the Yahoo Discussion Group "civilwarhistory2." That's unfortunate. Read and decide for yourself.

No comments about John F. Kennedy (Grandes biografias series).

5 comments about General George Washington: A Military Life.

1. This book didn't capture and articulate the struggle of the Continentals in the manner in which "1776" by David McCullough did. It merely laid out facts in a straightforward manner which wasn't that inspiring and quite aseptic. I usually judge the greatness of a book by how often I highlight passages by the author. The cap stayed on my highlighter for most of the book. For students of the era it's a book worth reading, I simply wouldn't put it at the top of my must-read list.



2. Bravo Dr. Edward Lenge! This book is a fascinating account of the military career of the Father of our Country! George Washington (1732-1799) was the first US President; a planter at
   Mt. Vernon and is solidly planted as the indispensable man during the American Revolution. Without Washington's grit and
   daring, perseverance and leadership there is a real possibility that the American experiment would have died an early death.
   Washington with a band of rag-tag, often hungry and ill-trained troops defeated the greatest military machine in the eighteeth century in the shape of the British regulars led by General
   William Howe.
   1776 saw Washington victorious in Boston recapturing the city for the patriot cause. 1777 was a bitter year which began brightly with victories at Trenton and Princeton only to founder in the defeats suffered at Brandywine Creek and Germantown.
   The harsh winter of Valley Forge in late 1777-1778 led to a reformulation of the army which pressed ahead to victory over
   Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1781.
   All of the major battles led by Washington are chronicled in
   depth from Boston to Monmouth to final victory. Washington had
   great flaws as a military man; he was sometimes indecisive; overly bold; poor in topographical placing of troops and could
   be harsh. Nevertheless, it was because of his inimitable courage
   and grit which led the army to victory over loyalists, a hard to
   work with Congress and the mighty British army .
   The American Revolution was hardfought, bloody and our freedom was bathed in the blood of brave men and women. This story needs to be told.
   Lengel's book begins with Washington's career in the French and Indian War which culminated in Braddock's defeat; covers the years from 1759-1776 when his acquisition of land, slaves and
   the formation of the Virginia Regiment won him colonial fame to
   the culminating crown of his career; victory in the War of Independence. Washington was a great man who accomplished much with what he had to work with in men, materials and his strong
   willpower never allowing him to quit in tough situations.
   Lengel's book is well illustrated with helpful maps and an impressive bibliography of first person accounts and letters and correspondence from Washington's fertile pen. This is one of the
   best books I have ever read on Washington's military career.
   Well done!



3. Well written and researched, the writing style a little difficult at times. I felt the author was over critical of Washington, especially since he spends 99% of the narrative criticizing him and, in the last chapter, alots only a few pages to defending him. Overall a good read, but I would pickup His Excellency by J. Ellis, 1776 by Mccollough, or Washington's Crossing by Fischer first.



4. General George Washington: A Military Life by Edward G. Lengel. 2005. 450 pages.
   
   This book covers the military career of George Washington from his days as a youth watching the adventures of his brother through the Seven Years War/French and Indian War, the Revolution, The whisky Rebellion and ends with the former President of the United States (POTUS) Washington still on duty at the end of his life.
   
   This book is primarily concerned with Washington the military man. It provides a good history of his military career and some historical evaluation. The author is not a military man or military scholar; rather he is involved with the George Washington Papers Project. The author's lack of military experience however does not impact his selection of material or his evaluation of Washington the soldier.
   
   While Washington's exploits during the Seven Years War and the Revolution are fairly well known some of the details and the scope of these exploits are often not understood. This lack of understanding is partly the result of our distance from the way things were in the 18th century and partly because Washington was a unique and extraordinary leader and man. In many ways he was much more akin to our modern sensibilities than he was to those of the military establishments of his time. Though he himself operated firmly in an 18th century frame of reference.
   
   Washington was a one man staff system who directed his logistics both on the practical side and on the political side, always wary to avoid burdening the populace and maintaining civilian control and a sense of proper order in the army. Washington was heavily involved in conducting his own intelligence and agitory propaganda work to a degree which modern commanders do not do because much of these functions are delegated to dedicated and specially trained staff.
   
   Peeling back the aspects of Washington's organization and activities which today are handled by a staff we come to the issue of Washington in the traditional sense of a military man as we commonly think of them. Washington was by all accounts of friend and foe a very physically brave man on par even with Hernando Cortez. Washington's ability to lead men was remarkable for a man with little education. He was, compared to his 18th century peers, a very modern leader reinforcing the positive and challenging his men to meet his expectation rather then the blunt bully who used the vine stave.
   
   At a tactical level Washington's forces failed more often than they succeeded. Too often the failure was a result of an overly complicated plan. Though Washington was seemingly always itching for a fight he tended towards plans of such intricate timing and advance that they were often doomed. On the operational and strategic level Washington's talents were much more evident. Though he maintained a fixed obsession with New York City he quickly understood the tie between the revolution and its promise to the country and world and the need to keep his army in the field defying the British.
   
   The notion that Washington was a Fabian in his tactics does not strictly hold water. Washington though recognizing the need to maintain the army as a whole in the field in order to preserve the revolution routinely risked the entire main army in battle. The campaigns in New York City, Brandywine, Germantown, even Monmouth showed a desire for that one decisive action which would decide the issue. The author does understand this.
   
   Washington is so far the only sitting POTUS to, as Commander in Chief, command troops in the field, in uniform as President. This occurred during the Whiskey Rebellion though the mere presence of Washington contributed to the end of the rebellion with out a full scale national conflagration. Washington, in a little known tidbit, also returned to military service after his final term as POTUS. He, at the behest of POTUS John Adams, accepted a commission to ready the American military for potential conflict with France. When Washington died he did so under commission and therefore still technically as a serving military officer in the armed forces of the United States.
   
   This book reads quickly, the prose not being a millstone to the material, and does a fine job of presenting this aspect of Washington to the reader.



5. I thought this was a well written and informative book. Sometimes we try to portray Washington as a God, but not in this book. Edward G. Lengel gives an unbiased fair view of Washington's military life. Sometimes I believe he was over critical, but then, I am not a military historian. I would recommend this to anyone interested in the American Revolution.

No comments about Lbj's Texas White House: "Our Heart's Home".

No comments about Dwight D. Eisenhower: Ike.

5 comments about Jefferson's Demons: Portrait of a Restless Mind.

1. I bought this book after reading the review in "The Wall Street Journal," which praised it as a "profound and exquisitely written meditation on the mind of America's most enigmatic Founder." I was skeptical at first; I did not want to read another study in what is sometimes called "pathography." But the book overcame my skepticism. The writing style is, I think, very fine, and owes something to the mandarin tradition exemplified by Lytton Strachey and Sir Thomas Browne. But what impressed me most about "Jefferson's Demons" was the complexity of the personality the author reveals in his protagonist. When I was in graduate school I read F.O. Matthiessen's classic study, "American Renaissance," in which Matthiessen argued that "notwithstanding the humaneness and toleration that made Franklin and Jefferson among the strongest bulwarks in our social heritage, it is forced inescapably upon us that their rationalism was too shallow to encompass the full complexity of man's nature." "Jefferson's Demons" makes a strong case that historians have misread Jefferson's "rationalism," and in especial have failed to do justice to the daemonic qualities in his neo-classical architecture. Jefferson was not as "shallow" as Matthiessen and others have supposed. He is interesting precisely because, as this book demonstrates, he is not a caricature of an Enlightened sage, a plaster-work Voltaire. Whether the Conradian nightmare described on page 250 of the book -- the accusation that Jefferson was once seen "FLOGGING IN THE MOST BRUTAL MANNER A NEGRO WOMAN" -- is true or not I can't pretend to say; but certainly Jefferson was more familiar with human nature's dark side than we've been led to believe. In any event "Jefferson's Demons" is a profound and brilliant book, and I am grateful for it; it is, I think, a classic of its kind.



2. This book is a Bildungsroman: the Education of Thomas Jefferson. It's the story of how Jefferson struggled to form himself into a man capable of action--the story of his "paideia," as the author would have it, in a bow to his subject's lifelong love of the Greeks. JEFFERSON'S DEMONS describes the mysterious ways the Sage of Monticello educated himself and learned to tap his most profound creative instincts.

   Like so many great men, Jefferson was engaged in an ongoing conversation with the great men of the past, with Montaigne, Homer, Solon, Tacitus, Milton, Isaiah, Socrates, Jesus. Beran lets the reader overhear these conversations, and he shows us how Jefferson drew on them both in his private life and his public work.

   The author's richly allusive style is itself an instrument in the communication of his vision of Jefferson: there are passages in the book in which the prose has less affinity with the rhytmically and spiritually flat prose of the present than with that of the Caroline and late Elizabethan prose-stylists. This startling use of language and metaphor prepares the reader for the book's major reassessments of whole tracts of Jefferson's thought. The book provides a nuanced reading of Jefferson's "Whig" and "Tory" qualities, shows how deeply immersed Jefferson was in a Virginia culture of decadent feudalism, and contains an ingenious reading of the connection between Jefferson's "sentimentalism" and the mediaeval romance of the rose. Jefferson's architecture emerges as something more deeply felt than the pasteboard classicism it is often taken to be; and Beran ties his analysis of Monticello and the University of Virginia to his discussion of how Jefferson tried to reconcile his civic republican ideals (the communitarianism of the classical city-state, the Greek polis) with his commitment to Whig liberalism, with its emphasis on liberty of trade, liberty of the press, and liberty of conscience.

   I loved this book. It's a splendid account of Jefferson's self-culture and his attempts to apply the lessons he learned in the young American Republic, and it enlarges the number of intellectual debates in which Jefferson participated and through which he must examined.

   But the book's most important message is an intensely personal one. Jefferson spoke hopefully of the "progress to be made under our democratic stimulants until every American is potentially an athlete in body and an Aristotle in mind." Beran shows the reader how Jefferson, in trying to realize this potentiality in himself and in others, aspired to the Greek ideal of the statesman who is also an educator, one who can help people to know themslves and do their work.




3. Demon - n. Greek Mythology 2. An attendant spirit; a genius.
   
   This book investigates the classical influences on Jefferson and follows them through to his motivations in Government and his personal life. The "demons" are the classical inspirations for Jefferson. This is a great book which delves deeper into a person's psyche than any other biography I've read. The language is exquisite (nearly over-the-top), but in the end it is a highly rewarding investigation into one of our founding fathers.



4. It is perhaps hard to be sure this book is a putdown. For some, finding that Jefferson wasn't always rational and calm may make him more human and therefore more appealing, but for me it is a downer. He seems to have had a miseable inner life. Thank God that he was able nonetheless to do a lot of good. The book helps to explain many of Jefferson's wrongheaded views: about Hamilton, about the radicals in the French Revolution, etc.
   
   The author is talented but he quotes so extensively from Jefferson's own feelings, which in themselves are so unreadable, that the book necessarily becomes unreadable.
   
   This may indeed be a useful contribution to our knowledge but I could have done without it.



5. I would highly recommend this book. Beran makes the read a fun one.

No comments about Thomas Jefferson's Farm Book.

5 comments about America in the Gilded Age: From Abraham Lincoln to Theodore Roosevelt.

1. An interesting overview of a pivotal period in American History. The rise of America from a new nation to an imperial power. Clearly designed to be used as a textbook and in that it succeeds. The Third edition presents much more material than the first edition. It covers politics, urban life, the closing of the frontier and many other important areas of the last half of the 19th century.



2. American in the Gilded Age is a very thorough overview of a fascinating time period in American history. Cashman manages to cover all of the key events, changes, and people during this time period, but his treatment tends to become uneven toward the end. The Progressive Movement did not begin with Theodore Roosevelt, but rather boosted him to national prominence, but Cashman almost glosses over this period with just a few pages. However, don't let this detract from the overall strength of this book in capturing the sociological changes the US experienced during this time. Cashman's prose is not hard to follow and his organization of the topics is first rate, however, this is not a casual read like "Victorian America." I recommend both America in the Gilded Age and Victorian America as overviews of the roughly the same timeframe with different approaches.



3. ...and I enjoyed it. This was one of 8 required books in my college U.S. History 1865-present class. Yes, there are a lot of facts. There are a lot of facts I did not know and I am grateful they were in there. I think Cashman did a good job covering the time period. And to the people that said this book was boring, bad, whatever.....get used to it. If your going to take college courses in history, you need to have an open mind. Without that, you'll never succeed in college and beyond.



4. This is the best single volume covering these important yet forgotten years of American history that I've encountered so far. I'm sorry some reviewers found it boring but history, even significant history, is not always made up of superficial, entertaining, titilating, or shocking events. There's something unflatteringly 21st Century American about opinions like that. You shouldn't have a say about any aspect of modern American history unless you understand how it became what it is. There is far too much superficial judgmentalism about American history these days, too much eagerness to dismiss decades of complexity as mere expressions of greed, imperialism, racism, and sexism. To put it bluntly, the past is being rewritten by ignorant and angry moderns with political axes to grind. It's like watching Nazis scornfully rewrite Jewish history so that not even a semblance of decency or honor is left to them.
   
   Reviews of this type, given the effort that went into this book and the obvious intelligence behind it, make me wonder if a few students who maybe got low grades one semester aren't vengefully getting a few cheap shots in.



5. I have been preparing to teach an American History course and was looking for a book that would give me a sufficient in depth overview of a period I was not well versed on. While I did find the book useful, especially the wide array of images that I might share with my class, this book is not the be all end all for Gilded Age studies. It takes subjects thematically and does not always tie them together. It also is superficial in some places, as a book of this length covering a section of history this broad almost must be. It is a useful introduction that I would recommend, but I will be looking for other books to help round out my knowledge.