2 comments about Robert F. Kennedy and the 1968 Indiana Primary.

1. The Washington Post on March 25, 2008 reported that the Indiana May primary between Obama and Clinton may make the difference for the Democratic nomination. Forty years ago this was also the case. Every political reporter, blogger and junkie needs to read this book. Indiana politics are quirky, but there are similarities between 1968 and 2008, especially over the race issue. Obama is Bobby Kennedy. Hillary is trying to figure out if she is Gene McCarty or the machine candidate represented by Gov. Roger Branigin.



2. On April 4, 1968, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. came to Indiana to campaign for the Indiana Democratic presidential primary. En route, Kennedy learned that civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had been shot and had died. Despite the Indianapolis police department's warning that they could not guarantee his safety, Kennedy chose to address an outdoor rally amid the city's African American community. Kennedy delivered one of history's great speeches, breaking the news of King's death and stressing the need for compassion amid violence. Robert F. Kennedy and the 1968 Indiana Primary commemorates the fortieth anniversary of Kennedy's passionate speech, and examines the characters and events of the 1968 primary, in which Kennedy rose from underdog to victor. A fascinating close study of a great leader's power to console and inspire.

5 comments about Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800 (Pivotal Moments in American History).

1. I picked this up at a discount book store to brush up on my early American history. As I read it, I was surprised I had never heard of Ferling before now. He is concise and well written. His insight into the election illustrates the complexities of our electoral process showing it not to be perfect, but better than most in the world. I have a new sense of respect for Adams now, before I was not too fond of him. I am a big fan of Hamilton, who is portrayed in a negative manner at times. In retrospect it was accurate as Hamilton, like all other politicians then and now were/are opportunists. I look forward to more Ferling works and am glad I found this piece.



2. I simply did not enjoy this book. That's not to say I got nothing out of it, because the information is there. But halfway through the book, I briefly considered putting it down and moving on to something else. It's just not written in a way that is reader friendly. It reads like something written by a historian, not a writer. The best books are written by those who wear both hats.



3. This is a splendid book that not only covers the personalities and the election, it breathes enough life into it to make it all fun. This is a breeze to read yet very informative.
   
   I will be reading more books by Ferling.



4. Among the fifty-plus presidential elections in the United States, there have been four that stand out as particularly controversial. We're all familiar (and have our opinions about) the 2000 election. The 1876 election also involved disputed votes, and while the winner (Hayes) did not have the popular vote, he won in a deal that also ended Reconstruction. In 1824, John Quincy Adams had neither the popular nor electoral majority but won through a seeming corrupt bargain in the House of Representatives; the consequences of this bargain would tarnish Adams's presidency and help Andrew Jackson (who had the plurality of popular and electoral votes in 1824) win in 1828. These three may have had their impacts, but perhaps none were as important as the first controversial election in 1800.
   
   John Ferling discusses this election in his book Adams vs. Jefferson (subtitled The Tumultuous Election of 1800). Kind of like the movie Titanic, the big event doesn't really happen until 2/3 of the way into the book. Unlike Titanic, however, this story is filled with enough interesting characters that you don't need to wait for the climax. The two leads in this book are the title characters. Adams is the unappreciated one and he knows it; while Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Hamilton get the lion's share of acknowledgement for their roles, Adams would be pushed aside. While the others would appear on coins and cash, Adams would be relatively unmemorialized (although that has changed in recent years).
   
   Jefferson, on the other hand, is the high-minded but often duplicitous friend of Adams and a founder of the Republican party (which would eventually evolve into the modern Democratic Party). Adams was a Federalist, albeit a moderate one, but even that was too much for Jefferson and their relationship would get antagonistic especially after 1796, when Adams was elected president and Jefferson vice-president. For Adams, it would be a rough term in office, besieged by Jefferson on one side and Hamilton on the other.
   
   1800 would be a rematch between the two, but the real fireworks would actually occur later. Due to the electoral process at the time, Jefferson and fellow Republican Aaron Burr tied in the electoral college, with Adams a close third. If not for the three-fifths rule in the Constitution at the time (designed to count slaves as three-fifths of a person when determining representation and electoral votes), Adams - the only non-slave holder among the four major candidates (Charles Pinckney being the fourth) - would have won.
   
   With a tie, the election would be decided in the House of Representatives, where views were decidedly mixed as to who should win (although it spoils nothing to give away that Jefferson would be the winner). The results of this election? Among other things, it led to a new Constitutional amendment to avoid these sorts of ties in the future. It also represented the beginning of the end for the Federalists, who would never have much of a shot at the presidency again. What is most significant, however, is the end result: the peaceful transition in leadership from one party to its rival.
   
   This is the second book I've read by Ferling. The first, a biography of John Adams, was wonderful. This one is good but not great; although only 200 pages long, it is an occasionally slow read. There is also the occasional bit of anachronistic language, such as when Ferling refers to Federalist bloggers. Adams vs. Jefferson offers little to those already familiar with the era, but if you haven't really read up on this period, it is a worthwhile book to pick up.



5. Overall Ferling gives a good read. The book is detailed in many areas and does provide a chronology of events very well. Through his establishment of the characters of the men involved, the reader does almost forget he is reading a historical evaluation and not an historical novel (this may be good or bad depending on the reader, but one can not feel a bit emotional while reading the epilogue and the eventual reestalished friendship between Adams and Jefferson).
   
   However like most books that deal with these subjects one can see the biases begin to seep through. Hamilton: Bad Guy. Adams: The Old Blowhard. Washington: Hamilton's puppet. Burr: The Secondary Character. Jefferon: The Hero. Ferling falls into the same traps which at times does hurt the book. He gives credit to Jefferson in many areas where he should have been questioning Jefferson's actions and words (the lack of any indepth evaluation of Jefferson and slavery is a bit daunting). Though Ferling does a good job at spelling out the changes brought about with the election of 1800 in the epilogue, he does in the end fail to address key points (Jefferson's Barbary War, a mere mention of the LA Purchase, no mention at all of Jefferson's embargo, and most importantly the slavery issue...which is virtually ignored, except a pretty interesting discussion of Sally Hemming)and maybe more depth with the chapter could have spelled out and defended Ferling's thesis a bit clearer.
   
   Other areas of criticism for this book have to come from the 10 chapters devoted to events pre-1800, and only, what can be considered an overview, of the election and the subsequent House battle. It is here where depth is needed and at times does not seem to be provided. Another issue is his paragraph devoted to the 3/5's Clause, something I felt he should have expanded on (maybe even devoting a short chapter to it). And, like most reviews, I agree with the poor editing of the book. Long paragraphs with 3-4 different issues being explained, when they should have been broken down to lone paragraph.
   
   Overall it is a good book and topic worth reading about. It's easy to read and it does flow very well.

5 comments about Napoleon: The Path to Power.

1. This is a well written biographical account of Napoleon's rise to become absolute ruler of France, covering as much his psychological development as his political dealings and military victories.



2. I tried to read it. I really did. It's one of my favorite subjects. I so far got through maybe 100 pages. I haven't given up, but nor would I take it on vacation. Perhaps if I were stuck in an elevator, alone with nothing to do and nothting else to read, I'd sit down and complete another 100 pages.
   
   Well, after trying the phone, pounding on the walls, and trying to jump up to the ceiling to exit through one of those hidden doors and shimmying up the greased cables to a door and trying to pry it open. Failing that, I may just be inclined to read more of the book.
   
   But then again, why would I have it with me?



3. Napoleon's military brilliance, his ruthless domination of both his army and France's conquered territories - such as in his Egyptian campaign - and his intuitive grasp of nation building through nation invading, is a fascinating story and author Philip Dwyer writes a gripping tale of Napoleon's strategic and tactical military conquests.
   
   Yet, for this very reason, Dwyer's "Napoleon: Path to Power" reads more like "Napoleon: March to Victory" as the book is less a political biography as it is a military history. With its interesting battle and territory maps, as well as art and captions, I felt this book earned a 4-star rating.
   
   Dwyer clearly establishes Napoleon's early influences as a youth on Corsica and at a boarding school in France, where he learns - sometimes at great expense - that the battlefront is a means to the end in the battleground of ideas. As a young adult, he uses his army abroad to build a constituency back home in France. He shamelessly manipulated his soldiers, the press, his family and friends and even his countrymen to achieve his real ambitions of political domination.
   
   If Dwyer had followed that narrative, this book may have been a more compelling story. Napoleon wasn't a general who somehow became a politician; he was a politician who became a general so he could become an even bigger politician.
   
   The proof of which is that Napoleon's greatest victory isn't even on the battlefield; it's a bloodless coup d'etat in 1799 over the corrupt and ineffective French Directory (his superiors) - the post-Revolutionary constitutional government. He was 30-years old and First Counsel of an emerging European power.



4. This biography is dry as dust. All the principle individuals are two dimensional. The writer writes as if they were stick figures rather than real people who influenced the course of history. His protrait of Napoleon is without flesh and blood.



5. This is a book for the serious Buonapartiste - particularly his secret detractors. The Sorbonne-educated historian has given us PART ONE of his work - a work of over 600 pages - and I found the deluge of historical materials to be both overwhelming and deftly handled, the resolution to this paradox being that Dwyer is guilty of what he demonstrates behind Napoleon's ascent: a clumsy spin doctoring of the "facts."
   
   This also is the reason I find fault with the very conception of the book: we long have reconciled ourselves to remaining trapped within the vortices of history, myth, and cultural creationism when it comes to this particular biographical subject. Unable to break the historian's taboo of psychoanalytic consideration of its subject, this book ultimately is a doomed enterprise as yet another attempt at "understanding" the man.
   
   I wait for the biography that tells us something new about how the man's context, the history/myth/culture that he found himself in, struggled against, and, in this case, to great extent, found itself transformed in his wake. Our obsession with the little giant certainly would favor this approach.
   
   Peter Glidden, Ph.D.

2 comments about Dawn Dusk or Night: A Year with Nicolas Sarkozy.

1. This book was impossible to read. I think she wrote it as a play not a book. I couldn't finish it.



2. What a brilliant idea this was! Take Yasmina Reza (`Art'), the best-known playwright in France today, and have her shadow the country's rising political star, Nicolas Sarkozy, in his bid -ultimately successful--for the presidency. The result is not political reporting but a stunningly brilliant portrait of a type of man, homo politicus, as represented by one of its most appealing exemplars. Sarkozy is perpetually in motion, reinventing himself against the backdrop of hangers on and electorate. From their first meeting, she notes Sarkozy's impatience, his thirst for praise (`still waiting, like a child, for the umpteenth approval'). "I feel like I'm watching a little boy," she writes. He can't stand being alone, he sabotages conversations that don't involve him, shuns solitude. He comes alive around people, needs audiences to think and live. Reza's glittering prose show us glimpses of a man whose goal seems to be to outrun his own image in the mirror but who also happens to be one of the most important political figures of our age. Compulsively readable, this book deserves the widest audience. Sarkozy is charming, relentlessly ambitious, unable to sit still, and totally self-absorbed, a man in search of a mirror. But when he finds one, he finds there's still something missing.

5 comments about Means of Ascent (The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Volume 2).

1. This biography of LBJ, the second in a series written by Caro, covers briefly the humiliating early years in Johnson's life when his father was reduced to poverty, his college years, his time as a young congressman, and spotlights the infamous 1948 Senate race. The book also contrasts the life of Johnson's opponent in the 1948 Senate race, the venerated former Governor of Texas, Coke Stevenson.
   
   Caro tries to show Johnson's naked political ambition throughout the book. Johnson could not stand just being one of a crowd, he had to lead the crowd and dominate his followers. He also shows how, once LBJ obtained power in the Congress, Johnson used it to his own benefit and the benefit of his supporters. Principal among these was the powerful Texas lawyer Ed Clark and the Texas construction and oil pipeline company, now a subsidiary of Halliburton, Brown & Root. Johnson did not use the office to benefit the people of Texas or for reasons one might commonly associate with Congressmen; in nearly twelve years as in the Congress, he introduced seven bills total. Two were passed and these affected his district only. In his first eleven years he delivered a mere ten speeches to the House of Representatives.
   
   When it became clear to Johnson he was going to lose a political race, he resorted to other than honest means to win. Caro tells how the 1948 Senate race was not an anomaly, rather Johnson had been stuffing ballot boxes his entire political life. It did not matter how small the race or how paltry the office. Johnson stuffed ballots even to win Student Council elections at college and the "Little Congress" elections, a social club of political aides. What was important was winning at any cost and furthering his political ambition.
   
   Also included in the biography is how Johnson came to own KTBC, a radio station in Austin, how the station was used by businessman and others to buy favors Johnson after they bought advertising slots on the station, and how awfully he treated the employees of the station. When confronted in public about these matters, Johnson would always claim that the station was owned by his wife and that he had no part in the ownership and operation of it. Caro shows that like most other things that Johnson claimed, this was a lie.
   
   I highly enjoyed reading this book. The lust for power Caro describes gives credit to allegations (by other authors) that Johnson was involved in the death of JFK.



2. This book begins where Path to Power left off. It does give a quick recap so you can pick up here if you did not want to read the first one (although I recommend reading it as it is spectacular). The lies of Johnson's military service are almost too much to believe. His desire to retain elected office and achieve his goals remain unmatched as ever before. This book yet again shows how Johnson would lie and cheat his way to power. The Texas politics are truly among the most disturbing that you can see anywhere. The corruption is rampant and with an election where Johnson wins by only 87 votes the corruption was rampant. The race for the senate seat against governor Coke Stevenson who was one of the more principled Texas politicians is famous in Texas history. This book is wonderful at recounting that event as well as giving further insight into Johnson. Caro's writing is superb and the desire to find out what happens next is unmatched in other biographies. This is a must read for anyone interested in political history, biographies, or politics.



3. I recently read the second volume of Robert A. Caro's magisterial biography of LBJ, entitled MEANS OF ASCENT, and from that book I learned to loathe one man, Lyndon Johnson, whose signal accomplishments in civil rights and social justice are difficult to reconcile with his profound character flaws; to admire another, Coke Stephenson, who, for all the baggage of racism and reactionary ideology that came along with his frontier conservatism was, by all accounts, an outstanding, even heroic human being; and to hold in the very warmest regard one woman, Lady Bird Johnson, who, in spite of her paralyzing shyness and the outrageous abuse heaped upon her by her husband, was not only steadfast in her love and loyalty, but also took infinite pains to remake herself, agonizingly, into a successful businesswoman, canny politician, eloquent speaker, pioneering conservationist, important philanthropist, and accomplished public figure of the very first rank.



4. The second in Caro's amazingly detailed, trenchant, fascinating, truthful, insightful and heartless multi-volume portrait of Johnson. What did anyone -- even Lyndon Johnson -- ever do to deserve a biographer like this? Not that I fault Caro: His tenacious and scrupulously accurate determination that the truth be told is journalistic history at its highest level of professionalism. But under, or alongside, the chicanery, the narcissism, the shameless expediency of his subject's persona there also was a charisma, a thoroughly human drive to assert himself and make an imprint on an indifferent universe that also is breathtaking, and the sheer wonder and humanity of Johnson is not given enough due. But enough of the cavil, because this book is a supreme accomplishment, of research, writing and psychological insight. It is fascinating to see Johnson's vast inflation of his military "career," and the way he continued to lie about it to people who knew he was lying, and who he knew knew he was lying. And the account of the stealing of the 1948 Senate race is so gripping, so suspenseful even though one knows the outcome before the book is opened, that it defies the effort to put the book down. I had read the book in fits and starts until about page 210, then picked it up at about 9:30 p.m., and could not stop until I finished, at 2:15 a.m. This book will be richly rewarding for anyone interested in the 1940s, and/or in contemporary American politics.



5. Means of Ascent traces Johnson's career from a rather lackluster legislator (i.e. in passing national legislation) in the U.S. House of Representatives, to his all or nothing gamble on the 1948 Texas U.S. Senate race. In between these years, we learn of Johnson's "war service", his wife's role in her husband's congressional office, their business dealings with a radio station in Austin, and other events. All of this is integral to Johnson's story and his political ambitions. As Caro discussed, these were not Johnson's happiest years as he seemed unsatisfied with his position in Congress and his perceived lack of power.
   
   Caro introduces us to another key political figure in this book, Coke R. Stevenson. This was the man referred to as "Mr. Texas". Caro's portrayal of Stevenson offers a stunning contrast to the portrayal of Johnson. Coke Stevenson's life journey seemed to be the stuff of legends. He was a self-educated man who lived the outdoors. He reluctantly joined the world of Texas politics to get what he saw as a job that needed to be done done. He served as a state legislator, speaker of the house, lieutenant governor and governor. Stevenson seemed to represent what Texans liked most about their state and themselves. His popularity was perhaps unrivaled by any other state political figure. Perhaps Caro's portrayal of Stevenson is a bit too laudatory, but if Caro's task is to set the differences between Johnson and Stevenson in terms of their character traits, their personalities, their politics, etc., then he has succeeded brilliantly.
   
   Once again, the Johnson that emerges in the heat of another major campaign is the same tireless, unstoppable man who will go to any and all lengths to win, as seen in Caro's other books. During the 1948 Democratic Primary, Johnson even utilized a new mode of transportation, the helicopter, for his campaign stops. Stevenson, in contrast, simply drove to different towns and county courthouse squares to meet and greet people, with little press attention. Stevenson, according to Caro, trusted that Texans already knew his record and where he stood and therefore he didn't have to respond to Johnson's attacks.
   
   But once again, the nasty side of politics evinced itself. Large amounts of special interest money were used in the campaign, especially on Johnson's behalf. Votes were bought, especially from ethnic voting blocs from border counties where political bosses like George Parr reigned supreme. Additional voter fraud issues like stuffing of ballot boxes and the likes would come to light as well.
   
   Many people, even in Johnson's inner circle, knew the hurdles they faced in defeating the popular Stevenson, a man regarded as unbeatable. In the end, Johnson would win by 87 votes, made possible no doubt by the hundreds if not more than hundreds of votes added to ballot boxes such as in the infamous Precinct 13 of Jim Wells County, and probably from other counties too. Parr's right hand man Luis Salas confessed this later and even said that Stevenson votes had been counted as Johnson votes.
   
   Stevenson didn't give in without a fight. A Federal District Court judge took up the case and things began to appear bleak for Johnson's electoral "victory". Johnson's men, however, proved skillful in their legal maneuvering to halt the judge's order to open the disputed ballot boxes from Precinct 13 and possibly from other areas. With the assistance of Abe Fortas, they secured a hearing in front of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who decided in favor of the Johnson team to stop the opening of ballot boxes. This decision ended the dispute and Johnson became the Democratic nominee and eventual winner in the fall election.
   
   Johnson had indeed staked everything on this senate race and had won. But though he won the battle, it seems almost irrefutable that his victory was tainted by real voter fraud. Caro's treatment of both Johnson and Stevenson has earned some criticism. The portrait of Johnson that emerges is not flattering. Johnson certainly had some undesirable traits, but the nature of the politics and corruption seen at that time also contributed to the unflattering picture that is presented here, though they were often connected to his campaign. Stevenson is portrayed as a rock solid character who seemingly possessed very few flaws, though Caro did briefly touch on part of his record as governor of Texas, especially concerning the lynching of a black man during his tenure, as well as other elements of Stevenson's very conservative philosophy. Whether the character portrayals of either one of or of both is totally fair and accurate, is not for me to say, but I think Caro has done his homework and his evaluations seem solid in many ways.
   
   Caro excels in presenting the human dimensions to his narrative, especially in the quest for power. The thrill of the campaign also comes to life. If you're a political junkie, you'll love this book. Overall, a great reading experience and great insights into Lyndon Johnson's life and times.

5 comments about Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security.

1. This book provides concrete examples of the Clinton's lack of respect for, and understanding of, the US military. From sexually improper behavior to "gays in the military" decisions, Patterson does a good job of showing how Clinton's poor character traits and questionable judgement weakened our national security. The first lady's behavior was, by Patterson's accounts, worse than her husband's. Read this book before you consider voting for Hillary for president.



2. Do yourself a favor before buying this dishonest piece of political propaganda and lies...click on the authors name and look at the titles of the other extremist junk this wacko has written. He's a paid political propagandist as bad as Limbaugh or Hannity. He's an embrassment to legitimate authors. This kind of political propaganda is dividing America and ruining the country.



3. It's also very interesting that after I bought this book, when I looked for it in the store later, it had disappeared! I still look, and it's still not there.
   
   And to think 1/2 the democrats in this country want to give them another four years!



4. This was a gift for my father. Didn't get a chance to read it, but per his review, it was a great book. Highly recommend for anyone wanting to get a better insight into the Clintons.



5. This books purports to show an insiders view, but it misses the mark. The author tries to emphasize his own importance and insiders view, but the book is rather slim, and overly padded, there are 150 pages of text in relatively large type with lots of space. This is an expose from someone who overheard conversations. This was certainly written by a conservative trying to make the point that we should fight a military war on terror, going to many countries. The book is full of inuendo and guesses. I thought these aides were supposed to sign an oath of confidentiality. A trash book.

5 comments about Boss: Richard J. Daley of Chicago.

1. This is a serious and ambitious coverage of the internal workings of Chicago government. This book didn't make me laugh as Royko's "Sez Who? Sez Me!" did, but is so insightful and well-written that this reader, not too knowledgeable about politics, thoroughly enjoyed it.
   
   The story is important because it uncovers a truth otherwise overlooked by the media (for example, what really happened at the police riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention). Amazingly, despite the ugliness of the politics portrayed, Royko's writing is not too judgemental; any judgement of Daley is left to the reader. As Royko describes the rise of Daley's Machine, it becomes clear that the motivation behind most of Daley's actions was simply to keep his enemies powerless and keep the Machine's dominance intact, even when it means promoting inept allies to positions of power or neglecting the needs of Chicago's most struggling people.



2. A great read (though dated) of the political machine Richard J Daley enhanced in Chicago. Though Daley himself never pursued the money end of the corruption, his machine enhanced their wealth and Daley's power in their almost total control of the city. Daley was a great politician, turning set backs to political advantage. Daley tolerated crooked cops, until he was forced to hire a reformer. After awhile he took out the reformer, and hired an enforcer as police commissioner. This is a great read about the machine that controls Chicago. This gives an interesting look into the mind of the political machine of Chicago.
   
   This is a great book. If one wants to read further on the Chicago Democratic political machine or Richard J. Daley, American Pharoeh is another great book. This should be required reading for those who live in Illinois.



3. Yup, I too was alive and kicking during most of The Mayor's reign, and I have to agree, it's got the ring of truth to it. This book was intended as more of a verbal portrait of Daley and the city he helped shape than as a political analysis, although Daley's administration is effectively dissected. Civics classes AND journalism classes should be required to read this since not only is it an outstanding example of what is known in some circles as "Literary Journalism" but because it's more than just political theory,it illustrates the real life nuts and bolts workings of a big city. This is right up there with Caro's "The Power Broker" What's really wild is that I read this book right after I read "The Godfather" and both of the titular characters operated in much the same way!



4. Book came quickly. It was just a little bit more weathered than I expected, but it's an old book so I'm not complaining



5. Royko's a solid writer in the old mode of honest journalists. He takes any bias or subjectivity out of his work, which is good. That makes this book eye-opening.
   
   Dick Daly, like his son and the preponderance of Chicago Democrats was a lying, corrupt, racist man who'd do anything to continue his dominance over the Chicago political machines. And Royko explains this, having viewed the entire era from a local angle.
   
   If you like stories and insight, look here.
   
   Noteworthy is how little things have changed four decades later. His son is now the mayor, racists like Jesse Jackson and Rev. Wright are still relevant and spewing hatred (and getting away with it) and now they have "their" candidate---of "hope" and "change."
   
   People think Barack H. Obama is a new face, but he's the consummate politician. He's the same corrupt guy that most Chi Dems are.
   
   By now all of America should fathom the truth: Obama made a devil's bargain with a number of racists to establish his own street credentials in the rough and tumble world of Chicago politics. And here he is today.
   
   Those who ignore history repeat it---and vote for this Empty Suit at their own ignorance and peril in 2008.

5 comments about John Quincy Adams: A Public Life, a Private Life.

1. After noting the ratings and browsing the titles of other reviewers, I realize I am in the minority in the low review I have given this book. I find it even more peculiar given my disposition to normally be quite favorable in my reviews. I will not flinch, however, in my belief that this biography is ill conceived, inadequately researched, and poorly written.
   
   First, I will tackle why this book is ill conceived. Nagel makes the assertion that he will be able to add knew insight into the inner workings of John Quincy Adams, a task he points out that no previous biographer has been fully successful, by writing a biography utilizing JQA's diary. This certainly seems like an acceptable approach but in practice Nagel simply uses it as an excuse to write a biography without doing any real research. In fact, you will not find a single footnote in this entire volume, simply an explanation basically telling you that his primary research was JQA's diary with the gaps filled in by other biographers work. Even more inexplicable, beyond a couple of lines of poetry, Nagel never quotes directly from JQAs diary except for short sentences or phrases trapped within his mechanical prose. The dumbfounding outcome of this is a book that purports to tell JQAs story utilizing his diary, yet never gives the reader any sense of what JQAs diary was actually like.
   
   The preceding criticism might be overlooked had Nagel actually written an enjoyable biography. Unfortunately, Nagel's writing is as lazy and thoughtless as his research. Nagel makes no effort to craft his work in a way that would be appropriate to his subject matter or complement his desire to use JQAs diary as the basis for the book. I would encourage anyone thinking of buying this book to read the excerpts available through the "Look Inside" feature. Nagel continues the exact same paragraph structure throughout the entire book. The book is strictly chronological, basically following a "then this happened, then this happened, and then this happened..." approach that is about as compelling as a high school level history assignment. Nagel treats events big and small with the same level of detail (not much) and never elaborates on events that seem to provide an opportunity for adding interest or bringing the reader to a better understanding of John Quincy Adams and his place in history. I would call this a "feather duster" biography - it glides along the surface without ever taking the time to go into any depth.
   
   Those interested in learning about JQAs presidency will be the most disappointed. Nagel explains that he only devotes a chapter to JQAs presidency because JQA himself did not think his presidency was very important. This is an absurd defense and a smokescreen for the fact that he did not do the necessary research. In fact, the chapter devoted to JQAs presidency is mostly about events that happened to JQA during his presidency unrelated to his presidency.
   
   In conclusion, I will call this book exactly what it is - an abridgement and paraphrased version of JQAs diary and a very poor one at that. I am still perplexed at how so many others found this book satisfactory, but I found it to be the worst biography that I have ever read.



2. It was obvious from tne start that John Quincy Adams was going to be a great man,like it or not. His father,John, second in his class at Harvard, immediately began bombarding the youth with Greek, Latin, English and history. His mother, Abigail Smith of Mayflower descent, simultaneously joined the festivities, instilling a religious morality that might have frightened Calvin himself.Trips abroad with Quincy's father were to be educative,with little time to be "wasted".Little wonder that J.Q. would also graduate second in his Harvard stint. The real surprise to this reviewer is that the future 6th president ever married since he seemingly knew nothing about intimacy, only work and duty.His beratings and impudence towards his wife are carefully preserved, perhaps sadly. Certainly no family wrote or retained more for future historians.That he was a competent diplomat, an historic Secretary of State under Monroe, and a highly respected Representative for Massachusetts until his death in 1848 (stricken on the floor of The House) is almost completely forgotten.It's simply that his presidency was a complete bust,due mostly to the infamous alleged "corrupt deal" with Henry Clay in the election of 1824. No president was better trained for the office, few presidents were treated more callously by Congress.(Which came first,the chicken or the egg)? Paul Nagel writes an anecdotal, not too heavy biography of a difficult man. The results are generally favorable to the reader, even if the subject himself tends not to be, Is there a psycho-historian in the house?



3. I'm nearly at the halfway point of my mission to read a biography of each President. I would put this bio in the top third of those I've read for a variety of reasons.
   
   First, it was the perfect length. JQA was an important President but was he TJ, Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, Lincoln... no. Nothing that important happened when he was President at least in a very broad, international sense. I'm very glad the author didn't lengthen the biography and make it detailed to a fault just to make it look like he did more research or overvalued the importance of JQA.
   
   JQA was quite a character. Clearly he was an intelligent man. I loved the way the author talked about what JQA read. In fact, I might even read some of those books myself because as with nearly every President, they gathered most of their intelligence from reading on their own. I liked the fact that the author included all the info about JQA's literary, research and professorship.
   
   I didn't get the point of how the author pointed out JQA's schedule so often, when he got up, what he did all day, that got a bit old.
   
   Other than that, it was really a great biography that shed a lot of light on this man.
   
   A few things I found interesting about JQA that the author did a good job detailing.
   
   1. Abigail and John Adams really put a lot of pressure on their son. That was very apparent and made JQA a sympathetic person at times.
   
   2. JQA was a stick in the mud a lot of times so it is easy to see why a lot of people didn't like him. It also explains why his presidency isn't held in such high regard. I thought it very telling that on Andrew Jackson's deathbed JQA was very uncomplementary. I would've hated to cross him.
   
   3. And perhaps this is the most interesting. JQA couldn't rise above the pressure that was put on him by his parents. He passed that pressure on to his kids, causing one to kill himself. Of course, I do think he mellowed as he got older which the author detailed allowing him to become a sympathetic figure again.
   
   Lastly, how about the fact that JQA died pretty much in congress. Wow, what dedication.
   
   Good bio that I would recommend.



4. A fine biography about America's most important second generation citizen. Nagel manages the tricky balancing act of covering the relevant topic without overstaying his welcome with everything and the kitchen sink. Nagel also earns due credit for resisting, for the most part, the urge to apply today's psychological interpretations to the mind and motives of a man who lived two hundred years ago. Discussion is important but speculation is just that. It also helps Nagel's cause that JQA led a pretty uncontroversial life.
   
   A great legislator and a (by his own admission) below average President, JQA proved his mettle as a Secretary of State and congressman. The only President to return to congress, he fought vehemently for abolition and civil liberties. He even died on the job. How's that for service to the nation.
   
   If the personal aspect of the biography seems underwhelming, perhaps that is due to the subject's relative colorlessness. A staid, serious individual who may have even suffered from mild depression, JQA lived his entire life as his father's son. Hard to live up to a man revered around the world as a living or recently deceased god. JQA lived a very quiet, serious life for a public figure.



5. A great biography on John Quincy Adams. The author thoroughly went through everything from childhood to death. He was able to describe him very well. I liked hearing about his various government jobs and living in Europe. I only have a minor nitpick the author should have sticked with refering to him as JQA instead of rotating from JQA, John and Adams given his famous father it would have been better to stick with just JQA. Other that it was a great biography.

5 comments about Lincoln.

1. After hearing all of the hype about this Lincoln bio I finally got around to reading it. OK, I am spoiled, I read Sandburg's bio and it is hard to find anything close to that-certainly not in this book. To sum up my feelings, I don't know Lincoln any better after reading this than before. Prof. Donald misses the mark and I think he is somewhat awestruck that he can't seem to get any deeper. It is well researched and well written, but a bio needs much more.
   Here was a man with barely any formal education, not particularly succesful as a politician, elected over many who who knew they could do better and then the nation splits apart into Civil War. Not only did he face the undaunted task of trying to hold the nation together, but learn to be a general of sort, let alone his home life. Other bios show how Lincoln rose to the challenge to hold our nation together and finally find the right general, Grant, and become probably our greatest president.
   Somehow, Donald's book does not do it for me.



2. Well written book with great detail. The depth of research must have been great to give this reader a special feel for each progression of Lincoln's amazing journey though life. I'm really enjoying this book.



3. David Donald's Lincoln is packed full of relevant (and irrelevent) facts. I was surprised that a biography of 600 pages on anybody, especially Abraham Lincoln, could contain so much information. It usually takes authors two or three volumes to say as much as Donald does in one.
   
   Just like life on the western frontier, this biography begins slowly. This provides a good place for those interested in getting the author's take on Lincoln as a person. A portion of other people's lives that is usually covered in two to three pages is covered in great depth. In approximately 150+ pages, Donald gives us a look into Lincoln's early life, his time as a moderately successful Lawyer in Illinois, and his unsuccessful political career. For those looking to learn more about Lincoln's Administration, I would recommend skipping to Chapter Eight, where the book gets much more exciting.
   
   Once begun, Donald sets an exciting (and still fact-filled) pace that does not let up until the end.
   
   While this is a great biography, the subject will always be fiercely debated. Lincoln's Administration led during the greatest upheaval our nation has ever seen. Therefore the literature will vary immensely. For some (like Mr. Donald) Lincoln was mostly passive, and reacted to events as they came; for others he was a great leader with some less than great subordinates; and to still others he was a usurper who limited individual rights and constantly ignored the constitution.
   
   Mr. Donald does an excellent job of providing a balanced review of Lincoln, both as a person and as President. Too many biographers prefer to keep out negative aspects of their subjects, hurting the overall integrity of their work, but Mr. Donald is willing to admit fault in his man.
   
   I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the American Civil War era. I must again warn the reader that this is a hotly debated subject, and taking one opinion is not sufficient. I strongly suggest looking at other writers' take on the subject as well.



4. I have a read a lot of biographical works on Abraham Lincoln. I found this to be the best and most balanced view. If you read biographies or other works related to Abraham Lincoln, you must include this book. It is required reading and was written by one of the - if not the - preeminent scholar on Lincoln.
   
   I would also recommend you to other books, in addition to this one, if you desire to learn about Abraham Lincoln. Reading a variety of biographies about Abraham Lincoln will give you an overall and better picture than one book can alone.
   
   However, having said that, this is the best Lincoln biography. It is excellent.



5. This is a biography of Lincoln. The problem in writing a biography of Lincoln, of course, is that so many thousands of books on Lincoln have already been written. How do you say anything new and useful about the man, about whom more words have been written than anyone else in American history?
   
   Donald deals with this problem by adopting an unusual biographic strategy. In most biographies, of course, the writer is writing both the life of the subject and at least to some degree larger history. To put the life into context, as a rule, the writer needs to explore the larger issues with which the person was concerned.
   
   Donald very deliberately does not do this. He says in his introduction that is not a general history of 19th century America and it is not. He says that he will focus only on Lincoln himself, and he does. He does not, for example, give us a detailed description of any of the Civil War battles. Lincoln was not present at those battles, so they are not described. His focus is exclusively on Lincoln, the people around him and the events in which he was directly invovled.
   
   The result is odd, but it works. You get very little about the overall strategy of the Civil War. You get next to nothing about Congressional politics in the Civil War. You get virtually nothing about the Confederacy. Instead, you get this kind of reality-TV approach, where you feel as if you were following Lincoln around.
   
   In line with this approach, Donald offers a minimum of interpretation. He presents no arguments about Lincoln's signifigance or role in history. The thesis of the book, if you can call it that, is a very understated argument that LIncoln saw himself as the passive instrument of events, rather than the active shaper of them. It is more a theme, a literary device, than an argument.
   
   The book, in short, takes a minimalist approach to the subject. It works, simply because there is so much written on LIncoln. Out of the vast oceans of material that one could cover, and out of the oceans of argument one could make, Donald sticks tight to the subject and lets events speak for themselves. The end result is that he is able to write a very full biography, on his own odd terms, and keep it just under 600 pages of text. I found the book kind of cold emotionally, but nonetheless very gripping and very informative. I would not call it a definitive biography of Lincoln -- it is too short and self-consciously limited for that -- but, as one volume biographies go, it is very, very good.

1 comments about The Twelve Caesars (Penguin Classics).

1. Mine is a much earlier edition of THE TWELVE CAESARS, but it's still Robert Graves translation of Suetonius' text, so it is what it is. Suetonius was apparently quite a prolific writer, with a wide variety of titles, from LIVES OF FAMOUS WHORES to METHODS OF RECKONING TIME to his credit. Outside of a few isolated fragments, however, THE TWELVE CAESARS is his only surviving work. It begins with Julius Caesar, who was Dictator but never Emperor in the true sense, continues through Nero, who was assassinated around the time of Suetonius' birth and was the last of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, and ends with Domitian, last Emperor of the Flavian dynasty. You also get lots of helpful items included, such as family trees of the imperial families and relevant maps. Altogether, this is a very nice book.
   
   Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus was a Roman of the equestrian class, born around the year 69. Little is known of his life, but his friend, Pliny the Younger, tells us that he practised law briefly, avoided politics and eventually became chief secretary to the Emperor Hadrian. His prominent position in the palace would have been extremely helpful to his writings, providing him with ready access to imperial and senatorial archives and to people who had first-hand knowledge of the events Suetonius was writing about. He uses this material well by writing more than just a dry accounting of public events. Along with the major occurrences, we are also treated to the private lives of his subjects: personal anecdotes, scandalous details, and amusing incidents that only palace intimates would have known. Suetonius presents this material in an even-handed style, avoiding any obvious personal bias and freely admitting when he tells of something that he is unable to verify. These are lively biographies that read more like soap operas than official histories.
   
   THE TWELVE CAESARS is a very readable and entertaining account of the lives of the first twelve Roman "Caesars". While it contains a wealth of valuable historical information, it is also very entertaining and quite suitable for the casual reader. Highly recommended for anybody with an interest in, or simple curiosity about, ancient Rome.