5 comments about Exit With Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan (The Right Wing in America).

1. The book is just over 200 pages of text, so detail is obviously lacking. In addition some statements/ideas are repeated verbatim, as if I didn't get the point. If you are somewhat interested in the 80's or Reagan this is a decent starting point. Think of it as the Cliff Notes on Reagan.



2. The author only gives credit to Reagan for restoring America's pride. He also presents the same myth about "mortgaging our future" with the national debt. Hey historians, if we've mortgaged our future, why is the economy so strong today? If you make 50,000 with 5,000 in debt, are you better off making 500,000 with 25,000 in debt?



3. After reading this book, I was left to wonder: What did RR really do while president? The book is written from the middle, but with an emphasis toward the positive aspects of RR's presidency, with small amounts of negativity thrown in for balance. The book doesn't talk much about any one subject. A good quick primer on this mediocre president who will go down in history as one of the most divisive, deceptive presidents of our country.



4. If you are searching for an opinionated book on Reagan, than this is not the book to read. If it is general information with a few suprising tid-bits that you seek, than this book is worth your time. Pemberton tries his best to give an objective analysis of Reagan throughout this book. His thesis is that Reagan's up-bringing, job/co-worker influences, and general attitude toward life and the American people shaped his ideas for running the nation. Pemberton covers all the stops, from Reagan's mother's influence, to his radio career, to his acting career, to his governorship, to his presidency. Pemberton gives the facts about the Iran Contra mess and leaves it to the reader to decide Reagan's involvement. If you do not know much about Reagan, and you seek information but not opinions, than this book is an excellent resource that reads well.



5. There aren't too many "fair and balanced" opinions out there on Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and GW Bush. This book on Reagan by Pemberton comes as close as most to some semblance of objectivity. No book comes close to the quality and objectivity of a recent president as does Cannon's "President Reagan: Role of a Lifetime." But Pemberton does a fine job in covering Reagan's entire life in a small number of pages (214 of text).
   
   I used the book in an American government class and I thought it was readable for the students and told the larger story of the 20th century. Reagan's life, whether one agreed with him or not, in many ways represented the story of the 20th century. After WWII, the nation embraced FDR and his policies. In time, with the Great Society and the rise of anti-communism, the nation stepped away from the liberal label. Contrary to what many on the right believe, the nation never embraced conservatism to the same degree it embraced the New Deal, but changes did occurred. And the end of the Cold War was another huge event. The left and right will always argue over the impact Reagan had on the end of the Cold War, but Pemberton did well in presenting the many different theories. He also was quite fair in analyzing Reagan's budget and tax policies, which are also still debated today.

2 comments about George Washington, The Christian.

1. There was quite a bit of interesting information in the book. The book is written as a chronology of Washington's life. This in itself is not a bad thing, but it is done with very little coherency, rendering the book very difficult to read. The only reason I read it was because it was required reading at my school. I give it three stars because, while the writing style was terrible, the quality of the information it contains redeems it to a certain degree.



2. Exciting direct quotes from G.W. about personal faith and prayers are found here. I think this book should be in school, college and public libraries because it gives insight that all should know! It's out of print, but as a librarian I think the view is vital. Another book Abraham Lincoln the Christian has primary source quotes by Lincoln on his personal faith. Very revealing! These should be reprinted in hardback for all libraries.

5 comments about Lincoln the Man.

1. The book definately strips away the mythic status that has been bestowed on Lincoln over the years. However, it tends to go the opposite way too far and villifies him mercilessly. The tome becomes a constant, annoying barrage. The book does make good points, however, about the Lincoln-Douglas debates and Lincoln's failures in life up to that point. Serious students of Lincoln and the Civil War should read it. The author could have been more balanced, though, and admitted that Lincoln wasn't a slobbering buffoon. Also the author would have been well advised to leave out the obsence anti-religious tone that infected many pages.



2. Scully and Moulder rejoice, because this book proves "The Truth is Out There". I strongly recommend this book to anyone who yearns to understand why our country is currently in such terrible shape. You will never refer to Lincoln as "Honest Abe" or "The Great Emancipator" ever again after reading this work. I pray that the history books do not lie to our children and revere Clinton the way they do Lincoln. Hopefully, historians will have the same guts that Masters had in 1931 and tell the real story about Clinton.



3. Masters hit the nail on the head! Lincoln was a commie who setup corporate welfare, high taxes, and a never-ending quest for power. It is thanks to Lincoln, and the Republican Party that we have big government to this very day. This book along with Thomas Dilorenzo's book the Real Lincoln should be on the desk of every student in America. If only to show that Lincoln was nothing but a consummate politician! Far from being the "great humanitarian" Lincoln was a racist who once stated that Jesus Christ was an illegitimate child, and never proclaimed Christ as his savior, nor was he ever baptized. Mr. Masters did a very good job of helping debunk the Lincoln myth!



4. After finally reading Masters account, there is little doubt that the attempts to banish this book were premised upon the usual cynical dishonesty of polticians who pander to religion, myth, power and money. Having studied Lincoln, he was only a man conflicted by his upbringing, profession and ultimately a quest for power. Masters was a rational man who understood that inciting a war in which more than 600,000 human beings perished with the justification that those in the South who had voluntarily seceded from a voluntary union could be compelled to remain subjects of a government which was founded as a servant of the people was nothing less than capital crime. Lincoln was, like George W Bush, a sociopathic criminal. It has long been conceded that the war was not fought over slavery; yet, schoolchildren are routinely propagandized by the nonsensical claims about Lincoln which have placed his likeness on pedestals. Our children and citizens need to read such critical analyses, INCLUDING Masters rational critique of the involvement of religion, to understand that we, as the people, were intended to have sovereignty over our own lives, surrendering only such freedom as the Constitution expressly authorizes, and retaining democratic license restrained by the Bill of Rights to avoid majority tyranny. The Civil War was entirely unnecessary and counter productive. For more than a Century after it ended, the hatred it engendered resulted in the denial of real civil rights and freedom to the black minorities. It most certainly would have been more practical and consistent with the prevailing law (at the time) and Constitution for the abolitionists, many of whom were extremely wealthy, to convince the government (with their assistance) to purchase the slaves who were lawfully owned by a Constitutional "taking" with just compensation while simultaneously outlawing any additional slaves. Instead, as we know, the Civil War only enriched the Northern industrialists, impoverished the South and left death, destruction and chaos in its wake. Masters and those who have rationally critiqued the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln were and are right. The majority of Americans are simply ignorant fools who readily accept myths, historical and religious, in making decisions. As proof, there still remain millions of people in this country who believe that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction when we attacked despite the lack of any evidence. Just believe. No, THINK. For those who continue to BELIEVE Lincoln was a great man, look at the facts, examine his statements, speeches and conduct, and I am confident that at a minimum you will conclude that Lincoln was, as Masters states, nothing more nor less than a man but certainly not entitled to any consideration of greatness. What if a President would have been successful without the carnage, destruction and hatred in abolishing slavery? Now that would truly have been a man whose image could justifiably been placed on a pedestal.



5. This will be short. If you are an historian, both Masters' and Carl Sandburg's fawning accounts are a must, but only because you are an historian. For truth, avoid both these extremes and read David Herbert Donald. If you believe that Masters' view of Lincoln is valid, then you have read nothing else substantive on Lincoln, or you are a neo-Confederate for whom truth means. "The South shall rise again."

1 comments about Thomas Jefferson: Statesman of Science.

1. Silvio A. Bedini has written Thomas Jefferson: Statesman of Science with an eye on the scientific Jefferson from his early days to his demise. Jefferson had a scientific preoccupation throughout his entire life, always looking at the things around him.

   We have read books on Jefferson's multifarious life, as a lawyer, politician, diplomat, architect of Monticello and the University of Virginia, but Jefferson's talents went much further... as Jefferson would say, "Science is my passion, politics my duty." Jefferson looked at nature with a keen eye. As he sent Lewis and Clark to explore the newly purchased western territory, they sent back enough curiosities to keep Jefferson's mind occupied.

   Jefferson's mind was so absorbed in sciences that he published his work "Notes on the State of Virginia" one of the most important works on science of the eighteenth century, later it helped earn him the title of "Father of American palentology."

   From fossils to plants, ingenious devices, cartography, mathematical instrumentation, and many other ideas all sparked Jefferson's fertile mind... the author takes us on road of exploration into Jefferson's inventive, curious, and brilliant scientific achievements, all in a narative to pique our interest. Jefferson was on the vanguard of achievements not only here in the United States but abroad as well thus fueling his preoccupation with the sciences.

   This book carries us through Jefferson's life as his inventive mind produced many utilitarion devices or improved others that already existed. Cryptography, the science of weather, medicine and farming all captivated Jefferson as we read on in the book.

   I highly recommend reading this fascinating book.

5 comments about Napoleon.

1. This book is a real stinker. The first problem I noticed was that all the dates for the events were listed in an index at the front of the book. In the text of the book, dates are not noted, even in footnotes. THERE ARE NO FOOTNOTES!! It makes no sense to me to place the important dates outside of the narrative, so the reader has no perspective of how much time is passing. Why should I have to flip to the front of the book every time I want to know the date for the event? My copy is old, so maybe this was changed in later printings. I doubt it.

   The narrative itself is not bad. If it were a novel it would be adequate, though with little dialogue. Ludwig does a passable job of explaining Napoleon's personality and motivations. Unfortunately, this does not save the book from disaster. Although we get decent descriptions of Napoleon's motives, they are a little too interpretive, which makes the reader feel like he is reading about a fiction character, not a real person.

   I was very disappointed. Because I am such an admirer of Wellington, I was looking forward to reading about his nemisis. I picked the wrong book. If you want to really learn about Napoleon, read something else! Pass over this book and get one that includes the dates in the text, has useful footnotes, and perhaps has pictures and maps.




2. While this is an impressive work, it has many qualities that keep me from recommending it. Others have mentioned the dearth of dates for historical context. I will concentrate on the most aggravating quality of all.

   Ludwig's use of the present tense is an affectation that not only grates but casts doubt. Is this history or fiction? Combine this with his penchant for melodramatic exclamations and it frequently feels like you are on a "living history" bus tour with William Shatner as guide: "Look! There comes Napoleon down the street! Now he will exact his revenge on Paoli. Never again shall they laugh at Bonaparte. Insolent fools!"

   The information can be insightful but I can't tell where the facts end and the fanciful editorializing begins.




3. This book is written as a novel. That is how Emil Ludwig writes all his books. The book is very informative and very entertaining which differs from most other monotonous and boring biographies found out there. Ludwig did an extensive research before writing this book, and this is his well know masterpiece; other books by Ludwig are Beethoven, Jesus, Bolivar all written in the same maner. You mostly don't find footnotes in novels, so the complain written by the reader above...



4. Emil Ludwig's work remains classic despite its age. It is true that the book does not have the maps which would help the reader to locate the geographical dimension of Napoleon's carreer and actions, and the author does not include dates inside his text, but if someone wants a pure operational history of the French armies can look to the appropriate atlases like that of V. Esposito and J. Elting, or the magnificent "The Campaigns of Napoleon" by David Chandler. The main merit of Ludwig's book is its immediacy, the clarity of Napoleon's thoughts and decision making and of course the excellent writing which has an astonishing freshness no matter how many times one reads the book. By seting himself free from the grip of time and place Ludwig can build his story like a fairy tale, which I found truly remarkable and unusual. There are many studies regarding Napoleon as a man and a general, but this one is definitely one of the best.



5. This book has a strange history with me. Many years ago, perhaps as long as 30, my mother told me that when she was young she had read a long, detailed biography of Napoleon. I thought nothing of this, beyond noting that she was precocious. Apparently this was when she was in her early teens. Some years later (say 15 years ago, or so) a friend of mine saw this biography of Napoleon in a used bookstore and bought it for me. The edition he bought be was large, had a black cover, and had been published in the early 20s. I put the book away, intending to get to it, but never did. A few years later, my mother bought be a copy of this same biography out of a catalog, in a different edition from a few years later. The edition she bought me this time had a dust jacket, yellow in color, with a picture of Napoleon scowling off to one side, hand thrust in his jacket. A few years later, forgetting she'd already gotten me the book, she bought it for me again, and this time she got me the edition that my friend had bought me years before. This was when I discovered that I had three copies of the book. I decided I should probably read one of them, at least.
   
   I can find out nothing about the author. His name, and writing style, sound European, perhaps German, perhaps something similar like Swiss. He apparently wrote a slew of biographies in the 30s and 40s. This is, to judge by the responses to his various books, the one people have read the most.
   
   First thing to get out of the way when discussing the book is the usual qualification of what this book is, and what it isn't. Ludwig included a 4 page section at the end where he explains why he did what he did, and one of the things he says is that he finds the courses of the Emperor's various battles to be "irrelevant". He's fascinated by Napoleon's personal life, and even more interested in his view of the world and his vision for France and Europe. As a result, he spends almost no space in the book on the various campaigns of one of history's great captains: he tells you that any number of Napoleon's generals fought battles also, but what makes the Emperor unique was what he did between those battles: the Code Napoleon, the restructuring of Germany and Italy, that sort of thing.
   
   This is true, and if that were the limit of this book I expect I would be giving it a higher rating. There are, however, two things which make the book strange to say the least. One is the author's use of the present tense for all of the events he recounts. I've run across this before (Jonathan D. Spence does it a lot), but it seemed strange and forced here. Perhaps it had something to do with the passage of more than 80 years since this book was written. The second strange thing is that the author feels the need to add what he calls soliloquies to the text, monologues that he imagines Napoleon might have given in a particular instance if he were so inclined. The afterword makes it clear that Ludwig invented these, and defends his decision by arguing that his flights of imagination are needed to fill in the gaps in Bonaparte's personality that aren't readily filled.
   
   The result is a strange mix of biography and novel, with a lot more dialog than in a typical biography. It's an interesting book, but the reader must be aware that if you're looking for a study of Napoleon the general, this isn't the place to go.

1 comments about Thabo Mbeki and the Battle for the Soul of the ANC: Second Edition.

1. Mbeki set up what's happening now in South Africa in several ways. He subverted the ANC's internal democracy, centralising power in the presidency, he started the tradition of riding populist demagogues to the leadership even if he wasn't one himself, and he pushed Jacob Zuma to the limelight as someone he thought he could ride as a substitute for his own lack of the common touch.
   
   The second edition updates some events like the rise of Jacob Zuma as Mbeki's heir apparent, and the chaos in Zimbabwe though naturally with such fast-moving events, you can't expect the book to be up to date. It does however provide very useful background even for events that overtook it.
   
   I don't agree with everything Gumede says but separate out the opinion and the fact is pretty good on the whole: he seems to have real insider contacts.
   
   Some of his nostrums -- more state intervention in the economy for example -- are not terribly likely to have had a significant effect without a much wider change the style at the top -- but he presents a compelling case that South Africa's first 15 years of democracy, the Mbeki era (even if most see the first 5 years as belonging to Mandela), are a big disappointment. From the mismanagement of the HIV-AIDS pandemic through the glacially slow implosion of Zimbabwe, it's hard to see anything that the ordinary person would count as a success. Managing the economy more prudently than the apartheid regime should count perhaps as a bigger success than Gumede credits Mbeki with. However, he does have a good point that in some sense, the government may have had it backwards. Whereas other emerging economies have at times managed to get away with talking fiscal conservatism, while acting a little socialist behind the scenes, Gumede accuses the Mbeki-ites of doing the opposite: talking left, while acting right. The effect (I am guessing, he doesn't spell it out) is little delivery, while frightening off investors.
   
   Overall, the book is a compelling read, despite the odd editing lapse (some unnecessary repetitions, the odd sentence where it becomes hard to untangle the references). Strongly recommended for anyone wanting to understand current trends in South and Southern Africa.

3 comments about The American Presidents (Guild America Books).

1. For those who would like to know about US president for the first time, or for just support your knowledge, this book is excellent enough to fulfill your needs. A must buy for junior high students.



2. Clear, compact and concise reference book of all the American Presidents. The main section of this book devotes a few pages on each President (from the 1st to the 42nd) with historical facts, dates and places. A small section at the back, lists such things as key facts about each President and Vice-President, the First Ladies and all Presidential Elections; also for anyone interested in the making of the Presidency or intend visiting presidential historic sites. A must on any book shelf for those interested in American Presidential history.



3. This is one of those volumes you might want to add to your collection in that is is quite informative and quite concise. It covers the American Presidents from Washington through Clinton. Each section is devoted to one president. Each section leads with a selection of information such as birthdays, former employment or profession, their political careers, date of death and years served as President. Each then is given a short biography, well written, I might add, and summation of their administration. There are photographs throughout the book of each of these men. The first ladies are addressed and little interesting facts thrown in here and there. Each of these short chapters is not, of course, ment to be the beginning and end of all presidential biographies, they only present brief facts. These facts are given is such a way though, that you actually learn something. I like biographies. By having a brief sketch like this book offers, I am more able to make up my mind which full lenght biographies might interest me and which I might not like as well. As an example, I could care less about reading a biography of James Buchanan, but do like to know a bit about him. This book offers as much as I really wish to know. David Whitney had given us a very nice bit of helpful work here. Recommend this one highly.

No comments about Letters from the Desk of Ronald Reagan: Letters from the Desk of Ronald Reagan.

No comments about William Howard Taft: Confident Peacemaker.

5 comments about Theodore Roosevelt.

1. The first dozen pages of this book promised one of the best biographies I would likely read, when I was quickly disabused of my expectations. Though Pringle ably exposes Roosevelt's political theories and doctrines and their strange inceptions, the presentation of the book tediously presents a few details, then gives Roosevelt's reaction, then a new set of details, then Roosevelt's reaction, ad infinitum. I realize that histories and biographies are usually chronologically linear, but even though Pringle runs forward or looks back as it suits the situation, the whole presentation seems a tedious catalog of action and reaction.



2. Henry Pringle's "Theodore Roosevelt" was one of the first biographies of TR and was written before the passage of time permitted an unimpassioned analysis of his life. Roosevelt scholarship has advanced over the intervening years.

   Pringle has a reputation for factual errors. I caught a few statements of his which are consistently contradicted by later biographers. Other biographers display the ability to present the facts, both those favorable and unfavorable to TR, while leaving the reader to draw his own conclusions. With a heavy hand, Pringle supplies his own opinionated conclusions, which were often critical of TR.

   TR lived such a full life that any single volume biography has to seem to be shallow. This relatively short biography is no exception. For a biography of TR I would recommend Edmund Morris' "The Rise Of Theodore Roosevelt" and "Theodore Rex" as well as Nathan Miller's "Theodore Roosevelt: A Life". For his early life I would recommend David McCullough's "Mornings On Horseback" (see my Amazon review on each). I would reserve Pringle's work for readers already well versed in TR lore who are seeking a thorough familiarity with TR literature.




3. Henry Pringle's "Theodore Roosevelt" was one of the first biographies of TR and was written before the passage of time permitted an unimpassioned analysis of his life. Roosevelt scholarship has advanced over the intervening years.

   Pringle has a reputation for factual errors. I caught a few statements of his which are consistently contradicted by later biographers. Other biographers display the ability to present the facts, both those favorable and unfavorable to TR, while leaving the reader to draw his own conclusions. With a heavy hand, Pringle supplies his own opinionated conclusions, which were often critical of TR.

   TR lived such a full life that any single volume biography has to seem to be shallow. This relatively short biography is no exception. For a biography of TR I would recommend Edmund Morris' "The Rise Of Theodore Roosevelt" and "Theodore Rex" as well as Nathan Miller's "Theodore Roosevelt: A Life". For his early life I would recommend David McCullough's "Mornings On Horseback" (see my Amazon review on each). I would reserve Pringle's work for readers already well versed in TR lore who are seeking a thorough familiarity with TR literature.




4. I found Henry F. Pringle's biography on Theodore Roosevelt to be bit overrated. Probably because it was published back in 1931 that make the material so dated. Passage of time and reassessment of Theodore Roosevelt make this book somewhat of an oddity. Despite of being published just 12 years after Roosevelt's death, it was interesting to read that this was basically a pretty negative outlook on a great American. The style of his writing, the way he jumped forward and backward simply confused the subject matter sometimes. It doesn't helped that the author never really get into the mind, personality and motives of his subject. Many of the issues surrounding Roosevelt's life are simply not in-depth enough to be interesting or informative.
   
   I supposed for readers back in the 1930s, this book had a lot to offered. But nowadays, with works by Edmund Morris, David McCullough, Nathan Miller and Kathleen Dalton, there is really very little purpose in reading this book. It doesn't offered any thing new nor offered any great insights.
   
   I read it because it was so highly acclaimed back then. It won the Pulitzer Prize and won high reviews back then. But reading it now after going through many of the modern materials on Roosevelt, make Pringle's work looked weak and stale.
   
   Not really recommended for anyone unless your curiousity get aroused by ancient work.



5. I agree with many of the other reviews. I picked this up because Pringle's biography was a Pulitzer Prize winner, written close in time to the subject matter. I was disappointed in the writing style and the lack of penetrating analysis. It is like a stone skipping over the lake. Subsequent authors have done much better and that might be expected as history and the passage of time provide their separate illuminations. Still, Pringle had the benefit of first person, first generation sourcing and I expected more as a result. Pringle's three paragraph forward to the book's re-release in 1955 laid a clear foundation. He said he would have failed completely unless he proved that T.R. was never dull. I have to say Pringle tantalizingly cracks that door but doesn't expand on it. I found his sidebar comments on various contemporaries of Roosevelt, especially as some have been lost to history, more interesting. Intriguing side streets that I intend to pursue. In fact, that only would be my recommendation for this book.
   
   However, Pringle never fleshes out Roosevelt. Pringle seems to catch his outline, his reactions to events, circumstances or people, but fails to deliver T.R. himself. This might suffice as a brief introduction to Roosevelt but much more interesting and illuminating biographies are now available.