5 comments about James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights (Pivotal Moments in American History).

1. When listening to books on cd or I-Pod, particularly when non-fiction, I try to make sure I get unabridged versions so I don't feel slighted. With this cd, I could have used a little slighting.
   
   James Madison was indeed important for passing the Bill of Rights. It couldn't have been more amazing since Madison originally believed that a bill of rights was not needed: since Congress was not granted the powers to infringe on basic it rights, so the argument went, there was no need for a bill to protect those rights. Alas, he changed. And this point should serve as a reminder for how difficult it is to rely on supposedly original principles in the Constitution. (Rakove, in Original Meanings, makes that point best.)
   
   The book looks at three or so important points: the Constitutional Convention, the Virginia Constitutional ratification convention, and the First Congress's effort at passing the amendments that would form the Bill of Rights. The first part, the miracle in Philly, has been covered so much elsewhere that yet another treatment wasn't really so necessary. The Virginia ratification convention was fine, but the arguments were very much the same. The First Congress section was the most interesting. Tidbit of interest: Madison wanted the amendments to appear in the main body of the text. Imagine that! What we now know famously as the first ten amendments could have been scatter shot throughout the original document. Shortsightedness on that point by Madison, though he was forward thinking in most other regards.
   
   Labunski did a fine job and it is perfect for those unfamiliar with the Philly stuff. Otherwise it is still fine.



2. The Bill of Rights was always just there at the end of the Constitution -- a list of unalienable rights to be interpreted, argued over and used to browbeat opponents in political discussions. I, for one, never gave much thought to how those 10 constitutional amendments came to exist within four years of the ratification of the Constitution in 1788.
   
   Now that I know what a narrow thing ratification of the Constitution was (Virginia and New York sought to make adoption conditional upon the adoption of amendments; North Carolina and Rhode Island refused to ratify until the Bill of Rights passed Congress) and how difficult the adoption of amendments so soon after ratification, I'll certainly never take them for granted again. Anti-federalist opposition to the Constitution, particularly without a Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties, was very strong in Virginia, led as it was by the able orator Patrick Henry, who dominated the Virginia Legislature during the late 1780s.
   
   On one point the book is clear: the amendments would not have been proposed and adopted without the guidance of James Madison, first as a member of the Virginia Constitutional Ratifying Convention and then as a member of the US House of Representatives. The story of his battle is a fascinating one, from the first use of gerrymandering to prevent him from being elected to the US House (this was Patrick Henry's idea and it didn't work), to the final triumph in 1791 when Virginia finally ratified the amendments.
   
   If you thought dirty politics was born in the current era, think again. I was struck by how much political maneuvering, both explicit and behind the scenes, existed at a time most Americans think of in mythological terms. Our cherished heroes were politicians all, attempting to satisfy local demands while at the same time doing justice to the larger, longer term issues. They didn't always succeed, but this time they did, thanks to Madison's persistence.
   
   I strongly recommend this book for the light it sheds on a period in US history that is rarely discussed. However, I have only given the unabridged audio edition of this book 4 stars because I thought the narrator read too fast. I found I had to listen to many passages two and three times follow them completely. It's one thing to read fiction at a fast clip, and another when you attempt to speed through historical narrative.



3. "James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights" was a very enjoyable read, and one that I would definitely enjoy reading again. It is full of detail, but doesn't lack on readability either. Unlike some of the reviewers, I enjoyed the details of weather conditions and felt that this information was important to telling the struggle for the Bill of Rights as weather was a huge obstacle to travel in that time. I also was able to better picture what it would be like to sit in a hot, sultry, building with no ventilation (as when the windows had to be closed due to the noisy streets) and spend hours discussing how much power the constitution would grant the federal government or if it indeed would greatly infringe on individual liberties.
   
   Lets go out on a limb, and say that James Madison probably wouldn't make it in politics today. He was 5'4", shy, soft spoken, and portrayed by the author as extremely timid when speaking in front of a large group. He also "flip-flopped" on his stance on the Bill of Rights, which at that time seemed to be democracy working (Today he would probably be eaten alive); Madison seems to not only believe passionately about the importance of a strong federal government, but evolves to believe just as passionately about the protection of the people's individual rights (Thus- A Bill of Rights). OK, it could be argued that he had to compromise and promise support of a Bill of Rights to get elected, but the author seems to feel that Madison truly believed in their importance. The story of Madison is very interesting and even for his time he seems to be somewhat of an underdog whose passion, intellect, and love for his country allowed him to prevail over his short-comings. His election to the House is nothing but fascinating as once again the cards were stacked against him (Thanks to Patrick Henry who gerrymandered his district so that he would likely lose).
   
   The story of Virginia's constitutional congress was every bit as fascinating, and it can be said that human nature and the psychology of politics had many similarities then as it does now. Many people had passionately different philosophical views of what government should and shouldn't be. As could be argued today, both sides had some good points. It was interesting how fear seemed to perpetuate both sides passion. The Anti-Federalists being fearful of a monarchal type of government invading on individual liberty, and the Federalists fearful that individual states wouldn't have economic power or the ability to defend themselves. The author portrays the high-stakes decision of Virginia ratifying the constitution without a Bill of Rights. He points out that if this hadn't happened, George Washington wouldn't have even been eligible to serve in the new government. Anyways, the story of our founders verbally battling it out in a theater in Shocco-Bottom in Richmond is also well portrayed. For anyone interested in American history and politics, I would recommend this book as a must read.



4. I hate saying bad things about other people's books because I know how much hard work goes into each one, though I have to advise the reader of this review to find another book if you're interested in the creation of the Bill of Rights. If it weren't for this book being on audio disc I would never have finished it. It's very boring and flat. The material is doubtlessly interesting, and I imagine that depending upon the author's take on the subject, this book could come out in many different, yet equally interesting, permutations.
   
   My strong criticism it that it is the book has no incisive analysis of the subject, nothing to make it read, no sense of perspective,...how this subject played out in the bigger scheme of things and over time. The epilogue was equally disappointing, offering the scantiest description of how the ideas contained in the Bill of Rights affected future generations. In fact, I was eagerly looking forward to reading the epilogue, it was the only thing keeping me going, and I was disappointed.
   
   So, what we get is just a simply recounting of the events, without much to make the writing interesting. It really gets tedious and boring, sounding like a straight reading of an official transcript or diary especially when the author describes the proceedings of the Virginia Constitutional ratifying Convention and other similar events, which is what a lion's share of the book is.
   
   Any suggestions??



5. Dr. Labunski captures the emotion, immediacy and intensity of the debate over the Bill of Rights as only a journalist of the day might be expected to write. A truly new perspective on Mr. Madison as "vote counter" and "political strategist."

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 No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II.

1. Another tour de force by Goodwin. Like her "Team of Rivals", this book is a fascinating, compelling account of a fascinating, compelling period in our history. Kearns relates in great detail the many forces and waves that buffeted the American people as they geared up to face the immense challenge facing them and the Allies. I was a child then and remember a few things, especially the tension showed by the adults -- tensions I didn't understand. This book bears testament to the greatness -- the flawed greatness -- of FDR. His pragmatism and his ability to inspire his countrymen were invaluable tools as he strove to marshal a nation that was totally unprepared for war. What was surprising to me was Eleanor Roosevelt. Kearns paints her, warts and all, and the warts were plentiful. The impression I get of Eleanor was that she was a fierce liberal who saw the war not as an existential challenge to her country, but as an rare opportunity to get in place her extreme liberal agenda. I really don't think she saw the war as her husband did. She did a lot of good, particularly in helping eliminate racial barriers. But she hated corporations -- the very companies that made it possible for our nation to go to war with the resources they needed, especially petroleum. She tended to be blinded by her leftwing ideology and simply didn't understand or care about whether or not the private sector had the incentives to make the massive changes that turned us into the Arsenal of Democracy. FDR got it; Eleanor didn't. Also, this book reveals the very human side of its protagonists, especially the very strange relationship between the president and the first lady. Well, I could go on, but suffice it to say that this is a very profound book which reveals the tenor of one of the most challenging times in our history. If you're a Baby Boomer, especially if you have never studied much about the WWII homefront, you absolutely have to read this book. The times it chronicles are the foundation upon which the modern America is built. Kudos to Kearns Goodman for an outstanding piece of work.



2. Whatever the academic infractions allegedly committed by Ms. Goodwin in writing this book were, she has produced an excellent work that lays bare in detail the workings of FDR's White House during the Second World War from May 1940 onward when Nazi Germany ended the phony war and stampeded over France and Europe to the doorstep of Britain before turning on Soviet Russia. This is a story that in general terms most literate persons know or should know and it is precisely this legacy, not Ms. Goodwin's academic credentials, that sardonic critics of this work and its author seek to disparage. When read in conjunction with Steve Neal's excellent monograph on Wendell Willkie or similar works, a vivid picture of this historical period and its life and death issues for the future of humanity emerge in the context of a distinct theme: that the prospect of an imminent victory of Nazi Germany and fascism in the late 30s and early 40s was viewed with complacency, not by the epochal FDR and "liberals", but by a wide section of conservatives and the "America First" leaning right wing, including all the principal Republican Presidential candidates in 1940 (except for maverick Willkie), whose conciliation of fascism, as in the post-war era in Latin America, was consistent with their deep hostility to FDR and the "socialism" of the New Deal from which they sought to return to the good old days of the laissez-faire capitalism of the Gilded Age in which obstacles to their unrestrained profits like the graduated income tax, social security and labor unions were eliminated.



3. Rarely does an excellent writer appear in the biography universe. Goodwin uses her amazing skills to weave the story of two remarkable and very human people into and through a momentous time in the world's history. While she sometimes gets slowed down by statistics of limited value (for example how many rubber bands were collected in rubber drive) overall the writer has found a brilliant balance between facts, feelings and remembrances. The book's main revelations center mainly on the enormous contribution ER made to race relations and labor relations during that desperate time. One comes to feel that if not for FDR's hyperactive, agitating wife little or no social progress would have been made during the war years. I have read several biographies of FDR and Churchill and was still enriched by the layers of detail Goodwin has brought to her work, highly recommended.



4. If you enjoy history, this book is a must read. Doris Kearns Goodwin makes history interesting. Many of the programs that were instituted during the depression are still in effect today. The Roosevelt's were an amazing team, Eleanor paved the way for many women in politics and business. It's the perfect book to read in our current economic situation.



5. I know another five star rating. But She deserves it. Doris Kearns Goodwin's best book. I felt as if I was living their lives through the words of Mrs. Goodwin.
   The very essence of this marriage made a story which is better than any fiction novel. The formative years of both Franklin and Eleanor's lives tells us of the impending marriage of convenience. The starting of a family, along with the tragedy of the death of one of their offspring, tells us of their early life together. The later relationship with Lucy Mercer exposes us to an altered marriage in which Eleanor becomes a truly effective politician in her own right who in turn effected national policy.
   Mrs. Goodwin should be commmended for this truly human account of the Franklin Roosevelt period. Her writing was accurate yet highly entertaining. I learned a lot of this Brahman Family. Winston Churchill understood this family as no one else did. It wasn't until Mrs. Goodwin explained this period of extraordinary American History that I really understood the effect of their lives on the American public. Read this Book!!!!!

5 comments about To the Best of My Ability.

1. Lot of good information and a quick history, but the authors seemingly never met a government regulation or expansion that they didn't approve of. They provide an interesting service in showing that the political leaders, including the presidents, have generally been largely incompetent and hypocritical, with little understanding or regard for the principles of the Constitution.



2. Reaching back for more than two hundred years, through forty three men, the Presidency of the United States has been held by a wide range of people. Some have been brilliant, some less honest than others, but in the end most have been honorable people.
   
   They have been responsible for setting the direction of the country in times of war, depression, and good times.
   
   In this collection of essays a short chapter covers each of the forty three men. Each written by an authority on that particular era, on that particular man. They cover:
   
   the major events that occurred during each president's term in office,
   election results for each cycle by popular and electoral votes,
   complete text of every inaugural address,
   memorable quotes illustrating the president's image while in office,
   outstanding accomplishments and contributions of unforgettable first ladies.
   
   The book formed the basis of the series of shows created for the History channel. It's the best short summary I've ever read.



3. This is just the kind of book I've been looking for on the American Presidents.I do a lot of reading about American Politics and History and end up chasing through books looking for information about the President at the time .Sometimes I find what I am looking for but not always.The people who put this book together have done a superlative job of creating a reference book that covers all the same things about each of the Presidents.It doesn't take long to get to know what you can expect to find.Important dates,family members,famous statements,major events during their terms ,pictures,campaigns,Inaugural Addresses,election statistics,running mates,opponents,and so forth.I must stress,they didn't just include what they had on hand to fill the space;they dug up all the same things for each President.When you want to know something,you won't be wondering if it will be there;you'll be confident you'll find it.
   Another thing I found quite interesting was that each President's signature was included with their picture.Also.the first picture was of the time when in office.I happen to have a book signed by President Truman,while in office.It was fun to compare it with the one in this book.It is also interesting to compare the various signatures.For,instance,who had the best penmanship?In my opinion,James Buchanan wins hands down.I particularly admire Andrew Johnson's and Andrew Jackson's,which were quite similar. For the most intricate,that has to go to James Polk.
   What a great cast of characters ,have come forward to lead America;and no two even remotely alike.
   A wonderful reference source,and I know I'll turn to it often.



4. I absolutely adored this book. I have long been fascinated by the nature and character of the men who held the office of President. Each of the mini-biographies sheds new light on the manner in which each of our Presidents approached and executed the powers of the Presidency. Fascinating pieces of Presidential trivia can also be found in this marvelous work. I loved it!



5. Even though the introduction states the summaries of each president is mostly in a positive light, the chapter on George W. Bush is very negative. The author sounds like a bitter Gore supporter. It was written by a liberal and people like Bill Clinton got super treatment from friends. Oh well.. the majority of the book is a wealth of great information.

5 comments about Andrew Jackson.

1. 
   He's on most lists of our best presidents as well as our $20 bill. Democrats hail him as a founder. After reading this book, and attempting a few others, it's still hard to understand why Jackson has been accorded such respect.
   
   I started both the Brand and Remini bios. Through them I came to understand his childhood and how the American Revolution shaped his character and views. The psychological toll of losing his nuclear family at a young age had to be enormous. His mother's heroic search and rescue of him in a very abusive British POW camp illustrates the love and family loyalty he lost.
   
   Wilentz quickly outlines the child/youth/military and plunges into the presidency, which was what I was seeking when I started reading the others.
   
   Wilentz cleary states the complicated facts of Jackson's war on the bank. To Jackson it was a war on the aristrocracy. It is not within the scope of Wilentz's book to editorialize, but were Biddle and his cronies really controling the US economy? Could the land issues have been settled with (Lincolnesque) homestead acts, which undoubtedly would have been very popular? Could he have fought for legislative mini-changes (Clintonesque) to curb certain powers, such as bidding out government banking needs. Jackson and Biddle were clearly obstinate equals, but as Pres, it would seem that there were other paths to take leadership on this since he deemed it important. How necessary and/or effective was this bank war? Did it really save the "little guy" in the short or long run?
   
   In his tooth and nail fight on nullification, Jackson may have been as instrumental as Lincoln in holding the union together. Jackson's stand against nullification not only solidified the sentiment for his day, but also built precedent for future times. This and stopping the British in New Orleans, may be worthy of his stature among historians, Democrats and currency commemoration but, they don't explain the genesis of the phrase "Jacksonian Democracy".
   
   From admitedly limited knowledge, I still don't see enough to assign this man's name as an adjective to democracy. The author alludes to the changing of executive staff and to a future unfolding of more direct elections of public officials. I assume, in the nature of things, appointment prerogative would have evolved, but where is the chapter on how AJ worked on behalf of more direct election? Are not the Trail of Tears and his actions on behalf of those supporting slavery anti-democratic endeavors? I still don't see how the war on the bank, which admittedly has "little guy" overtones, balances all this out.



2. Clear and consise prose; well documented; theories of future effects well substantiated.



3. Today's historians are still in a quandary on why Andrew Jackson, the Seventh President of the United States and one of this nation's greatest leaders, was a man of complete contradictions in his public life.
   
   Was he the populist politician who championed the rights of all citizens in the growing republic, yet owned slaves to do the hard work on his own property?
   
   Was he the grandiose dictator who tried to crush his political enemies whom he viewed as elitist or just a man from the working class battling those seeking to dominate the masses?
   
   Was he the brilliant military genius who defeated the British in the War of 1812 for America's only major victory in that ill-conceived conflict against England? Or was he the racist extremist who conquered the Indian Tribes and removed them from their homelands in the south because it was good for his own political career?
   
   Was he all of that and more?
   
   Sean Wilentz is a Professor of History at Princeton University and has written a new examination of Jackson in `The American Presidents' series that are published by Times Books which are edited by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Schlesinger had previously written about the famed chief executive sixty years ago in the Pulitzer Prize winning biography `The Age of Jackson.'
   
   Wilentz tries to explain in the brief 195 page tome those many contradictions of the Tennessee military commander nicknamed `Old Hickory' for his toughness who is generally accepted as one of our nation's top half-dozen greatest presidents.
   
   Jackson served as chief executive from 1829 to 1837, when America was transitioning from having leaders who had participated in the Revolutionary War and the immediate years after to those politicians who would serve in the two decades leading up to our nation's civil war. Jackson was a soldier in America's struggle for independence against the British in his early teens, earning a scar on his head when he was struck by a sword belonging to a British officer and is the only American president to ever have been a prisoner of war.
   
   His greatest military triumph came in January, 1815; albeit two months after the War of 1812 had officially ended with a peace treaty signing, when troops under his command defeated an invading force of British soldiers twice their size landing near the southern port city of New Orleans, Louisiana. He then spent a few years in battle with several of the Indian tribes in the southern states which culminated in those tribes' relocation to the Midwest part of the country that came to be known as `The Trail of Tears.'
   
   Jackson first ran for president in 1824 and got the highest tally of popular votes in the election. But none of the multiple candidates running that year were able to get a majority of the Electoral College votes to claim victory. The contest was then decided in the House of Representatives where runner-up John Quincy Adams was selected as the new chief executive after he made a deal with third-place candidate Henry Clay to gain his votes in exchange for Clay being promised the job of Secretary of State.
   
   Jackson was livid on what happened to him that year and vowed revenge against what he considered to be the thievery by those politicians belonging to the New England aristocracy he so hated.
   
   He ran again in 1828 and soundly defeated Adams in a re-match. But that victory turned bitter sweet when his wife Rachel died a few weeks before the March, 1837 inauguration which the president-elect believed was caused by stress when his political enemies spoke ill of her and her marriage to Jackson before her divorce to another man became final.
   
   Wilentz writes that once in office, Jackson was a champion of the concept of the republic, meaning the will of the majority ruled while he attempted to re-structure the functions of national government into how he believed it should operate.
   
   Modern pundits complain that today's politicians can be nasty and uncivil towards each other in their rancorous discussions on the issues of the day. But today's media sound bite zingers are tepid and restrained compared to how those of the different political parties and viewpoints treated each other two centuries ago when many disagreements ended with the two participants settling their feud with a duel.
   
   The political opponents of the president referred to Jackson as ruling like a king or dictator, since the new chief executive did his best to re-tool the government into a bureaucracy of his liking such as making multiple changes in his cabinet to get those advisors he desired and would do what he wanted. The colloquial phrase `to the victor goes the spoils,' refers to Jackson's selection of those political supporters of his choosing into specific national government posts to do his bidding.
   
   Jackson considered himself to be a man of honor and believed his words and those spoken by others to be a reflection of their firm beliefs. That's why he terminated the relationship with John Calhoun, his own vice-president, in 1832 when he determined the South Carolina politician had crossed him when Calhoun supported that state's desire to secede from the union in seeking nullification of certain laws over keeping the union together.
   
   Calhoun resigned as vice-president, the first national officer to do so, got himself appointed as a senator from South Carolina while that state made plans to secede from the union if the federal government continued to demand its share of taxes through tariffs. Jackson mobilized federal troops to send into that state and let it be known that he would publicly hang his former vice-president if cessation plans went forth.
   
   They didn't.
   
   Compare that to today's politicians who say or do anything to keep their particular electorate happy, even it will hurt the nation in the long-term as long as it keeps them being re-elected.
   
   Jackson also hated bankers and the concept of paper money that's not based on gold or silver. He closed down the Second Bank of the United States, (today's version of the Federal Reserve) and paid off the national debt in 1835 which endeared him to the masses. So it is with much irony that his image ended up on our twenty dollar bill, the most popular American paper currency that is issued by today's Federal Reserve Bank which is privately owned and makes a profit from the public debt that increases every year and has no chance of ever being paid off.
   
   Wilentz states that Jackson put the nation on the road to true democracy for all the people, although the democracy he believed in is not what we have today because that process evolved over time with the work of the many presidents who would follow.
   
   By the end of Jackson's second term, his popularity and large group of supporters across the country helped to start the creation of the modern Democratic Party and he was able through his influence to get his second vice-president, Martin Van Buren, elected to the presidency in 1836. Jackson's own political beliefs also led to the formation of the political parties movement when the Whig Party, mainly composed of those politicians who opposed Jackson on just about everything during his time in office, was created in 1834. They lasted for twenty years until it was replaced by the Republican Party in 1856 for the continuation of the two major political party system this nation still has today.
   
   Can it be considered unfair for those of us now alive two centuries later to judge Jackson and the other early 19th Century presidents on their stands regarding personal liberty when slavery was still prevalent to today's standards of freedom for all citizens? Yes. But that's not Jackson's fault. He made the decisions he believed on what was best for the country's long-term survival without compromise to any special interest group seeking favors for their particular cause to the detriment of the nation as a whole.
   
   What politician of today can make that same claim?



4. Nice book and an easy read. Not very much depth, but well written and informative. I would recommend to the casual reader, but not any historian.



5. The 2008 Presidential race is in full swing, and interest in the contest runs high. In order to keep my own bearings, I wanted to try to take a short but broader view of our Presidents and our nation's history. One way to do this is by reading some of the volumes in the recent "American Presidents" series edited by the late Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Each volume in this series offers, in short compass, the life and accomplishments of an American president together with an evaluation of his achievement.
   
   I chose Sean Wilentz' biography of Andrew Jackson (1767 -- 1845) because of our seventh President's role in broadening the basis of American democracy and because of the controversy he inspired and continues to inspire. Jackson was a flamboyant, larger-than-life figure with great virtues and as many faults. He was orphaned at an early age and bore for life the physical and emotional scars inflicted upon him by a sword gash to the head by a British officer during the Revolutionary War. Jackson fought off poverty and his own impulsive nature to serve an early term in Congress and in the Senate before the 19th century. He became a lawyer, a judge and a large plantation owner of the Hermitage in Tennessee. He became famous as an Indian fighter in wars against the Southeast Tribes such as the Creeks and Cherokees and against the Florida Seminoles. Jackson won a great victory against the British at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, (the War of 1812 was officially over at the time) which secured his fame.
   
   Jackson ran for President in 1824 but, following a close election, he was denied the presidency in the House of Representatives as a result of what he claimed was a "corrupt bargain" between John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay. In 1828, Jackson defeated Adams, inauguarating what he and many American people believed was a new age for American democracy. Wilentz describes the themes of Jackson's presidency as including:
   
   "robust nationalism on constitutional issues tempered by a restraint on federal support for economic development and a strict construction; a distrust of what Jackson called the corrputed power of 'associated wealth'; and a celebration of what one pro-Jackson newspaper called 'the democratic theory that the people's voice is the supreme law." (p. 112)
   
   In his biography, Wllentz reminds the reader that Jackson's age was not our own. Thus, the issues Jackson faced cannot be transferred directly to our current situation with the label of "liberal" or "conservative". Jackson was an enemy of big government. But in Jackson's time, this position made him a foe to the power of wealthy and powerful people and businesses who had a close relationship to the government and who, Jackson, believed, were gaining too much privilege at the expense of the people. Thus, a major activity of Jackson's presidency was his destruction of the Second Bank of the United States, a private bank which had been chartered by Congress and which exercised strong power over the American economy.
   
   Jackson thought that American government up to his time had been the province of the leisured and elite. His avowed goal was to make the government responsive to the will of the majority and to expand the basis of democracy. He did so, in part, and at a terrible cost. Jackson's democracy was formed by a coalition between Southern planters and northerners. This coalition inevitably led to compromises with slavery and to sectional tension. Jackson censored the mails to prevent anti-slavery tracts from flooding the South and opposed attempts to curtail slavery.
   
   In his younger days, Jackson had been a cruel Indian fighter, and in his Presidency he set in motion the removal of the Southeastern Tribes across the Mississippi over what became known as the "Trail of Tears." Wilentz, together with many other scholars, has some sympathy for the goals of the removal policy, but he emphasizes the cruelty and carelessness with which it was carried out, resulting in the death of thousands of Indian people.
   
   Jackson was a strong, even autocratic, excecutive. Perhaps his finest hour was in defusing, with a mixture of strength, compromise, and cunning, the "nullification controversy" resulting from South Carolina's attempt to set aside a Federal tariff with which it disagreed. Jackson was also an expansionist president who foresaw the acquition of Texas and the West even though no new territory was added to the United States during his two terms.
   
   Wilentz praises Jackson for his democratic vision and for his early version of egalitarianism even while he recognizes that, in its treatment of Indians, African Americans, and women it was quite different from our own ideals. Wilentz is favorably disposed towards Jackson's economic policies, including his war on the Bank. Many historians have different, less favorable views of Jackson. Those readers wanting an in-depth view of the period might want to compare two lengthy studies: Wilentz' own "The Rise of American Democracy" (2005) with the more recent study by Daniel Walker Howe "What hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848", which takes a less favorable view of Jackson and a more positive view of his predecessor in the presidency, John Quincy Adams, and of Jackson's opponents, the Whigs.
   
   Those readers wanting to reflect upon the history of our country and on where it may be going during this election year will enjoy reading this short study of Andrew Jackson and its companions in the American Presidents series.
   
   Robin Friedman

5 comments about House of Abraham: Lincoln and the Todds, A Family Divided by War.

1. Abraham Lincoln is one of the most-written about men in the English language. As a long-time Lincoln-buff, I don't mind that there are so many books, but I have to admit, I occasionally wonder if we've reached diminishing returns. A lot of Lincoln books are what I'd call "old wine in new bottles."
   
   But House of Abraham really is that rare thing: a truly new and important perspective on Abraham Lincoln. Having read most of what there is on Abraham and Mary, let me just say what I think is new here: First, the author fleshes out the Southern wing of the Todd family for the first time. These are some seriously colorful characters: David Todd was arrested for desecrating corpses in a Richmond jail; Samuel Todd and Alex Todd were Confederate soldiers killed in action; George Todd abused African-American prisoners who had been taken while storming Battery Wagner; Emilie Todd, widow of a Confederate Brigadier, spent a week in the White House, despite the scandal; Margaret Todd smuggled contraband through Union lines, on and on. In all my reading I'd never known any of this.
   
   Second, the author connects these scandals to Mary's growing unpopularity in Washington. Many books have mentioned that Mary lost three half-brothers on the rebel side (the author proves that it was only two), but none have demonstrated so clearly why her family-ties became such a problem.
   
   Finally, while House of Abraham begins as a book about the Todds, it becomes more and more a meditation on family, on the nation as a family, and on Lincoln's evolving understanding of the War. Ultimately, the author convinced me that Lincoln saw the Todds as a microcosm of the nation and that he understood the war as a "mosaic of family crises."
   
   As some of the other reviewers have pointed out, the book isn't very long, but considering it limits itself to saying something actually new about the most-written-about-man-in-America, I don't think that's surprising. Team of Rivals (which I loved) was 900 pages, but not that much of it was new. It was really the framing that was so impressive. In fact, I'd recommend reading Team of Rivals and then House of Abraham in succession. They make a terrific pair.



2. Stephen Berry's work House of Abraham: Lincoln and the Todds, A Family Divided by War is a wonderful addition to the field of Lincoln historiography. His work is very insightful to the machinations of the Todd family. The Todd's were truly a family divided by the Civil War and its aftermath. The work is well written and researched throughly by the author. Lincoln's extended family, i.e. the Todd's were surely an embarassment for the president and his wife. However, even though many of the Todd's were confederate sympathizers, Lincoln always was supportive of his wife's sisters. This is a fine work on Lincoln and essential for Lincolnites to read.



3. This is an entirely new perspective of the Lincoln family, specifically that of his wife's. While there is much known about Abraham Lincoln's wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, as well as their oldest son, Robert Todd Lincoln, who was the only child to live to a ripe old age, I know very little about the Todd Family, and was especially intrigued that a book had finally been written on this little known side of the Lincoln family. Although the book was short, and, as admitted by the author, only a cursory story of several of the members of the Todd family could be done, it was admittedly an interesting book and whetted my appetite for additional information on the Todd Family. I found that the book added a few more pieces to the complex character and personality of Abraham Lincoln the man, and found further that his "melancholia" that is so much discussed was not solely due to the failures of many of his generals, the exorbitant loss of life in the battles of the conflict, the political intrigues of the Radical Republicans and the Democratic-Copperheads, but also partly due to the inner family turmoil that he and Mary experienced with their own family, specifically the Todds. Truly, Abraham Lincoln was quite prophetic when he said that a "House divided against itself cannot stand", and surely this could be said of the Todd family who themselves were divided with several family members serving in the armed forces of the Confederacy and the Union, several killed in battle, and one assassinated. I would recommend this book, and hope to see further detailed studies of the Todd Family in the future.



4. Their have been some good Civil War family biographies lately. The Whalen's book on the Fighting McCook's and this book on the Todd family come to mind. Family biographies can help us understand the human cost of the Civil War as no other histories can. As family members die, we understand the war's causalities in very personal terms gaining an idea of what this costs those involved.
   
   The McCook family had no conflicted loyalties, no question of who to fight for nor any hesitations in committing to a side. They were able to establish a record of service fighting for the Union that was unique. The Todd family had conflicted loyalties, questions on who to fight for and hesitated in committing to a side. A large slave owning family from Kentucky with an in-law in the White House would cause problems for everyone. Lincoln, his wife, her brothers & sisters their spouses created a series of confrontations, personal and political problems that make up this story.
   
   The author introduces the Todd family and the principle people giving us a solid foundation for the story. Lincoln tries to keep as much of the family on the Union side as possible. His efforts delay some members "going South" and produce some real political problems in 1861 for him. Each year of the war is a chapter. This allows us to follow everyone from assignment to assignment or battle to battle. Against this backdrop, Lincoln's personal life and family problems becomes worse and worse. Each newspaper story, each battle death adds to Lincoln's problems and Mary's woes. However, at Springfield as Lincoln is buried, the Todd in-laws stand as family.
   
   The author is easy to read and manages to keep all the story lines together. These are not likable people and he clearly does not like them. This come through in a number of places and may have colored the story. In addition, the author makes misstatements about the battle of Shiloh and the POW exchange. None of his mistakes are major but he is accepting of popular stories as opposed to good scholarship. A nice touch is to take each person from 1865 to his or her death. This is always something I look for in this type of book and feel is really important. The author does an excellent job on each person giving the reader a feel for who they were.
   
   Overall, this is a very readable book. The people are well drawn allowing us to see their world and have some understanding of their choices. In addition, the author shows how the divisions in Lincoln's personal family helped him reach out to the national family as reflected in many of his speeches.



5. Why did the majority of the Todds choose the South over the North? Their's was a border state that stayed in the Union. They owned too few slaves to have fortunes staked on the system. On p. 174 Berry defines the Todds as being "shrill with hatred... collapsed in self interest and grief". What drove them to this?
   
   Are they really "a once happy family" as Berry says? The litigation over their father's estate belies this. The litigation not only left their father's second wife (mother of 6?) dependent, but also disinherited those, like Mary, who had already had gifts from the father. Did early favoritism cause the rift as much as the war?
   
   Lincoln appears to be the model brother-in-law. Risking charges of favoritism and nepotism, Lincoln helps his Union oriented brothers-in-law (who also married Todds), giving one the ability to contract for provisions (which he exploits and when challenged threatens blackmail) and another a coveted army position away from the fray in the west. He entertains a Confederate Todd in the White House, and provides a pardon for another who will not take an oath of allegiance to the country that pardons her. His tolerance and charity towards his family recalls his tolerance of McClellan and a host of cabinet officers of similarly dubious motives.
   
   Mary personalizes the Confederate allegiance in her family as a fight against her. Maybe Mary was close to being right. Some seem to bask in the status of being able to malign a relative. Others just expect too much which can breed disappointment even under normal conditions. Maybe some of their intensity was a family rebellion against the one grown up who, by chance, had married into their family.
   
   While the book is short, it is not entirely focused. For a book on the family, too many of its precious paragraphs are devoted to sketching the war such as the battles of Manassas and Shiloh and the seige of Vicksburg. I would have liked a reference table in the beginning showing the birth order of the Todds and their marriages. Most importantly it needs some discussion on why the Todds did what they did.
   
   In a lighthearted afterward the author describes his research. While a lot went into this effort, I hope it is not thorough, because I would like to know more of these Todds.

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.

No comments about Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief.

5 comments about The Wit & Wisdom of Ronald Reagan.

1. This book clearly shows how Ronald Reagan was superior to his critics. The man they accused of having simple solutions to complex problems outwitted and outmaneuvered them by having just that. His solutions where simple, but not easy. It was the right step to take at a time when America and the rest of the world was suffering from failed economical policies. By making the economy more simple and easing the burdens of the taxpayer, he did more for the world economy than all the economists of the "old" system did after the second world war. His quick remarks and one-liners in response to critique is a great sign of his intelligence. What he did not make up for in his education, he accomplished with his intelligence and belief in the good intent of man.



2. If you love and miss Ronald Reagan, this is a book that will feed your nostalgia while providing a warm glow to your day. The author has been a speechwriter and the author of several books, so he knows how to select great words. James C. Humes organizes the book in eight short chapters.
   
   Chapter 1 provides quotations from the Gipper. They are a sentence or two on a wide range of topics (and are arranged alphabetically by topic). Chapter 2 is a collection of quips and jokes and also organized by topic. Chapter 3 provides brief comments by Reagan on world leaders and a few historic figures. Chapter 4 presents brief statements by friends and enemies about Reagan. For example, we are reminded that it was Margaret Thatcher who said he won the Cold War without firing a shot and Pat Schroeder who called him the Teflon President.
   
   Chapter 5 consists of short anecdotes about Reagan's life and career. Chapter 6 puts some of Reagan's best zingers in their true historical context (which the media tries to twist and distort and forget - because they are invested in the notion that Reagan was a dunce. History is taking a much different assessment of the man and his two terms as President). Chapter 7 presents some of Reagan's best stories. They reveal a great deal about his beliefs and his character. Chapter 8 presents excerpts from his best speeches and provides some information about the context in which the speech was given and its effects. Again, this helps undo some of the work the liberals in the media do to insult and undermine his memory.
   
   While much of the material Reagan used was not original with him (some of it is), he delivered it masterfully and had keen insight on when to use it for best effect. This book is not only an enjoyable read, it makes a great gift for anyone in your life who is fond of Reagan or someone you want to learn about how great and effective a President he was.
   
   Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI



3. This book is a mere fictional account of a president who was twice-elected by a near-braindead electorate who in 1979, quickly began to grow impatient with Jimmy Carter's lack of charisma and soon confused the 1980 campaign with the Oscars and awarded the gold statuette/the presidency to a man who was probably born with Alzheimer's Disease. But in their zealous haste, they quickly forgot about carefully considering more realistic, long-term policies that could serve THEM well, such as health care, tax cuts for THEM and not the rich, and perhaps a complete moratorium on immigration that continues to bloat an already overcrowded nation to this very day. But instead, the mindless electorate allowed itself to be seduced by the rhetoric of a well-groomed nitwit who overwhelmingly fooled them with ease with his prowess as an actor, and as a result, the idiots went on to gleefully elect him as the Incompetent-In-Chief beginning in 1980. And his oratory, which seduced millions of such mindless, blind flag-wavers, involved his reciting lines that were written for him to the the appaluse of said morons who had by that time, read too many Superman comic books and cheered as The Acting President hollowly insisted that "Government is the problem..." So hence, Reagan became their new Superman minus the costume. And as the S&L scandal came to tarnish America's image and the Iran-Contra scandal took hold, this man could not for anything, coherently answer a single question posed to him by the press for the duration of his entire presidency. Moreover, if it were not for Peggy Noonan, his speech writer, we more than likely would never had to have endured the likes of The Acting President. Perhaps Peggy herself will one day seek higher office in the Land That Time Should Forget.



4. Great quotes from our greates communicator, gives an insite to his sense of humor. I was expecting a little more to the book, more pages and anedotes.



5. Those of us who lived through The Regan Years know what an icon is and what Regan brought to the office. This book gives the reader an insight into not only his political life, but his private life. Love him or not you will realize what made him tick. He lent the aspect of "Class" to the office giving people the chance to laugh with him and say "Right on". This book should become a classic.

5 comments about Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship.

1. This smart, well researched and readable book makes an often controversial subject easy to understand and easier still to be sympathetic towards. Famed author and historian, Sir Martin Gilbert offers us through direct sources, a simple yet profound road map in which we see Mr. Churchill navigate his way through his many relationships with Jews, and those opponents in his own political party, as well as the minefield which is Middle East politics. I for one, though a student of the Middle East never knew just how close Mr. Churchill was to the Jewish people, Zionism, and his continued support through out the decades for a Jewish state in the region.
   
   "Some people like Jews and some do not, but no thoughtful `person' can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world" Winston Churchill
   
   I strongly recommend this book for your reading pleasure, education, and enlightenment. It is an outstanding historical document.



2. This is an exciting account of Churchill's relationship to the Jewish people from the earliest phase of his political career. He developed a strong bond with the developing state of Israel, and it seems unlikely, without his brilliant supportive speeches in parliament for several decades that we would have a state of Israel today. Gilbert does a superb job of bringing us up to date on Churchill's contributions, from the time of the Balfour declaration to Israel Statehood in 1948.



3. The 20th Century produced many astounding men, many of them evil. One of the few great democrats of the age was Winston S. Churchill. Martin Gilbert, the official biographer of Churchill, has produced one enthralling volume after another.
   
   Churchill's involvement with public life and, more importantly, his impact upon it never ceases to amaze. To read of everything Churchill was involved with - some of the most momentous events of the century that still reverberate today - staggers the imagination.
   
   In this volume, Gilbert examines Churchill's relationship with Jews in general and his involvement with the Balfour Declaration, Zionism and the creation of the State of Israel.
   
   Churchill's first 'political involvement in Jewish concerns" occurred in 1904 when he stood for election for Manchester North-West, where a third of the population was Jewish.
   
   From that point on, Churchill's career often came into contact with Jewish concerns or, conversely, concerns about the Jews. He long supported the aspirations for a Jewish homeland. He protested mistreatment of the Jews by the Russians, Germans and others. He was deeply offended by the radical Jewish terrorists who sought to hasten the creation of Israel. He believed there was a need to turn Jews toward Zionism and away from Bolshevism.
   
   Churchill, indeed, considered himself to be a Zionist.
   
   Churchill's humanism, tolerance, foresight, classic liberalism and just plain decency are all on display in this wonderful volume. By concentrating on this one small aspect of Churchill's many interests, the magnificence of the man is brought into sharp relief. Others, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ernest Bevan suffer in comparison to Churchill in this particular area.
   
   All in all, this is a wonderful book, typical of Gilbert's skill as a researcher, historian and writer. It is also necessary reading for anyone who wishes to be more fully informed about the seemingly intractable problems we face in the area today.
   
   Jerry



4. Winston Churchill, for as long as he can remember, has been connected with Jews. Coming from a family with close Jewish ties, though not through blood, he has always had friends from this ethnicity. His father, Lord Randolph Churchill was often rebuked by the English aristocrats about his many Jewish friends. Learning about the biblical characters in his school, he was often fascinated with their stories and with their lives.
   
   Martin Gilbert, Churchill's official biographer, draws on letters, speeches, newspaper articles and other resources to provide a clear depiction of his friendship with one of the most persecuted races in the world: the Jews.
   
   Reading this book was very eye opening. I have always heard about Churchill through his famous quotes often featured at graduations and other ceremonies-and through those I had developed a certain respect for him. However, after reading this book, I consider him one of the greatest men who ever lived. Sure he had faults; he would be the first to admit that. But what set him apart was the fact that he was willing to stand up for what he believed in, even when popular opinion was against it. He was an ardent supporter for a Jewish state and played a key role in bringing that to pass. Many considered his love for Jews one of his major faults; however, he was not swayed by what others thought him.
   
   Martin Gilbert's portrayal of Churchill and his relationship with Jews is very enlightening. It explores this often-neglected topic, captivating the readers from the very beginning as it traces his first Jewish friendships to his Jewish friends he had during the time he was Prime Minister. I really enjoyed this book that also includes photographs that chronicle his relationship with them.
   
   Armchair Interviews says: Highly recommended to any history buff!



5. 
   I began with a prejudice. Winston Churchill is one of my greatest heroes.
   Another prejudice. Martin Gilbert is also one of my favorite authors. Gilbert writing on Churchill could be nothing but wonderful.
   The book was up to my expectations, and then some. I have read volumes and volumes on the life and activities of Winston Churchill, but found many new facts in insights. I was totally pleased and highly reccomend this book to any one . Admirer or critic.
   Herschel Sennett