1 comments about The Presidency of James Madison (American Presidency Series).

1. Writing after the fact, historians often conclude that a war was preventable. This is generally false, as the dispassionate writer is removed from the context of the times. The war in 1812 between the United States and Great Britain has often been viewed as a pointless, forgettable war, yet in fact it had enormous consequences. The war was the defining moment of the Madison presidency and a significant break from the policy of the previous Jefferson and early Madison administrations. In describing the war, Rutland is masterful in describing the context and emotions of the times, the combination of which caused a war that was inevitable.
   At the time, the Napoleonic wars were raging on the European continent and both Britain and France sought to wring every advantage they could out of what they considered an upstart nation. For years, Jefferson and Madison tried every tactic they could short of war in an attempt to delay a call to arms. Finally, national pride won out over all other factors and the war began. Madisonýs conduct of the war was not nearly as effective as it could have been, and yet the tie was all that was needed. James Monroe, the successor to Madison, enunciated what is now known as the Monroe doctrine, which warned all nations to avoid colonization efforts in the Western Hemisphere. With little American sea power to back it up, it was the first example of cooperation between Britain and the United States, as the enforcement was due to the power of the British navy. It is doubtful that this could have happened without the war.
   The ways in which Rutland places the war in the context of power struggles in Europe and in the United States is masterful, as he describes how fragmented the United States was in those years. It is also possible to see the seeds of an eventual split and internal war, not over the issue of slavery, but over commercial and social differences.
   In so many ways, Madisonýs best years were behind him when he became president. And yet, his handling of the war of 1812 was most likely the best that could have been done, as he sought to defend a fractious nation against an old foe who afterward became a staunch ally. For that reason alone, his administration should be considered a success and this book is the most realistic appraisal of his years in the White House that I have ever seen.

No comments about Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, William J. Clinton, 2000-2001, Book 2, June 27 to October 11, 2000 (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States).

No comments about Frederic Chopin As A Man And Musician.

5 comments about Reckoning with Reagan: America and Its President in the 1980s.

1. I found this book to rather tiring. There was too much useless and unnecessary information. Schaller also tended to make former President Regan look like a bumbling idiot who let his Cabinet members run the Nation. I found that Schaller did not tend to highlight the positive impact that Reagan had on the Nation. Without having to know much about Reagan and the Nation during that time, it is clear that Schaller let his personal opinion interfere with his professinal one.



2. "Reckoning with Reagan" makes some nice attempts at getting a grip on Reagan's presidency. Taking into account the good as well as the bad, it provides a more balanced account that the fawning hero worship pieces written by Noonan and D'Souza. An easy read, though it leaves the reader wanting a little more detail in spots.



3. It seems that there is no escape from these hazy sweet books of Ronal Reagan. Let's just hope that they do not turn into the cottage industry that books on the Kennedies morphed into.



4. I would say ignore the reviews that cast this book in a less than outstanding light. This book is not an abstract novel, but rather a historical account of Reagan's time in office. Michael Schaller is an award winning History Professor that does a wonderful job teaching the Mystique of what was Reagan's Presidency.



5. This book by Michael Schaller is an excellent work taking a look at Reagan the man and Reagan as President. I was assigned this book and used it in a major term paper for one of my classes in college. Schaller's book was instrumental in my paper and helped me argue the fact that Reagan was responsible for ending the Cold War. Aside from my paper, Schaller provides little known facts and an excellent background section on Reagan. Although hampered by the fact that many sources and documents were not public at the time this book was written, Schaller does a fine job looking at the Reagan Presidency. Definitely recommended for anyone researching about Reagan or just wanting to read about him.

No comments about Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, George W. Bush, 2002, Bk. 2, July 1-December 31, 2002 (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States).

No comments about Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, George W. Bush, 2002, Bk. 1, January 1 to June 30, 2002 (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States).

No comments about The good fight / Shirley Chisholm.

No comments about Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, George W. Bush, 2001, Book 2, July 1 to December 31, 2001 (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States).

5 comments about Very Strange Bedfellows: The Short and Unhappy Marriage of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew.

1. As I began to read Jules Witcover's revealing book about the Nixon-Agnew relationship, I thought that this book must have limited appeal....especially to those of us who grew up during that time. Indeed, the author alludes to this point in his preface, but then again, "Very Strange Bedfellows" has overtones for today. One hopes that Witcover has another book in mind as he has already set foot in one of those intriguing relationships from the past... Nixon and Agnew.
   
   Luck more or less got Agnew off on his trajectory and lack of luck finished him off. I didn't know that Agnew had been a Rockefeller man until I began reading the book, and how quickly things changed. The stars were aligned for Agnew. It's no wonder, however, that the smallness of Agnew eventually got him, as Witcover so describes.
   
   The author is the perfect person to write this book. Having assessed the potential of Nixon and Agnew, his narrative is terrific. I lived through that very period and followed the two closely, but Jules Witcover has written an account that covers it all. It's a walk down memory lane. I highly recommend "Very Strange Bedfellows". It uncovers the the behind-the-scenes look at one of the weirdest political connections.



2. Witcover has made a career of hate filled attacks on RN. This book is a cut and paste job with little new to offer.



3. It seems that Mr. Whitcover has covered this before in two previous books. As a previous reviewer said, this is a hatchet job on two of the most misunderstood people to hold the two highest offices in the United States. Yes, they both certainly had their faults and deserved their eventual fates, but there was a lot more to the both of them and Whitcover misses it all. He just simply re hashes the obvious faults and does no other searching. Agnew for one is in dire need of a serious study of his Vice Presidency.



4. I recently read an article by Ben Stein about the sudden outpouring of recent books about Richard Nixon and his presidency. For the most part Stein focuses on Robert Dallek's excellent tome "Nixon and Kissinger" as well as Margaret MacMillan's somewhat overly detailed work, "Nixon and Mao." He referenced this book in passing and referred to Mr. Witcover as, "a third rate journalist." I beg to differ.
   
   In examining the relationship between President Richard Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew, Witcover carefully examines one of the most overlooked aspects of his presidency. Witcover definitely draws on research he had done for previous books about Nixon and Agnew, but manages to distinguish this book from other Nixon books.
   
   In the grand scheme of the Nixon presidency, Spiro Agnew is typically an afterthought as the focus usually falls on Watergate, Kissinger, the Vietnam War, the SALT agreement and opening relations with communist China. The book quickly makes clear that Agnew played a minor role, if any, in policy decisions. Witcover is at his best when he explores issues such as Nixon's own self-consciousness and paranoia, especially in his decision to put Agnew on the 68 ticket. He also paints an interesting picture of Agnew, and his ability to offend an entire room in less than three sentences. While he may have been far more elegant than George W. Bush in his choice of words, he owed most of his more memorable lines to William Safire and Pat Buchanan. Witcover's analysis and research makes plain the irony of Nixon's treatment of Agnew, considering Nixon's own gripes about his limited role as Ike's VP.
   
   But the most interesting and unique aspect of this book is the backstory of Nixon's relationship with John Connelly, and his desire to unite with Connelly (then still a Democrat) and start a third party that would shake up American politics as we know it. Nixon's desire to push Agnew off the 72 ticket and replace him with Connelly is well examined and documented by Mr. Witcover, who paints Connelly as one of the few people in Washington that Nixon was constantly in awe of.
   
   We all know how it ended, with Agnew's resignation, Ford's ascension to the VP-slot, and Nixon's own downfall. But if you are interested in a fresh take on an often forgotten chapter of the Nixon presidency, you can't do much better than this book.



5. Jules Witcover is an excellent writer who, unfortunately, sometimes lets his political and philosphical beliefs get in the way. There are various instances in this book where he is just as intent on criticizing conservatives and the Republican Party as criticizing the two main characters -- Nixon and Agnew.
   
   It is obvious that he is and was no fan of President Nixon. In some respect, despite his dislike for Agnew there are places in the book where it seemed Witcover was sympathetic with him. One senses that Agnew, for all his flaws, wanted to be an important member of the Nixon Administration while Nixon and his staff grew to dislike him and tried to relegate him to obscurity. It is no secret that Nixon became enamored with John Connally and would have preferred Connally as his successor. Witcover sees a tormented vice president who wanted to be so much more than what the president would let him be. And then, skeletons came out of the closet to doom the vice president.
   
   Two things stood out that keeps me from rating this higher. First, if Witcover would have left his biases out of the book -- or been more subtle with his biases -- it would have given his account more credibility. As it is, his little digs at not just Nixon and Agnew but the Republican Party and conservatives in general, gives this book more of a flavor of a hatchet job.
   
   Second, and this may seem trivial, but there are no pictures. Other than the cover jacket there are none. Pictures really add a lot to a historical book such as this. I grew up in that era and remember well how the main characters -- Nixon, Agnew, Connally, Haldeman, Erlichman, etc -- looked. But to younger people, the failure to match a face with the people being written about detracts from the book. There could have been pictures of Nixon in the 1968 campaign, the 1968 GOP convention, Nixon and Agnew campaigning in both 1968 and 1972, Agnew giving speeches during the first administration, the investigators and culprits who destroyed Agnew in 1973, Agnew leaving the federal court in Baltimore as a former vice president, both men in their later years, etc. There were so many possibilities of where pictures would have added so much to this book. But there were none.

1 comments about For King and Country: The Maturing of George Washington, 1748-1760.

1. I would really enjoy meeting Thomas Lewis, and talking historical facts and old Washington legends with him.

   There is nothing flashy or trashy about For King And Country. It is a very well researched and very connected account of young Washington between 1748 and 1760.

   I can't help, but, wonder if Thomas Lewis is a descendent of Washington's nephew Lawrence Lewis. There is that much cool headed depth of feeling evident in For King and Country.

   We tend to forget that Washington had to personally put up with hundreds of uniquely American cantankerous characters during his youth. Thomas Lewis gives a little flavor to that part of the formation of young Washington's character. When Lewis contrasts Washington's "uncommon ambition" to be recognized by the British, and also recognized by those Virginians with British pretensions real or affected; Lewis firmly grasps Washington's American reality.

   I do sincerely hope that Thomas Lewis writes of Geo Washington again.