5 comments about The MAN WHO ONCE WAS WHIZZER WHITE: A PORTRAIT OF JUSTICE BYRON R WHITE.

1. This book was a disappointment. I think that with the recent comprehensive late 20th Century biographies, such as the recent ones about Rockefeller and Lindbergh and Nigel Hamilton's Reckless Youth, we have come to expect the biographer to do a thorough investigation and analysis of the circumstances that impacted the subject. While I do not expect a Freudian approach in every case (and would probably object to it if done expressly), I welcome gentle suggestions that link early events in the subject's life with the later, more well known, events. This analysis was missing from Whizzer (with the exception of the origins of his hatred for the press). The book reads as if it is a collection of on-line newspapers searches, ones that I could have done myself if NEXIS had newspapers dating back to the 30s. Didn't anybody keep a diary? Didn't anybody write letters? Didn't anybody have any introspective thoughts? To those who say that this type of analysis is not necessary for a judicial biography, I direct them to John Jeffrey's book about Powell, which I thought was very well done, and a good model for what a judicial biography can be.



2. Hutchinson has written a fascinating contemporary biography of Justice White who is almost unique in his continued insistence on his privacy and personal dignity. Although the author eschews speculation as to White's family or personal life, one still gets a good sense of the man--his intelligence, tenacity, and just plain decency. At least as interesting are the times he lived in, and few lawyers or judges have shared the action and passion of their times more fully than Justice White--first on the gridiron, then in the classroom, in the world of affairs, and on the court. White had his shortcomings as a communicator and legal theorist, as Hutchinson aptly illustrates with the oral and written record. But would that our society had more such self-effacing, dedicated and excellent lawyers and public servants!



3. Byron White began his long judicial career in dissent, resisting the rising tide of criminal procedure liberalism of the Warren Court, and ended it as the balance wheel of Rehnquist Court. In his 31 years on the Supreme Court, from 1962 to 1993, he was in the majority in 807 five-to-four decisions, more than any other justice in history, except for the wily William Brennan who served on the court for 34 years. White also has the signal distinction of being the only Democratic appointee to the Supreme Court since the end of World War II who profoundly disappointed his erstwhile partisan allies. Beyond the fact that White refused to "grow" his jurisprudence from its New Deal origins to accommodate the latest cultural avant-garde enthusiasms of the juridical left, little is known about White and his jurisprudence is widely misunderstood.

   The litany of White's accomplishments and his early rise to the court serve to obscure the lines of his jurisprudence, which he never made an attempt to clarify. Hutchinson's principal accomplishment is to discern from the mass of White's opinions a sound jurisprudential framework obscured by bulk of White's output (1,275 opinions in 31 years), and in doing so refute the assertion that White was unpredictable.

   Although White was popularly described as a conservative jurist, this confounds the term as it is used to describe a specific interpretive philosophy with the judicial tradition which White came to exemplify. Today judicial conservatism is virtually synonymous with "original meaning," the method of constitutional interpretation that holds that the Constitution means only what it was understood to mean by those whose assent made it law. This has certain implications, among them that the Congress's powers are limited to those enumerated, that the three branches of federal government and their powers are strictly separated, and that the states retain inviolable spheres of sovereignty. In this sense, White was not a conservative at all. Where, say, Justice Antonin Scalia would subscribe to these general notions, White would not. For instance, while Scalia believes that the law permitting the appointment of Independent Counsels violates the separation of powers doctrine (Morrison v. Olson), White sees it as a permissible experimentation with the form of government. And though Scalia believes that the powers of Congress are, however tangentially, limited (Lopez v. United States) and that the states retain areas of discretion where the Congress may not intrude (Printz v. United States), White views the powers of the Congress as essentially unlimited (Katzenbach v. McClung) and the states as retaining no sovereignty that the Congress is obliged to respect (Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Authority). Although Hutchinson views "New Deal liberal" and "pragmatist" as imperfect labels, his carefully wrought and insightful analysis of White's jurisprudence nonetheless establishes that they are fair and roughly approximate descriptions of Justice White.

   In it's judicial aspect the New Deal generally sought to eliminate restrictions on the exercise of federal power. These breaks on government power were exemplified early in this century by an activist libertarian Supreme Court's invocation of natural rights and non-textual notions of substantive due process to strike economic regulation. Lochner v. New York, where the court struck down regulations on the working hours of bakers as a violation of their liberty to contract their labor, is perhaps the most famous bugbear of New Dealers. But restrictions also came in the form of the enumerated powers doctrine and in the form of early criminal procedure cases which, as Professor Akhil Reed Amar of Yale has noted, invoked natural law and private property rights, and thus restricted the government's policing powers. All of these, in one way or another, restricted federal action. Judges of New Deal era, then, had a distinctly negative ambition: To remove the restrictions on the exercise of federal power so that the Congress, acting with the Executive, could enact social reform.

   The ambition of liberal judges changed, of course, with the rise of "the real Warren Court," which historian David P. Currie of the University of Chicago dates to the replacement of Justice Frankfurter by Arthur Goldberg late in 1962. "Willful judges," as Justice Scalia describes them, were no longer content with deferring to the overtly political branches, but were now eager to enact social reform themselves. The criminal procedure cases of the Warren Court were animated by the ideas that policing by the states was institutionally racist and that crime was a manifestation of disease, not evil, and should be addressed as a public health concern. Steeped in the New Deal idea of the judicial function, however, White largely dissented from Warren Court's innovations. He dissented from Miranda v Arizona, which mandated the now famous warnings to criminal suspects; prefiguring contemporary arguments, he wrote "there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity" because under Miranda some criminals will be returned to the street to repeat their crimes.. White would also labor to limit the scope of rule excluding from trial illegally obtained evidence, and would dissent from Robinson v. California, where the court struck down a California statute criminalizing narcotics addiction. The court said that the state could not punish a person's "status" as an addict, only his conduct; White, sensibly enough, pointed out that addiction accrues through continuous willful behavior.

   White was a pragmatist. He didn't believe that the provisions of the Bill of Rights had a "single meaning" or that constitutional provisions could be measured like the provisions of a deed, in "metes and bounds," but he was insistent that constitutional innovations be small and slow, and linked in a rational process. His father taught him that "You can't just stand on your rights all the time in a small town," and White had a lifetime aversion to "the angels of fashionable opinion," as Hutchinson memorably calls ideologues of various stripe. But White's contempt for philosophy could lead him astray. In Reitman v. Mulkey, White wrote the opinion of the court holding that California could not repeal a fair housing law because the repeal was motivated by animus toward minorities. In time, the case was precedent for the current Supreme Court's invalidation, in Romer v. Evans, of Colorado's attempt to deny homosexuals privileged legal status, and for a lower federal court to stay the implementation of California's Proposition 209, barring racial and sexual discrimination in state services. Pragmatism unguided by a philosophy lead White to judgments the long-term ill consequences of which he was not equipped to foresee.

   However, White's small-step pragmatism and disdain for ideological enthusiasms kept him from joining most of the Warren and Burger Court's radical social agenda. Although he was willing to recognize, in Griswold v. Connecticut, a non-textual right to privacy permitting married couples access to contraception and even was willing to extend the right to non-married couples in Eisenstadt v. Baird, White famously and vigorously dissented from Roe v. Wade, privately telling people that he thought it was the only illegitimate decision the court made during his tenure. Perhaps just as upsetting to the votaries of judicial activism was White's majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick, which held that Georgia could constitutionally prohibit homosexual sodomy. White briskly dismissed the argument that homosexual activity was constitutionally protected: "[T]o claim that a right to engage in such conduct is `deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition' or `implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' is, at best, facetious."

   In an sense, White was precisely the type of conservative -- one who slows progress, but does not reverse it; one who ratifies the past, whatever its content -- that liberals claim they want. Except for Roe, White would later vote to reaffirm precedent, on the basis of stare decisis, with which he had earlier disagreed. And yet, few modern justices -- except, perhaps, Justice Clarence Thomas -- have been the object of so much vitriol as White. When White retired in 1993, Jeffrey Rosen of the New Republic called White "a perfect cipher" and a "mediocrity," Bruce Ackerman of Yale said he was "out of his depth," and the New York Times' Tom Wicker called him the "bitterest legacy of the Kennedy Administration." The best Calvin Trillin, writing in The Nation, could say of White was "We count his loyalty to team a boon/The other side might well select a loon" -- this in backhanded praise that White retired during a Democratic administration. These facile slurs betray the mercurial enthusiasms of the age more than they carefully trace the lineaments of Justice White's jurisprudence and are therefore more reflective of their authors than White's jurisprudence.

   In many ways White is entirely alien to today's culture, popular and lega




4. Byron White intentionally did not leave much of a paper trail, as a man distrustful of the press, which is why this book has nowhere near the depth of Jeffries' Powell biography. White may well be most vilified and castigated justice in his own time, a fact which Hutchinson recounts in great detail, because he frequently ruled against the interests of the intelligensia-- frivolous First Amendment rights claimed by the media, and, of course, homosexuals, in Bowers, which won him the most profane attacks of all, from gay rights activists imbued with more passion than respect for the deliberative function of the Courts.
   
   White, though he is accused of "moving right" over the course of his career, was in fact remarkably consistent. The problem was that he was guided by a considerably more complex set of principles than most justices, another fact which Hutchinson brings out quite well. He had an extremely uptight view of electoral politics, disliked formalism in all of its forms, was always against categorically forclosing judicial review, and absolutely despised substantive due process, especially Roe v. Wade. Yet White was an extraordinarily fair-minded and scrupled man. He was the only justice to object to the Court's attempt to retire the debilitated Justice William O. Douglas on its own accord, was an aritculate opponent of formalistic separation-of-powers and federalism doctrine, and frequently came out on the side of the downtrodden (see his role in Jacobson v. U.S.). History should view White more kindly than most of his contemporaries-- he was a man totally without an sort of a political agenda, the type of fair-minded and intelligent person so lacking from our Courts today.
   
   There are some faults here: Hutchinson's forays into Constitutional commentary in the text are very opaque and inappropriate for the book. This book is generally well-written and well-researched, but its appeal will generally be to hardcore watchers of the Warren, Burger, and early Rehnquist courts or fans of White himself-- evidently a small group, as this book is now nearly out of print.



5. I first read this biography when it was published in 1998; because I am working with a former White clerk on a matter, I recently took another look--it has held up very well. The author, Dennis J. Hutchinson, long affiliated with the University of Chicago and its law school, had the advantage of having clerked for White. But this is no hagiography, and is quite critical in spots. Because White (1917-2002) has become all but invisible to current generations of Court watchers, and this is the major biography available on him, it is an important book. One measure of the author's thoroughness is that White does not make it onto the Court until page 335 (he served between 1962 and 1993)--the previous pages are devoted to a meticulous account of his prior life, and what a life it was: football All-American; Rhodes Scholar; graduate work at Oxford; then onto Yale Law School while playing in the NFL; valuable work during the war in Naval Intelligence; then clerking on the Court; followed up with a successful law practice and politics in Denver, including work on the JFK campaign in 1960; a stint as Deputy Attorney General under RFK and then appointment to the Court.
   
   Hutchinson does not follow the frequent practice of reviewing every major decision a subject made while on the Court; rather the picks out three terms (1971, 1981, and 1991) for extended analysis. He looks at such topics as White's opinion style, including his dissent format; his incremental approach; the problems some had with White's opinion style; his interaction with fellow Justices; and his views on such topics as affirmative action, abortion and finding "new" constitutional rights. Always central to the discussion is White's independence, as manifested for example in being the only Justice against taking away (in effect) Justice Douglas's vote due to his incapacity. The author also speculates as to the forces that did and did not shape (such as Yale legal realism) White's view. White's reputation for being a difficult and distant individual to deal with certainly is borne out by the book, although White clerks will tell you he was great to work for. Whatever, White is a fading figure, and it falls largely to this fine biography to keep his memory and accomplishments alive.

2 comments about Subversive Southerner: Anne Braden and the Struggle for Racial Justice in the Cold War South (Civil Rights and the Struggle for Black Equality in the Twentieth Century).

1. Anne Braden courageously opposed the Dixie segregationist establishment. She was born Anne McCarty in 1924 in "Louisville where white folks lived." Her earlier concerns were conventional and non threatening to the social mores of her Jim Crow society. Anne mostly worried about being attractive to boys during her high school years and was even willing to play dumb so as not to alienate them. She underwent a dramatic change in her early adult years while attending college and earning a living as a journalist. The Southern newspapers of that era barely considered a murdered black person worthy of mention. Blacks could fight and die in our wars, but were refused entrance to the voting booth. White criminals were afforded more respect than virtuous and law abiding Afro-Americans. The usual definition of a liberal Southern politician was someone who dared speak out against lynching while remaining firmly loyal to the principle of segregation. Anne ultimately could not make peace with the prevailing zeitgeist. She marries Carl Braden, a man named after Karl Marx. The Bradens soon partner with such luminaries like James Dombrowski, Bob Zellner and Martin Luther King. The latter remarked upon her dedication in his famous "Letter From a Birmingham Jail." Heroic self sacrifice and the constant risk of violence became an everyday reality. The odds were probably no better than fifty-fifty that the Bradens could escape being murdered.
   
   What does the Cold War have to with Anne Braden? Why did the author choose the title "Subversive Southerner?" Catherine Fosl points out the insane eagerness of the segregationists to brand those advocating civil rights as traitors to the United States. In their peculiar way of looking at the world, combatting Jim Crow was the same thing as aligning oneself with our nation's enemies. The Bradens, however, did flirt with Communism and this made it easier for their foes to justify harassing them. A number of prosecutors seeking political power relished the opportunity to put them behind bars for alleged acts of sedition. Anne's relationship with avowed Communists extends to the point where the well known radical Angela Davis even writes the forward for this book. Should we therefore condemn her? Not in the least. Fosl presents a persuasively well put together argument that Anne Braden deserves to be cut some slack. There is no evidence whatsoever hinting that the still living Ms. Braden ever adhered to any orthodox interpretation of Communist doctrine. She seems naively oblivious to the logical consequences of these horrifying set of beliefs. Sadly, mainstream political conservatives did virtually nothing to combat racism in the Old South. Anne Braden was therefore compelled to cooperate with those willing to fight along side of her. She and her late husband were primarily activists and not armchair philosophers. One also does not have to agree with all of Anne Braden's more recent political proposals. Some of these efforts might indeed leave something to be desired. That is beside the point. Ms. Braden definitely has done far more good than inadvertent harm. Catherine Fosl is to be congratulated for making sure that Americans don't overlook her enormous accomplishments. It would be shameful not to honor Anne Braden while she is still alive. I strongly urge you to read this superb biography of one of our greatest American heroes.



2. 'Subversive Southerner' is a must-read for anyone interested in southern history or in the social and cultural upheavals of the 50s and 60s. It's a riveting story of personal transformation and courage in the face of unrelenting persecution by authorities, and a reminder of how fragile and how precious are our civil liberties. Anne Braden is a heroine-- dedicated, single-minded in her pursuit of civil rights, but compassionate and always interested in individuals. There's plenty of bombings, arrests, and HUAC subpoenas to keep you turning pages,and lots of quotes, oral-history style, from major figures from the 50s and 60s. It's well-written--Fosl is an expert interviewer and very good writer.

1 comments about Out of Babylon: Ghosts of Grossinger's.

1. Grossinger, a teacher, writer, and publisher, opens the journey of his life to us in this huge, sprawling tangle of threads and tales. He is--and is not--of the Grossinger family that founded and lost the famed Catskills resort, and he writes compellingly of it rise and fall, rich with memories for New York Jews and others whose childhoods and families were inextricably bound to the resort. He writes of marriage, children, and university life in the `60s and `70s, painting a darker picture than some might remember but capturing its elusive, cannabis-scented texture. He chronicles his extended family and its enormous secrets and terrible demons, probing with relentless attention his haunted brother and, especially, his beautiful and quite monstrous mother. He does all of this more or less simultaneously, so the reader moves from one to another of these stories in wonder at their inevitable links and segues. It is rich in the evocation of New York and the Catskills in the '50s, New England and the Bay Area in the `60s and `70s, and amazement of watching your own children become people, and the sustaining pleasures of baseball, especially the Mets. Somehow it not only hangs together but is actually richer for is energy: one doesn't wish to deconstruct it into the many books it could have been. Exhausting, exhilarating, extraordinary. --GraceAnne A. DeCandido

3 comments about The Secret Eye: The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, 1848-1889 (Gender & American Culture).

1. A Secret Eye was a huge disappointment. The characters were not as developed and colorful as one might expect. The diary/journal form became ho-hum after the first few entries. The dragging subjects and subject matter made the 470 pages difficult to wade through. Augusta has always been my home and I did enjoy some of the local history. I am certain a more interesting story could have been told about my hometown.



2. I thoroughly enjoyed this book! How often does one get to read someone else's diary? (Set during the Civil War, no less.) The author was a well educated, intelligent woman for her time and she is an excellent writer. So many aspects of this diary are completely fascinating. Her pampered southern lifestyle, her views on slavery (she calls herself a liberal re: slavery and yet, she is such a racist.), her feelings on male superiority and her longing to do more with her talents. The entries during the war and after are the most interesting... but DON'T read the introductory notes written by the editor...unless you want to spoil the ending! I wanted the diary to unfold one day at a time without knowing what was coming just as it did for Gertrude. After reading the diary I went back and read the editorial notes which add insight into the author's life. This is a story of a very strong woman enduring unbelievable hardships. If you enjoy history at all you will love reading this diary!



3. I totally diagree w/ the review above because apparently the reader did not understand that this diary is not a novel.
   
   It is true however that the diary does not reveal too much of Ella herself. This is not surprising to me since she states that she is not going to open up to her diary and tell her innomost feelings. Unfortunately!
   However, after she gets married, has children and is much more matured she does reveal a great deal about her life, feelings etc.
   One can only thank that someone took the trouble to record personal information during the antebellum time and afterwards for the readers of the 21st century to read. Thank you.

2 comments about A White Preacher's Memoir: The Montgomery Bus Boycott.

1. Pastor Robert Graetz left seminary with his young family to take a call to Trinity Lutheran Church in Montgomery, Alabama. As a white pastor during the time of the civil rights activity in Montgomery, he writes of his day to day struggle with racial hatred and how it affected his congregation and his family. This book defines the courage it takes to live out Christian justice and mercy and added a dimension to my knowledge of this era I had not yet experienced before I read it. Although I rated it a 9, if someone did not return my copy, I would buy another. It is a must for my library.



2. One thing I really enjoyed about reading Rev. Graetz's book was that it showed some of the diversity that was a critical part of the Civil Rights movement without making the case that African-Americans could not do it alone.
   
   Anytime a book is written in this type of context - a minority perspective on an issue - there is a danger of overshadowing the majority's struggle. In this case, Rev. Graetz merely tells of his involvement in what he saw as the right thing to do. Never does he make a huge deal about his own sacrifice, but instead talks about the general struggle. In the fine line between unique-diversification and over-the-top self praise, Rev. Graetz clearly falls on the side of the first.
   
   In addition, the book looks at different congregational backgrounds in the black community coming together for the common cause.
   
   There are many stories to be told about the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and this is one that should be read.

5 comments about My Life as an Indian.

1. I just came online to see if it was in print. I have had a copy of this book from the 1935 paperback that my Grandfather gave me when I was a boy. Not that I was a boy in 1935, it was actually in the early 70s. . .I was captivated by the stories JW Schultz lived! Helping his friend steal his wife from under the nose of the ever watchful father. It still grips me even today. Alas, my old copy is just that, old. That is how I came to write these words. Ordering a fresh paperback.

   I cannot recommend this book more highly!




2. This is a terrific story of a young white man's time with the Piegan Blackfeet. James Willard Schultz came west for adventure and joined an Indian trading post 45 miles north of Fort Benton, Montana.

   He not only traded furs, gold, liquor, and dressmakers goods to the Indians, but became fluent in the language of the Blackfeet, sharing in their hunts and wars and even taking a young Indian wife.

   It's a somewhat self-conscious story from a masculine vantagepoint during a time when warrior bravado was in vogue and the buffalo were still thriving. This book portrays a segment of Native American life and culture just before the buffalo were diminished and the people were forced to reservations.

   Given that _Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: an Indian History of the American West_ by Dee Brown contains only 2 or 3 pages in reference to the Blackfeet, a book such as _My Life As an Indian_ is a superb addition to one's bookshelf. Recommended.




3. This is an excellent first hand account of the major transformation of Plains Indian culture that occured during the nearly complete extermination of the buffalo which was so central to their life. It starts with the buffalo in plenty and ends with reservation life. This is a bittersweet book. Schultz marries into a band of the Piegan branch of the Blackfoot confederacy. But although he lives among them, and loves them and their lifestyle, he never completes his assimilation. This is evident when he writes with almost distant amusement of some of their religious beliefs. Adding to this is the problem that while he loves the life of the buffalo days and deeply laments their end, his occupation as a trader in buffalo robes is hastening the end of the very thing he loves. His description of the post-buffalo, early reservation life is the most distressing, complete with corrupt reservation Agents, and sometimes rascist newcomers.
   His stories are not all downers though. His writing is a very detailed, intimate, and at times amusing description of his life and those around him. I've loaned my book to a number of people and they all have liked it. If you read this and like it too, you'll be glad to know he wrote a whole series of books of his life in early Montana, and of the lives of prominent people he knew. I've read many, but not all of them, and I prize every one.



4. This is a eye opening I can't put it down book! Seeing how the Blackfeet lived, their culture, social structure, horse raids, war, etc., through the author's eyes is fascinating. As he joins their society, marries into the tribe and lives as the tribe did you will find it informative and insightful. As the old ways pass away you feel his sadness and the end will break your heart. A beautiful, lively, fun book that takes you into another time and place as you ride with Schultz and the tribe. A must have!



5. This is a first hand account of his life in Montana after getting off the boat in Ft. Benton and going into the trading business with a friend. It is a well written account of their life with the Blackfeet Indians, hunting buffalo, daily life, traveling, his marriage to a Blackfoot, the demise of the buffalo, and the arrival of hordes of whites. He also gives us an insight into local politics and business of the times. It held my interest of this period and place of time. I found it to be a delightful book and recommend it for its entertaining and historic value.

5 comments about Nixon's Shadow: The History of the Image.

1. Here we go again.... It's become a "right of passage"
   in the leftist community: if you want to be invited
   to the best wine and sleeze... I mean cheese parties,
   write a book smearing Nixon. Richard Nixon was
   a complex human being, with both good and bad
   sides to him, just like you and me. He had an
   indelable impact on the development of the nation,
   in both positive and negative ways. He is far too
   much damned for his flaws, and far too little praised
   for his successes. This book is just another stale
   hatchet job, written by a hack who will be forgotten
   as quickly as yesterday's toast; just another necrophiliac
   having his way with a dead man. It's easier to
   regurgitate leftist party hate speech than to actually
   research the man's life and be honest about it.
   Don't waste your money on this drek; it isn't
   even good for toilet paper.



2. Greenberg's work is the first I have read that expores the relationship between image and history in an interesting and inviting manner. I think one of the reasons that Nixon invites so much controversy was that he was a complex and contradictory man. He just does not seem to fit. Watergate destroyed him, but you have conservatives railing against him and liberals saying he did good work and vice versa. Greenberg attempts an overview of all these competing images and it is surprising how often the image being projected says more about the writer than Nixon himself. A very interesting book that deserve patient study.



3. Greenberg is a good chronicler of events and few occasions in Nixon's life, however incidental, is missed here. The book is long on details relating to the professional side of Nixon, but I was disappointed that there was a lack of personal anecdote within the covers of the book. Of course RN was an inscrutable, moody, paranoid and ultimately unknowable man, but I would have liked more material on Pat Nixon, as well as Tricia and Julie. Greenberg quotes copiously of Nixon's own self-serving memoirs but doesn't include much primary source material on Nixon as a human being.

   The strong points are the chapters on Watergate and the gradual demise and destruction of RN as President. The ancillary characters of Watergate all get their just due: Halderman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean are described in sometimes sympathetic but occasionally, brutal detail. Reeves shows masterfully that Nixon dissembled and lied to the bitter end, not to the American people, but most disturbingly, to himself. It's well-written and full of detail, just don't expect much on Nixon the man. Otherwise, an enthusiastic thumbs up.




4. I was intrigued about this book when I heard it praised in a lecture by Walter Macdougall, the Pulitzer-Prize-winning historian. He published his lecture and what he said was, "What image will posterity nurture of Nixon? The best analysis is David Greenberg's Nixon's Shadow, published last year. Greenberg describes five Richard Nixons that beguile and perplex the American people."
   
   But after reading it, I agree. Greenberg is younger than other historians who have written about Nixon and so he is, arguably, more objective. This book gives each point of view its due - those who hate Nixon, those who think he's an elder statesman, those who think he is a nutcase. It is as much a book about American political and social life and all of its strife and controversy in the years 1946-1974 (and after) as it is about Nixon himself. It doesn't just praise or bash Nixon - it explains WHY people praised or bashed Nixon.
   
   Greenberg has really invented a new genre of history here. You might call it Rashomon Plus. He shows you Nixon from different perspective but then goes on to unpack these different images of Nixon and explain why they have all taken root in our political mindset.
   
   A couple of the other posts apparently don't like Greenberg because he is liberal. That may be true, but this is not a liberal attack on Nixon, in fact he is more critical in many places of Nixon's critics than he is of Nixon. The "liberals" who came up with Tricky Dick are faulted for sneering at the middle class. And the radical left that attacked Nixon on Vietnam are faulted for being in the grip of conspiracy theories at times. The book gives Nixon's supporters more than their due. (In fact Walter Macdougall is a Conservative.) This is a highly orginal work of history.



5. Interesting recap of the various images of Nixon, some self-crafted, some imposed by friendly or critical onlookers to his long and winding career. The chapter titles serve as a valid sketch of the images:
   
   1. The Califonia Conservatives: Nixon as Populist
   2. The Fifties Liberals: Nixon as Tricky Dick
   3. The New Left Radicals: Nixon as Conspirator
   4. The Washington Press Corps: Nixon as News Manager
   5. The Loyalists: Nixon as Victim
   6. The Psychobiographers: Nixon as Madman
   7. The Foreign Policy Establishment: Nixon as Statesman
   8. The Historians: Nixon as Liberal
   
   Greenberg makes the point that the images layered and overlapped over time, and also makes the point that at this stage of presidential politics, partly as a result of Nixon's imagecrafting, we cynically expect politicians to be in the business of crafting their image, not presenting their true persona or policies.

2 comments about Richard Henry Lee of Virginia: A Portrait of an American Revolutionary.

1. I really enjoyed J. Kent McGaughy's biography of Richard Henry Lee. It really made the political and economic times come to life. Dr. McGaughy's work is brilliant!!



2. If you're interested in reading about a gracious, gentleman aristocrat who has been historically under-credited with helping to guide not only the American Revolution, but also helped construct a new nation upon the principles of democratic stability, you will appreciate this book. The biography's weaknesses include a certain "textbook" (boring) quality in the beginning, which is to some extent necessary to establish the background and heritage of the Lee family in Virginia, but your patience will be rewarded when the narrative escalates as R.H. Lee became active in public political life. Other weaknesses include a certain "jumping back and forth" at certain points that can be confusing to the reader, and a lack of real insight into the actual personality, likes and dislikes of RH Lee. However, the "heart" of the book does accurately and plainly make clear Lee's position on colonial affairs, matters of economics including trade relations between the intercolonies and with Great Britain and other nations, as well as the on-going developing policy of land acquisition and relationships with Native Americans and other colonial developers such as France and Spain. Particularly fascinating, to me, were the very detailed undermining and political backstabbing that Lee was not the aggressor of, but rather the defendant to; Lee, as a prominent representative of his family and other Virginians, was continually thrust into the spotlight to defend his name, his family, and character of Virginian aristocrats' intentions and purposes. The sheer internecine squabbling and petty slander aimed at Lee were almost shocking even by modern standards, and in reading this book, one should develop a better appreciation of the fact that most of the men who authored or advised state and national charters were truly working from personal experience, as they tried to ensure a working democracy with guaranteed civil rights and redresses to give all people the opportunity at true equality and fair-play within the system. By the end of the book, one should also appreciate Lee for having the strength, courage, and character to having diligently served the public from a sense of duty and responsibility to both the family which produced distinguished gentlemen, and to the fellow citizens who benefited from such tireless and conscientious energy. The publication of this book is almost as much of a "public service" as that attributed to its subject, Richard Henry Lee.

No comments about Kentuckians in Gray: Confederate Generals and Field Officers of the Bluegrass State (None).

No comments about Martin Luther King: The Inconvenient Hero.