3 comments about Herndon's Informants: Letters, Interviews, and Statements about Abraham Lincoln.

1. In the preface to his "Life of Lincoln", William Herndon expounded that when writing the history of Lincoln's early life "the whole truth concerning him should be known" and there should be "nothing colored or suppressed." Having set the standard Herndon failed to follow it, for there were something's even Herndon must have felt should not be put into print. Scholars wishing to explore Lincoln's early life beyond the insights offered by Herndon's biography had to turn to examining the letters and notes collected for over a twenty year period by himself and his collaborator Jesse Weik. This often proved to be a daunting task. As the editor's in their introduction noted even though available on Micro roll film specific documents are "very hard to locate" and even if located are "very hard to read." To further complicate matters the index to the Herndon collection prepared by the Library of Congress is "neither accurate nor complete." What Editors Douglas L. Wilson and Rodney O. Davis have done in their "Herndon's Informants" is to transcribe all of the known Herndon, Weik letters and notes into a readable and properly indexed Documentary Edition. What they have also done is create a masterpiece of scholarship that will be used by students of Lincoln for decades to come. "Herndon's Informants" offers the student the complete Herndon collection, unabridged and un-editorialized. To anyone who has a strong interest in learning more about Lincoln's early life this is just about all that is available and it simply must become a part of your personal library.



2. Forget authors, historians with agendas. Read what the people who actually knew Abraham Lincoln said about him.
   
   Before Lincoln's body was cold, William Herndon, Lincoln's law partner for 17 years and friend for longer, began interviewing Lincoln's friends, family members, enemies, acquaintances, neighbors, etc. His goal was to collect as much information as possible about his friend, so he could write a completely truthful biography. "Warts and all" Herndon said. Unfortunately, Herndon soon realized he could not use some of the information he collected because it was very personal and Lincoln's image would be tarnished. Fortunately, some of this information he could not use you will find in this book. While 98% of this book contains very interesting information about all aspects of Lincoln's life. It is the remaining 2%, the unsavory stuff, that is so fascinating! For instance, I was surprised to read about the number of Lincoln's friends who told stories about Lincoln's involvement with prostitutes (before his marriage). Some friends even speculate about Lincoln maybe having one or two illegitimate children. This book contains information I never learned in school about Lincoln!



3. With Herndon's Informants Douglas L. Wilson and Rodney O. Davis have made a tremendous contribution to Lincoln scholarship. Much of what we know of Lincoln's pre-presidential years, especially, was compiled through interviews and correspondence by Lincoln's last law partner William H. Herndon. Although many of these items were published decades ago in Emanuel Hertz's anthology The Hidden Lincoln, that collection's limitations have long frustrated Lincoln students. The only alternative was the expensive and awkward-to-use microfilm verison of Herndon's papers available from the Library of Congress.
   
   Now, however, Wilson and Davis have made this treasure trove of firsthand information available in an affordable and convenient format. Moreover, they have carefully tried to reproduce texts exactly, retaining oddities of spelling and punctuation, a feature entertaining to ordinary readers and valuable to scholars. The book's presentation of documents in chronological order is welcome. Scholars will probably be the main consumers using this product.
   
   This volume is a major contribution to Lincoln studies.

5 comments about John Barleycorn: "Alcoholic Memoirs" (Oxford World's Classics).

1. _John Barleycorn_ by American writer Jack London is a semi-autobiographical novel which deals with Jack London's experiences with alcohol, nicknamed "John Barleycorn" throughout this novel. Jack London was a rugged adventurer who was born into poverty and only became wealthy after his success as a novelist. His early experiences, which he writes about in this novel, were particularly important in the shaping of his thought and writings. London was a very thoughtful writer and all of his writings are philosophical in nature. Philosophically London was influenced by such thinkers as Charles Darwin (and his notion of the "survival of the fittest"), Friedrich Nietzsche (whose superman ideal is seen in London's ultra-masculine heroic characters), and William James (whose psychological theories regarding religion play an important part in the writing of this book). London was a devout socialist (he had been born into poverty and witnessed firsthand the oppression of the working class and the poor by the capitalists); however, his socialism is highly idiosyncratic in that all of his heroes are rugged individualists. London also recognized the harm that alcohol had done to himself and to youth of his generation which led him to believe that Prohibition was necessary (although he continued to drink). While London insists that he is not an alcoholic or dipsomaniac, his experiences with alcohol show the harmful effects that it had upon him.
   
   _John Barleycorn_ began as a suggestion from London's second wife, Charmian, that he write about his experiences with alcohol. London, who had originally opposed woman's suffrage, had just voted for a bill that would give women the vote because he believed that women would vote for Prohibition. Indeed, the novel _John Barleycorn_ became popular with the Woman's Christian Temperance Union and the Prohibition Party which actively campaigned for Prohibition. While London could not have foreseen some of the more disastrous consequences of Prohibition, such as the formation of the mob and organized crime, he certainly understood the dangers that alcohol posed because he had experienced them firsthand.
   
   _John Barleycorn_ relates the adventures of the young Jack London beginning with his earliest experiences with alcohol as a young lad of only five years old. London had been born into poverty and forced to work in a cannery. London, being an adventurous sort with an active mind, grew dissatisfied with his life of toil, and eventually became an oyster pirate. It was at this point where his first real encounters with alcohol and saloon life began. London describes his adventures as an oyster pirate along with his experiences at the saloons and the subtle rules that accompanied the drinking game. Eventually London returned to steady work; however, he quickly experienced the immoralities of the capitalist system when he was asked to shovel coal and made to work the job of two men. London relates further adventures in which he became an unemployed vagrant and was arrested for vagrancy and a gold prospector in the Yukon. London also shows how "John Barleycorn" came to play an important role in his life, as a means for easing social relationships. London also describes his experiences with school and how he attained his education (including a year at the university level) through extreme efforts. London makes use of Viking imagery throughout many of his descriptive passages showing his love for adventure and Nordic folklore. Eventually London was to make his way in the world as an author and he became very wealthy doing so. Later when London had achieved both wealth and fame he was to take a series of voyages to Hawaii, the Tropics, and the South Seas which served as an impetus for new stories. During this time, London became "sun sick" and took to drink to ease his troubles brought on by the tropical climate and the diseases that accompanied it. When London returned home he continued drinking heavily. London describes his encounters with "the White Logic", a gloomy depression brought on by drink, his alcoholic reveries and philosophical musings, and his encounters with death ("the Noseless One"). Indeed, the thought of suicide was to plague London for much of his life. At one point London decided that he would stop drinking; however, he eventually realized that he was unable to do so and decides that he will continue to drink in moderation. However, he came to believe that Prohibition was necessary to prevent the harmful effects of alcohol on the youth. While London argues that he is not an alcoholic, it is clear however that alcohol has had a profound effect on his constitution and mind.
   
   _John Barleycorn_ is a fascinating adventure novel which traces Jack London's life from the time he was a young boy into his adult years as a famous writer. The novel also shows the harmful effects of alcohol on London and shows the need for restraint. Like a great deal of London's work, this novel reveals London's defining social conscience which framed so much of his thinking. In addition, it provides for a fascinating read and is a great source of entertainment.



2. I was tempted into reading this book after finishing London's "Martin Eden", a somewhat autobiographical work of fiction. "John Barleycorn" purports to be more a striaght autobiography that focuses on the role of alcohol in London's life from his first tentative introduction at the age of five to his millde-career as a celebrity author.
   
   Since it is autobiographical and there is no "plot", per se, it was a bit less interesting than "Martin Eden", in that I wasn't quite compelled to turn the page to see what happened next. However, he end of the book makes the intial effort worthwhile. London confronts "death" as a character, having philosophocal discussions with it. These conversations are dark and intellectauly compelling. Turns out that, for London, alcohol was a force promoting death and the contemplation of death.
   
   If you're interested in getting inside the head of one of America's classic authors, John barleycorn is your ticket there.



3. `John Barleycorn' is the so-called "Alcoholic memoirs" of American literary icon Jack London. John Barleycorn was London's nickname for booze, and his relationship with Mr. Barleycorn is one of love/hate. In spite of the sub-title, London persists throughout this drunken autobiography that he is not an alcoholic. Nevertheless, he eloquently chronicles his tumultuous drinking career with the goal of demonstrating the enormous toll that alcohol can take on the mind, body, and spirit. At times, he glorifies his drinking, but for the most part he seems to resent this seductive destroyer of men, and claims that the only reason he drinks so much is because it is everywhere. He sees drinking as sort of a social obligation, a manly thing to do around other men. Not only does he resent it, but he concludes that prohibition is the only way to stop the destructive force of alcohol.
   
   `John Barleycorn' is not only a story about the effects of alcohol on one man's life, but it is also an adventurous tale of one of America's first celebrities rise from rags to riches. The narrative begins with London's poverty-stricken childhood in San Francisco, continues through his teenage years as a brawling oyster pirate, and on into his adult years as a celebrated writer and passionate socialist. The prose is magnificent, and although `John Barleycorn" was highly entertaining, there is also a sense of sadness for me because I know first-hand how agonizing this type of life can be. With that said, this is a fantastic piece of American literature.



4. Jack London is the author that I admire the most among the American authors and this memoir, like his other works I read, gave me great reading pleasure. His life started in poverty, he lived a life of struggle and adventure, alcohol was always present as he grew up, and he felt obliged to drink to fit in the macho social environment, eventually developing a heavy drinking habit. In John Barleycorn he tells his story honestly, he describes the surroundings and characters around him beautifully, and especially his psychological descriptions are superb. In one part, while he was drunk and going by himself on a sloop at night, he falls in the water and he describes how all of a sudden he found himself thinking about committing suicide:
   
   "Thoughts of suicide had never entered my head. And now that they entered, I thought it fine, a splendid culmination, a perfect rounding off of my short but exciting career. I, who had never known a girl's love, nor woman's love, nor the love of children; who had never played in the wide joy-fields of art, nor climbed the star-cool heights of philosophy, nor seen with my eyes more than a pin-point's surface of the gorgeous world; I decided that this was all, that I had seen all, lived all, been all, that was worth while, and that now was the time to cease.....The water was delicious. It was a man's way to die. It was a hero's death, and by the hero's own hand and will."
   
   Such is the depth of his character descriptions, such is the way he reflects the mood beautifully. A "must read".



5. This book is fascinating as a time-capsule of the understanding of alcoholism in the era before Bill W's discovery of the nature of the disease, as well as London's own understanding. London's constantly describes wit and clarity his binges, yet his twisted understanding of his own drinking leaves him no choice but to find his ability to leave the booze alone for months at a time evidence that he was not a born alkie. If you can get around the urge to go back in time and shake some sense into him his incomplete journey of self-discovery is full of profound episodes.
   
   Pete Hamill's introduction is useful for its biographical details but his discounting of how this memoir has been used to support the theory that London's issues were around his conflicted sexuality does not ring true. He describes London's slighting sexual and romantic descriptions in his memoir yet attributes that to London's mother-a possible but not convincing answer when there is so much other evidence before us. It is impossible today to read the passages in which London insists that he drank only to spend more intimate time with the manly men who attracted him from the perspective of today without understanding that the drink allowed more than blustery conversation.

5 comments about The First of Men: A Life of George Washington.

1. Ferling writes a comprehensive story of one of the greatest persons in history. Although it is long (500 pages) it is well-written and very readable. He avoids the tendency in recent years to drag Washington down to a common level, and yet the author is honest with his subject's faults. The book contains a helpful index and not a few illustrations. This reviewer holds a graduate degree in history and currently teaches college history.



2. This book is an excellent account of a man who learned from his mistakes in his early life and used those experiences to control himself and attain recognition as one of the most accomplished men in history.



3. This book was an assigned text in one of my college classes, and that's how I came to read it. I originally wanted to read Flexner's or Randall's biography of Washington, but Ferling's version didn't disappoint me.

   What struck me about this biography is its objectivity. Ferling neither romanticizes about Washington as a demi-god, nor does he try to debase him. In the first hundred pages or so, I felt that Ferling was rather harshly critical of Washington, but by the end of the book, I felt that Ferling had highlighted many of Washington's good qualities as well. Ferling doesn't sugar-coat Washington's faults, but he doesn't ignore Washington's remarkable achievements, either. I liked how Ferling contrasts the brash young Washington of Fort Necessity with the mature Washington of Valley Forge. The father of our country certainly wasn't born with the dignity that later was his trademark, and it was interesting to see how Washington developed his character over the years. This gave me a more realistic admiration of Washington than I previously had.

   An excellent biography about a tremendous historical figure.




4. In an apparent attempt to present a balanced view of Washington, Ferling attempts to psychoanalyze the first president and goes far afield of the materials he has. Often his conclusions are pure conjecture and he frequently criticizes "other historians" for thier conclusions and then draws his own unsubstantiated conclusions.

   Ferling does provide a nice historical accounting of events and details during Washington's life. However, he frequently tries to determine the mindset of Washington and here he repeately fails. Often these attempts are little more than cheap shots. He even criticizes the President for not writing his feelings in his diary when he found that a relative was dying, saying that Washington was afraid to appear "unmanly." This is little more than the insertion of 20th century thoughts and values into an 18th century mind. It does little to shed light on Washington and much to shed light on Ferling's mindset.

   Undoubtedly there are biographies which are equally detailed without the repeated and distracting psychoanalysis.




5. George Washington is probably a pretty tough person to write a biography about. He wasn't really an intellectual and there are not voluminous writings by Washington with insights into his personality like historians have for a Thomas Jefferson, or a James Madison.
   
   This biography is very even and insightful about the personality and life of George Washington from his upbringing, his early military career, the Revolution, and of course his Presidency. Washington emerges as a somewhat vain man but one who, over time, appears to have gained wisdom with age and experience.
   
   The primary quibbles I have with this biography is the author at times may make too many leaps of judgement about Washington's motivations and personality without enough evidence to support it. Secondly, there is not a lot of in-depth analysis about Washington's generalship or his decision making process as an army commander and President.
   
   For example, did the wily Alexander Hamilton manipulate an overmatched President to get his way on economic policy, or was Washington, if not fully understanding Hamilton's scheme, fully in charge and in agreement with it? While the author seems to think it's the later-he doesn't really offer evidence to prove it.
   
   Also at times it appears Washington was a bumbling over achiever who things ended up working out well for in then end, especially his early military career and early in the Revolutionary War (sometimes by Washington deflecting blame on to others). The same could be said about his Presidency. At the same time Washington appears to have become more mature and a better decision maker as he grew older and gained more experience. More could have been said on these matters.
   
   But overall, this is a well done one-volume biography.

No comments about Families and Freedom: A Documentary History of African-American Kinship in the Civil War Era.

5 comments about Running With Bonnie and Clyde: The Ten Fast Years of Ralph Fults.

1. Mr. Phillips is currently considered the foremost authority on Bonnie and Clyde, and for good reason. He is also the editor of Blanche Barrow's recently published memoirs (GREAT). I enjoyed the detail included in this book. His premise is that Clyde was driven in his life of crime by his desire to raid Eastham Prison - one of the worst prisons in Texas. As an historian myself and huge Bonnie and Clyde fan, I would have to say that the raid on Eastham was certainly a part of Clyde Barrow's larger plan (if indeed he had one), but not the sole driving factor. I also appreciate the fact that Mr. Phillips was able to interview Ralph Fults face-to-face, but Mr. Fults seemed to be a bit-part player in the story of Bonnie and Clyde. All in all this book was worth the read - the research is incredible and many former publications' myths and mistakes are straightened out.



2. A very thorough book on Bonnie and Clyde. More in-depth than others I've read.



3. I know this for a fact by the author. My dad, Ralph Fults is who the book is about. John Neal Phillips did not just take my dad's word on the events in the book, he interviewed many people to back up the details of each story. If you want to encourage a young person, who thinks they cannot turn their life around, please give this book to them. It will be a great encouragement to them. If my dad can turn his life around, anyone can.



4. A must read for anyone interested in Bonnie and Clyde, Ray Hamilton, Joe Palmer or about American crime in the 1930's. A well written review of an amazing life, offering a new angle on the story of the infamous Barrow Gang and the long term results of the 1934 Eastham Camp 1 breakout. A great book that takes you on a journey that you can see being played out before you. Buy it, you won't regret it!



5. After reading the Blanche Barrow book, the James R. Knight and the E.R. Milner book I have to admit I was a little disapponinted in this one. I found it to be very self-serving. After all, these people were common criminals who chose to make a life of robbery and violence. Mr. Fults wanted to project the idea that it was solely the corruption of the Texas penal sytem that was most to blame for the lives of the badmen of the era. Also, he constantly surrounded himself with vicious violent men; yet he wants us to beleive that even though he was willing to kill and came close several times, he was basically innocent and an honorable man.
   One last point that confused me. In all the other books, Ray Hamilton was portrayed as afraid of, and loathed by, Joe Palmer. In this books, supposedly they are best of pals and are comforted in the fact that they are executed at the same time. There just seems to be more than a few inconsistancies in thsi book.

5 comments about The Man Who Would Be King: The First American in Afghanistan.

1. If you enjoy history, especially military history, then you will enjoy this book. Written in much the same style as Byron Falwell's "Armies of the Raj," this amazingly true yarn about a Quaker who becomes, if not a king, the Prince of Ghor will keep you wondering just what is going to happen next. I absolutely enjoyed the book. My only negative comment is that the later years of his life are glossed over rather quickly, but, that is understandable since the last years were no where near as exciting as the first 40. I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys history or biographies. Enjoy.



2. Considering all that's happening in Afghanistan today, this is a timely and fascinating story of an American who travled there in the early 1800's. Fast paced book that's hard to put down and it gives a glimpse into early 1800's life in a country that most people still don't understand today.



3. Most people who pick up this book will already have read some of the travelogues of the "mad dogs and Englishmen" who wandered through Central Asia in the 19th and early 20th century: Burnaby and Nazaroff's memoirs, as well as any of Peter Hopkirk's books on the era.
   
   But here we have a real fish out of water story, and a fascinating one at that: an American Quaker leading, or joining, armies through Afghanistan and elsewhere in the name of, variously: the sitting ruler of Afghanistan, the deposed predecessor, his Sikh neighbor, the British Empire, and arguably himself as "Prince of Ghor."
   
   The tale is fascinating because it's so poorly-known, despite the fact that Kipling's fiction, which I understand to be inspired by Harlan and other adventurers of the time, is so well-known.
   
   Undoubtedly, Harlan's own financial misfortune and quiet death contributed to the obscurity of the narrative, but Macintyre does a great job of weaving the scraps together, and keeping the story's pace. An interesting read, and a bit of history which has earned its place in Central Asian lore.



4. A fascinating read in every respect. Macintyre is a fluid writer and the book is a real page turner. Apart from vivid details of the remarkable adventures of the first American in Afghanistan; the intrigues, machinations and sheer depravity of virtually all the players in the great game are in plain sight. The book also provides rare insights - via Josiah Harlan's prism - of British mendacity, misrule and astounding arrogance. Harlan's account of British shenanigans may have a tinge of exaggeration owing to his eventual deep hatred of the Empire and many of its emissaries but the substance of Harlan's writings can be corroborrated in other accounts such as the Great Hedge of India by Roy Moxham (another British author) and in more substantive form with relevant data in Angus Maddison's The World Economy. Macintyre deserves considerable praise for presenting the unvarnished truth, albeit through Harlan's pen, about the largely negative legacy of the British Empire. It is a shame that Harlan's story, despite this wonderful book, remains largely unknown both in the US and the East.



5. In Rudyard Kipling's The Man Who Would Be King, a young adventurer named Daniel Dravot penetrates feudal Afghanistan disguised as a cleric. In this nonfiction account with a similar title, MacIntyre, a columnist for The Times of London, tells the story of the real life adventurer who may have been Kipling's inspiration. He describes the life and adventures of Josiah Harlan (1799-1871), a young Quaker from Chester County, Pennsylvania, who set sail for China in 1822, telling his fiancée that they would marry when he returned. Upon reaching Calcutta, Harlan received a letter announcing that she was marrying another man. He resolved never to return home.
   
   So began his adventures. After a failed stint in the Indian army--an action for which the Quakers excommunicated him--Harlan met Shujah al-Mulk (1792-1842), an Afghan king exiled to India in 1809 after just six years on the throne. Harlan offered a deal: he would raise an army, subdue Kabul, and restore the kingdom. In exchange, he would become vizier, the equivalent of prime minister. The deal struck, Harlan began recruiting native troops, using the U.S. flag as his own. In 1827, he and his army began their long march. But he soon had second thoughts about his army's loyalty. He picked a trusted team, paid severance to the others, and launched his Plan B: dressed as a dervish, he made his way to Kabul, arriving in 1828 just as an epidemic of cholera ravaged the city. Years passed and Harlan changed his allegiance to Shujah's rival, King Dost Muhammad Khan (1793-1863), to whom he became aide-de-camp. This Afghan king granted Harlan's wish for power. The itinerant Pennsylvania Quaker and stilted lover became prince of Ghor, today a province in central Afghanistan.
   
   Harlan's story is riveting. MacIntyre describes his adventures, disillusionments, and eventual return to the United States as the only Afghan general to serve in the U.S. Civil War.
   
   Harlan was not alone in his adventures. In the nineteenth century, a handful of men made dangerous journeys through Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Tibet. Not all survived. Author Peter Hopkirk has chronicled their stories.[1] But it is rare that so much new material surfaces in one book, and for this MacIntyre deserves special credit. After learning of this curious American from cursory references and footnotes in old travelogues gathering dust in the British Library, MacIntyre made it his mission to uncover the saga of this historical Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern. His quest took him to Punjab and Pennsylvania, Kabul and California. He scoured through the official records of the Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Lahore and poured over the intelligence archives of imperial India, whose agents were suspicious of Harlan's plots and schemes. Finally, in a Chester County museum, MacIntyre found a long-lost manuscript replete with love letters and sketches. Explanations of historical and cultural context weave together in his fluid prose. The result is impressive and well-worth reading.
   
   Note
   
   1. See for example, Great Game (London: Murray, 1990); On Secret Service East of Constantinople (London: Murray, 1994); Trespassers on the Roof of the World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)
   
   Michael Rubin
   Middle East Quarterly
   Fall 2006

5 comments about Ben Tillman and the Reconstruction of White Supremacy (The Fred W. Morrison Series in Southern Studies).

1. Ben Tillman and the Reconstruction of White Supremacy by Stephen Kantrowitz is a well written and well researched voyage through an ugly chapter in American history that still reverberates strongly throughout the entire culture. The selection of Ben Tillman as the focus point through which to examine the victory of white supremacy in the South after Reconstruction is brilliant and frighteninly effective. This book is not so much the biography of Ben Tillman but really the biography of white supremacy as a political idea and ideal. This book captures all of the evil idealism, political pragmatism, the unique blend of bomblast and subtlety, and, especially, the terror and violence used by Ben Tillman and his ilk to secure their goals of making the political system of South Carolina all white and all Democrat. It is a wonderful book of an ugly time that is important, unfortunately, to understanding our own time. Well done.



2. I'm currently reading "Ben Tillman And The Reconstruction Of White Supremacy" as part of my ongoing effort to understand the failure of Reconstruction. This is an excellent book that, as one of the reviewers has indicated, is more a history of the post-Reconstruction development of white supremacy in the United States than it is of "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman, although Tillman's life story may be said to be a perfect illustration of white supremacy. Tillman, as a "Red-Shirt" mob and militia leader, governor, and U.S. Senator,loved to brag of his successful efforts to disenfranchise Afro Americans through fraud, murder, manipulation of the laws and legal processes, usurpation of legitmate governmental authority,campaigns of terror, lies, deceits, and the dividing and conquering of any cooperative, biracial political efforts by playing whites and their fears of "negro domination" against Afro Americans and their interests. But more, Tillman did not limit his attacks to Afro Americans aspiring to realize the full benefits of citizenship: poor, landless, uninfluential whites, supporters and sympathizers for Afro Americans' increased citizenship rights, whites who disagreed with his policies and political rule, Republicans, and the federal government were all his enemies and he attacked all of them with the same duplicitous ferocity. It is all too apparent that the legacy that he left was embraced by racists and segregationists throughout most of this century in their opposition to civil rights activities.

   For those interested in the "real", too long hidden history of race and race relations in this country, this book is an absolute must for their libraries.

   In my view, Kantrowitz joins Leon Litwack, Ira Berlin, Eric Foner, W.E.B. DuBois, Frazier, Woodward and the other luminaries of historical writing who worked to provide an accurate, inclusive history of the peoples of the United States of America with this book. "Ben Tillman..." is a book that will fascinate, enrage, infuriate, disgust, amaze, and disturb its readers, especially those who recognize what appear to be parallels between the latter parts of the 19th and 20th centuries and the beginning of the 20th and 21st centuries regarding race and politics.

   Perhaps history is circular after all. Read the book and decide for yourself.




3. Professor Kantrowitz, a professional historian, has written a book that is revealing of the man and the times but too long and detailed for the nonprofessional reader of history. He has mined old newspapers from South Carolina and other documents energetically--and it would appear that every one of his index cards, so to speak, has been carried over into the text. Consequently, there is more detail than this reader needed or could possibly absorb. This failing is compounded by the author's inadequate treatment of Tillman's life. Milestone personal and family events are mentioned in a sentence, with no indication that the author is interested in Tillman the person--although, to his credit, he does on several occasions remind us that Tillman was devoted to his wife and wrote her loving, and playful, letters. But Tillman's relations with his children are not covered adequately. Nor do we learn much about his nonpolitical relationships with friends, relatives and neighbors. In other words, Professor Kantrowitz has scanted the biographical aspects of his book in favor of doctrinal analsyis. He has given his readers too many excerpts from Tillman's speeches, letters and interviews--primarily on how he felt about the place of Negroes in a white-dominated society. Kantrowitz shows that Tillman took a hostile view towards Negroes, as African Americans were called (and worse) in the 19th Century, and yet he and other farmers needed them as low-wage laborers. His racism and support of violence, part of his calculated appeal to white "producers," are well established early on. But the point is made over and over. Tip to readers: Kantrowitz, a disciplined writer in some respects, introduces paragraphs with topic sentences. Very often the supporting detail that follows can be skimmed or skipped because the general point already has been made.



4. The reader from Washington says the book is too long, but he wants more personal detail! How would that happen? Fact is, for a major figure in American political history, Tillman has found biographer whose economy of language is commendable; Kantrowitz only uses 309 pages to do a magnificent job of storytelling and analysis. And it is a great read, especially given the deep and subtle insights that Kantrowitz squeezes from this Dixie demogogue's pernicious but important career. And he does so without turning Tillman into a demon, but rather by revealing that the Senator was not so much a tribute but a trickster of the people, and far from being a populist, served the richest and most powerful of his constituents as he poured salt into the worst of the nation's wounds--the scar of white supremacy. This book is eloquent and profound, and could scarely have been better crafted.



5. Obvious agenda here by a shallow author looking to capitalize on a recently re-elevated subject. The entire book fails to make any positive remarks about the most popular and elected politician in the history of the state of South Carolina. Most of the research by this "author" is conveniently taken from anti-Tillman press while bypassing all of the many contributions to the state and to the U.S. Senate. Tillman was honored and revelled by many fellow U.S. Senators from opposing parties (and from Northern States). He established Clemson University, Winthrop College and the Charleston Naval Shipyard. There were two U.S. Navy Ships named after him. None of these accomplishments and honors are worthy of mention by this spin artist. He conveniently chose to omit, and obviously failed to research, Tillman's admirable private and personal life as it would destroy the credibility of the subject and agenda.

   Kantrowitz fails miserably in the area of accurate and balanced historical journalism. The slant is conspicuous and offensive and breaks the golden rule of interpreting sources and historic events in the context of the times they were written.

   Don't waste your time or money.

5 comments about America's First Dynasty : The Adamses, 1735--1918.

1. I've read all of Richard Brookhiser's biographies of the Founding Fathers (Washington, Hamilton, Morris) and I've enjoyed them all, but I liked this one the least. Brookhiser writes very well and his observations on the character of his subjects are always revealing. He shows how often the best quality in a biographer is not polished prose or research skills, but judgment.

   In his book on the four generations of Adams, however, Brookhiser overreaches. Had he kept his focus on the men, this would have been a fine if undistinguished book. But Brookhiser appears to be trying to say something about families, American dynasties, and the difficulties of sustaining greatness. What he wanted to say, I could never quite figure out. The wonderful aphoristic quality of Brookhiser's prose -- that makes him so good when writing some sharp and brief observation -- fails him when he must sustain an argument.

   An example of this is when Brookhiser writes in his introduction of the contradiction of an egalitarian society having so many political family dynasties, from the Adamses to Bushes. In noting this, he writes "[An American political dynasty] is the tribute democracy pays to aristocracy." This sounds very nice, but it's meaningless. Most of Brookhiser's comments on the significance of American political dynasties and how the Adamses were able to sustain their greatness fall along this line.

   Thankfully, most of this book is on the Adamses, and it is when writing on them that Brookhiser shines. Still, the bad ideas -- even though they don't make up a substantial part of the book -- hang over it. Brookhiser is always interesting when writing about a person, but is not at his best when trying to come up with a conceptual framework to make sense of it all.




2. "America` First Dynasty" by Richard Brookhiser. Sub-titled: "The Adamses, 1713-1918".
   Understandably, this book concentrates on the two presidents, John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Their contributions as one-term presidents help to establish democracy in the nascent United States. Brookhiser notes that the two Adamses were the first presidents not from Virginia. Much of what John Adams did became precedents for later presidents.

   It appears to me that the author makes the tacit assumption that the reader has a fairly good knowledge of American history, so he casually introduces lesser know subjects, such as the "Know Nothing Party " (Native American Party) and the anti-Masonic efforts in upstate New York. This, of course, leads you to things that you want to examine further, but, on the other hand, inhibits the free-flow of the book.

   I think that the author is stretching to consider Charles Francis or even Henry Adams as "greats" who were continuing the Adams "dynasty". I did, however, enjoy Brookhiser's "book review" approach to "The Education of Henry Adams" and Henry's book on Mont St. Michel. Perhaps the next book by Brookhiser would be the comparison of the contributions of the Adamses, the Harrisons, the Roosevelts and the Bushes: all presidents who related by blood.

   I listened to the seven tapes as I commuted around Boston; excellent reading by Dan Cashman. It is appropriate to note the name of the town of Haverhill is pronounced as HAV AAAA rill by the natives.. The reader sounded it out and said Have Er Hill, which is logical but not the way it is said in Massachusetts. Further, the hometown of the Adamses , Quincy, is said as "QuinZZZy".




3. The old style of biography was much like theatre criticism. The more cleverly you could trash the subject, the more you were -- or felt yourself to be -- a winner. When personality peculiarities made subjects as vulnerable to witticism as John Adams' was, we got decades of historical biographers trying to out-acidify the likes of Bernard Shaw. This style had faded significantly by the time David McCullough wrote a biography of John Adams that was unabashedly laudatory...an open fan letter...clear hero worship!

   From Brookhiser's race through four members of the Adams family I learned only two things for sure.
   1. The Adams's irritate him.
   2. The old adage that "the things you criticize most in others are usually your own worst fault" appears to be true.

   The author's rancor calls and raises the rancor he attributes to his subjects. Reading it was an unpleasant experience with little to no redeeming informational or ideational value for anyone but the author's therapist.




4. Throughout much of human history, leaders of nations were the children of leaders of nations. Nearly 230 years ago, a radical notion was advanced in a document that would help to form a new republic: that all men are created equal. Many of those American colonists who declared themselves independent of their king wanted not only to limit the power of the executive but to be sure that they had the ability to choose who that executive would be, rather than to have it pass from father to son. Thus, "only three of the first eight presidents produced potential successors, [and] only three of those sons were considered presidential timber." Two of them were named Adams, and one of them would actually become president.
   
   In America's First Dynasty, Richard Brookhiser uses just under 220 pages to paint compelling biographies of four successive generations of a family from 1735 through 1918, an unusually active one that included two presidents of the United States, a public servant of the republic and his state, and a writer. These men lived through tumultuous and eventful times and played roles in them.
   
   The text appears to be well-researched and is quite readable. Quite a lot of history was packed into a very small number of pages; readers with a good understanding of the times and concurrent history will find their understanding of these characters enhanced. Readers who do not know much of the concurrent history might feel rushed.
   
   In groups of three chapters, each of the subjects is considered. Beginning with John Adams, we're introduced to him already in service of his country, at a dinner party in France. We follow him through the highlights of his professional career, and into retirement. We're suddenly focusing on his son John Quincy, as his career starts at an early age with his father, and how he differs from his brothers, who fall prey to the snare of alcohol. John Quincy himself was distinguished, even becoming president, but (much like his father) was hampered by his distaste for political parties and the method of serving in public office.
   
   Charles Francis Adams married well and held various public offices throughout his career, even running as a candidate for Vice-President on the Free-Soil party ticket. Most of his public life was in state and then federal legislature, followed by a diplomatic appointment by Abraham Lincoln. Brookhiser points out that it is in the family of Charles Francis that the family tendency toward alcoholism is broken.
   
   Henry Adams apparently had no taste for public life, preferring instead to become a writer. Much of the biographical sketch focuses on the creation of his best-known work, The Education of Henry Adams. With only his lineage and his wife's suicide to frame the work, we're left wondering what else Henry did. Perhaps this was Brookhiser's intention: to focus on that which each of the subjects left behind for posterity.
   
   Indeed, after the biographical sketches, we're given several more brief chapters that discuss the family habit of keeping a diary and the writing of history. Brookhiser then attempts to frame much of what we have read, discussing such matters as dynasty and legacy. I found the discussion a bit strange because while various Adamses were clearly concerned with the matter of greatness-returning to the question of who are great men-I was under no impression that the Adamses themselves were much concerned with the legacy of the family. I saw only that they were like every other family, wanting what is best for their children, hoping that they will be of good character and do well for themselves.
   
   Putting the discussion in terms of dynasty might not be so strange when viewed through the lens of history. The fact is that John Adams was there from the founding of the country, and his family remained prominent in American life into the twentieth century. Had Henry fathered children, perhaps the chain of prominent Adamses would be unbroken today.
   
   Given this country's interest in the families that produce presidents, it's hardly any surprise that there would be such interest in a family that produced two presidents, especially in light of the fact that the current president is also the son of a president. In all, America's First Dynasty makes for an engaging read, but the extreme brevity of the biographical sketches left me hoping for more.



5. I saw this on sale and thought it would be a nice 'chaser' after David McCullough's long but excellent "John Adams" that I was just finishing up. I was right, but barely. First, on the good side: it's a well written quick review of the four famous and interesting generations of Adamses. It gets high marks for putting a lot into a small package. Also, all four get equal time, which, given the complexities of each, I appreciated.
   
   On the negative side: it did not surprise me that Brookhiser took a less flattering (and more mainstream) view of John Adams than McCullough. But when his disparagment stretched to the following three generations I started to wonder what size burr the author may be sitting on. If you buy Brookhiser's somewhat malignant view of these four, it then begs the question how such an irascible hypocritical set of men could be so successful. Which is neither asked nor answered.
   
   It was worth the $5 I paid, but I wouldn't pay full price.

No comments about The Fastest Kid on the Block: The Marty Glickman Story (Sports and Entertainment).

5 comments about We Are Lincoln Men: Abraham Lincoln and His Friends.

1. Luckily, I was able to find the Large Print edition at the public library. Written in the modern history style, forming opinions instead of using factual information, he even changes his mind from his earlier writings, LINCOLN'S HERNDON (his law partner), saying he has grown "skeptical" about what he had passed on as facts. Feelings don't matter in factual history.
   
   He intimates that Abraham Lincolnn had "questionable" relationships with Joshua Speed with whom he boarded and shared a room and Ann Rutledge, though Lincoln seemed to have avoided becoming involved with women. He quotes Stephen Ambrose whose opinion was that presidents need a confidant "who can be trusted absolutely never to divulge a secret."
   
   These six spotlighted as "intimate friends" to Lincoln all divulged the letters and confidences they were trusted to keep secure! They profited from the assassination by writing books. His personal secretaries, the two Johns: Hay and Nicolay were no exceptions.
   
   For a private, "close-mouthed," self-educated, diversive president, he had no real friends as a youth, nor as President. He enjoyed his sons, playing on the White House lawn with goats and other farm animals. You can take the boy out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy. Did Mark Twain say that?
   
   Since his orations were considered on a par with Shakespeare, I am wondering if they had speech writers for the presidents back in the 1800s. Are those really his words and beliefs? Did JFK really come up with the "Ask not what your country can do for you" or was that also phrased by some speechwriter? Lincoln was a good actor, sought public influence with his Civil War addresses.
   
   Mr. Donald has won two Pulitzer prizes for his earlier books about Lincoln and many concerning aspects of the Civil War. But I would not call him an expert like Geoffrey C. Ward or William Davis. He is a good researcher.



2. David Herbert Donald has produced an interesting portrait of Abraham Lincoln through the eyes of those who can claim to have known him best. By taking a "friend's eye" view of our sixteenth President, Donald peels back some of the mystery surrounding this very private and guarded man. Some, but not all. As Donald demonstrates, Lincoln was unusually adept of shielding much of his inner self even from most of his close associates. Whether by insecurity at his humble origins and self-taught manner or, (as I am more prone to think), by the design of a very focused ambition which was early on and constantly navigating his life's journey, Lincoln only let those he knew intimately get so close.
   
   The friends (some early life companions, young adulthood companion Joshua Speed, law partner William Herndon, some-time political ally Orville Browning, rival and then acolyte Secretary of State William Seward, and private secretaries John Hay and John Nicolay), give portrayal of Lincoln at every stage of his life. Most give testimony to Lincoln's ultimate reserve, but all have insights, shared thoughts and anecdotes that provide a great depth of understanding at what formed the man and to some extent what made him tick.
   
   Although Donald has a minor psychological theme of motherless-children (Lincoln's mother died at an early age; he benefited from a loving step-mother who he gave great credit to), and the nature of friendships running through the book, most of this is good, solid history. I personally thought the psychological stream could have been left out of this book, but it only occasionally intrudes and never surfaces enough to dominate any chapter of Lincoln's life.
   
   It is instructive to view Lincoln through the lens of those who know Lincoln best, particularly those who knew Lincoln before he was great. Donald has added another valuable work on this most significant and interesting of Americans.



3. David's confusion about Lincoln's sexuality is shown by his going back and forth on the question of whether Abe was in love with Anne Rutledge. At present he seems to deny the legend, which he endorsed a few years ago when Douglas Wilson revived it, having previously followed his mentor J. G. Randall in denying it. Talk about Senator Kerry-like flip-flopping. David, to all appearance a Kinsey "O," is obviously even more at sea about homosexuality. He quoted the obnoxious remark made by Charles B. Strozier (a type who would have fascinated Cesare Lombroso) that a homosexual (or bisexual, in the case of Lincoln) couldn't have led the war or even gone into politics. Have they forgotten Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar? Did they never hear about their bisexuality? But Donald did for a time acknowledge a homoerotic bond between Abe and Joshua; though he has made the outrageous claim to me that no single American president ever had sex with another male.
   When I put C.A. Tripp in contact with David Donald, whom I described to Tripp as the leading Lincoln scholar, I warned him that however much he might learn from David, he could not even hope that David would accept the thesis that Abe had homosexual experiences, and I predicted that David would write a preemptive strike. It duly appeared: We Are Lincoln Men: Abraham Lincoln and His Friends.
   John Lauritsen, an aesthete of unrivaled sensitivity, tells me that in We Are Lincoln Men David writes on two levels: one for the public ("the great unwashed"), who couldn't bear to learn that some presidents were gay; and on another for the initiates, when he describes the banter between Abe and his hardened male secretaries, which borders on camp. At any rate, David certainly notes the electric homoeroticism.



4. Donald's book "Lincoln" is incredible. So maybe I was unfairly expecting too much.
   
   But I didn't learn much from this book. He makes the point that Lincoln did not have any very close friends and therefore there was no one that could truly speak of what Lincoln was thinking.
   
   Much of this book discusses the relationship Lincoln had with each of the people involved. And it then talks some (not a lot) about that those people wrote or said.
   
   But to me, Lincoln did not come out of what was said. I didn't find myself seeing anything new.
   
   Get his book "Lincoln" instead.



5. This was an interesting book. Every historian has a favorite story about one of the greatest American presidents-Abraham Lincoln. He talked plain, told funny stories, and acted like a relative of the family. However, Lincoln had few friends in his life. You can actually count the number on a pair of hands. The reason was Lincoln's upbringing in very isolated areas of Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky. The death of his mother at an early age also stunted his development. Except for two individuals (Speed and Herndon), Lincoln had few long term friends.
   
   Professor Donald goes into all the close friends Lincoln had. He examines the relationship with Speed, and lays the fact that Lincoln had a really close relationship with Speed.
   He also examines his relationship with Browning, Herndon, Seward, his two presidential aides, and a bodyguard. Many others may have known Lincoln, but few knew him in a personal way. Lincoln was a very lonely man with plenty of burdens on him. It is a wonder he managed to guide the country through the Civil War without many personal relationships.
   
   Donald examines all of Lincoln's close personal relationships. He disputes the present accusations that Lincoln was gay with good historical facts. This is a good read for those interested in the Civil War.