5 comments about Grant Moves South: 1861 - 1863.

1. Although Bruce Catton was an accomplished historian in his own right, one cannot help but notice the influence of the great Sherman biographer Lloyd Lewis. Anyone who has read Lewis' _Sherman: Fighting Profit_ will recognize similarities; the heavy reliance on primary sources and the uncanny ability to allow the reader to draw his or her own conclusions without explicitly stating the writer's intentions. Catton imitates Lewis' sinuous narrative style that captivates and draws the reader deeper into the manuscript. Unfortunately, however, Lewis only lived to publish the first of a multi-volume biography Ulysses S. Grant titled Captain Sam Grant . Lewis' widow commissioned Catton to finish the project utilizing much of the notes Lewis had gathered in the course of his research. The results are the two subsequent biographies authored by Catton: Grant Moves South and Grant Takes Command Catton begins his duel biography in June 1861 when Grant, appointed Colonel, takes command of the 21st Illinois Volunteer Infantry. Catton portrays Grant as a man of few words, yet possessing an ability to quickly earn the respect of his men. Grant stresses discipline and training particularly of his company grade officers. About half of the book is devoted to Grants participation at the battles of Belmont, Fort Henry, Fort Donelson and the near disaster at Shiloh. The remainder of the text focuses on the Vicksburg Campaign. Catton prefers a loosely structured chronological approach and provides his readers with a commanding view from headquarters. Catton relies upon letters, cables, and other communiques between officers, which tends to keep the focus on Grant and other high level players. Besides handwritten orders and other official documentation, Catton allows Grant to speak for himself through the only vestige we have: his memoirs. In contrast, Catton listens to what other observers have to say about Grant in their memoirs, particularly William T. Sherman and the unpublished memoir of Grant's wife, Julia Dent Grant. Juxtaposing this top-down approach is Catton's ability to portray the human frailties of Grant's personality. Grant's drinking is a recurring theme in which Catton bestows an admirable defense. Catton devotes considerable space to the Grant's uneasy relationship with General Henry Wager Halleck. To Halleck's charge that Grant disobeyed orders and failed to communicate his intentions at Fort Donelson, Catton counters by stating the Union communication system, as a whole was substandard. He suggests Confederate sympathizers manned telegraph offices squelching vital communiques.   Catton credits Halleck for saving Grant's command during the controversial political maneuvering of General John A. McClernand. Overall, Catton concludes that Grant certainly had his hands full during his early campaigns. On the one hand, Grant had the Vicksburg Campaign to plan and orchestrate; On the other hand, Grant was the target of dubious machinations from jealous staff officers and politicians in Washington bent of relinquishing his command. What is more, Grant was faced with economic issues and the problem of what to do with displaced contraband slaves that were pouring into his army camps on a daily basis. Referring to the former slaves as "Darkeys." Grant immediately put the Negro refugees to work maintaining roads, bridges and other military necessities that required manual labor.Catton again comes to the defense of Grant in his handling of these sensitive civil-military relations. In a controversial order, Grant categorized northern businessmen attempting to exploit profits from the sale of cotton as "Jews." Though these complex themes surrounding Ulysses S. Grant, are significant, they tend to diminish the genius for war Grant displayed during the Vicksburg Campaign. Taking into account that this is a biography of Grant and not a comprehensive treatment of the campaign that sealed his place in history, Catton could have evened out the balance rather than treating the campaign as a mere backdrop. Catton's eloquent literary style and his excellent syntheses of primary sources, make this a must have for any Grant afficionado.



2. "Grant Moves South" shows why Bruce Catton is revered among Civil War readers. This book is a case study of the 1861-63 Grant, using his battles, first person accounts, records and Grant's own words to form a picture of the warrior. In this, Catton does an excellent job.

   His thesis is that Grant was a different cut of General than the north possessed. One who early on grasped both the objectives of the war - to crush Southern armies and not occupy places - as well possessed of the will to learn how to win the new kind of war the country was waging.

   Grant's own iron-cored (Catton's description) sense of himself, as well as his willingness to both learn and take good risks set him apart from almost every other warrior in the North. He was a fierce warrior who from his first encounter with the Confederates understood that the battle had to be taken to the enemy - and that delay for planning, training and logistics benefited the enemy as much as his forces. This appreciation Grant brought with him to the conflict. It is evident from his earliest forays at Fts. Henry and Donelson as well as the inconclusive field of Belmont. Other facets of this warrior had to be learned. In this Grant displayed an openness to the revelations of his own short comings and a willingness to show the world that he was prepared to be a student of warfare. Thus, even difficulties like Shiloh taught Grant that southern demoralization was not a constant factor and that defense in the face of the enemy were necessary and did not sap the fighting spirit of his troops. His early failed approaches to Vicksburg led him to throw away military maxims about supply lines, the necessity of holding fixed points and both the opportunity and advantages of an army living off the land.

   Grant was a learner, an opportunist and a serious warrior who understood what the main thing was. In an era when political infighting and external political considerations mattered more than they seemed to in 20th Century American warfare, Grant let his actions advance his career (with some timely and great help from Congressman Washburn - his first political patron).

   Catton gives the reader the whole story. This is a study of the man and his development as a warrior. Civil War readers who have feasted on the likes of Sears and others who write so well of battles and campaigns at the regimental level may be somewhat surprised that Catton's study relies much less on military detail and more on campaign strategy and command function. In this, Catton's work is more of an epic and serves to give the reader a picture of why things happened rather than an exhaustive account of what happened.

   An oldie but a goodie - Catton should be required reading for every Civil War enthusiast and his Grant military biographies are wonderful examples of a master at his craft.




3. Grant Moves South is part one of a two part Civil War study of Ulysses S. Grant. It covers the period 1861-1863, the period in which Grant emerges as the key commander in the Federal western army. Grant was something of an enigma. In a period of armchair Federal generals, when ego, as opposed to performance, ran rampant in the Federal High Command, quiet Sam Grant unassumingly went about capturing not one but two Confederate armies in the field. During the entire length of the Civil War no other commander on either side captured even one.

   The study of Grant in these years is really the study of Federal victory in the Western Theater of operations. Belmont, Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Corinth and Vicksburg are all key Union victories. With the exception of Corinth, they were all battles in which Grant was in command. It was Grant who was primarily responsible for opening the Mississippi and cutting the Confederacy in two. Emerging from the Civil War as the finest general produced by either side, during this phase of the war, while not the best, he certainly is the equal of Stone wall Jackson or Robert E. Lee.

   His audacious Vicksburg campaign was a signal event. Cutting free from reinforcements and resupply he moves rapidly, deep into enemy territory fighting not one but four major battles to invest Vicksburg from its land side. He then conducts siege operations while keeping Joe Johnston continually at bay. Vicksburg is generally acknowledged as one of the finest campaigns conducted by either side during the war.

   Bruce Catton's book is extremely well done and like all of Catton's works, very ably written.




4. I have always looked upon Grant as a symbol of the real America. Heres a Man who has seen and done it all. What with going from the rock bottom of poverty to commander of the entire Yankee Army then the House House to poverty again. Who never the less maintains his dignity and sense of honor thru out. Then follows up with heroically battling cancer to finish his memoirs to provide for his family. In this 1st book Mr. Catton who writes so well covers Grants rise to the top. Or as he said a major cog just dropped into the machine that would destroy the Confederacy. If you like to read some well chosen words on the War between the States, then get this series of books.



5. In "Grant Moves South" Bruce Catton picks up the story of Ulysses S. Grant as he returns to the U.S. Army at the start of the Civil War. This is the second volume of a trilogy on Grant begun by Lloyd Lewis and completed by Catton. Catton, one of the two best narrative historians of the Civil War (with Shelby Foote), is in excellent form in this extremely well-written biography of Grant's progression from Colonel of Illinois volunteers to victor at Vicksburg.
   
   As General William Sherman acknowledged, Grant was something of a mystery to everyone, perhaps even himself. This man, a failure at virtually everything but his marriage and working as a clerk in his father's tannery in 1861, leverages his West Point education and some political connections into a commission as a regimental commander and never looks back. The Grant portrayed in these pages by Catton is like many officers at the beginning of the Civil War in that he is learning his trade as he went along. But Grant is different from most of his contemporaries, many of whom had far better reputations in the peacetime army. First, Grant had a remarkable ability to make sound common sense judgements under stress. Second, Grant married his ability to make decisions to an utter determination to see a project through. Third, Grant was a man seemingly without illusions; his ability to correctly characterize the task in front of him in order to attack it is rare among his contemporaries. These characteristics carried Grant through his apprenticeship as a regimental commander of volunteers, his successful campaign to secure middle Tennesee through victories at Forts Henry and Donelson, and finally his tenacious campaign to reduce the Confederate stronghold at Vicksburg. Grant's ability to understand and lead volunteers was a key underpinning of his success throughout the war.
   
   Catton does not sugarcoat Grant's record. Grant was not above politicking for jobs or assignments. He was badly surprised by the Confederates at Shiloh and avoided being beaten to some degree by refusing to admit defeat and retreat. His pre-war problems with alcohol pursued him into the service, including an apparently memorable bender during the Siege of Vicksburg that Catton unflinchingly documents. The Vicksburg campaign was marked by costly trial and error, as Grant tried and discarded several unsuccessful approaches to the city. Grant, to his credit, persisted, finally rolling the dice by crossing the Mississippi and boldly placing his army between two Confederate forces while temporarily cut loose from his lines of communication.
   
   This book was first published in 1960. Details and interpretations of events have evolved, but Catton's superb prose stands the test of time as a wonderful reading experience. This book is highly recommended to the general reader with some knowledge of the Civil War and to the student of the Civil War looking for the broad sweep of history not found in highly specialized studies.

1 comments about Father Struck It Rich.

1. "Father Struck It Rich" was written in 1936, long before it became popular to write a "tell-all" about one's famous life. This autobiography by Evalyn Walsh McLean is a refreshingly honest story of a life shaped by wealth and power near the turn of the century. She was raised in the Colorado mountains by parents who instilled a sense of responsibility and kindness in their daughter. Her life changed when her father "struck it rich" in the Ouray mountains. After moving to Washington, she became part of the inner circle of the wealthy and powerful. She led a life of extravagance and eventually married Ned McLean, heir to the Washington Post. She is well known for having acquired the Hope Diamond. Of course, she suffered great tragedy in her life with the premature deaths of her beloved brother and son and the eventual loss of her great wealth. However, she does not attribute these misfortunes to the famous stone. She gives a frank account of living amongst the rich and powerful and entertaining kings and presidents. Unfortunately, her husband was spoiled by money (mostly her's) and influence and never rose to greatness, even as a husband. She later raised her three children without the trappings of great wealth and tried to give back to society using the principles taught to her by her parents. The one thing that she clings to is her father's idea that there is no true generosity in giving money if the giver has much money. Unless you give of yourself, it costs nothing and therefore means nothing. She teaches us that "money does not bring the big things in life-friends, health, respect-it is so apt to make one soft and selfish." Love of others and peace in your soul are ingredients to happiness. The book leaves the reader wanting to know even more about the end of her life and the lives of her children. Great reading!

No comments about They Married Adventure: The Wandering Lives of Martin and Osa Johnson.

5 comments about Jesse James: The Man and The Myth.

1. Marley Brant is perhaps better known for her book on the Younger brother, partners in crime with Jesse James and his brother Frank. There have been literally dozens of books on the story, and one might legitimately ask, why another one? I opened the book to pages 58-59 and immediately found the apocryphal story of the alleged attack on the farm outside Kearney, Mo. where Jesse was born, which supposedly occurred in February 1867, presented as fact. I checked the source, note #4, Chapt. 6, on page 274, and found it to be I, JESSE JAMES, a work of historical fiction by Jesses great-grandson. In his book, JESSE JAMES WAS HIS NAME, by William Settle, one of the few reliable accounts, this yarn is debunked, in note 34, page 210 by Robert James, Frank James' son. It appeared in the mythmaking writings of John Newman Edwards, the father of the James myth, in the 1870's. I would have given this book a four star rating, but for things like this. The book in in fact rather dated, in light of more recent scholarship. The fact that it came out somewhat after
   the 1996 DNA testing on the remains of Jesse James and spate of cable documentaries about same, and was only published in paperback, indicates that it was probably intended to cash in on the backwash of interest generated by the media. Brant went on to write a book about Southern rock music.



2. This is an extraordinary book!
   As a Civil War buff in years past, I was particularly drawn to historical biographies. In recent years, I have developed a keen interest in the Post Civil War and Outlaw periods. I've visited many historical sites, museums and the like. I've heard lectures and had conversations with on-site historians, academic pros and other enthusiasts. When the subject was JESSE JAMES, virtually all of them spoke highly of this book and considered it a "must read." That's what led me to buy the book. I am amazed at the depth of the research, much of it painstakingly conducted first hand. It is unusual to see such a strong mix of documentation -- archived legal papers, state records, historical first hand accounts, family accounts and so on -- gathered in such a logical, readable format. Events are well chronicled and presented in an engaging manner. Conclusions are both logical and thought provoking. To use a cliché (as I am definitely not a writer/biographer!) I found myself reluctant to put it down. Rarely have I experienced such pleasure in getting to know an important historical figure, their times and the forces that would drive their destiny. I can personally recommend "Jesse James" to anyone seeking scholarly knowledge of the man and his times. Jesse's remarkable personal story truly comes alive in this engaging, artfully presented and very well written book. I now look forward to reading more of Ms. Brant's books -- for knowledge AND pleasure!



3. I did not check up on the source of references for this book, but I really enjoyed the reading! It was the most interesting factual book I have read in a long time. I thought the Author was very clear on the instances that were tall tales and what not. So over all, if your interested in a spicey history such as Jesse James, I highly recommend this book.



4. Apparently, Hollywood paid Brant to do research for a movie on the Younger Brothers. Without a doubt, the research overlapped to the James brothers. For the first ¾ of the book, she does a fare job of exposing the myths & must have tired because she took the last quarter to reiterate the dime store versions of history.

   I question not so much of what was written, conversely what was left out of the book that would eliminate the absolutes is disturbing.




5. a little wordy in the second chapter, but it is finally understand able why jesse and frank james reacted to their family and defending what they believed in. loving their family and what is good. hating what was not right in their eyes.

No comments about Adventures of Theodore Roosevelt (NG Adventure Classics).

2 comments about The Man Everybody Knew: Bruce Barton and the Making of Modern America.

1. This is a well-written, well-researched, long-overdue biography of an important figure in advertising and American life.
   A glaring omission, however, is the lack of any mention of or reference to Joe Vitale's pioneering book on Barton's methods: The Seven Lost Secrets of Success.
   For anyone who wants to know the principles by which Barton accomplished what he did--and how they can put Barton's methods to work in their own business or career--Vitale's Seven Lost Secrets of Success is the book to get.



2. Richard Fried wrote a fantastic book on US Cold War homefront pageantry (THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!) a few years back, but he's perhaps not the world's most dramatic writer, and his new biography of legendary adman Bruce Barton is serviceable, but nothing outstanding. Fried estimates that Barton was the 20th century's most famous man for whom no full length biography had ever been attempted. That may be so, but maybe there was a reason no one else had tried to get Barton into hard covers.
   
   From what I can make out, his achievements are paltry, and boosted by hot air (he was, after all, one of the kings of Madison Avenue, though not a particularly original designer or thinker). As Fried reveals, Barton was so well-known at the time that many credited him wrongly with every advertising campaign that got noticed; thus he was like the Dorothy Parker of advertising (Parker got the credit for every halfway decent quip uttered at the Algonquin Round Table.) His agency, BBDO, made the Campbell Kids popular on TV, and Carton thought that their creation Chiquita Banana, a talking banana developed for United Fruit, was a masterpiece. Values are screwy in the ad world, and yet Barton had the balls to write one of the all time best sellers of the 20th century (the #1 nonfiction book of 1926), a life of Christ called THE MAN NOBODY KNOWS in which he attempted to paint Jesus Christ as the ultimate businessman, good at molding little people into good workers, a glad hand for everyone, the kind of guy who pats you on the back at a Kiwanis luncheon.
   
   Barton played up his marriage as something sacrosanct but he got caught with his pants down in the early 1930s, when a conniving pre-Code type of minx got her hooks in him and threatened to expose their office affair unless he paid her off to the tune of $25,000. When he did, and she came back again with renewed demands, he went public with his affair, and charged the woman with blackmail. He handled the whole sorry mess with aplomb, but it left his reputation a little dog-eared, poor guy.
   
   Oh well, it was worth a try but at this date it might be too late to try to rehabilitate one of the dumbest careers of modern times. Fried does his best but fails to convince us that Barton's life was any more interesting than that of, oh, someone like Dick Clark. There's shallow, then there's mad shallow.

1 comments about One of Lee's Best Men: The Civil War Letters of General William Dorsey Pender.

1. I have a great interest in the U.S. Civil War and I have read many books on it. You always here about the most notable generals like Lee, Jackson, Stuart, Grant, Sherman, etc.., but you hardly here of the lesser known ones like Pender. Being a North Carolinian, it is very gratifying to know that some great men and officers fought from your state. Pender was one of those men. In this book, his letters to his wife reveal his true character. He was a loving husband and father, a dedicated soldier, and a man of faith who believed himself to be very unworthy before God. As the war progresses, his letters become more mature and earnest in nature. He desires for an end to the war; to live to a good old age with his wife; and to see his children grow up. He is a strict disciplanarian as an officer and he soon earns the respect of his troops and his superiors including Lee and A.P. Hill. Just before Gettysburg, he is promated to the rank of major general at the age of 29 and fights gallantly on the first day. Unfortunately, he is wounded on the second day and dies a few weeks later. His death is mourned by his troops and especially by Lee and Hill. Pender was a promising officer who died to early in the war and at a very young age. His letters are heartfelt and very touching; a must read for anyone interested in Pender and great officers of the Civil War.

3 comments about For the Hell of It: The Life and Times of Abbie Hoffman.

1. Without question, the best of the recent spate of Abbie Hoffman bios. Lucid, well-researched, with more than 200 oral histories. What prevents it from receiving a "10" rating is that Raskin devotes only one short chapter to Hoffman's life in the late seventies and eighties. Despite the lack of attention paid to Hoffman's later life, the material leading up to the last chapter flows nicely, and tells the story of a complex, energetic, and ultimately great American.



2. Abbie survived under fake ID, after a drug bust,but succumbed to personality disorder,for which he took medications, He was America's foremost radical->Activist- of 60's, he fought for the enviroment in 70's.....watch for movie of his life.."Steal this Movie"...



3. I wonder if Raskin would ever be so hypercritical of just about every statement she has ever made, the way she is of Abbie. The book was interesting at first, but I feel she went way overboard in disecting everything Abbie said and how "factual" it really was. After a while it seemed like one big critique of everything Abbie said. Like she set out to prove he lied about everything. "Well, he said this and I went back and interviewed five different people who said it actually happened like this." To me a biography should be about how someone lived, not a dissection of everything they said. She really turned a fascinating story about a very creative and excitng person into almost a police report - "just the facts, mam."

   This book really bugged me!

5 comments about Pat F. Garrett's the Authentic Life of Billy the Kid.

1. Frederick Nolan's annonations to Pat Garrett's famous book do an excellent job of debunking many of the oft-repeated myths about Billy the Kid. I especially like the fact that Nolan occasionally ranges beyond Garrett's book itself to discuss how these Billy the Kid myths have been portrayed by later books and films. His commentary also helps fill in some of the background details about the Lincoln County war. You should note that I said "details," however; if you've never read about the Lincoln County war, this work probably isn't the ideal introduction to that messy, complicated affair. Nolan mostly seems to assume his readers are already at least mildly acquainted with the major events, places and people involved in the Lincoln County war. I also sometimes found myself wishing Nolan had annonated a bit more extensively (there are some entire chapters -- albeit very short ones -- through which he offers no commentary). The book's layout, while reasonably clear and clean, sometimes leaves a bit to be desired, with Nolan's notes often falling on different pages than the original text he's commenting upon.



2. I would like to begin by telling you that this was a great action packed book. It was very exciting. What I enjoyed most about this book is how Billy is always getting into truble. When he isn't robbing a bank he is getting chased by indians. The only critism I have about the book is it makes Billy seem like a hero. Billy wasn't really a hero he was an outlaw.



3. The simple fact that there are so many other facts about the killing of Billy The Kid besides Garrett's story makes me wonder if he really killed The Kid at all. I really think that Garrett simply wanted the reward money for himself (which he was denied) and to use this event to help him further his political career. Seems to me it did not work since everything he did afterwards seemed to fail for him. Truthfully, I think we will never find out the truth except that Garrett will be remembered as the man who killed The kid by those who believe Garrett's story. I for one as with many other Historians think that Garrett's story is not totally truthful.



4. The story of Billy the kid is always good. Here it is in the form the sheriff, who shot him, wants us to belive.
   The book is a mix of dime-novel fantasies and fackts of the capture and killing of the kid.
   It is funny to read how the kid apperes in to forms: the form of a boyish dime-novel hero and in a (more authentic) blurry form of af kid-warrior-criminal who is in over his head and with no real purpose in life.
   Throughout the pages of the story the historican, Frederic Nolan, hints us in note-form any time the writers of the book forgets importen facts, exaggerates, is inaccurate or makes up events of pure fantasi. He also supply us with background knowledge on importens events that needs bigger understanding than the writers supply us with - thus putting the fackts wright and making the reader see, what details in the story the writers perhaps did'nt know, had misunderstood or wanted to conceal.
   "The authentic life of Billy, the Kid" is not at all authentic, but it is written by a person who knew the kid first hand and had a big influence on his story. It is funny to read how he describes his own role - a role that right from the start has been surrounded with controversy.
   Good entertaining reading. But not the most trustworthy biografy, if you want to know what really happend in the life of Billy the kid.



5. This book was written by a ghost writer for Pat Garrett and set the stage for future Billy the Kid authors. The book is fictionalized in many places in an attempt to make the book flow better and to make the book more interesting. But, since the book was co-authored by Garrett, succeeding authors used it as a reference thinking he knew the kid well. But, Garrett did not know Billy as well as he led people to believe. The really good things about the book are the areas talking about Garrett's own experiences. But, the reader needs to be careful and not believe everything they read in this book. It could hurt them when reading more factual accounts of Billy's life in the future.

5 comments about Acheson: The Secretary of State Who Created the American World.

1. I found the biography rewarding primarily for the examination of the character of Acheson. Although the book was well-written, my greatest pleasure came from reading the details behind such a powerful and successful man, and I felt I shared many of the qualities of what was once greatness.



2. Dean Acheson, who served as Harry Truman's Secretary of State from 1949 until 1953, was in that office during a series of momentous events. This was the period when the People's Republic of China emerged victorious from the Chinese civil war, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was organized, the Korean War started, and the superpowers' nuclear arms race commenced in earnest. It is no wonder, therefore, that Acheson entitled his State Department memoir Present at the Creation and that his biographer James Chace, who teaches at Bard College, paraphrased that title for the sub-title to this book. Acheson was a great Secretary of State, and, although I believe that this biography is longer on description than insight, it is a very good narrative of one of the exceptional public careers of the 20th century.

   At the risk of stereotyping, Acheson was Eastern establishment to his viscera. The son of the Episcopal Bishop of Connecticut, young Dean went to Groton School (where Franklin Roosevelt also received his secondary education), Yale College, and Harvard Law School. After clerking for Justice Louis Brandeis and making the acquaintance of the Supreme Court's other Olympian figure, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Acheson practiced law at a prestigious firm in Washington, D.C. Acheson was a good enough lawyer to have been offered a federal appellate-court judgeship in the mid-1930s, and he was under consideration for appointment as Solicitor General when President Roosevelt died in 1945. But it is, of course, as a long-time State Department official that Acheson is best known.

   Acheson intellectual eminence is obvious, but Chace makes clear that, as Secretary of State, Acheson was an implementer, not an innovator. Acheson believed strongly that foreign policy was made in the White House, and, according to Chace, Acheson brought a "relentlessly pragmatic approach" to serving the will first of Franklin Roosevelt and then of Harry Truman. But some Acheson-era policies clearly were rooted in his attitudes. In the 1930s, Acheson supported an "interventionist foreign policy," and, in 1939, two years before the United States entered World War II, Acheson favored a "military and naval buildup" as part of what he called a "realistic American policy." These were to be recurrent themes during Acheson's State Department years. I was surprised, therefore, by how little thought was given to the post-war world until virtually the end of World War II. Chace entitles one of his chapters about the early Cold War "No Grand Strategy," but that phrase could have been applied to the entire era. Part of the problem, as Chace makes clear, was the sheer technical difficulty of some of the issues. For instance, in discussing what we now know was the beginning of the nuclear arms race, Chace writes that "Acheson was well aware of his own limitations in understanding the scientific aspects of atomic energy." Chace repeats an often-told, but splendid, anecdote about J. Robert Oppenheimer, the principal organizer of the Manhattan project which designed and built the first atomic bomb, trying to explain to Acheson and another high government official some arcane point in nuclear physics and then stating is exasperation: "It's hopeless! I really think you two believe neutrons and electrons are little men." It is understandable that even the well-educated Acheson struggled with cutting-edge scientific concepts. What is more difficult to comprehend is why Acheson was not better prepared for the victory of Mao Zedong's Communist forces in China in 1949 and the outbreak of the Korean War the next year. Chace explains that "myriad problems [faced] the new secretary

   This book constitutes very solid biographical writing, but it has surprisingly little personal color. Although Acheson was famous (or infamous) for having one of the sharpest tongues in Washington, D.C., it is only rarely on display. But, when Chace shows this side of Acheson, it is wonderful. For instance, in a latter to Harry Truman, Acheson referred to the Bay of Pigs disaster as "this asinine Cuban adventure." In an interview several years after President Kennedy was assassinated, Acheson told an interviewer that Kennedy "did not seem to me to be in any sense a great man." .... And, while serving as one of Lyndon Johnson's "Wise Men," Acheson instructed Johnson's national security adviser on one occasion to tell the President to "take Vietnam and stick it up his a--." Chace's approach to his subject tends to be too reverential. There is plenty about Acheson to admire, but this book's readers would have benefitted from a more thorough exposition of his human, fallible side.

   This probably is as close as we will come to a definitive biography of Acheson. If one also considers Acheson's State Department memoir, which received the Pulitzer Prize in 1969, there may not be much more to say. Nevertheless, I believe that some questions remain. Most prominently, how do we reconcile Acheson the international Cold Warrior with Acheson the bitter opponent of Senator Joseph McCarthy? Can we separate the obvious threat to American national-security interests in the late 1940s and early 1950s from the clearly-exaggerated perception that there was an equally serious internal security threat to the United States? In particular, I wish that Chace had considered the possibility that Acheson was Dr. Frankenstein to McCarthy's monster.... But the men may have had more in common than either would have been willing to admit. In the final analysis, however, this biography should be taken on its own terms, and, my criticisms notwithstanding, it is very good.




3. Coming to terms with the United States' numerous mistakes in the twentieth century is a herculean task, but ACHESON : THE SECRETARY OF STATE WHO CREATED THE AMERICAN WORLD is a start. As a reader who is mostly interested in Asian affairs, but started my college education studying European affairs, this book is enlightening. Not only is there a deficit in the information-gathering department, but also the policy-making department as well. This biography reveals most of the strains in American foreign policy from a personal angle.

   Americans of an older generation instinctively understand European thinking and politics better than Asian, or any other continent's, policies, even if most American policy is idealistically shaped with European realism as a foil. This biography maps just how that pattern of thinking worked, and the consequences in Korea and Vietnam.

   This book also reveals some of the tensions in American foreign policy, between domestic party lineages and philosophical differences (like "doves and hawks"), that are being played out again in debates over China and Theater Missile Defense.

   The portrait of this man is fascinating, and, as were many of the men and women of that century, he was intelligent, principled, and ambitious. That so many brilliant people could not have done better is the real story, and, fortunately, one to which this book may contribute.




4. The seventy-five years spanned by Dean Acheson's life saw the radical shift of America's role in the world from one of a significant, but none the less marginal power, to becoming that world's chief law enforcement officer, judge and--in several instances up to the present day--executioner. Chace's contention is that, to a large extent, Acheson was responsible for the shift.
   Overstated in the title, the text indicates someone rather different from an earth mover and shaker. Acheson was, in fact, a frequently puzzled, often wrong, usually pragmatic, but sufficiently arrogant Secretary of State to push through policies with a self assurance that indeed profoundly affected the place America would play for over a half-century to come. But it is the personal relationship between two disparate individuals, President Truman and his Secretary of State, that especially intrigues Chace and that will leave the reader wondering as well.
   Definitely a member of the East Coast elite--a graduate of Groton and Yale, then on to Harvard Law School--Acheson's life and background were a sharp contrast to that of the Missouri haberdasher. The contrast between Acheson and Truman is very simply illustrated by noting their similar reaction to General MacArthur's farewell speech before Congress, but expressed rather differently. Acheson called it "bathetic," Truman referred to it as "b-------t."
   So how could these two have worked so closely together, and so effectively in pushing radical and rather unpopular foreign programs through a fractious and often openly hostile Congress? At least part of the answer was that Truman had a "buck stops here attitude," one which allowed Acheson to advance programs he knew would be fully supported by the President.
   Chace's work touches upon events of Acheson's life that, while not new, do put a different emphasis upon what were once accepted as historic givens. For example, MacArthur is most usually remembered as the headstrong field commander who did as he pleased. That was perhaps true near the end of the Korean debacle but, as Chace correctly points out, the bosses back home, including Acheson, Marshall and Truman were cheering him on while Mac was succeeding, became ambiguous in their instructions when he began to fail, and then threw all the burden of blame on his shoulders when it seemed the Americans and their allies were about to be driven into the sea.
   Not only did Acheson's concern for Europe and fear of Communism lead him into disastrous policies elsewhere, but it made him as well as many others in Truman's and later administrations, to overestimate Soviet military power and its threat to Western Europe and underestimate the extent and quality of the Soviet scientific community.
   Unfortunately, the author presents the entire "Acheson era" as though it occurred in a domestic political and social vacuum. As examples of this narrow view, there is little mention of how the agonizing shift from a wartime to a peacetime economy, the incipient civil rights movement and the flips and flops in the business cycle began to focus public attention inwards. More importantly, there is no indication of the impact of the new medium-TV-and how it began to influence what was once the very private prerogative of the diplomats. The "open covenants, openly arrived at" dreamed of by the mystical Wilson were already showing signs of becoming a reality when Truman became the first President to appear on the screen in America's living room, and yet Chace shows little indication of recognizing that change.
   The one map in the volume was hardly worth including, but the notes and bibliography are thorough, and the photos have a remarkable value of their own. The depicted people in power illustrates how remarkably different they were from their counterparts fifty years afterwards. White, Anglo Saxon men dominate the photos. A concession is made to Frankfurter, none to women except for Acheson's wife and mother, both of whom are definitely and exclusively pictured in those roles.
   All in all, these photos speak well of the remarkable change that has come to Washington in two scant generations. The outspokenly liberal Truman didn't even leaven his cabinet with a Ma Perkins, while the unabashedly conservative Bush of the current administration has surrounded himself with Latinos, Blacks and women. Anyone viewing the current cabinet must indeed wonder what Acheson would have thought of it.
   In looking back at his long career as a public servant and as an advisor to presidents, it would be nice to be able to rewrite history and to give him the position of Under Secretary for Middle Eastern affairs. Nowhere was he more right in his assessment, nowhere more astute in proffered solutions to what now seems to be an insoluble situation.
   In short, Chace's biography is a description of a person who had risen to a position beyond him. Perhaps it was a position beyond anyone, but Acheson was someone who could have provided valuable service to this nation and to the beleaguered nations of the Middle East by his far-seeing view of what America's policies in that part of the world would mean for the latter twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Unfortunately, back when he did have the opportunity to prevent the formation of repressive regimes in that part of the world, he was far too much concerned with having anti-Soviet dictators in charge of Middle East nations then in seriously considering the plight of their subjects.
   As it is, his legacy is a dubious one. Troops scattered across the globe, a strange indifference to internal happenings in Africa, an inability to comprehend the rage in the world against the U.S. and a sudden casting adrift of America's purposes as a result of the demise of the Soviet Union; all these can be attributed in large part to Acheson's policies as Secretary of State under Truman.



5. James Chace does a great job in listing all kinds of facts and anecdotes about Dean Acheson and his contributions to American Cold War policy. (I think that his book is the only true comprehensive biography on Mr. Acheson out there, too.)