5 comments about The Women of the House: How a Colonial She-Merchant Built a Mansion, a Fortune, and a Dynasty.

1. I really enjoyed reading this book. It gave interesting insights into how colonial New York was developed, mixing the lives of one family with the broader stage of changing governments and cultural values. Great book!



2. If the walls of the Philipse Manor Hall could talk, what stories would they tell? Zimmerman gives voice to the women who lived in the house, from humble beginnings to New York's high society.
   
   Margaret (1659-1691) would become the richest woman in New York. She attended elementary school in Holland and would use her reading, writing and math skills to become a she merchant. She would own trade vessels, property in Manhattan, New Jersey, Albany and Barbados. Margaret would also have a family and raise five children. (She merchant was a term applied to females who were respected for their skills in commerce.)
   
   Catherine (1652-1730) was an heiress who married Margaret's widowed husband, Frederick. She would build a church and was appointed the guardian of Frederick II, her step-grandson. Frederick II would inherit a large portion of Margaret and Frederick's estate.
   
   Joanna (1700-1765?) married Frederick II. Due to the hard work and the business savvy of Margaret and Catherine, Joanna was able to be a society matron. I loved the description of the dessert buffet, complete with marzipan hedgehogs made by the hostess and her daughters.
   
   Mary (1730-1825), Margaret's great granddaughter, was a beautiful socialite. She had a number of eligible bachelors after her hand in marriage, among them George Washington. Mary and her family lost most of the family fortune during the American Revolution.
   
   The book also deals with the unethical practices of this time period: slavery and piracy. (However, in the 17th and 18th Century, many people did not think these practices were wrong.) Margaret and Frederick added to the family fortune through transporting and trafficking slaves from Africa. Frederick also did business with "the King of Pirates," trading in slaves, tobacco and rum. The Philipse family would continue to own slaves until the very end. They would also have a personal connection to a slave revolt.
   
   Zimmerman makes the colonial period come alive with her storytelling and interesting trivia that ranges from hummingbirds to slave gangs. There are detailed notes for each chapter and sixteen pages of black and white pictures. It is unfortunate that the women in the Philipse family did not leave any journals or letters because it would have been interesting to read their own thoughts.
   
   Armchair Interviews says: Travel back in time to meet the colorful inhabitants of Colonial New York.



3. Early America, and indeed most of the world, was a man's world. Women couldn't own property, vote, etc. etc. Margaret Hardenbroeck must have stood out as a wolf among sheep. In 1659 she moved to New Amsterdam (Manhattan) -- young (22), single, a business factor or agent for her family's business, a 'she-merchant' or today what we could call an entrepreneur.
   
   Our limited studies of the women of the time usually show them as individuals but reflected in the light of their husbands. Martha Washington, Abigail Adams were indeed strong women, but we would never have heard of them except for their husbands.
   
   Margaret made her own life, hers was not a reflection of her husband. She made her own way. She was probably not a nice person. In the way we think of Martha Stewart, she was tough. And as a slave trader we need to remember her in the light of her time, not of ours.
   
   Much of the book covers life in New Amsterdam at the time, with only supposition that this was how Margaret lived or what she did. There was limited material available on her personal life, much more on her business activities.
   
   This book opens up a new aspect of life in Dutch America, and of the rights and lives of women in our history.



4. I bought this book for my wife and she would really like to rate it at 4 1/2 stars. Interesting characters in an interesting time, a you learn a great deal about New York and the changing position of women in society.



5. A fascinating account of several remarkable women who were lost in the mists of historical records, The Women of the House entertains its readers while still providing historical knowledge of the time period. Women were and will forever be crucial aspects of our society, yet they are constantly forgotten in history. This book allows us to look at the colonial lifestyles in a new way, in the perspective of a talented woman.
   
   In 1659, one of the most remarkable women in history arrived at New Amsterdam, determined to establish her presence in the form of a she-merchant. Her name was Margaret Hardenbroeck, and she would be one of the first to defy societal norms and create a dynasty at Philipse Manor Hall. She arrived with a duty to serve as a representative for a trading business conducted by her cousin, a well-off merchant named Wouter Valck. Margaret had grown up in a middle-class family, and possessed particular skills in the art of business transactions. Arriving at Manhattan, she wasted no time and soon established herself as an important figure within the community. Within a couple months of settling, on October 10, 1659, Margaret wedded Pieter Rudolphus de Vries, who was six years older than her father. The couple hurried to the alter due to their coming baby, despite the Dutch Reformed Church's sinful outlook at premarital sex. By the time the hot sickness of 1661 killed Pieter, Margaret had become a young and financially secure woman. She then married Frederick Philipse, who would become her future business partner. Margaret bought three hundred acres of Westchester County in 1670 to create her storehouse, which would later be developed into the magnificent Philipse Manor Hall. After arranging the betrothals of all of her children, Margaret passed on peacefully in 1691, at age 54. Her property holdings spanned from Albany to the Barbados Islands, and she had become arguably the wealthiest woman in the area.
   
   Margaret's death marked the beginnings of a new era for the rest of her family. Through the next two generations, her property and wealth would continue to expand, creating a rich legacy among the future owners of Philipse Manor Hall.
   
   Zimmerman does a good job engaging her audience throughout the book. Although some parts would appear slow and insignificant, the book was overall very well written. One flaw of the book is its lack of historical basis. Because records containing information about these women have been lost or destroyed, it is nearly impossible to find first-hand accounts. Despite its lack of primary documents, the book appears to be complete in its description and rarely seems ambiguous or false.
   
   The Women of the House traces the remarkable journey of Margaret and her successors. It provides excellent insight and creates a new perspective on life in Dutch America.

5 comments about All too Human.

1. The subtitle of this wonderful memoir taught me more about politics in 400 pages than I'd learned in 40 years. A diehard liberal and a political fanatic, someone whose views would normally make me sneer and scoff, Stephanopolous paints a picture of the stresses, ins-and-outs, spin, activities and the vital scope of the world inside the Oval Office. Every newsworthy event or program is canvassed for its political ramafications; the very definition and refinement of the word "politics" is reinforced on every page; the mistakes that lead to triumphs, and the feel-good preparations that lead to disasters are all here in stark detail. Stephanopolous proves himself a very sensible man, and even his staunchly liberal views are sidenotes to the greater energies, arguments and preparations that occur inside the White House. I occasionally disliked S's speaking his own platform (which he did sparingly), or telling how political parties are constructed to blunt the other even when their plans are sensible, but all in all I learned more from this book about the workings inside the White House than from all my prior readings and public education.



2. George Stephanopoulos' memoir of working in the White House during Bill Clinton's first term in office makes you feel like a fly on the wall of the Oval Office. Written in that hypersmart, jargon-fluent style familiar to "West Wing" viewers, "All Too Human" is an engaging, candid companion to readers of any political stripe, in part an impassioned defense of one of America's most infuriatingly bipolar personalities, in part a cautionary tale of power trumping principle.
   
   Among the best and brightest that made up Clinton's 1992 campaign staff, no one burned brighter than Stephanopoulos, a senior advisor to the President at the tender age of 31 whose charge included Congress (he formerly worked for House Majority Whip Dick Gephardt) and satisfying Clinton's critical liberal base.
   
   Stephanopoulos makes no bones about being a true believer. He likens his work with Clinton to being an altar boy for the Greek Orthodox priests of his youth. "It's Nazi time out there," Clinton explodes when the Republicans campaign against him in a special congressional election in Kentucky. Stephanopoulos seems on board with this Hitlerian characterization of the GOP.
   
   Yet Stephanopoulos' passion is tempered by a cool calculating side that finds much common ground with the president, too much, he comes to find. "The last temptation is the greatest treason/To do the right thing for the wrong reason," goes the Eliot verse Stephanopoulos keeps on his desk, in a cramped room he coveted for its proximity to the Oval Office. Even when he manages to get the president to save affirmative action or appease other liberal concerns, it all comes back to a base sort of pragmatism. Is Clinton doing it because it's the right thing to do, or for the political benefit? What about George?
   
   Stephanopoulos' candor is this book's greatest asset, candor about the calculating Clinton, his prickly wife Hillary, and especially himself. He recalls a moment in the first campaign when he caught himself telling a small child that her father is "a bad man" for lying about Clinton. Stephanopoulos wants us to see him, and his boss, as good people, but like the title suggests, with some intrinsic flaws.
   
   While the first half of the book is marginally more interesting as a whole, as the Clinton team finds their way into the White House amid bimbo eruptions and fights its own party to pass a budget through Congress, the second half has the book's most interesting figure, the one man Stephanopoulos paints in entirely black hues: Dick Morris.
   
   Morris could be a Dickens character, "a small sausage of a man encased in a green suit with wide lapels, a wide floral tie, and a wide-collared shirt." As unctuous as Uriah Heep, Morris twitters on about his access to the president, all the time sizing our narrator's back for a place to stick his knife. Stephanopoulos, who views Morris as nothing less than a Republican mole, does likewise.
   
   "I have no home. I have no one left to talk to," Morris tells Stephanopoulos at one point.
   
   Get a dog, Stephanopoulos finds himself wishing he had the nerve to reply.
   
   Morris has claimed Stephanopoulos misrepresented him, but I find the depiction very close to the bone from what I've seen of this fellow commentating on Fox News.
   
   There are flaws in the book, like Stephanopoulos' shorthand with the facts. He seems to assume the reader is as well-versed as he is about the Clinton years, which has him skirt over a lot of material or peripherally refer to things like Tammy Wynette being upset with the First Lady as if we all will know the rest of the story. There is also a fatal Yuppie self-absorption in how Stephanopoulos whines about his trials. A lot of people deal with mega-stress. Not so many have a movie actress ready to draw them a bath.
   
   But "All Too Human" is a good read, and buttressed by Bob Woodward's "The Agenda," one gets an immersive sense of life around Bill Clinton in his first term, a time of great possibilities, hopes, and, inevitably, more than a bit of frailty.



3. First, my standard disclaimer: I am a political moderate and social conservative. This book is an average look at what happens in political inner circles, specifically the Clinton white house. I was a little disappointed that Stephanopoulos did not take more risks to write about subjects that the general public did not already know. It seemed that much of the reason for the book was for the author to exonerate himself from any wrongdoing.



4. This book is interesting in two ways. The first is the rise of a working class immigrant's son to the position of political advisor of the world's most powerful statesman. The father of Stephanopoulos was an working class immigrant yet his son was able to become a Rhodes scholar and reach the position in politics he did. The American success story. It is also interesting, from a much more cynical perspective, in that Stephanopolous' political advice was all politically motivated and absolutely none (with emphasis on absolutely) had a basis in the actual non-political benefits or costs (or efficacy). Extremely cynical. One comes away wondering whether it is even possible for the political process to produce socially beneficial policies instead of just politically expediant solutions.



5. In this moving look into the White House, Stephanopoulos carefully treads the line between worship for his idealized boss who embodied all the dreams and hopes Stephanopoulos had for his country, and distraught disappointment at the human flaws that caused this man to dally with a certain females and to lie to his aides about it. For Stephanopoulos, the crime here is not the actual act, but the fact that his boss let his people lie for him - without even realizing they were lying. This lack of trust and respect was crushing to the young idealist and it shows through in every page of the book. He mourns for what could have been, but wasn't; he hangs his head for the mistakes made by his "all too human" boss. He does not, however, descend into mudslinging - he obviously still adores his former boss, even if he did turn out to be a little less large than life.

2 comments about Yearning to Breathe Free: Robert Smalls of South Carolina and His Families.

1. The book Yearning to Breathe Free is biographical novel which pertains to the life of Robert Smalls of South Carolina and his family. I enjoyed reading this book because it includes lots of factual information regarding to the over all purpose of Robert Smalls as being an influential person in history. I have read several other biographical novels about the lives of slaves, congressman and even statesmen. Those books failed to acknowledge evidence about the individuals life because they were mostly opinionated books about slavery and its importance. In Billingsley, Yearning to Breathe Free he includes numerators amounts of accounts of Smalls life which proves ideas stated about Smalls as being true and factual information. Additional to the factual information he includes a bibliography and index that reference all the sources required for him to right the biography on Robert Smalls of South Carolina. This will help readers like myself further my knowledge and understanding about Robert Smalls go don't be afraid to purchase it today on Amazon.



2. Robert Smalls (1839 - 1915) is a little known figure outside of South Carolina but he deserves to be known by everyone, especially by those who love great stories.
   
   I stumbled upon the story of Smalls's infamous escape as a slave during the American Civil War (May 1862) by accident. Several years later after thorough ongoing research has rewarded my diligence with finding this book by Billingsley.
   
   The author takes a sociological approach throughout making it for an interesting angle to consider the life and accomplishments of Smalls.
   
   There are several other fine books available about Robert Smalls - mostly out of print - so this edition is updated, accurate, fairly comprehensive and a rich source for understanding Smalls.
   
   Well-documented and carefully researched.

5 comments about John Quincy Adams: (The American Presidents Series).

1. The author is best known as the biographer of Jackson, so understandably he shows some favoritism for Jackson.
   
   He covers the essentials of JQA's life but very briefly as intended. The book serves its purpose as a concise biography of a president whose life was intimately connected with the history of the first six decades of the United States.



2. I am familiar with the concept of the American Presidents Series, whereby each chief executive is given a relatively short and concise treatment. Perfect for the history buff that might not want to invest several weeks in reading a two volume discourse on the life and times of James K. Polk.
   
   John Quincy Adams was an important American statesman during a turbulent period of American history. His heritage as a son of Founding Father John Adams, coupled with a virtual lifetime of public service is certainly deserving of study (granted, for a serious history buff, probably more than that provided in this work). I was therefore somewhat disappointed when upon receipt of the book, it was no larger than a mere pamphlet.
   
   The Amazon synopsis lists it as being composed of 196 pages. I can't imagine how this number was arrived at. The text of the book comes in at 155 pages. Even including the "Editor's Note", endnotes, milestones, bibliography and index, only 173 are consumed. If you add the title page, all the blank pages at the beginning and end of the book AND the front and back cover, you still can't come up with 196 pages. Therefore, what you have is a very short biography that is actually over 20% shorter than advertised. Certainly understandable in the case of some of the "sketchier" Presidents, but John Quincy Adams?
   
   Adams, born into the illustrious family of John and Abigail Adams, was raised to lead a life in politics. It is an unusual set of circumstances that resulted in Adams's presidency actually being viewed as the least successful period of his life, rather than its pinnacle. Adams was an accomplished diplomat from an early age, spending productive time in all the European capitals throughout the early American administrations. He finally served as Secretary of State under James Monroe, a recognized stepping stone to the presidency.
   
   His election in 1824, by a bitterly divided House of Representatives, ushered in a period of political bitterness and infighting astonishing in its ferocity. His personal feuds with Andrew Jackson and his supporters are possibly the most vicious in political history. Adams's presidency is generally viewed as quite ineffective. His refusal to take advantage of political patronage and his naivety in matters of political strategy doomed him to serve a single term.
   
   Following his presidency, Adams was elected to represent the state of Massachusetts in the House of Representatives, where he continued to be a thorn in the side of his opponents, from all aspects of the political spectrum. The single personality trait of Adams highlighted throughout this work is independence. His refusal to abide by party lines and forge long lasting alliances resulted in his failure to govern firm majorities throuhgout his career.
   
   He was a henpecked son and, according to the author, a failure as a father and husband. He comes across many times as a sanctimonious Puritan and devolved later in life into an unpleasant, irascible, back bencher. Nevertheless, he was a seminal figure in early 19th century American history and deserving of more than 155 pages of treatment.
   
   Finally, a note on the author's style. Given the brevity of the work and the scope of Adams's life, it is not surprising that the writing sometimes feels clipped and brusque, moving quickly from topic to topic. On several ocassions, the author begins paragraphs with short, declarative statements such as, "What a disaster!", "What an opening!", "That did it!" (twice), "Superior management!", "What idiocy!", that lent a jarring almost inappropriately informal tone to the writing.
   
   All in all a relatively unsatisfactory work. Had the author in fact taken 196 pages to present the subject, perhaps it would have been better received. Nevertheless, if you want an ultra quick and dirty synopsis on the life and political career of John Quincy Adams and only have 5-6 hours to invest, this may be the best you could do.



3. Robert Remini's brief study of John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) is part of the American Presidency Series edited by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. The series has the commendable aim of introducing the reader to each of the Presidents in a volume of short scope. The broader aim, I think, is to reawaken an appreciation of the history of our country and to stimulate reflection on the American experience. Thus, each volume tries to present a story of a life and also to explain briefly what is unique about each President and makes him worthy to be remembered.
   
   Remini gives an excellent discussion of John Quincy Adams's service to the United States, both during his Presidency and before and after it. The aspect of JQA's public service that stands out, both in his Presidency and otherwise, is his commitment to American Nationalism. By this I mean a devotion to creating a strong, united nation for all the people to promote the public welfare. JQA worked diligently to advance the interests of the entire American people, as he saw these interests, rather than to be a tool of any faction or party or momentary passion. Much of the time, he succeeded.
   
   As President, JQA advocated the creation of public works and improvements to link the country together. He was a strong supporter of education, scientific advancement, and learning. He wanted the Federal government to play an active role in supporting these ends and worked towards the creation of an American university. (After his Presidency he was a strong advocate for the creation of the Smithsonian Institution.)
   
   Before he assumed the Presidency, Adams served as the Secretary of State under James Monroe. He worked for the goal of American Nationalism by expanding the boundaries of the United States through a skillful exercise of diplomacy until they extended to the Pacific Ocean. JQA also was instrumental in the formulation of the Monroe Doctrine.
   
   Following his presidency. JQA served as a Congressman from Massachusetts. He distinguished himself in working for the anti-slavery cause and, specifically, by his tireless opposition to the "gag rule" which aimed to prevent critical discussion of slavery-related issues in the halls of Congress.
   
   Remini presents his material in a way that focuses on this theme of JQA's public service and on its nationalistic aspirations . He also points out how and why JQA failed to realize many of his goals, particularly during his term as the sixth President (1825-1828) Adams was named President by the House of Representatives following a highly contested election. It was alleged that he struck a "corrupt bargain" with Henry Clay, who became Adams's Secretary of State. This "corrupt bargain" doomed the Adams Presidency and tarnished both Adams's and Clay's careers.
   
   Adams was also highly opinionated and stuffy and gave the impression of aloofness. He was not a good politician and lacked a certain ability to compromise or to work cooperatively with others. At one point Remini writes (p. 110): "It is really impossible to think of any other president quite like John Quincy Adams. He seemed intent on destroying himself and his administration. By the same token, it is difficult to think of a president with greater personal integrity." JQA was defeated for a second term by Andrew Jackson in a bitterly fought campaign. Among other things, Jackson possessed abundant popular appeal and charisma, in sharp contrast to JQA's aloof, intellectual character.
   
   While Adams's Presidency failed, his goals and ideals were good. They lived on and deserve studying and remembering.
   
   Remini also gives a good summary of Adams's personal life, adopting some of the psychohistory of JQa's recent biographers. He points out the stresses that Adams endured from his famous father and mother and the pressures placed upon him and his brothers for high achievement. JQA also imposed these pressures and expectations, alas, on his own children. There is a good discussion of Adams's failed love affair as a young man --probably the one passion of his life -- and of his subsequent marriage to Louisa Johnson. Remini describes JQAs extensive intellectual interests, his tendencies to anger and to depression and he links these traits in a sensible way to the failings of Adams's Presidency.
   
   This is an excellent study of JQA which captures in short compass the essence and character of his contribution to the United States. Readers who want to learn more about JQA -- with a focus on his service as Secretary of State and as Congressman from Massachusetts may wish to read the two-volume study by Samuel Flagg Bemis: "Joh Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy" (1949) and "John Quincy Adams and the Union" (1956).
   
   Robin Friedman



4. This biography of John Quincy Adams, referred to as JQA throughout much of the book, is quite a treat. It astonishes me that so much information can be packed into such a short book (155 pages of text). Still, from my perspective, this is a satisfying book.
   
   John Quincy Adams was truly an exceptional character to study. As a young person, he accompanied his father, John Adams, to Europe to help him in his diplomatic duties. JQA learned an immense amount, developed many useful skills (including learning different languages), and began his career of public service at a very young age.
   
   Born in 1767, he lives a long and full life, dying in 1848. His coffin contained language was written by Daniel Webster (whom Adams detested) (Page 155): "A citizen of the United States, in the Capitol of Washington, February 23, 1848, Having served his country for half a century, And enjoyed its highest honors."
   
   A sampling of some of his accomplishments: His service abroad while in his teens, going to Russia apart from his father to serve as an assistant to the American ambassador there (the ambassador did not speak French, and JQA's command of that language was valuable in the Russian court); His first tour of Congress was controversial as his independence led both parties to sometimes get irritated with him; His time as Secretary of State, during which he developed the Monroe Doctrine; His controversial election as President and the rough politics of his one term; his return to the House of Representatives as a cantankerous and independent Representative. His return to Congress after serving as President is extraordinary, not repeated afterwards by any former President. In his term, old as he was, he served as a stalwart against slavery, and near the end of his life (as viewers of the movie "Amistad" know) he argued before the Supreme Court of the miscarriage of justice against the enslaved Africans who had seized control of the slave ship.
   
   All in all, a quick read and a pretty satisfying volume.



5. One can't help but view this biography as if Remini were defending the honor of an individual he clearly found wanting. John Quincy is so much the prideful product of his famous forebears (must read McCullough's John Adams first), that he can't help but fall short in his own right. Particularly insightful is Quincy's stubborn wrong-headedness in his managing of his cabinet appointments, which contributed greatly to a sour legacy. Remini does serve JQ well in praising his foreign policy successes as ambassador and Sec. of State, and provides enlightened review of his post-presidency legislative terms.....but clearly the tone is condemning of a most ascetic and belligerent man reaching beyond his natural skills as a diplomat to underachieve as an executive.

5 comments about Stonewall Jackson: The Man, the Soldier, the Legend.

1. This is a great book that helps its readers understand how a poor orphan from Virginia became arguably the greatest general in American history.



2. I have several relatives who fought under Jackson and was a bit reluctant to read this book. Robertson is the premier historian of the Army of Northern Virginia and I thought this would be deification of Jackson. I was so wrong. Robertson has written THE definative work on Stonewall Jackson. Going back in his family history had my interest from the start.
   Robertson does a wonderful job of looking at Jackson-warts and all. He brings out all of Jackson and explains so many aspects of him and is certaintly not an apoligist. Without a doubt, Jackson was one of the most complex people to don an American uniform, next to Patton. When he was one his game he was briliant-such as The Valley Campaign, Second Bull Run or Chancellorsville. But When he was cold he was horrible-such was First Kernstown or the Pennicula Campaign. Robertson tells the story as it was, without excuses. If you want to really know the great Stonewall-read Robertsons book.



3. This may be the best book I have ever read. It's detailed, thorough, yet very readable. You will know virtually everything there is to know about Stonewall Jackson by the time you finish reading this book.



4. If it were possible, I would give this wonderful book twelve stars. Not only is it the best book on the Civil War that I have ever read, but outside of the Holy Scriptures it is the best biography I have ever read period. The work of writing a good biography requires an author of extraordinary gifts. He or she must not only be a painstaking researcher who does not mind wading through the minutia of an endless sea of details, but they must also be able to take those details and weave them into a fluid and interesting story that is vivid while not getting bogged down in the small stuff. To put it another way, the author must give enough detail to be clear and sharp, but he must not lose the forest for the trees. On all of these levels James I. Robertson's landmark work "Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend" triumphs and succeeds marvelously. But what makes this biography so astounding is that Robertson has given us far more than a narrative set of true facts about a heroic man named Thomas Jonathan Jackson, he has given us the man himself. I knew nothing about General Jackson until I saw the film "Gods and Generals", but after viewing that movie I knew I had a new hero (Robertson himself was a historical consultant on that film, by the way). When I read Robertson's biography I realized that, like the queen of Sheba when she met King Solomon, not the half had been told. Robertson hits the nail on the head by recognizing that if you would understand Stonewall Jackson, you must discern that he was first and foremost a soldier of the cross of Jesus Christ. Robertson himself is a professing Christian and so has unique insight into Jackson that many other biographers' lack. I will never have the privilege of meeting Jackson in this present age, but as I read this book I felt that I came as close to knowing Jackson personally as I ever can in this lifetime. I saw in him a kindred spirit. Having lost an infant of my own I could relate to his pain in the loss of two infants and his first wife, but I could also relate to the grace of God and the faith in Christ that sustained him through it all. Jackson and I share the same Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, Stonewall is my brother in the Lord across the sands of time. We share the same Calvinism as well. I found myself relating to his sense of social awkwardness and wanting to emulate his devotion to duty in many ways. Like all of us Jackson was a sinner, a man with large warts and gaping flaws. Forgiveness of others did not come easy to him; he placed loyalty to state above loyalty to family, sometimes not allowing men under his command to go home to bury dead wives and children. You will not find near as much of the noble patience that Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain demonstrated towards his men residing in Jackson. Yet, under his tough and well-disciplined exterior beat the heart of a man who was tender and affectionate towards his wife and baby, who loved to play with children, and whose tender prayers to his God were not soon forgotten. When I came to the chapter that describes Jackson's death following on the heels of his victory at Chancellorsville, I literally began to weep with tears spilling down my cheeks. The image of all those Confederate soldiers pulling off their hats and holding them over their hearts in honor of Jackson's widow when she first stepped away from his death bed is indelibly stamped on my mind. Why did I weep? Because through Robertson's biography, I had found a dear friend and brother in Christ. And when I read of his death, I felt that I was losing a personal friend. Thank you, Professor Robertson, for your eight and a half years of research and for all of your labors. Thank you for introducing me to a friend and hero, Thomas Jonathan Jackson. Our fourth son is named "Thomas Jackson", but we call him "Jackson". And in regards to General Jackson, we have never met, but we shall meet by and by when our Lord and Savior comes again to take His people home. Thomas Jackson, "Bud" Robertson, and myself shall spend eternity side by side with all of God's people throughout all of time worshiping our crucified and risen Savior.



5. That it certainly is, all 762 pages of text buttressed by 188 additional pages of notes and indices. Yet with all this heft and obvious scholarship, "Stonewall Jackson" is a bit much. It's too long! To be concise, there is FAR too much detail here. Whole sections of pages could have been truncated by that proverbial stern editor with a sharp blue pencil. (Most of those guys were laid off long ago). One gets the distinct impression self-indulgence emanating from author Robertson. Even some great battle action is drowned out in details-details-details. The formatting of pages and paragraphs is also difficult here, though perhaps the publisher had few alternatives. This admitted mapophile was satisfied with the mapping in "Stonewall". A nice touch is the placement of a map index, allowing readers to bookmark. An interesting turn here is Professor Robertson's apparent attitude toward Jackson. The General was a difficult, stiff-necked guy. He was secretive and single-minded, a harsh disciplinarian and critical of colleagues. If there was a Stonewall Fan Club, would the good professor join up? This reviewer was reminded of another author of lengthy tomes: Robert Caro. RC has produced 3 bios of President Lyndon Johnson, none of them highly complimentary. The final call here is that "Stonewall Jackson" is not recommended for anyone but the most avid Stonewall or Civil War aficionados. Others may wish to choose another Stonewall offering-or wait for the paperback. Why the 4 stars above? This is a case of "A" for effort. Imagine the effort Professor Robertson put forth here. For that alone, the man should take a bow.

5 comments about Billy, Alfred, and General Motors: The Story of Two Unique Men, a Legendary Company, and a Remarkable Time in American History.

1. Are the other reviewers here reading the same book I am, or are they friends of the author? The poor quality of this book is too glaring to avoid. An honest reader has to wonder if it is self-published. (OK, AMACOM appears not to be a vanity press, but a Scribners it ain't.)
   
   Pelfrey is sometimes good at narrative, but after doing his cut-and-paste work, did he bother to read the finished product? We are ceaselessly flailed with redundant information. How many times do we need to know that Alfred Sloan's memoir was ghostwritten by a committee of 20? How many times do we need to know of Billy Durant's mother's Mayflower connection? How many times do we need to be told that Durant was a strong supporter of Prohibition and the Eighteenth Amendment? How many times do we need it driven home that Billy Durant was mercurial and that Alfred Sloan was stolid? How many times do we need reminding that General Motors became the greatest enterprise in corporate history? All of this is repeated as if for the first time. And all of this in the first 30 pages!
   
   Is this just sloppy or non-existent editing, or is it padding? For no apparent reason, where we would expect a series of sentences heading paragraphs, we are given a bulleted list. Since when does a book that "reads like a novel" have bulleted lists?
   
   I keep hoping that the repetition will taper off, that I'll no longer be subjected to gratuitously sensationalistic passages like, "Raised by a socialite divorcee in an era when single mothers were scorned," or awkward transitions like "...Durant was high on the list of Flint's most elegible bachelors. He married Clara Pitt...." I hope the story of Durant's first job, in his family's lumberyard, which Pelfrey (or rather the source he quotes) begins in intimate detail, will be rescued from the oblivion to which it's assigned a paragraph later. But I won't hold my breath.
   
   I suggest that, instead of heeding the misleading reviews here, you catch the author's talk on BookTv. It tells you everything the book does, but mercifully only once.



2. In a week when the Nissan-Renault partnership has made a suggestion of parterning with or buying out or merging with General Motors, this book makes a timely read.
   
   Here is the story of the men who founded the company, Sloan and Durant. They were big dreamers, held a vision of the future, and seemed to have a basic understanding of where their company and the automobile industry was going.
   
   I don't know who's in charge at GM now, but it appears that they aren't managing the company to the standard that such an icon of business should be held. Quite likely they are financial people, very knowledgable in making the company profitable this quarter (that's 'this quarter' a few years ago), but ignoring things like fuel efficiency to keep building SUVs (great profits for 'this quarter').
   
   In their day Durant and Sloan managed through a whole series of problems. It's interesting to think about how they might have handled today's problems. The book presents a view of a time when perhaps management could make changes, when the company, the union, and the economy was different.



3. In this book you'll find eccentrics, misfits and geniuses who made and lost fortunes, founded and lost companies, gained brief fame and were eventually forgotten by just about everyone except automotive industry historians. Although the book purports to focus on Billy Durant, Alfred Sloan and General Motors, its scope is actually much wider, since the evolution of the automobile industry exemplifies the evolution of U.S. industries in general. We recommend this lively, readable saga to history buffs and managers. It is a highly instructive take on the parallels between boom and bust in the car industry of the 1910s and in the high-tech industry of the 1990s.



4. Billy Durant, what a man, not only a visionary with amazing ablities, but one who believe in the worth of the common man.
   
   Where would Nash, Chevrolet, the Dodges , Chrysler , the Leland's, the DuPont's and yes Sloan, who was disloyal and stabbed him in the back without Billy Durant?
   
   This book proves the established fact of business, that bankers, both direct and investment, stock sellers and so call money people can't built anything for all their money.
   
   A great book on American business.
   
   JRP



5. This is a pretty good book, and gives basic knowledge about how GM was formed. This is one of the few books on the market that you can talk about when someone is purchasing a car, and the history of the company is different than I had expected. The book focused most of the attention on Billy Durant, instead of Alfred Sloan, which in turn made the title more interesting. It is a good story about how one mans drive can change the world as we know it, and it can also ruin him. I would recommend this book to a friend or relitive. But it gets a bit hard to hang in there for the last chapter or so (at least I thought so).

5 comments about Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey.

1. It falls short of classic, but frankly this is one of the most mind-altering things I've ever read. It's the closest I've ever gotten into the mind of a conservative (I'm a proud center-liberal), and it makes utterly believable a thesis I would have formerly thought ridiculous: that the bases for modern liberal thought, that universal human unity is necessary in order to avoid environmental or nuclear extinction, are lies manufactured by homegrown agents of Soviet Communism who populate modern journalism and academia.
   
   Horowitz never explicitly makes this claim, and that is the supreme flaw of the book. He leads you convincingly enough through his disillusionment with 60's student radicalism, and presents a detailed case that its roots lie with children of communists, like Horowitz himself. His account of the Black Panthers and the experience that would become his turning point make riveting reading. But, as others have pointed out, the narrative breaks down toward the end of the book. I was with him up to the point where he is coming to an acceptance of the inevitable persistence and humanity of markets, hierarchies, inequalities, etc. But the path out of the center left to the far right pronouncements of the latter third of the book is frustratingly spotty. The incendiary David Horowitz of Front Page Mag. fame pops up infrequently delivering party line zingers almost out of nowhere.
   
   This is especially frustrating for me, as Horowitz' growing fascination with the right during the 80's and 90's parallels a time when my parents were moving away from Reagan toward the left as they felt the growing influence of the similarly radical (as Horowitz admits) Goldwater republican movement. The appeal that this movement would have for Horowitz is strangely missing from the book. Horowitz briefly but memorably recounts the rebirth and justification of his firebrand rhetorical style, but doesn't expound on the conviction behind his latest ravings. He mentions authoritarian puritanical goons within the conservative movement, and never really retracts those statements, but, if they are really goons, why does he not distance himself from them? It's almost like a Straussian secret writing. So either he's paid or threatened to write his current outrageous stuff, OR
   
   ... and here I assume the thesis above. Horowitz ignores most of the arguments of the contemporary left, because they inevitably originate in an international community of academics and journalists who want America to be a socialist state simply because they grew up sons and daughters and friends of communists. The thing is, he might just be correct... and from now on, my life is going to be dedicated to finding out. If he isn't correct, I hope he lives long enough to be jarred once more out of a beautiful political dream.



2. I wish I had read this years ago! As cultural history, Radical Son is as monumental as the Diary of Anne Frank - but Horowitz' autobiography is a literary masterpiece in its own right. Most importantly, Radical Son is one of the few honestly historical accounts of the campus movement that changed America from the inside out - and left Marxism as the official religion of our universities.
   
   If you wonder what our current presidential candidates mean when they call themselves "progressive" - then you really, REALLY need to read this book.



3. I had always been disappointed by the memoirs of political figures on the left because of their inability to reflect on themselves---to even attempt to understand why they had seen the world the way they had, and how their visions had affected who they were. I did not think this omission accidental. If radicalism was a displacement of personal grievance, it wasn't surprising that radicals could not confront their interior lives. "The Left, the author eventually realized, "lived by its radical myths, which were crucial to its sense of moral superiority, of being chosen as humanity's moral vanguard." "When I looked into myself, I saw how integral my radical views were to my sense of myself and the world around me." The above words, bereft of quotes, are not mine, incidentally, but the author's too, explaining why he wrote "Radical Son": "The collapse of this faith had been inseparable from the collapse of the life I had lived. I could not conceive of an autobiographical work that would not attempt to plumb this connection." Mr. Horowitz was the child of Communists, was inculcated into this faith, as it were. The real bounties his parents had achieved in America, the author states, hardly impressed them. "Success like theirs was so common that they took it for granted. What my family longed for," rather, he writes herein, "was an impossible fantasy: that mankind would be released from history, which included individual success and failure; their ambition was that poverty and inequality would disappear from the earth. To realize this fantasy they dedicated themselves to the Communist cause."
   
   Mr. Horowitz's parents were Jewish, and like Marx and Spinoza were "of Judaism but not in it" and whose outsider status had led to their revolutionary views."
   
   It's interesting moreover how many Marxist sympathizers were Jewish as well. It was believed by such folk that "Socialism would `solve' the Jewish question by eliminating Judaism, along with other ethnic and national identities." "What we had to ask ourselves,' Horowitz once explained at a public forum, "was whether Marx wasn't a self-hating Jew, and whether socialism was anything more than a wish to be included."
   
   "Fusion and unity---this was the cry of my father's Communist heart, writes the author herein, "His unquenchable longing to belong."
   
   For many years Mr. Horowitz was also a Communist, becoming eventually a prominent writer and figure of the 1960s Left, himself focusing as he did "on the issues of equality and freedom that once inspired [him] as a radical." Khrushchev's secret speech in 1956 shook many Communists, but Horowitz states that, at the time, "I was not sure what to make of it all. Monstrous crimes had been committed, and much else had gone terribly wrong. But did this mean it was necessary to abandon socialism? I was not ready for that," he writes herein. "The socialist vision provided the only way I knew of looking at the world that would distinguish right from wrong that gave hope for a better future. Socialism was the desire for justice. I did not see how I could give that up."
   
   So it wasn't surprising when he took another leap of faith when a "New Left" began forming out of the ashes of the old; participants like Horowitz, doing so, "out of the conviction that the original passion could be born again, and that we could create a new socialist vision free from the taint that Stalin had placed on the movement our parents had served."
   
   Interestingly, a lot of this generation, its leaders I'm speaking about specifically, were born in red diapers, that is, were born to members of the socialist vanguard that existed in the 1920s 1930s. Hence the commonplace phrase: "Like many radicals, he was a self-exiled son of the middle class."
   
   "He was a vociferous opponent of America's war in Vietnam and any American intervention anywhere. JFK was "an arch Cold warrior, a liberal agent of the imperial ruling class," in his view. He "harangued students about the dangers of radioactive fallout, and the dark forces in Washington that were leading us to `a universal grave.'" Horowitz was also an editor of "Ramparts," the magazine of the "New Left."
   
   But the Left didn't rise up because of the Vietnam issue. Rather, the author has a different take on this topic: "My speech illustrated the real importance of Vietnam to the radical cause, which was not ultimately about Vietnam but about our own antagonism to America, our desire for revolution. Vietnam served to justify the desire; we needed the war and its violent images to vindicate our destructive intentions."
   
   The arrival on the scene of an organization such as the Black Panthers reinforced this view. Mr. Horowitz knew these people and when asked by a Panther's member to suggest someone that could help a community center run by the Panthers manage their finances he recommended fellow leftist Betty Van Patter. Betty, some speculated later, asked too many questions about the Panthers' money and as a result disappeared. "When her body finally turned up and the future was no longer unknown, I,' admitted the author, "was forced to confront myself in a way I never had to before." "I had to understand my relation to this deed, this murder of innocence, committed by my political comrades." Because the Panthers "had been made the symbol of the revolution, they could not be condemned without negative consequences for everything we stood for and had said." "I had schooled myself in Hegel and Marx, and where had they led me? I had worshipped the gods of reason, and they had delivered me into the company of killers." "Until now, my political comrades had felt like a family I could trust. We had all been recruited from the same tribe of sentiment, raging with common indignation over the injustices we perceived, and sharing visions of a retribution that would make things right." "But a mother of three, who was also one of us, had been murdered by people we knew." "There were dozens, if not hundreds, of activists with direct links to the Party...who were aware of what happened to Betty. Yet no one came forward." "This silence was more than unusual for people who normally felt compelled to protest injustices---even those that took place at the far ends of the earth." But for Betty "there was only silence." "The incident had no usable political meaning, and was therefore best forgotten."
   
   "We thought of ourselves as self-effacing, but in fact we were arrogant. We regarded ourselves as better than others from our privileged caste who were unwilling to perform the deeds we did. That was why we didn't listen and couldn't see. Like all radicals, we were intoxicated by our own virtue."
   
   And what about the media, why didn't they investigate this murder, or other murders by the Black Panthers? Or expose the issue of who filled the jails of Cuba, or Russia? Well, because, as the author eventually realized there exists an odd operating principle within the Left: "The responsibility of progressive journalists was to suppress facts that hurt the progressive cause, and to print only those truths that served it."
   
   Thus Jimmy Carter's "decision, in 1979, to let the Sandinistas take power in Nicaragua without American intervention" was cheered by journalists and those on the Left in general, but not by Mr. Horowitz. When it came time to choose between Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan in 1984 (another Orwellian moment, this time in Nicaragua) the author had had enough, and voted for the first time in his life for a Republican, this while a new generation was organizing "solidarity committees" to support the Sandinistas. It was one thing to support Castro when he promised everything under the sun for Cuba but, unlike other Leftists, Mr. Horowitz couldn't continue to support Castro after it was apparent to all but the blind that "Cuba had been transformed into a totalitarian state, its economy ruined by socialist plans, its jails filled with political dissenters." "Nor was the tragedy of Cuba unique. Every socialist state created by Marxists had been transformed into an economic sinkhole and a national prison. There were no exceptions."
   
   And the Sandinistas were Marxist protégés of Castro, after all "This time, "he posited, "I could not plead ignorance of what was going to happen if radicals had their way."
   
   Having watched history unfold he came to the view "that socialists had contrived to demonstrate by bloody example what everyone else already knew: Equality and freedom are inherently in conflict. This was really all that socialist efforts had shown, over the dead bodies of millions of people. In talent, intelligence, and physical attributes, individuals were by nature different and unequal; consequently, the attempt to make them equal could only be achieved by restricting---ultimately eliminating---their individual freedom." He reflected on his own children: "The four children we had spawned were all so different in character and disposition that they posed a challenge to my radical worldview. The belief that environment shaped human destinies, and that therefore human character could be molded in some fundamental way, was essential to all utopian schemes. You could not change the world if you could not change the people in it."
   "Socialism could not even achieve the general welfare that its adherents promised. Socialist efforts to create economic equality invariably led, in practice, to the imposition of poverty on society as a whole, because socialism destroyed the incentives to produce. There were entire socialist libraries devoted to the confiscation and division of existing wealth, but not a single article on how people were motivated to create wealth. Socialists did not know how to make a society work. That was the lesson of the Communist debacle, which the Left had refused to learn. "The revolutionary failures of the Twentieth Century had demonstrated the wisdom of the American founding, and validated its tenets: private property, individual rights, and a limited state."
   
   "The idea of original sin---that we are born flawed, that the capacity for evil is lodged within us (no matter how our consciousness may be raised)---would have instilled in me a necessary caution about individuals like Huey Newton, [of the Blank Panthers] and movements like ours."
   
   "If evil was a choice that any individual could make, then human beings would always pose a danger to each other, and there could be no `withering away of the state'. There would always be a need for law above individuals, for police to enforce the law, and for prisons to contain those who broke it." After all, "how could we dispense with `bourgeois' law, the best system of rules and institutions yet devised to protect individuals from the predations of their government and each other?"
   
   Horowitz, because of this book and his outspokenness, has been demonized for having had second thoughts and has been subjected to savage personal attacks by his former comrades. The "problem" is that the world "is (and must remain) forever imperfect. The refusal to come to terms with this reality is the heart of the radical impulse and accounts for its destructiveness, and thus for much of the bloody history of our age."
   
   Mr. Horowitz includes several pages of personal photographs in "Radical Son." The last page of these, interestingly, shows Mr. Horowitz with his mom, a picture of his dad alone (indicative of his lack of personal closeness with his father perhaps), and a photo of the author receiving an award from Ronald Reagan in 1991. In a way, the pictures seem to suggest the author's life; an estrangement and lack of closeness with his Marxist father, a father who never gave him his approval; a Marxist mother who eventually put family before politics; and finally, the individual, happy to accept a teaching award from a retired American president, that the author himself ultimately became.
   
   Thereafter he "become involved...with the idea of doing something of immediate benefit for people in the community." "I was tired," said he, "of pouring energy into grand abstractions like `the revolution,' and longed to see my efforts lead to practical results."



4. I read this book over 7 years ago and found it to be the foremost manual on how the 1960's generation completely destroyed this country. We are suffering from their antics today as some of the most immoral and unethical people in the Federal, State and Local governments are children of the 1960's. David Horowitz has to be the left's most hated person as he grew up in an "intellectual" communist/socialist family and then did a 180 turn around. His parents supported Stalin whole-heartedly only to be destroyed when the world found out that Stalin had murdered over 30 million Soviets in the Russian gulags. As a young man Horowitz was in the middle of the riots in Berkeley and Columbia Universities. Horowitz goes through a radical change in his thinking due to the death of a good friend whom he recommended for a job with the Black Panther Party in Oakland. His radical change involves not only leaving the left, but realizing the damage that it has inflicted on the very fabric of this country's fundamental morals and ethics.
   
   The reason I write this review seven long years after reading Radical Son is to congratulate David on his bravery and honesty in exposing the hate of the left. On September 11, 2008, The New York Times (lefty newspaper) printed a story about a man named Morton Sobell. Morton Sobell was convicted in 1951 along with Julus and Ethel Rosenberg on espionage charges. The Rosenbergs were executed and became the martyrs of the left for years and years. Martin Sobell spent 30 years in prison denying vehmently that he along with the Rosenbergs was innocent. In the article published in the New York Times on September 11, 2008, Martin Sobell, now 91 years old, admitted that he along with Julus Rosenberg was guilty of spying for the Soviet Union. In the article, Robert Meeropol, son of Julus and Ethel Rosenberg states that if Morty said it then it must be true. Thank you David for staying with it - you knew all along that Joe McCarthy was right.



5. This is the best political memoir I have ever read. The author is an extremely skilled writer and presents an account of his journey from a far left leader to a conservative activist in a compelling way. It feels strange to say this about a non-fiction political book, but I had a hard time putting it down. This memoir was well organized and flowed very easily. The author gives an especially personal expose of the criminality of the Black Panther Party. This book should be must reading for students entering college to inoculate them against the left-wing indoctrination by their professors. It explains so much about the failings of the left.

5 comments about Anne Sexton: A Biography.

1. I have not been able to disregard the fact that this brilliant biography by one of the most important poets of our age appears to have been forgotten amid the heat of commerce. But there is another kind of commerce: one in which women have an expertise. When one of us is felled by tragedy, like the huge loss of Anne Sexton, it touches each and every one of us as we learn of its happenstance. One does not have to be a poet, an artist or suicidal to get this. Our collective history as women struggling to balance our lives within a largely patriarchal society with love, home, marriage, divorce, children, career, and faith in whatever form or not - is a burden to which few will admit. Anne Sexton, however, met all of the latter head on with genius artistry and with all the passion and complexitiy any soul could bear. Indeed, as Diane Middlebrook brilliantly writes - she bore it for as long as she possibly could with more grace, style and courage than most. In fact, not only is this biography essential as a purchase, but take the time to collect (if you can...) everything Anne Sexton wrote. You will never be quite the same. And I can only guess that she would have liked that....



2. Biographies are a tricky business. To tell the truth about a person's life, to be fair and thorough without being unkind is a fine line to tread. Diane Middlebrook certainly didn't flinch at giving the reader the dirt on Anne Sexton. From her series of extra-marital affairs to her daughter's memories of Sexton's inappropriate, incestuous behavior--all of it was fair game in Middlebrook's book. She even quoted from audiotapes of Anne Sexton's therapy sessions. This is a biography of a woman brutally exposed, psychologically naked and under a spotlight; strangely, I think that Anne Sexton would be at peace with this enormous invasion of her privacy.
   
   In addition to the lurid personal details and the deep analyses of Sexton's troubled psyche, Middlebrook shows the reader Sexton's intense determination and devotion to becoming a famous poet. Anne would sit at her typewriter for hours everyday, working on poems. She was also very aware of the benefits of creating a dramatic public persona.
   
   Sexton would walk up on stage in a striking black cocktail dress with red lipstick and a seductive swagger. Her throaty voice would cast a spell over the audience as she read her poems. "I am a middle-aged witch. . ." she would begin, and the room would be spell-bound by both her glamour and her bold confessional poetry. But underneath it all, she was a nervous wreck, unable to give a reading without a quick shot of liquor to make her knees stop shaking!
   
   Diane Middlebrook's biography was so piercing, so unforgiving, it was, at times, truly uncomfortable to read. I felt almost voyeuristic, pouring over these shocking private details of Anne Sexton's life. Yet, Middlebrook's book did give me an amazingly powerful feeling of intimacy with one of my favorite poets. She revealed the fragile, flawed Anne Sexton behind the public shell of dark glamour.
   
   Any fans of Sexton's poetry that want to understand the woman behind the words should go ahead and get this book; just be forewarned that Middlebrook does not try to flatter Sexton, only to be truthful.



3. This advice applies to anyone who has stumbled upon this page whether or not you like biography or poetry or Anne Sexton. It is one of the few biographies I have read that I would describe as a true page-turner. Yes, Sexton's life has all the ingredients of a page turner. There's incest, there's adultery, there's substance abuse, there's mental illness. All this in the life of someone whose adulthood began as a rather typical 1950s housewife. Middlebrook does not spare us the gritty details, but neither does she exploit her subject for mere sensationalism. Always, even in taking the controversial step of using Sexton's psychotherapy tapes, she demonstrates respect for her subject and for the surviving members of Sexton's family. When her evidence is conflicting about what really happened, as in the case of Sexton's memory of an incestual episode with her father, Middlebrook presents us with the various views of family members and friends and gives us their reasons for believing what they do. Then she presents her own conclusions. Above all else, this is the story of a woman's survival, of her finding herself and saving herself through poetry despite little education and little interest, at first, in art or poetry. Sexton's first poem was a sonnet she wrote after seeing a lecture about sonnets on TV.



4. This biography is a psychologically compelling, fascinating portrait of Anne Sexton the person. I wouldn't call it a relaxing read, but if you are interested in Anne Sexton or in a rather mysterious mental illness this is for you. I've been telling many friends about this book.



5. This biography reminds us we need to read Anne Sexton, as she was one of this country's fore-most confessional poets.
   
   The biography was engrossing, and elucidated many things I had not known about Sexton, or had only vaguely heard discussed.
   
   Such difficult times she and her fellow confessional poet, Sylvia Plath, lived in.
   
   One cannot help but wonder how things might have been different for Sexton and Plath, had they been born a couple of decades later.
   
   Very well worth reading.

5 comments about Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union.

1. This was a pleasure to read at almost 800 pages of text! Mr Remini made it all come alive and I feel as if I truly knew Clay and Calhoun, Webster, Benton, Van Buren, Buchanan, etc. I plan to read more Mr Remini's books in the future.



2. This is certainly the best of Dr. Remini's books to date. It is an honest appraisal of the man as a human being with human weakness and a great patriot and statesman. Remini had the opportunity to use the "Works of Henry Clay in the writing of this book and the expert researching of the character.
   
   We see Clay as John Q. Adams saw him, as the members of the House of Representatives as he reached his goal of Speaker, we sympathize with the grief stricken father of the boy who died in the Mexican War and how it affected Clay's politics. We share Clay's emotions as his different bids for the Presidential nominations are lost.As we are exposed to the genius and frailties of character of this stateman we see him through the eyes of his contemporaries and they show themselves through him.
   
   This is a marvelous story well told. I would recommend it to every person interested in 19th century America.



3. This important chapter of American history is usually analyzed as the period of the 'Great Triumvirate' of Clay, Calhoun and Wesbter, three failed politicians who never achieved the highest office. Nevertheless Clay was one of the most important men of his period, when the Whigs vied with the Democrats for control of the nation. He was first elected to the house in 1811 and helped forge Jacksonian populist democracy as well as preside over the compromises stemming from slavery and ensuring that America was a vibrant democracy.
   
   An interesting read, fair, and decent and well written.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman



4. I have read this book two times, because it was very interesting to me to learn about one of America's finest statesmen. Robert V. Remini is a favorite author of mine. I also liked
   
   Daniel Webster: The Man and His Time
   
   Andrew Jackson 3 Volumes The Course of the American Empire 1767-1821, The Course of the American Freedom 1822-1832, The Course of the American Democracy 1833-1845



5. Of all the biographies of early American figures, I rather like Henry Clay best. He boasted a lengthier political career than Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jackson etc. Of his rivals in the Senate, neither Daniel Webster nor John C. Calhoun were as effective in meeting the great challenges of his time: the BUS, the various Tariffs and territorial expansion. As a former debater, it is truly depressing that we have no audio to record his momentous speeches--those rarities which permanently altered the course of history.. Lincoln, Madison, Van Buren and virtually everyone else he met (save Andrew Jackson) admired his many abilities.
   
   Robert Remini is a biographer in the classical sense, the emphasis is heavy on the political, and far lighter on the more personal/psychological aspect of Clay's character. We are told he was a ladies' man, party-goer and gambler, but of these habits there is precious little detail despite almost 800 pages of work. Remini favors the younger Clay, House Speaker and leader of the National Republicans over the elder statesman and undisputed champion of the Whig Party. Perhaps 3 failed presidential elections took away his luster not only for the American public, but the biographer himself. After reading Clay, I will now give 'equal time' to Jackson, likely from a more contemporary biographer.

5 comments about A Narrative of the Life of David Crockett of the State of Tennessee.

1. David Crockett found himself to have become mythologized in his own lifetime. Every indication is that he arrived at this place accidentally, but that once he recognized his own pop-culture status he took advantage of it and nurtured it at every turn. His Narrative, therefore, must be read with a certain amount of skepticism nevertheless it is still valuable as an historical record.
   
   The narrative is a journey from start to finish; true Homeric stuff. He describes his journey into adulthood in pre-Mark Twain style, then his journey as an adventurer in the military, his journey across the state of Tennessee with his family, and finally his journey into politics. There may be many embellishments within his narrative, but considering the period in which it was written (while he contemplated a much larger political career) the topics he chose to describe actually seem prosaic and understated, as if he were deliberately trying to avoid bragging about himself. In this light, perhaps the Narrative is more accurate than is generally assumed. The Narrative may have been ghost-written by someone else, but there is enough Crockett in it to give it legitimacy. His jabs at Andrew Jackson are quaintly hilarious, but they are also true. In this pre-Alamo period of his life, his willingness to take a stand against Jackson might be the bravest thing he ever did.
   
   Lastly, the language itself is fascinating. The Narrative may be laced with over-the-top phrases such as, "knocked his trotters out from under him", but at the same time he writes, "if a fellow is born to be hung, he will never be drowned..." This is classic southern wisdom, words I have heard with my own ears in the mountains of eastern Tennessee, so Crockett's Narrative is either very authentic or was itself the basis for an evolving southern culture. In this way, the Narrative should be considered classic American literature.



2. 
   Davy Crockett's Narrative first appeared early in 1834 at the height of his political career. During the 1820s he had won a couple of terms in the Tennessee state legislature, and in 1827 he won a seat in Congress representing the western half of the state. He was a foe of Andrew Jackson and a political maverick; when he advocated for Indian rights he won the enmity of many in Congress and his constituents, and was voted from office in 1831. He licked his wounds and patched up differences, and was re-elected in 1833. To bolster his image, which was already taking on legendary aspects, this Narrative was written with his friend Thomas Chilton. Told in bold, humorous, boastful strokes, it is nonetheless a campaign biography and ends with sharp attacks on Jackson.
   
   The way the Narrative is set up here is very useful for the reader. It appears in facsimile form, with wide margins set around it, in which Shackford explains, corrects, and separates fact from fiction in Crockett's assertions. It's almost like watching a movie on DVD along with critical commentary. Interestingly, many errors that appear in the Narrative were intentional and are often self-deprecating, making Crockett more unsophisticated and lowbrow than he really was in order to win votes with the farmers and backwoodsmen of western Tennessee. Most of the historical references he makes are quite accurate. As a campaign biography to help him win re-election in 1835, however, it was a failure, as he lost to a Jacksonian. After that, he set his eyes on Texas.
   
   The format chosen here is what makes this book a success. The many annotations make this edition of the Narrative the most informative and "honest" in print. Highly recommended.



3. Confusion about authorhip has followed "A Narrative" more than 170 years. It helps to understand that Thos. Chilton, Representative from Kentucky, shared living quarters with Crockett at Mary Ball's Rooming House. They were actual bedfellows, which was the custom of the times; Thos. Chilton was father, eventually, to 15 children. Thomas Chilton had a university education and wrote with recognized eloquence. He crafted "A Narrative" from Crockett's notes and dictation, using carefully the homespun dialogue of his friend.
   
   Thos. Chilton, a skilled lawyer, was not fool enough to do all this this work for free. Davy Crockett arranged for his publisher to pay fifty percent of the book's royalties to Thomas Chilton, who agreed to have no mention of his name in the book. What remains rather obscure is the disposition of royalites after Crockett's death. Thomas Chilton died in 1854.
   
   The role played by Thomas Chilton in "A Narrative" was lost to history for nearly a hundred years, except inside the Chilton Family.
   -- Edward M. Chilton



4. David Crockett was best known for his adventures in the wilderness and fighting at the Alamo. He also served as a Congressman where he was known as an honest and conscientious man.
   
   I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. I found it honest, refreshing, stimulating and interesting. It is David Crockett's own words echoing through time. The sentences are long and constructed different than today and take a little time to absorb. This adds to the richness of the writing.
   
   A Narrative of the Life of David Crockett provides a peek into the world of this fine human being who was incredibly brave, a fine story teller, a gentleman and true adventurer. David Crockett was a strong critical thinker who followed his own beliefs and values. He couldn't be bribed to support any measure he thought was wrong. His celebrated motto was:
   "Be sure that you are right, and then go ahead."
   
   The Re-Discovery of Common Sense: A Guide to: The Lost Art of Critical Thinking



5. Professor Hutton gives us a scholarly edition of an essential American folk narrative. Partly an exercise in self-promotion (Crockett makes it clear he sees himself on the way to the Presidency) and partly an attempt to correct - or recast - the myth that already surrounded him, it remains a valuable insight into the social history of early nineteenth-century America.
   
   Davy was the great hero of the children of my generation, following the Disney movie, the Ballad and so on. It's nice to meet the real person at last. For, despite the fact that it was his friend Chilton who wrote down the words, and the fact that Crockett was very selective in what he reported and how he reported it, I think the man's real voice comes through.
   
   Like all memoirs, this one gives the reader a feel for what life was like for people - frontier folk, that is - at the time, in a way that no history book, no matter how well researched, can. The overriding impression is of a life of extraordinary hardship, in which terrible setbacks are shrugged aside and the struggle resumed. It was also a culture of racial hostility, which gives rise to some references to non-whites - black and Indian - that will fall uneasily on most modern ears. But so it was.
   
   The story gains added poignancy from the knowledge that it was published just two years before Crockett's death at the Alamo. It was there that his enduring fame was assured.
   [PeterReeve]