5 comments about Rain of Gold.

1. This book was fascinating to me. It is a great depiction of historical events that I had not really known about regarding the Mexican people. It is very sad to see what an idyllic, beautiful and simple life these people had only to have it shattered by the revolution. Their beautiful and simple existence became a fight for life and a future of being treated like dirt by soldiers in their own country and by the U.S. when they tried to go someplace else. The author did a great job with imagery and emotion. I couldn't put this book down.



2. I am a 57 year old gringo living in Southern Arizona and received this book from a friend of mine who is related to the author. I did not expect much and the beginning had me wondering if I would make it through all 500+ pages of small print. It did not take very long for me to realize that this book was well above ordinary. Prior to reading this book, I personally had gotten the most enjoyment from " East of Eden " and " The Agony and The Ecstacy " and place Mr. Villasenor's novel along side both. I cried and laughed like hell and as a lifelong Catholic, was deeply moved by the incredible faith of both of his grandmothers. Some of the other reviewers were put off by his technique, I was not. I very much agree with those who found great enjoyment from this book, as I had a difficult time putting it down and experienced a real sadness as I read the final words, I did not want it to end. Mr. Victor Villasenor is one heck of a storyteller and I feel blessed to have entered into his family through his written words.
   
   John Towle - Vail, Az.



3. I am Mexican American, and this book was reccommended to me by an Irish friend. I felt like I was reading my own history about my own family. Yes, there are scenes of violence and illegal acts, but that is not what makes any of us proud to be Mexican American. The faith in God and in family is what makes us proud of our heritage, and this book shares that while using the sour times in life to show just how sweet the sweet can be. I cried, laughed, and felt every emotion in between. I didn't want to stop reading, and I wish the book kept going. I am now inspired to find the stories of my family, and I am prouder than ever to be of Mexican heritage. I understand my family better, and I love my grandparents even more for what they went through. Thank you, Mr. Villasenor, for sharing this story with us.



4. Amazing story, amazing writer. Fall in love with the characters and the magic in this book. If you read Roots and loved it, you will surely love this book as well. Trials and tribulations of the mexican american family, and a great love story make this a great read.



5. This book is a magical story that most familes, no matter the origin can relate too. Good for teens - seniors (all ages). Every American and especially Mexican American should read this book. It is Victor Villasenor's best book.

5 comments about W. E. B. Du Bois, American Prophet (Politics and Culture in Modern America).

1. This is without question the definitive study of Du Bois and his relationship to religion, faith, and the church. Not only is the scholarship top notch, but the prose are thoughtful, rich, and compelling. It is so well written, so well-researched, and so engaging for anyone interested in religion in American history, race and religion, and the genius of WEB Du Bois.
   
   Blum delves in to so much with respectable sensitivity, and his analysis and insights go much deeper than all other biographers concerning Du Bois's relationship to religion.
   
   Brilliant. Highly recommended for students, professors, people interested in religious studies, history, identity, etc.



2. This is a beautiful book, lucid, passionate, rigorous, and engaged. Blum's pathbreaking consideration of DuBois as a key religious figure in America transforms the "black church" model that has needlessly constrained the story of African American spiritual striving, and powerfully dislodges the religious/secular dividing line that has likewise constrained scholarship on DuBois in all of the disciplines that claim him. This is the beginning of a new and needed conversation on prophetic faith in America, one to which historians and scholars who might otherwise have little truck with religion may join their voices without apology.



3. WEB DuBois:American Prophet is an absolute gem for in the ever expanding field of religious history. Blum's ability to analyze his sources and to use them to discover the spiritual side of DuBois allows the reader to understand the real DuBois. Blum is able to dismiss the idea that DuBois was secular in nature. A must have for all religious historians!!!!



4. Like many others I had long ago gained enormous respect for W.E.B. Du Bois, one of the outstanding leaders in race relations in the hundred years immediately after the American Civil War. As a writer, lecturer, scholar, and teacher he was a persistent voice for equality of opportunity, integration of society, and the civil rights of African Americans. I had never thought of him, however, as a religious thinker. That is, until now.
   
   In this marvelous new book by Edward J. Blum, an historian at San Diego State University, Du Bois emerges as a major thinker in Christianity and the social gospel. As Blum demonstrates, Du Bois was in no small measure motivated by the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, by the moral teachings of scripture, and by the thinking of theologians throughout the ages. And in this aspect of his life, like all others, Du Bois found ample scriptural and moral teaching advancing equality of all people. It is an eye-opening and unexplored aspect of Du Bois's character and one that all future investigators of his life and career will have to bring into the discussion of his other activities. As Blum shows, Du Bois's work cannot be understood absent his spiritual life.
   
   This work is a fine analysis that progresses through a series of Du Bois's writings to probe the depths of his moral and spiritual beliefs. A major chapter on "The Souls of Black Folk," as only one example, demonstrates the significance of his seeking universal truth in religion. Part sociological analysis, literary criticism, and theological exploration, Blum's work on Du Bois offers a new avenue for understanding one of the towering figures in American race relations. It is a brilliant, authoritative, and seminal study that all scholars of U.S. religion, race relations, and the early twentieth century will find invaluable.



5. The winds of change. But for all of the change that we have experienced in America, nothing much has truly changed at all. When W.E.B. Du Bois wrote The Souls of Black Folk in 1903, he spoke eloquently of the "color line" in America. It was his answer to the question, "How does it feel [add "black man"] to be a problem?" To that, his answer was, in so many words and paraphrased by me, "I'm not the problem, America has a problem--and that is the problem of the color line."
   
   With amazing detail and a highly introspective look into this religious aspect of Du Bois' life, Edward J. Blum, a history teacher at San Diego State University, delves into the one aspect of Du Bois' life that remains open for debate to this day. The question of who or what did he believe in that inspired him to touch the minds, hearts, and the souls of folk in the way that he did. Some thought him a man of faith, but many men of faith begged to differ--questioning his beliefs and his faith, and he often left them wondering if he had any faith at all.
   
   For a man whose writings and work often paralleled Bible stories, he appeared disconnected from church traditions and religiosity, but still connected to his faith in God. Today's community of Bible thumpers would have called him a "spiritualist," rather than a Christian.
   
   Hallie Queen, says Blum, likened the chapter called 'Of our Spiritual Strivings' to the 137th Psalm in character and significance, and indeed, the struggle of the black man in America very much paralleled the struggle of the ancient Hebrews in Egypt. Had it not been for the lost sense of community and individual connectivity, the spiritual strivings of the American black man were exactly as those of the Hebrews, except that there were many "pharoahs" called 'the written law' rather than one ruler who could change his mind on a whim.
   
   Blum re-examines Du Bois' life and his historical record from a different and refreshing perspective. It would appear to some that the black nationalism and black liberation theology of Du Bois' writings were diametrically opposed to religion, but Du Bois appears instead to be walking a tightrope between the two.
   
   It has been rumored in the black community that whatever hurts whites devastates blacks. If, as Karl Marx said, religion is the 'opiate of the masses,' then for blacks, religion may be the cluster bomb that wiped out the effectiveness of the black church in handling the ongoing pressures of blackness in society. As tax laws changed and churches were cornered into losing their exemption status for protesting too loudly on the political scene, what amounted to a matter of exemptions for white churches became a matter of ending centuries of rhetoric against racial injustice in America for black churches. What was fought in court originated in church for most blacks, and if one were to say the church "weakened" the black man's political stance before, it was easier to say this move "watered it down."
   
   The "weak" black church was the only podium from which a black man could take a calculated stand in the fight for equality and still be heard; but that church has traded out the speeches of justice in exchange for the speeches of prosperity. If Du Bois was both sinner and saint, it was not because he hated religion, but because he hated the use of religious entities to defraud, bully, and control the masses. He did not shun religion, but often used it to counter some of the traditions that men embraced.
   
   In summary, the author comes close to the edge of defending the 'religion' of W.E.B. Du Bois, who died as misunderstood as he was when he lived, and yet he made a deep impact on all who have seen, heard, or read of him. He was labeled a radical, and was largely ignored by those who had hoped that his massive contributions would be buried along side of him, But, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote, "history cannot ignore W.E.B. DuBois because history has to reflect truth, and Dr. DuBois was a tireless explorer and a gifted discoverer of social truths...his singular greatness lay in his quest for truth about his own people..."
   
   In the final chapter, entitled The Passing of the Prophet, Blum repeats Du Bois' words of courage. "Beyond The Veil," he (Du Bois) wrote in 1897, ["the veil" being the insidious Color Line of our yesterdays and todays] lies an undiscovered country, a land of new things, of change, of experiment, of wild hope, and somber realization, of superlatives and italics - of wondrously blended poetry and prose." Blum states, "Du Bois inhabited that realm for much of his lifetime, let us strive to join him there."
   
   Reviewed by Marjani
   for The RAWSISTAZ Reviewers

5 comments about Chester Alan Arthur (The American Presidents).

1. The wonderful thing about reading books concerning the US Presidents is that these men represent a finite group.....forty-two men and forty-three presidencies. Writing for "The American Presidents" series, Zachary Karabell has offered up a slightly expanded thumbnail sketch of our twenty-first president, Chester Alan Arthur.
   
   Since Arthur held the office of president, someone has to write about him. The problem with President Arthur is that not much about him survives. Most of his papers were destroyed after his death, so Karabell must rely largely on newspaper accounts of the day mixed in with a few anecdotes regarding the president, which, as the author mentions, may or may not be true.
   
   We know that Arthur was a bon vivant, never aspired to the presidency and was passable at being the chief executive during his tenure from 1881-1885. Indeed, most presidential ratings place Arthur squarely in the middle or slightly below. Even the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883, the most important piece of legislation passed during Arthur's presidency, was not a direct act of Arthur's leadership. (I think one more lasting thing to come out of the Arthur years, which Karabell doesn't touch on, is the adoption of Standard Time)
   
   The author does his best to be fair. The few parts of this book with any real drama are Arthur's dealings with Senators Roscoe Conkling and James G. Blaine. The president certainly had a balancing act to do with these two bitter adversaries.
   
   Chester Alan Arthur undoubtedly brought style and grace to the presidency and presided over a few relatively quiet and prosperous years in the United States. We should at least give him credit for that.



2. Back in the post Civil War days when many plum governmental jobs were gotten from political bosses, Chester A. Arthur had one of the best patronage jobs of all, collector at the US Customhouse in New York. Prior to the federal income tax, this was the country's principal source of income. The collector, under the perfectly legal rules of that time, got a commission on what he collected as well as a comfortable salary. If you paid an assessment to the party, you might be able to secure a patronage job. From this system arose the career of Arthur.
   
   The Republican party was divided into factions. The stalwarts (who had been Ulysses S. Grant supporters) were led by Senator Roscoe Conkling of New York. There was a reform wing of the party and then there was a faction, led by James Blaine of Maine (hmmmm that rhymes) called the half breeds. Arthur was aligned with the stalwarts and the patronage system. As a stylish New York lawyer who was in to the local social scene, he was happy being part of the bureaucracy. At times, he would lose his spoils system position in the bureaucracy due to politics but, he always had his law practice to fall back on. In 1880, his life changed as he ended up as a sort of unoffending compromise candidate for vice president on the ticket led by James Garfield. They were elected and shorly thereafter, Garfield was assasinated. Arthur, who had no aspirations ended up as president. He was as reluctant to assume the presidency as the rest of the nation was to have him take that office.
   
   There were low expectations for Arthur, after all, he was never elected to office other than as Grafield's running mate. However, although he may not have been a great leader, there were significant accomplishments during his term. Most notable was the Pendleton Civil Service Act which began the breakup of the spoils system from which Arthur had arisen. Arthur took moral stands opposing an anti Chinese immigrant piece of legislation and a pork barrel Rivers and Harbors bill. His opposition to both led to their being significantly modified but, he didn't have the political clout to ultimately prevent either from being enacted. All he really did was cut his stalwart ties without creating any real new alliance with the reformers.
   
   Arthur was ill. He had a kidney disease. Also, he really didn't want to be president. However, pride made him seek the nomination in 1884. He had cut himself off from his stalwart base and was not renominated. The Republican nominee, Blaine, lost a close election to Grover Cleveland. All in all, Arthur wasn't a bad president and perhaps deserves to be remembered in history. However, he was not a great president either. The picture that author Zachary Karabell paints is of a president whose legacy may be that he did a decent job of presiding over a period of peace and prosperity.



3. As a cursory look at the shelves of any bookstore would show, figures such as Lincoln, Churchill, or the Roosevelts are often frequented by biographers to various levels of success. This is possible given both the amount of writings and speeches left behind from these types of figures, and their enduring influence in today's government and society.
   
   Harder to write are biographies on historical figures who seemed to have only passed through the night, important as links in a chain, but without personal significance in their own right. In the American Presidents series, John Dean was successful in resuscitating life into the otherwise dead legend of Warren Harding. Less successful was Kevin Phillips' book on William McKinley.
   
   Alas, this short bio on Chester Arthur by Zachary Carabell falls closer to the latter than the former in trying to find interest in a long forgotten president. Carabell acknowledges the difficulty with his subject since Arthur was the accidental president (took office after Garfield's assassination) and a person who was satisfied in acting as the unseen executive in the political machine.
   
   Arthur left no historical papers of interest. The most interesting anecdote was his venture into the 1850's Kansas-Missouri civil war. But even this ended without drama with his running back on almost the next train to New York.
   
   The author seeks to find importance to the Arthur administration, but his efforts are in vain. The author's best effort was discussing Arthur's efforts to redecorate the White House. That Louis Tiffany was contracted by Arthur to be the decorator showed exceedingly good taste for the widower president.
   
   As for policy, however, Carabell could only be said to have convinced himself that Arthur achieved any importance. Aside from some minor naval buildup, he initiated no legislation. Arthur vetoed a blatantly bigoted anti-immigration bill, but immediately signed a slightly revised version. He signed a civil service reform bill, but played no part in its passage and only after its passage by a lame-duck Congress that was soundly defeated in the just completed elections. The author concludes that Arthur could not be blamed for his party's resounding election defeats and later loss of the presidency, but that only magnifies his lack of influence within his own party and the electorate. Most odd was the author's stated surprise at the lack of biographies written about Arthur. After completing this work, one could only wonder why anyone would want to write anything more about him.



4. Not all presidents are created equal. While there are plenty of big name presidents - Washington, Lincoln, FDR, etc. - there are also plenty of obscure ones who are mere footnotes in American history. Chester Arthur definitely fits in this latter category. As Zachary Karabell's brief biography relates, this obscurity is well-deserved. Arthur was neither good nor bad and served in a time that had no real crises.
   
   Arthur spent most of his career in appointed positions, not seeking election until asked to be Garfield's running mate as an attempt to balance the two wings of the Republican party. Arthur was, to be blunt, a party hack, a loyal Republican who may have been honest but was no activist. Instead, Arthur was a realist who rarely let his ideals overwhelm his pragmatism. Accepting the vice presidency only out of party loyalty and with no ambition for the top office; when Garfield was assassinated, Arthur wound up being one of the most reluctant presidents ever.
   
   Arthur did have some redeeming values and occasionally took risks, such as when he vetoed a clearly racist immigration bill. For the most part, however, he rarely pushed his ideas very hard. The most significant legislation to arise during his presidency dealt with civil service reform, but he didn't provide much leadership on the issue. When he did become president, he put the office above party loyalty, which would cost him any chance at the nomination in the next election.
   
   As part of the American Presidents series, this biography is very brief (less that 150 pages) and focuses primarily on Arthur's tenure in office. With these editorial limitations, Karabell is restricted in giving much real details on Arthur, who winds us being a remote character who it's hard to get a feel for. Nonetheless, this is a well-written book and Karabell is able to put Arthur in the context of his times. As an introduction to this minor Chief Executive, this book works well.



5. Chester Alan Arthur was a surprise president. He was selected to run for VEEP from pure political reasons. However, he fell into the presidency and, against many fears, did not mess up in that office. As the author states (Page 143): ". . .some men are neither born great, nor achieve greatness, nor have it thrust upon them. Some people just do the best they can in a difficult situation, and sometimes that turns out just fine."
   
   Chester Arthur was one of the United States' "accidental presidents," thrust into office because of the assassination of James Garfield. This book, as others in the series, provides a thumbnail sketch of Arthur (text is 143 pages long). Born in Vermont, his family moved to New York when he was ten years old. He began his political work as a bureaucrat and patronage administrator. While he was enmeshed in the "spoils system," he was not corrupt and was generally pretty well liked. In 1871, he received a coveted position--collector of the New York customhouse. He earned plenty in that role.
   
   Comes the 1880 presidential race. Garfield, a "dark horse," won the nomination and Arthur was selected as his V-P partner, as a result of torturous Republican politics. And he had never been elected to any office prior to that!
   
   The Republicans won, Garfield was assassinated, and Arthur became president. One comment says a great deal, when someone said (Page 61): "Chet Arthur? President of the United States? Good God!" Against the expectations of many, he served without any great errors, and with some positive contributions. (1) While he did not take an active role, he did sign the Pendleton Law, providing Civil Service reform. (2) He did take steps to modernize the embarrassing United States Navy. (3) He was involved with reducing the tariff. (4) Etc. Perhaps more important, he made no major blunders (as many had expected).
   
   He was diagnosed with a dreadful disease, Bright's Disease, which made the last part of his stint as President miserable. While he would have liked another term, such was not to be. He left the presidency with dignity, but with a disease that doomed him.
   
   All in all, a nice biography of a little known and not very great president--but one who did not make things worse than when he entered office.

3 comments about Pursuit: The Chase, Capture, Persecution, and Surprising Release of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

1. ...but that doesn't make him guilty of a crime.
   
   When the Confederacy collapsed in April, 1865, President Davis got Lee's message to leave while sitting in pew 63 at St. Paul's Episcopal Church...I have sat in that pew for Church services, and if you think that doesn't give a Southerner the shakes, think again. The civil government left town on a slow train that night..... Danville...Greensboro...Charlotte... One by one his cabinet faded away; Davis still wanted to make it to Texas, and continue the war. By then, that idea bordered on lunacy. Finally, after a month in which he ran, but not hard enough, the President was captured by Union Cavalry near Irwinville, Georgia [NOT IN VARINA'S DRESS--that story is a vile lie]. Davis was transported to Fortress Monroe, Virginia....then the real story started.
   
   Abe Lincoln has wanted a peaceful reunion of the country, and was inclined to let Davis, and the others, escape. Some of Lincoln's own people disagreed; we shall never know what would have happened had Lincoln lived. Abe was a strong leader...Andrew Johnson was not, and therin lay the problem. President Davis was locked up, even kept in chains for a week. The Union had several real difficulties...Democrat controlled newspapers came to Davis' support...good lawyers offered to defend him...the Justice Department couldn't come up with a crime to charge him with. Treason? Well...the Constitutional definition of that is very specific. Secession alone won't do it...secession had always been assumed to be legal. Overthrow of the government in Washington? We NEVER sought to do that, merely to form our own. The Yankees had treated us as a real country during prisoner exchanges; now, they were stuck. And then there was the matter of the Yankees' illegal admission of West Virginia. Does that mean I'm an unperson?
   
   Some Northerners tried to frame Davis for the Lincoln murder, but couldn't even get lying witnesses to tell a straight story. Davis would have NEVER traded Lincoln for Johnson, and Judah Benjamin would have never run such an operation without express orders from Davis. Mr. Johnson touched one interesting point, but did not elaborate: Secretary Stanton refused two different Union officers permission to accompany Lincoln to the theater. Both were strong men, who could have overpowered Booth...stories have circulated for years, hinting at Stanton's involvement, because he wanted a harsher Reconstruction than Lincoln would have allowed. The most that can be speculated is that knowing, somehow, about the plot, he withdrew protection.
   
   Finally, after two years [during which his treatment improved], President Davis was released on bail [paid by Northerners]. The Union had gotten itself in a legal mess by holding a man they dared not bring to trial, and were afraid to just let go. Mr. Chief Justice Chase came to the rescue with a novel approach to the Fourteenth Amendment, and the doctrine of double jeopardy. Davis never got his day in Court....
   
   I am a supporter of Jefferson Davis, but I will certainly not assert that he was without faults; pig-headed might be a nice way to put it. His inability to work with men he disliked led to the underuse of Generals PGT Beauregard and Joe Johnston, and hurt the South. Once he decided on a policy, he would simply not listen to reason. Still, his strength of character helped keep the South going. He gave the South someone to rally around during Reconstruction; to the day he died in 1889, he never backed down. He also committed no crime during the war...Mr. Johnson has written a superb book, part adventure story, part legal treatise, all great history.



2. There are different ways to write Civil War history. Some books that are designed for history professors are found filled with footnotes and trivial facts and esoteric comparisons which only another professor of history could enjoy wading through. Then there are others with no notes and no references to sources that tell a rousing good story but one that leaves the reader wondering if he has read a novel or a history book and no way to verify which. Clint Johnson has merged these two types of history into a book which, if you are interested in Jefferson Davis and his capture, is a must read. Johnson focuses on the details of Davis' flight and capture. For those who are looking for something new -- along with the fresh perspective that Johnson brings to the oft-told story of Davis' capture, he has unearthed interesting information, like providing newly discovered details concerning the story that Davis was wearing a dress when he was captured. Many are not aware the Lincoln actively sought to have Davis and his cabinet escape the US or that Davis was never tried for a crime because he never committed one [except in the eyes of the most radical Republicans] and Johnson lets you see the pickle the US government was in as the press and Reconstructors were screaming for Davis to be tried and hung. Johnson seems to have done his legwork. In Johnson's work I did not run across anything which seemed invented, contrived or went against modern Civil War research. Whenever I did want to check the source, I found the cited sources matched Johnson's version. The best part is that the book is well enough written that, once I started, I had to stay up till I finished it. A fascinating book about a fascinating figure in American history. If you are a Civil War history buff, or just want to read a well written account of a very interesting episode from the Civil War, then I recommend you read this book.



3. Another job well done Clint Johnson! As with all of your books you can tell immediately this one was well researched and well written. You are certainly on your way to becoming one of this generations premiere civil war historians. You write with a style that seems as though you have actually lived and experienced the very history you so ably put to type and that is what makes this book so enjoyable. Any student of American history needs this book in their collection.

2 comments about Theodore Roosevelt: Letters and Speeches (Library of America).

1. Theodore Roosevelt was among the most literary men ever to occupy the White House. The author of over 40 books, he was also a prolific letter-writer and in the pre-"West Wing" age prepared his own speeches as well. Numerous collections of his writings have been published, with this volume being the latest of them. Edited by the author and Roosevelt biographer Louis Auchinloss, it offers a selection of some of the most illustrative writings from throughout Roosevelt's life and career.
   
   The result is somewhat disappointing. Though advertised as "Letters and Speeches," the volume is mostly comprised of the former rather than the latter; there are only four speeches tacked on at the end, almost as an afterthought. Nor do the letters published here offer anything new - all of them, in fact, are from the superb eight-volume collection edited by Elting Morison in the early 1950s, only with the excellent footnotes that provided the context relegated to the back of the book.
   
   These criticisms aside, the Library of America has produced a book of merit. Auchinloss has selected letters which offer a helpful peek into Roosevelt's life, providing almost an autobiographical presentation of Roosevelt's ideas and opinions. For readers interested in particular subjects, Auchinloss provides in the table of contents a brief subject line under each letter, which adds to the book's utility. The result is a nice, durable volume offering a useful sampling of some of Roosevelt's most important letters. While diehard fans of TR will probably prefer Morison's hard-to-find collection, for readers seeking a handy edition of his correspondence this is the book to own.



2. Most living today do not know the art of letter writing. Our lives are all phone calls and emails. We live in the instant and do not know the pleasures and benefits of taking time to form thoughts and writing in complete and coherent sentences let alone taking the time to construct paragraphs or a complete and persuasive argument. Another problem is that our communications today are perishable. There are fewer personal documents left for study and almost no drafts to give us insight into the process of composition. Sure, presidential libraries contain mountains of paper, but so much of it is from staff, is impersonal bureaucrat speak, and lacks the wit, sparkle, and insight of a practiced and skilled writer such as Theodore Roosevelt.
   
   TR published forty books, wrote more than 100,000 letters, and his collected speeches fill twenty volumes. All this in a too short sixty year life (Oct 1858 - Jan 1919). I find this productivity staggering, especially when one considers how actively he lived his life. He traveled, he climbed the Matterhorn, he ranched, went to war, fulfilled many public offices including Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Governor of New York, Vice-President, and President of the United States.
   
   We all owe a note of thanks to Louis Auchincloss for editing this volume and providing us with 367 of his letters, every one of them one kind of gem or another. We get observations of TR the Naturalist, the diplomat, the Rough Rider, Governor, President, Ex-President, and the private man. Actually, we get more sides of him than those, but those are the biggest and most notable gems. Four of his greatest and most noted speeches are also included. They all deserve to be read today and should be read by all students of American History.
   
   In my view, the greatest of them is his 1910 speech at the Sorbonne on "Citizenship in a Republic". "The Strenuous Life" is also a wonderful speech to read and contemplate. Both are calls to a responsible and fully lived life of duties and responsibilities to earn the rewards of freedom and wealth. He has no use for the empty life living off the sweat and blood of others. Magnificent sentiments that should inspire us today and will actually have the beneficial effect of making all, and I mean all, of our present leaders seem small in comparison let alone the indictment it makes on each one of us. If you do not want to hear a clear call to action, avoid these speeches. But you will avoid them to your own loss.
   
   This book deserves to be read and read more than once. It is that wonderful kind of book you can dip into for a short read over and over again. Each time you will come away feeling energized and inspired to do more and to do better.
   
   Hugely recommended. Thanks to the Library of America for producing this magnificent and beautifully done volume.
   
   Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI
   
   You might also want to consider:
   
   Theodore Roosevelt: The Rough Riders/An Autobiography (Library of America)

5 comments about The Way of Duty: A Woman and Her Family in Revolutionary America.

1. Not a difficult story to follow, staying alert will require a great deal of effort. Sudden impacts come off key and unceremoniously. Maybe a rainy day with nothing to do book.



2. IT WAS A GOOD WAY OF SHOWING US JUST HOW THINGS WERE LONG AGO



3. Although I found it a bit hard to stay focused while reading "The Way of Duty," I did like the book. Unlike textbooks that provide facts, charts, graphs and statistics, "The Way of Duty" gives the reader a look at what life was like for the Fish family during the Revolutionary War. The reader gets an inside look at childhood, education, religious devotion, the obstacles surrounding marriage, home life for a woman, ideas about death, childbirth, and war. It is excellent when blended with readings from textbooks that deal with the same subject matter.



4. I began reading this book as part of research I'm conducting on the Revolutionary War. It ended up as pleasure reading. I found the book not only enjoyable to read, but inspiring as well. Mary Fish Silliman, an upper class woman during the Revolution, shares her trials and joys in this wonderful portrayal of her life. Using Mary's journal and family letters, the authors do a fabulous job of bringing her to life, as well as the long ago culture in which she lived. Her faith and strength of character are truly inspiring, especially when she faces the untimely deaths of two of her young children, her young husband, and the possibility of losing another husband in battle. A remarkable woman in a fascinating age.



5. The Way of Duty is a great supplementary reading for those taking a first course in US History or for those wanting to know about the life of an ordinary woman and her family during the time of the American Revolution and pre-Revolutionary times.

   This book has information about the First Great Awakening, and on the religious sermons that were preached during the Great Awakening. But this book tells a story about the life of Mary Fish Silliman, and the time (1736-1818) in which she lived. It's a good window to look out to see how a family functioned during the American Revolution.

5 comments about Let it Blurt: The Life and Times of Lester Bangs, America's Greatest Rock Critic.

1. I first became exposed to rock 'n roll literature through an older cousin who was an avid reader of Creem magazine. I soon became a fan of Lester Bangs'work through that medium. This book does a good job of book documenting the turbulent life of Lester with sincerity, compassion and is a great, easy read. Any fan of Lester and his imaginative, cerebral writings would find this book worthy of being in your collection.



2. He was raised by Jehovah's Witenesses, didn't bathe often, and got high off cough syrup. He was recently enshrined in the Rock Snob Dictionary. Welcome to the world of Lester Bangs, whose speed-feuled writing made rock criticism into an art form. Jim Derogatis has done Lester's memory justice, though the subject of his biography comes across as difficult, immature, and self-destructive. Lester lived the life of the rock stars he wrote about. And though he tried his hand at playing in a few bands, his music career never went anywhere. What he's remembered for is his writing, which was done in the gonzo journalist style of Hunter S. Thompson. Whether or not you share Lester's tastes--which ranged from the New York Dolls and Captain Beefheart to Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music anti-album--you have to appreciate his passion for music. He's like the guy in school who would rant and rave about his favorite bands in a way that was both poetic and embarrassing. After all, was what he was talking about that important? For Lester it was: what was at stake was an art form that he felt was more democratic than any. Punk's "Do it Yourself" aesthetic was supposed to signal a new era of self-made musicians and raw, powerful albums. Lester believed that rock was never about the music so much as the swagger. One only needed three chords and a lot of attitude. When the 1980s rolled around, Lester seemed depressed by the move away from musicians who couldn't play to the more competent bands of New Wave. Although Lester has been immortalized by Philip Seymour Hoffman in Almost Famous, the spirit of Lester is more apparent in a movie like High Fidelity, which celebrates vinyl snobs and music fanaticism. Whether you like Lester as a person after reading this book, and I did not, Derogatis has written an entertaining and well-balanced biography. However, he doesn't include much of Lester's own critical writing in the book other than the appendix piece, "How to Be a Rock Critic." But, having read this book, I now want to seek out collections of Lester's work. Recommended reading for any serious rock fan.



3. It was necessary that someone would write a book about the late great Lester Bangs but it could have been better. As some of Lester's stuff it suffers from juvenile tendencies and does not in that sense allways give the man the seriousnes he deserves. It is in no way a very bad book but it should have been better and the two colections of hiw work deserve to be bougth first.



4. Let it be assumed that most of the people who read this book will be familiar with Lester Bangs, be it through his writings or (as when I first heard of him, from the initial issues of _Punk_ magazine or like quasi-insider sources) by reputation.
   For such readers, reading this book will be an experience that brings only minor rewards. For those interested in Bangs' writing and its influences, the book will clarify the direct stylistic influences (those called the Beats, mostly). On the other hand, anyone who's read Bangs' articles (collected or in situ) should have had no trouble recognizing the rather flimsy rants as variations on the Beat theme.
   Other readers might be interested in the milieu of the book. This was the appeal to me, as I spent much of my youth moving in the same world, meeting the same people (and, indeed, running into Bangs himself at CBGB's). Such readers will find the book a pleasant way to be reminded of other times.
   The "shame" part of my title stems from two things: first, Bangs' life as described in this book was pretty pathetic. Much of it was wasted with drug and drink, as was common and unremarkable at the time. (Most of the Bangs reputation grew from self-publicizing.) Likewise, it becomes clear from the book that Bangs knew little about music technically (as becomes clear from reading his generally useless reviews), so that the great measure of the value of his writing comes only from his profoundly derivitive style, which stood out only because of the places in which it was published. Note that Derogatis is clearly a Bangs fan, so that any critical apprasal of Bangs' writing must be supplied by the reader.
   The second shame is that this book is a better read than anything Bangs turned out. "Let it Blurt" is not a bad way to pass an afternoon or two, but the uninteresting subject finally gives the reader an impresssion of emptiness. This is no fault of Derogatis': writing about an empty life is no mean task.



5. lester bangs is a legend in the music industry. this is a great read for anyone who is a fan of his work. i got a used copy and it was in great condition.

5 comments about 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and the War They Failed to See.

1. Why 1858? I found myself asking that question repeatedly the entire time I was reading this book. What made 1858 THE year to look at in regards to the coming of the Civil War. Author Bruce Chadwick tries (largely unsuccessfully, in my opinion) to argue that 1858 was the year slavery became THE main issue facing the United States and events which occurred in 1858 played a large role in bringing about the war. In his Foreword, Chadwick tells the reader he will attempt to accomplish this by weaving together seven stories of people and events, linking these disparate stories together with looks into James Buchanan's "spectacular failure" as President.
   
   1858 weaves together seven stories all (loosely) tied together by Buchanan's Presidency. These stories are, in no particular order:
   
   1. Jefferson Davis
   2. Robert E. Lee
   3. William T. Sherman
   4. The Oberlin-Wellington Slave Rescue
   5. William H. Seward
   6. John Brown
   7. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates
   
   At first, I was intrigued by the author's decision to abandon a traditional narrative and use what I thought would be an interesting change of pace. The idea works better in theory than in the pages of 1858, however. Stories are broken up into different chapters with little regard for continuity or chronological order. For readers new to the subject, this may very well be misleading as far as a time line of these events goes.
   
   As I stated in my introduction, my main and overriding question while reading the entire book was "Why 1858? What makes this year so special?" Unfortunately, although the author does claim he chose 1858 because it was THE year slavery became the overriding issue facing the United States, he doesn't give nearly enough reason WHY, and thus doesn't really answer my question. In essence, he argues FOR 1858, but he really gives no arguments AGAINST other years. To me, slavery had been THE issue for quite some time. A post concerning the Compromise of 1850 at Elektratig shows that slavery was very much at the forefront of the country's concerns as the 1850s opened, and that the Civil War may well have started a decade earlier had the Compromise of 1850 not happened. I can agree with the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the Oberlin-Wellington Slave rescue as two MAJOR events involving slavery and an acceleration towards war. However, other events outside of this year, especially John Brown's Harpers Ferry Raid in 1859 and obviously the Presidential Election of 1860 were major events which did much to hasten the Civil War. Chadwick does argue that the seeds were sewn for these events in 1858. He stresses that John Brown's raid into Missouri and successful escape with slaves into Canada in 1858 and the Lincoln-Douglas debates led to these other events. That may be true, but the MAIN events happened in years other than 1858. Without belaboring the point too much, I believe you simply cannot make a strong case that 1858 was any more important than many other years in causing the Civil War or having slavery become THE issue facing the country. Chadwick's failure too largely explain WHY or argue against other years only drives home the point for me.
   
   To me, deciding to include William T. Sherman was an odd choice other than to allow the author/publisher to get Ulysses S. Grant's name into the subtitle of the book. Grant is barely mentioned, and Sherman had hardly anything to do with the author's assertion that 1858 was the year slavery became the most important issue in the country. The only reason I can see to include Sherman is to show an example of a Northerner who had no strong feelings towards slavery, much like Robert E. Lee was personally opposed to slavery as a Southerner. In reading the chapters covering Sherman, I was puzzled as to what purpose his antebellum life story served to the narrative as a whole.
   
   The subtitle of the book is especially puzzling to me. U.S. Grant is listed and he is barely mentioned in the book, pretty much only in relation to the Sherman portion of the story. Putting a famous figure into your title or subtitle only to barely mention them isn't going to win points with this reviewer. Another issue I have with the subtitle is "The War They Failed to See." Huh? Lincoln's "House Divided" speech is mentioned. So is Jefferson Davis' ascension in late 1858 as the leader of the Secession Movement. John Brown not only saw war coming, he was determined to start it himself! And lastly, Seward's "Irrepressible Conflict" speech is also stressed. It seems to me these men at least had an inkling that war was at the very least very possible if not imminent if some drastic steps were not taken with regards to slavery. I don't want to pin this on the author at all. Marketing sells books, and the subtitle screams MARKETING from a tall building. Blame the publisher here folks.
   
   If you have lasted this long, you might believe I hated 1858. This is definitely not so. My policy is to get the bad out of the way first and move on to the good. Let's start with the author's style. Bruce Chadwick is definitely a good storyteller. Despite some continuity issues in his narrative choice as mentioned earlier, I read this 300 page book in only two sittings. I could not put it down.
   
   Chadwick's chapters on the gross ineptitude of James Buchanan's Presidency were my favorite portions of the book. Rather than focus on the slavery issue and try to resolve it in some way, Buchanan instead completely ignored slavery when possible and blinded himself to the enormity of the problem the rest of the time. His "Don Quixote-ish schemes", as Chadwick calls them, to annex portions of Central and South America by any means possible while ignoring slavery was just one issue. In addition, Buchanan chose to fight petty feuds with two powerful men, Senator Stephen Douglas and newspaper editor John Forney, and these feuds were disastrous for the Democratic party in the elections of 1858 and the Presidential election of 1860. More than any other man, Buchanan had the power to slow or even prevent radical developments with regards to the slavery situation. Instead, says Chadwick, he did nothing while radicals on both sides led the nation to the brink of war.
   
   I was also pleasantly surprised with the bibliography and notes. Chadwick uses a nice number of endnotes, including 747 in exactly 300 pages of text. He did use quite a few secondary sources, but for what was obviously to me a "pop history" book aimed more at the masses than to deep readers, Chadwick also looked at the papers of many of those involved in the events of the year 1858 and around 90 newspapers published at the time. A serviceable index rounds out the book.
   
   Bruce Chadwick's 1858 sets out to prove that year was the year slavery became THE issue in the United States, but was rather unsuccessful in this regard. His arguments for 1858 as the year were sparse and his arguments against other years were non-existent. The story's continuity suffered somewhat as a result of some conscious choices on the author's part. Despite these flaws, 1858 is an enjoyable read aimed at the masses which I would be happy to recommend to readers new to the subject. Deep readers will find this material covered elsewhere in much greater detail.



2. Reads like a novel, but its pure history and gives a perspective on the Civil War which has been lacking. The war wasn't about slavery in the south, but more so about slavery in the new states of the west....



3. I have to admit that I can't quite place this book. I would say on the one hand I was disappointed because while it did a good job of portraying the year 1858 it could have just as easily been 1856 or 1860, both of which would have been more interesting. The book spent a lot of time focusing on personal rivalries to the detriment of painting the national picture. Also certain figures who would rise to prominence in the Civil War were given great exposure yet others were barely mentioned. (Like Grant)
   
   So all in all if you like the period, there are worse reads out there but I still think that James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom does a much better job at portraying the period.



4. 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and The War They Failed to See, Bruce Chadwick , Sourcebooks Inc., 355 pp., notes, bibliography, index, 2008, $24.95
   
   1858 offers clear and concise descriptions of key political and social events that shoved the states into rebellion and resistance. Adventurous and even compelling at times, 1858 moves the reader through twelve months of political and social turmoil. Chadwick explores not the mundane but the exceptional.
   
   Not familiar to most Civil War readers is Jefferson Davis' 1858 visit to Maine in order to recuperate from herpes and build a coalition of Northern Democrats in a bid to establish a presidential candidacy in 1860. The Southern press pilloried him to the point that when he returned he retracted his statements. Ironically, these retractions put him into a position where he would be offered a presidency in 1861, that of the Confederate States of America.
   
   In one six page chapter, Chadwick offers a cogent and balanced description of the Dred Scott Decision, one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court event in U.S. history. His ability to put into place the origins, personalities, issues, and outcomes of this event is exceptional. As a Advance Placement U.S. History test reader, CWL reflected that this chapter would be a fine contribution to student resources.
   
   Though CWL is quite familiar with the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Oberlin Ohio Rescue and John Brown's escape with slaves from Missouri to Canada, Chadwick offers the essentials in a manner that captures the excitement and underscores their place in bringing the states to the brink of rebellion in 1860. After reading 1858, Civil War buffs may have a new appreciation for the events leading to the Secession Winter of 1860-1861. Some readers may need to keep in mind that all soldiers in the ranks had lived through and had argued over the events of 1858.
   
   Though a Pennsylvanian, CWL has not be able to work up any enthusiasm for James Buchanan, 15th president of the United States. Chadwick's 1858 covers the Buchanan presidency in nine chapters that fall between chapters on Davis, Lee, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Oberlin Rescue, Seward's Irrepressible Conflict speech, and John Brown's rescue of slaves from Missouri. Read consecutively the Buchanan White House chapters make the case for this Northern Democrat holding Southern Democrats' interest higher than his own section and possibly allowing the conflict to become truly irrepressible.
   
   Some quibbles: The subtitle is unclear; nine of 17 chapters deal with the Buchanan White House, two deal with Lincoln and Douglas, and single chapters deal with Lee, Davis, Seward, Sherman, The Dred Scott Decision, John Brown's Raid on Missouri and the Slaveholder's raid on Nicaragua. Mysteriously, U.S. Grant is mentioned only on four pages in the book but is in the subtitle. Buchanan has nine chapters but has no mention in the title at all.
   
   CWL suggests that the subtitle be changed for the paperback edition: 1858--The Year the Civil War Became Inevitable for Davis, Lee, Douglas, Lincoln, Seward, Sherman and John Brown. Or 1858--Blood Before The Civil War's Dawn: The Men Who Pulled the Trigger on the War.
   
   Chadwick assumes the reader has no detailed understanding of the period; 1858 is written for the general audience. For the paperback edition, a chronology for the year should be added as well as a brief chronology of the 1846-1860 era. A list of characters would also be helpful for the general audience. Also, the index needs some attention. The entry--Forney, John--lists 6 pages with three subtopics. John Forney has a whole chapter, Number Nine, pages 135-140 but these pages are not listed under the entry--Forney, John--in the index. Some proofreading needs to be done. Notes 159, 160 and 161 are the same font size as the text font; these note number should be the superscript font size, just like the other 744 notes.



5. I will confess straight away that I have not read the book, but I find the title so misleading that I feel compelled to comment. None of these figures 'failed to see' that the Civil War was a great threat and possibly inevitable. See The Impending Crisis by David Potter, The Road to Disunion by Freehing, or Michael Holt's books.

1 comments about Wives of the Signers.

1. Describes the hardships and struggles experienced by the wives of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. A very enlightening read; something that should be a part of every high school American history class!

5 comments about Under a Wing: A Memoir.

1. There can be no doubt that Reeve Lindbergh's memoir is the most touching book about that family that I have read. Through her eyes we go beyond the covers of other books and see what it really meant to be a Lindbergh.

   They were almost a closed society onto themselves, yet they still experienced the same joys and sorrows as the rest of us. We find the man who was depised as an isolationist to be a concerned and loving father who read to his children.

   We dine with the children at their grandmother's house and we soar above the Connecticut house on Saturdays. The famed aviator at the controls and a bored child in the rear seat.

   After reading this book I felt very attached to this famous family. Being the same age as Reeve herself, my only knowledge of the Lindbergh's was the famous flight and the kidnapping as I read in history books. Now, after this book, I feel as though I have become part of them.

   It can only be summed up in one word, wonderful.




2. Reeve Lindbergh tells stories that we want to hear about everyday life with her famous, complicated father and her intelligent, artistic mother. Reeve's delicate, precise prose is reminiscent of her mother's style of writing. A reviewer said of Anne Lindbergh that she "combed" her life for meaning and the daughter seems tuned into that same compulsion. It helps that she writes with as much insight as did her mother. The passage that describes the hours mother and daughter spent together after the death of Reeve's child is heartbreakingly revealing of the private Anne and her anguish after the kidnapping and death of her own child. Reeve's reminiscences of flying with her father (she was not an enthusiast) and her longing for her enigmatic father are poignant. She does not avoid discussing Lindbergh's perceived anti-Semitism; she does not attempt to defend him but rather keeps her emphasis on the effect this controversy had (and has) on her connection with him. I challenge any daughter to read Reeve's account of her visit to her father's childhood home without weeping.



3. What I especially like about Reeve Lindbergh's memoir is its candid and utterly sincere tone. This is not a dusty historical treatise; it is a simple sharing of thoughts and experiences. The reader is drawn into the life of a young girl with remarkable and famous parents. We already had an idea of what it was like to live with Charles Lindbergh from the diaries of his wife, Anne Morrow. Now Reeve's book gives another view, helping to round out the picture. Along the way she presents us with snapshot images that offer glimpses into his character. Charles Lindbergh wasn't an easy man to understand; and if he is difficult for us adults to get a handle on, what was it like for his offspring? Reeve tells us in her straightforward and heartwarming manner. This book should be an essential part of any Lindbergh fan's library. I highly recommend it.
   
   Richard Salva--author of Soul Journey from Lincoln to Lindbergh [UNABRIDGED]



4. I really have enjoyed reading Reeve's memoir of her family. She has an amazing memory and can describe details of any past situation like it just happened minutes ago. I am always amazed by people who can do that (especially since I am not one of them). I come from a famous family too and enjoyed reading this book because I have always been fascinated at hearing about someone elses recollections of the past. Reeve's family experience isnt much different than my own family's and in some cases I laugh because some of the stories she has told (i.e. burping a fountain pen) is the same as my familys. My grandfather, who's stories are much the same as Charles Lindberg's, was also raised in Minnesota (St. Paul & Hallepin) so I was delighted to hear Reeve inform the reader of her father's recollections of this same period and place.
   
   Reeve writes her book in a way which makes you feel like your her best friend. She opens her soul to you and pours out all that makes her happy and sad. Although I am confident that this book will be considered one of the best memoirs of its time, I am sure that her family will be very glad she wrote it because she has unearthed the legends of her family's past and how it made them who they are. This is truly a great book...



5. Reeve Lindbergh gives a most interesting overview of her very famous parents - her father with his eccentric behavior - her mother with her focus on life through the eyes of a true poet. Her parents would be proud of her writing skills and her father would probably have given her rare praise for this particular book as well as her others. Kathleen Wyatt