5 comments about Shooting Star: The Brief Arc of Joe McCarthy.

1. Joe McCarthy rose to public acclaim back in 1950 when his hunt for members of the Communist Party within the U.S. government itself resulted in a virtual witch hunt of political figures, then American citizens, who were members. While anticommunist was already a Republican Party cause, McCarthy took it a step further and elevated it to new levels - yet five years later he was condemned by his own party. SHOOTING STAR: THE BRIEF ARC OF JOE MCCARTHY explores his rapid rise and fall, with a journalist's eye to uncovering the underlying motivation to his actions. An impressive survey and biographical sketch emerges.
   
   Diane C. Donovan, Editor
   California Bookwatch



2. The recent movie _Good Night and Good Luck_, about Edward R. Murrow, was the first introduction many young Americans had to the junior senator from Wisconsin of the 1950s, Joseph McCarthy. There are stories that say that test audiences reported they liked the movie, but thought that the performance by whoever was playing McCarthy was exaggerated and unbelievable. There was nothing the producers could do; they had decided that no one could play McCarthy but McCarthy, and his scenes were archival films of himself, saying his own lines with his own dramatic intonations. It is too bad for our nation that McCarthy was not just some movie monster, but was all too real. In _Shooting Star: The Brief Arc of Joe McCarthy_ (Harcourt), Tom Wicker has given a brief but engrossing biography of an amazing character who changed our nation. Wicker points out that no one speaks about such concepts as Trumanism or Hooverism or Nixonism, but McCarthyism (my spellchecker does not question this word) is an idea which remains in our history and may be activated again.
   
   Wicker shows that there was more to the man than just demagoguery or power-grabbing. He was "witty, intelligent, a scintillating conversationalist, and enterprising". When he started running for elections, he crisscrossed Wisconsin, emphasizing his (exaggerated) war record, and impressing young voters with his interpersonal skills; he had an almost perfect recollection of names and faces and could call by name people he had barely met on previous stumpings. He made little impression as a senator when he got to Washington in 1946, but then gave a fateful Lincoln Day address in Wheeling, West Virginia, in 1950. His speech simply reflected standing Republican horror of communists, fellow-travelers, reds, and pinks, and he "had nothing new or original to add to the campaign - save, crucially, the drama, hyperbole, and audacity of which he quickly showed himself a master." His style of presentation was impressive, and especially his assertion that "I hold here in my hand" a list of names of commies working in the state department. He angered and alienated even those who agreed with him, like J. Edgar Hoover, who could not abide McCarthy's wild accusations which did not have, as he put it, "preliminary spade work" to back them up. By the time of Murrow's _See It Now_ broadcast in 1954, McCarthy's approval rating was slipping, although he insisted that all attacks on him were attempts to force him to drop enquiries into commies all over the government. In April 1954, the famous Army-McCarthy hearings were broadcast in their entirety, and got a 68% share of the television audience. McCarthy violated a lawyerly agreement that he would not bring up the former membership in a possible communist front organization by a lawyer in the firm of the Army's lawyer Joseph Welch. Welch was thereby able to give his famous "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" speech, and McCarthy was doomed.
   
   He descended even more into the alcoholism and ill-health that had bothered him all his life. He was baffled that America had rejected his anti-communist efforts and made him the butt of jokes, like Eisenhower's quip, "It's no longer McCarthyism. It's McCarthywasm." McCarthy did change national policy, did cause fretting over such issues as executive privilege, fifth amendment rights, and intellectual freedom, concerns which are still with us. He pursued, and encouraged our society to pursue, the communists the names of whom he always claimed to have in his hand, and he ruined lives, but he never uncovered a single communist, much less got one convicted. His brief arc was only from his Wheeling speech in 1950 to his disappearance on the political stage in 1954 (he died in 1957). Wicker describes him as "a victim of human aspiration who fought desperately and with uncommon success to achieve the wrong dream." The tragedy of the wrongheadedness of a brilliant man has rarely been so starkly depicted.



3. Tom Wicker always had an ability to break down rather complex news into brief, but always incisive, articles and columns in his years at the New York Times. "Shooting Star: The Brief Arc of Joe McCarthy" proves no exception. I first became aware of this book in a terrific review done by Anthony Lewis in the June 8, 2006 New York Review of Books. As is often the case with that publication, if you don't have the time, or the inclination, for the full read the reviews are truly the finest in the publishing business. It is interesting that the review truly feels as "long" as Wickers entire book (not really unusual).
   
   What Wicker does that makes the book compelling is to demonstrate that while McCarthy was the "right" man for his abborant demagoguary, the time was ripe with the Soviet Union growing as a menace and a natural enemy after being an ally durine WWII. Wicker futher demonstrates in many ways how effectively no one, not even Eisenhower, was able to stand up to McCarthy and his outright lies. The press was not without its complicity as it eagerly sought his one line headlines but did not do its role, even a modicum of it, as a "watchdog" of our government. The citizenry - also guilty of allowing such a stain on our history.
   
   There is much to be learned from this short read. Not least of which is that our system of checks and balances AND the media and voters ability to question ALWAYS should go on without threats and retributions. Sound familiar? I would imagine if old Joe were still alive he would only grant interviews to Fox News.



4. As the title suggests, this brief, (I read this book during a flight delay at O'Hare), but interesting book chronicles the meteoric rise and fall of Joe McCarthy from 1950-54, (from his West Virginia speech to his censure), and his controversial impact on US history during that time. Although there is a brief biographical sketch of the subject, (juxtaposing McCarthy's incredible and at times admirable drive to succeed with his carelessness with facts, the truth and people), there isn't much analysis or historical perspective here. This isn't a knock of the book - just a description. (For a more detailed analysis of communism in the US - Reds by Ted Morgan; for a more in depth bio of McCarthy - Thomas Reeves). If you are looking for an introduction or a refresher to McCarthy and the "ism" that bears his name, this very readable book will not disappoint.



5. Good book, but more on the general atmosphere of the times, the results of McCarthy's hounding and the fear that stopped so many from standing up to him would have been welcome.

5 comments about Riding With Reagan: From the White House to the Ranch: From the White House to the Ranch.

1. Barietta lets us into the inner circle outside Reagan's 'kitchen cabinet'. He paints a picture of Reagan that allows one to understand the essence of the man; his connection with the individual, and as such, the people. The author's allegiance to the President does not cloud the reality of the relationship between these two men. Despite the professional connection, Reagan had a way, I summize, to bridge that barrier and maintain a bond that is clear through the author's typewritten words.



2. I had personal reason to buy this after seeing the author on C-span Book TV since I knew people close to one of those mentioned in the book. Can't say who or how it got to her, but after reading it got a nod and wink. Think you'll do the same.



3. John Barletta, through his insight and understanding, with a rock-solid foundation of character and integrity, has connected with President Reagan as few others ever have. Reagan's inner-core and genuine goodness, plus our personal contact with him and the guidelines and special bonds we forged with this uncommon man were granted to a few of us who were privileged to spend those rare moments at his side while his core values transferred, as if by osmosis, to our minds and our hearts.
   
   Barletta's view and understanding of Reagan is exceptional and true. His pleasant,easy-to-read, conversational style of writing is reader-friendly and gives the reader a "you are there" "eyewitness" feeling. The author had to come away from each experience with RR feeling more and more as if he were part of Reagan's extended family; an almost brotherly connection for the two of them.
   
   It sure did for a few of us who were there at the beginning of RR's political career, like Edwin Meese III, Wm.P. Clark, Lyn Nofziger and Tom Reed.
   What a pleasure NOT having to wade though pages of footnotes and notes to get to the meaning of this remarkable book. Not necessary when the author is intimately aware of his subject, as Barletta is. No nonsense, fabrications or embellishments in this book; just the facts--- beautifully explained. Thanks! Curtis Patrick, author, REAGAN: WHAT WAS HE REALLY LIKE?



4. This was a wonderful look, and the personal side of a great man. These are truly memorable moments from John Barletta, written in an honest, detailed and interesting manner. Well worth the read.



5. Riding With Reagan: From the White House to the Ranch: From the White House to the RanchThis is an excellent book and I enjoyed reading it. It was very well written and interesting reading. Very good book.

1 comments about Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings.

1. This book, which is an abridgmment of Basler's larger 8-volume "Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," is ideal for all students of Lincoln as a quick source for finding Lincoln's most well-known speeches, letters, and other documents. While other collections of Lincoln's writings do exist, Basler's is considered the most definitive. This one-volume edition of that collection makes the most popular and important Lincoln documents accessible to a larger group of people.

5 comments about Daniel Webster: The Man and His Time.

1. The unfortunate result of the growing power and focus on the executive branch is that historians tend to focus on presidents as prime movers for american political development. Remini's biography of Daniel Webster proves paradigm deeply flawed, particularly in the early years of our nations history.

   Webster, though never achieving the presidency, deserves great credit for setting the tone of american government and the supremacy of congress that survived through the 19th century. Remini does a tremendous job exploring the early 19th century and the issues this second generation of american leaders faced.

   Recent great interest in the revolutionary generation hopefully will not eclipse the study of those, like Webster, who came next and solidified the nacient insitutions that the founders created. If the founders were the fathers of our government, than men like Webster was that government's teacher in primary school.

   A wonderful read, if you are really interested in the topic.




2. Occasionally, nature produces an individual with towering intellect and mesmerizing oratorical abilities, but haunted by deep and seemingly irrepressible moral flaws. Their lives are filled with a mix of remarkable achievement and profound disappointment; monumental success and disgrace both seem inevitable. The late twentieth century had Bill Clinton, and the early nineteenth had Daniel Webster.

   Webster's story - like Clinton's - is at once inspiring and frustrating, laudable and detestable. There is certainly an element of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" in Daniel Webster, and the noted Jacksonian historian Robert Remini uses that split personality as the foundation in building this important biography of one of America's greatest and most unique statesman.

   Webster's genius is undeniable. His many natural gifts, which even his bitterest enemies had to concede, earned him the highly flattering sobriquet "the Godlike Daniel." No private attorney has affected the course of American judicial history as much as Webster. With the ideologically sympathetic John Marshall presiding over the Supreme Court, he successfully argued nearly every landmark case of the early nineteenth century: Dartmouth College, Gibbons vs. Ogden , McCollough vs. Maryland. He also added his considerable talents to the defense of the Union, first during the South Carolina nullification crisis in the celebrated Hayne-Webster debates, and then in the twilight of his life as the debate over slavery mounted toward civil war he delivered an impassioned speech in defense of the Compromise of 1850. His many public addresses lauding the ideals and principles of the American republic - the Plymouth Oration, Bunker Hill Oration, commemoration of the lives of Jefferson and Adams - are legendary and were once memorized by schoolboys. When a Webster speech was anticipated in the Senate, the halls were jammed with attendees eager to hear history in the making. Indeed, as Stephen Benet notes in the classic The Devil and Daniel Webster: "You see, for a while, he [Webster] was the biggest man in the country. He never got to be President, but he was the biggest man."

   But there was also a less admirable, more human side to Daniel Webster; an alter ego to the Godlike Daniel known derisively as "Black Dan." Addictions to alcohol and gambling were the duel crosses Webster had to bear through out life. These afflictions ensured Webster was chronically in debt despite a flourishing law practice. These debts eventually presented conflicts of interests and put him in compromising positions, which undermined his moral authority and ultimately cost him the White House.

   It has been written that most great men are made by the events of their times, but a very select few would have been great regardless of time or place. Remini's splendid biography suggests that Daniel Webster is a strong candidate for the latter category.




3. Robert Remini brings us Daniel Webster as no one else can.... In order to paint such a perfect picture of a man that is as complex as Webster requires the knowledge of a true expert.
   
   Remini gives us a very fair and well balanced portait of a man who was a contemporary of Henry Clay, Andrew Jackson, and John Calhoun (all of whom Remini has written authorative biographies on).
   
   Make no mistake, Daniel Webster was a very complex man. One who was capable of pure genious but could also be unbelievably ignorant. His feud with Henry Clay probably cost both men the oppurtunity to be president. His ability to amass ungodly debts and then refuse to pay them is equally bizaar. However, this is the same man who argued many of the ground breaking case before the Supreme Court. He helped to stall the Civil War for 20 years by showing unflinching support to Andrew Jackson (Who was in the opposite political party) handling of the nullification crisis.
   
   Remini shows us all of these sides with the rare ability to help us get into the mind of Webster. Remini understands the age and the politics of this era like no other... therefore, if you are interested in learning about the great Daniel Webster.... look no further!
   
   However, as much as I enjoyed learning about Webster I admit you have to be motivated to read the entire book. While the politics of Webster's time were undoubtley the biggest of the time - it is hard for to finish all 800 pages when living in 2004. Make no mistake this is a great book... but even great books can be a bit dull.



4. Daniel Webster was a great man in every meaning of the word. He had great talents and love for his country and its constitution; and he had great flaws that were magnified by his greatness. One thing he didn't have was a great modern and objective biography. He now has one, thanks to Mr. Remini.
   
   Along with Henry Clay, John Calhoun, Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams and other notables, Daniel Webster represented the generation of Americans to whom the Founder Fathers entrusted the nation they had fought for and created.
   
   Webster took that responsibility very seriously and used his intellectual and oratorical powers to help shape the interpretation of our laws and constitution to the needs of our growing and expanding country. He was involved in many important Supreme Court cases, many in front of John Marshall, who is still considered by many to have been our best Chief Justice.
   
   Webster's greatest fame is probably as an orator, mostly in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Remini shows us that he wasn't necessarily a great legislator or floor leader in terms of moving important legislation. Henry Clay was the man to do that. However, Webster's rank as one of the country's top senators of all time is merited by the incredible ability he had to express what this nation stood for, what the constitution stood for and that the Union, above all, was what was most important. Several of his speeches, which he would edit carefully for publication, are still moving and were generally printed fully in the press and memorized by children. His "union" stance many times cost him in popularity as he had to take some stances on specific legislation that may not have been "morally" acceptable to many (like his defense of the Slave Fugitive Law), but that was necessary to uphold the law.
   
   It is little known by many that Webster was a very able Secretary of State for three different presidents (Harrison, Tyler and Fillmore) and that he used his knowledge of the law (maritime law in particular), the constitution and America in general to develop foreign policy designed to continue gaining international rights, commerce and respect for our nation. In particular, he did much to open trade relations in Asia and Latin America.
   
   Unfortunately, Webster's flaws (drinking heavily, money mismanagement, duplicity and abuse of friends) were also great enough to prevent his being elected president. People just did not trust him enough. He was acknowledged as perhaps the best orator of the day and "Defender of the Constitution", but he had trouble relating to the common man. He was essentially an East Coast snob and the people of the south and the expanding west could not really relate well to him, or he to them. His stubborness also caused him to commit some real blunders on the foreign policy side, but I think that on balance he had a very creditable record as Secretary of State. That stubborness probably cost him the presidency at least once (he could have acceded to have been Harrison's VP but refused to; John Tyler accepted and became president when Harrison died just a few weeks into office) and cost the Whig party the presidency in at least another ocassion when he refused to concede during the nominating conventions.
   
   Men like Webster get lost in the popular mind between the greatness of the Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln. Yet, at a very crucial time in America, when the country was expanding at incredible rates, when interpretation of the constitution would define our legal framework to the present day and when the union was threatened to be torn asunder by nullifiers and abolitionists, men like Webster, Clay, Calhoun and Jackson were there to make sure the Union's survival was the primary object. In the intermediate term, they failed because the nation fell into Civil War (after they were all dead), but while they were alive, they compromised, orated and legislated to avoid that awful event. After the War, and even today, many of the things that America stands for and are taken for granted. But they were formulated and imprinted on our national character by men like the "Godlike Daniel".
   
   Remini has written extensively on the Jacksonian period and has detailed and excellent biographies of Jackson and Clay as well. These men did not all necessarily care of each other and Remini doesn't play favorites in his biographies. He deals with Webster very fairly, granting him his well-deserved greatness, but also being very frank and objective about his shortfalls and political failings and blunders.



5. Unlike Remini's three volume biography of Andrew Jackson this work shows a real person not a god idolized by the biographer. Webster was a talented, ambitious and complex man. He played a heroic role as Secretary of state, he defended the Union against the South Carolinian secesssionists, he solicited money from many people including N. Biddle in support of the Bank of the United States. He illustrates the difference in what we consider unethical acts among politicians. He was cursed by the radical abolitionists because he refused to put the Union in jeopardy to stop the spread of slavery.
   
   It could be said that Remini redeemed his reputation as an impartial historian with this work.

2 comments about Grant and Twain: The Story of an American Friendship.

1. Despite the author's best efforts, I thought the premise of the book -- that Grant and Twain's friendship was of great importance in both men's lives -- was not well proven in the book. However, the intimate portrayal of Grant in this short book was very interesting to me, and earned the book 4 stars in my mind.



2. This book explores the personal and business relationship between US Grant and Mark Twain, and attempts to advance the thesis that these two men, who were such towering figures of the mid to late 19th century, were profoundly influenced by each other. As a narrative this book succeeds--especially in Perry's description of the dying Grant. His portrait of the ex-president and savior of the Union is touching, and definitely makes the book worth reading on that merit alone. Perry's recounting of the relationship Twain and Grant shared is also interesting, demonstrated mainly from Twain's point of view.
   
   The thesis which is central to this book, unfortunately, was not confirmed for me in Perry's argument. The central argument seems to be that Twain was a deciding factor in Grant's resolution to write his memoirs, and that somehow it may not have happened had Twain not intervened. Perry points out that Twain brought the subject up to Grant several years before the project was actually started, but that alone was not enough to convince me. In fact, Grant was writing a series of articles for the Century magazine, and was already in process of making a deal for the book. Twain's publishing company more or less stole the deal away from Century. And while Twain was able to secure a much better financial compensation plan for Grant than he otherwise would have gotten, this, too, can hardly be attributed purely to the friendship the two shared. The memoirs made both men a lot of money.
   
   There is little doubt that Twain revered Grant and that Grant, in turn, appreciated and was fond of Twain. I just couldn't see, however, the link Perry seemed to want to build between Twain's Huckleberry Finn and Grant's memoirs, and for me that left the premise of the book flawed. Certain elements of the argument also break down under closer scrutiny, for example Perry's claim that the 'GG' appearing at the beginning of Huck Finn stands for 'General Grant,' and that the book was somehow dedicated to his friend.
   
   Perry also attempts to draw parallels between Huck and Grant, which to me seem very far-fetched. He claims that "Grant's journey [South down the Mississippi after he captured Vicksburg] was intended to free the slaves" and that "capturing Vicksburg, Grant had transformed the war for the Union into a war to free the slaves." This is much more than I can swallow. The Emancipation Proclamation had gone into effect 7 months before this event, and had been declared almost a year before. If there was a battle that changed the course of the war it was Antietam, not Vicksburg.
   
   In short, Huck Finn was not General Grant, nor vice-versa. I just can't wrap my mind around that one, and that makes the whole of Perry's argument seem fairly weak. That having been said, the book is very well written, the narrative is excellent, and only the historical analysis/interpretation seems to break down under scrutiny. I bought this book before reading it (something I don't often do), but I can honestly say I don't regret it. Though I'm not convinced by Perry's argument, this book was worth reading.

5 comments about Fighting for the Confederacy: The Personal Recollections of General Edward Porter Alexander.

1. I have read many books of self accounts of the civil war. This book tops all others in the details and extra touch of personal feelings that where experenced by this brave man and all his fellow soldiers that fought this conflict. If you enjoy accounts of the civil war this book is a must read!!!!!



2. This is a wonderfully engaging memoir, written by E. Porter Alexander, engineer, staff officer, and, as most recall him, the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia's First Corps artillery guru. What sets this book apart is its honest, candid view of events from Alexander's perspective. Not the usual glorification of the cause and its leaders as with many other actors from the Civil War. This book stayed hidden from sight for many years after it was completed; it is a blessing to those who study the Civil War that it came to see the light of day with publication. The Introduction concludes by stating that (page xxiii): "'Fighting for the Confederacy' is a book to be savored, one of those wonderful volumes that is both instructive and pleasurable to read."
   
   One line that exemplifies this, focusing on Lieutenant General Leonidas Pope, a corps commander in the Western Theater's Army of Tennessee, is enchanting. Polk was a bishop in his church and, for some unfathomable reason, had the confidence of President Jefferson Davis and General Braxton Bragg. When Alexander and the troops of General James Longstreet's First Corps joined Bragg's army at Chickamauga, he observed that (page 289): "So all our pious people with one consent & with secret conviction that the Lord would surely favor a bishop turned in & made him a lieut. Gen., which the Lord had not." A sly way of saying that Polk was a disaster as a general (and, indeed, Alexander was accurate in his assessment).
   
   A couple passages that make this volume--and Alexander's method--so refreshing. At the close of his discussion of the battle of Chancellorsville, Alexander notes that Union Commanding General Joseph Hooker lost his courage and will--as did his top commanders. Alexander observes that the Union Army was intact, outnumbered the Confederate force and could have won the battle with better leadership. Then, in a passage extraordinary for a Confederate officer, he says (page 217) "Had it been Grant in command, he would not have dreamed of giving up the fight." This suggests a perspective on the war that many partisans--whether Union or Confederate--never had. Indeed, had the Union Army listened to Generals Meade and Reynolds who were arguing strenuously to counterattack the Confederate forces, the end result might have been a significant Union victory. We'll never know, of course, but Alexander does suggest an alternative history.
   
   Then, Gettysburg. . . . Here is the poignant scene, told from Alexander's perspective, where Longstreet must order Pickett's forces (and others) to advance. But Longstreet fears a disaster, and obviously is in a state of inner turmoil (see pages 254 and following). At one point, it is almost as if he were giving Alexander the task of deciding whether or not the charge takes place. At a later time, Longstreet expresses openly his fear (page 261): "I don't want to make this attack--I believe it will fail--I do not see how it can succeed--I would not make it even now, but that Gen. Lee has ordered & expects it."
   
   So, in the end, this is a wonderful first person description of the war, one of the finest of Civil War memoirs.



3. Although Alexander's memoirs weren't written as memoirs as such they provide a good insight into the war as fought by the Army of Northern Virginia. General Alexander held an important position in the Confederate Army and was in a position to see much which was otherwise missed by historians or left out of the memoirs of more senior officers who had reputations to protect after the Civil War was over. A fascinating book!



4. The world owes a great debt of gratitude to Gary W. Gallagher for his efforts in producing this book. Even though I would consider myself a "Private" in the ranks of civil war buffs, I have read dozens of memoirs by Civil War era men and women. None of them moved me the way this book has. At heart, I am a "Union girl", but when I finished reading this book and had to close it, I truly felt like I had lost a friend. E. Porter Alexander was a gifted, candid, and witty writer. His reminiscences are like sitting down with your favorite uncle for an evening of story telling by the fire. This book is a treasure, and is definitely worthy of more than one read.



5. My wife's grandfather had been through the battle of Shiloh with the 35th Tennessee Rifles, and was almost killed afterward at Corinth. He had seen the elephant, so to speak, and when his grandaughter asked if he had ever killed anyone, he simply said, "Oh, I hope not." This terrific, detailed story of Porter Alexander's service, as told to his daughters, is similar, I think...it is thoughtful, and without malice toward his adversaries. In fact, Alexander is to be given credit for 'charity towards all, and malice toward none" in his fair, open account. He genuinely liked his old classmates, and they, him. The fact that the reunited country could put him to work in its service says volumes about the character of the man.
   
   What started out as a concession to his daughters became the best description of the Army of Northern Virginia's campaign, ever, in my humble opinon. His candor and even his humor sneaks in constantly, and we find ourselves riding and walking beside him...and, I suspect, that is what this Father had in mind for his girls. Thanks, General.
   
   Thos. B. Fowler
   Pastor, Schuyler Baptist Church
   Schuyler, Virginia

1 comments about Gilded Girls: Women Entertainers of the Old West.

1. I love the wild west books written by Chris Enss. They are very vivid and detailed. The subjects are created very realistically. Great reading...

5 comments about Faith and the Presidency: From George Washington to George W. Bush.

1. Gary Scott Smith's Faith and the Presidency is fascinating to read and weighty in substance. Full of personal details drawn from the lives of various presidents as well as important observations about public policy and religious impulses, Smith hits the sweet spot between bold, exciting claims and strong supporting evidence.
   
   I was particularly persuaded by the book's observation that the foreign policy of presidents more readily reveals their philosophical commitments because the U.S. presidency has greater latitude abroad than at home.
   
   This is a book worth reading from cover to cover. Smith hits a home run with this exceptional book. A tour de force!



2. If you are looking for fresh information about the role of faith and religion in the lives of some of America's greatest presidents then I highly recommend purchasing Faith and the Presidency.
   The author, Gary Smith has done his homework. His research is very thorough and his style of writing is clear and free of technical jargon.
   I thought the book presented a balanced view of democrat and republican presidents; and the author covers each president's religious affiliation without bias. After reading this book I finally understand why religion is such a hot topic during every presidential election.
   Reading about Abraham Lincoln and how his faith helped him address the crises of the civil war is the best I have read to date.
   Students, teachers of history, religious leaders and those with a love of presidential history need this book to complete their library. A must read for 2007!



3. A first-rate work in which eleven presidents are analyzed in terms of their religious beliefs and their actions. Solid framework of analysis. The work brims with new details, broad understandings, and sound and judicious conclusions. Impressive, varied bibliography. The copious notes, alone, are worth a close read. Sparkling writing and sound organization make this a page-turner.



4. I encourage you to set aside a block of time each day as you loose yourself in the history and faith of each of these men. It is full of interesting faith facts that just a history of these presidents would never touch. I must confess it took me time to read and digest this book, but well worth the time. I look forward to reareading this book in order to grasp new facts that I did not glean from the first read. I would love to see it used in school class rooms everywhere. The research, notes and excellent writing of this work is outstanding!



5. Even though tomes have been written on the American presidents, Dr. Smith manages to bring fresh insight as a result of painstaking research. ( It could serve as a model for any student looking to document his research) The book is not "light" reading....but the author writes with clarity and with as much impartiality as humanly possible. I found his distinction between the ways that these presidents' faith shaped their policies to be thought-provoking. This book provides a strong framework from which to examine the coming election season.

5 comments about The Rebel and the Rose: James A. Semple, Julia Gardiner Tyler, and the Lost Confederate Gold.

1. In April 1865 the Civil War was over for most - but even after the Confederate government dissolved, one Jefferson Davis felt compelled to carry on the struggle, journeying best entrusted with all the remaining gold in the Confederate treasury: some, $86,000 in coins and bullion. It and its carriers disappeared - and their fate is revealed in THE REBEL AND THE ROSE: JAMES A. SEMPLE, JULIA GARDINER TYLER, AND THE LOST CONFEDERATE GOLD, which follows Davis' journeys and considers what happened to the gold. Both military and general-interest libraries will find it engrossing.



2. I really enjoyed reading this book. The depth of the "detective work" done by the authors is outstanding. The mystery and the relationships amongst all the individuals was developed and explained very well. Thank you for bringing this portion of the Civil War into such outstanding light.



3. For any Civil War or history enthusiast, The Rebel and The Rose is by far one of the best novels written to date. The author's writing keeps the reader locked in to each page desperate for more. While historically the whereabouts of the lost Confederate gold remains a mystery, you have to enjoy the detail for which is was written.
   The book is very enjoyable, a fun read with facts and intrigue and lost rebel gold! This book is one of my absolute favorites in my Civil War collection!!



4. Explores events which are mentioned in passing elsewhere, uncovering fascinating story. Hated to finish it, because much mystery remains. Presents facts more sympathetic to Jefferson Davis than generally understood, and adds to understanding of turbulent end of war.



5. The Rebel and the Rose is an extraordinary - and true - tale of the final days of the Confederate government, its exit from Richmond, the Confederate treasury money and the relationship between Julia Gardiner Tyler and James A. Semple. For all the books over all the years written of this era, The Rebel and the Rose manages to uncover a little known story full of interesting details and mysteries. The research put into this book is impressive. Highly recommended for those interested in the Civil War and history in general. You wont be disappointed.

5 comments about Bobby Fischer: Profile of a Prodigy (Revised Edition).

1. Fischer was a genius, no question about that. This book is a good buy for the price: you get a (weak) biography of a great player, 8 pages of pictures, and 90 (poorly) annotated games for less than US$15.00! Altogether not a bad deal. However, I take issue with the author. Because he was a friend of Fischer's he did not want to ruin his relationship with him by revealing Fischer's odd character traits, as many other reviewers have noticed. Worst, the author wants you to believe Fischer was a good boy, the American self made sportsman who increased the popularity of the game while fighting for better playing conditions and higher appearance fees, which would ultimately benefit chess professionals as a whole. This might be true. However, it is also true that Fischer left chess players as a whole with an undeletable image: that of nerds, eccentrics and the like. All in all I think his contribution to the image of chess was negative, not positive. Upon reading the book it struck me that Spassky allowed himself to play that fatidic match in Iceland. Fischer did not show up at the date and time they had originally agreed. Spassky gave in to Fischer's absurd demands, falling pray to Fischer's psychological warfare. He should have walked away and kept his title, period. Since he did not the rest is history. At the end of the day the character of a World Champion is seem not when he wins a world championship match but rather when he loses it. Fischer, unlike Spassky, Karpov, and Kasparov never showed up to defend his title. This will be his sad legacy.



2. I bought the first edition of this book by mail order when I was about 16, and devoured it eagerly. In those days world-class chess was relentlessly dominated by the USSR, challenged mainly by other Eastern Europeans and the occasional American like Reshevsky, Evans and the Byrne brothers. Boris Spassky was soon to play "iron Tigran" Petrosian for the world title, and the only wild card seemed to be a crazy teenage genius from New York who could beat anyone at all on his day. Frank Brady's writing captured the sheer excitement of it all. For instance, in a great tournament with most of the best players in the world, Mikhail Tal expected Petrosian to crush the upstart Fischer, "but when Bobby beat the USSR champion the crowd roared".
   
   Brady's style is journalistic, but it fits his subject quite well. This much expanded edition takes Fischer's story all the way to winning the world championship, which is probably a logical place to stop. (Fischer stopped playing chess at that point, so the rest of his life has been lived in a very different world). The book is full of interesting facts that you could not read about anywhere else, and until a professional biographer turns his attention to Fischer - which may never happen, because he is about the least cooperative subject imaginable - it will remain the last word.
   
   The games section is a different story. Only a narrow cross section are given, with notes by Brady that reveal his lack of expertise. They are only there for completeness' sake, and should be read as an extension of the biography. If you want to understand Fischer's chess, read his Collected Games, his own "My 60 Memorable Games" (which is itself very limited in scope, though superb in depth), or Elie Agur's brilliant "Bobby Fischer: His Approach to Chess".



3. Frank Brady's "Profile of a Prodigy" is a frustrating combination of good and bad. The good first: Brady gives fascinating behind-the-scenes information that I'd read nowhere else, giving you the sense that you are there. The bad: the book is riddled with mistakes, stuff you wouldn't find in a High School newspaper! Dates and misstatements of facts, too numerous to mention. And some chessic misjudgements too, like when Brady says, speaking of the 1972 Title Match, that Fischer varied his opening repertoire to an English Opening in Game 8 from the QGD of Game 6. But it wasn't Fischer who varied; he played 1.c4 in both games. It was Spassky's reply in game 8 that changed the opening. The book would've benefitted from a good editor, one who knows how to play chess. But despite all this, I'd still recommend the book. It's a fascinating read.
   Bob Hunt, Hillsborough, N.J.



4. 3.5 stars
   
   It is just so hard to review this autobiography, completed at the height of Fischer's triumph, knowing what was to come. Though not meant to be ironic, the author's comments about Bobby having finally found his place atop the chess world cannot but seem ironic now.
   
   That aside, and it is not wholly the author's fault, the book is neither as much as a puff piece as the earlier version was, to my mind at least, nor was it as penetrating as it could have been. It comes across as a sterile recounting of Fischer's career with little mention of a personal life, or wondering about the lack of one.
   
   Though not penetrating and mentioning the seeds of behaviors that even then would have been known to Fischer's friends before they fully blossomed before the entire world the book is not full of praise for Bobby either. The recountings of his continued dropping out of tournaments, his altercation with Benko do not cast Fischer in the kindest light.
   
   The author does seem to be softening, and explaining and excusing, these events but he is enough of a scholar that he leaves them reasonably unvarnished for the reader to make their own decisions.
   
   Interesting, but now incomplete, reading to see the rocky and troubled rise of the solo chess prodigy Bobby Fischer.



5. Nearly everyone who has some decent experiance with chess has heard about Bobby Fischer and his mysterious behavior. He is one of the best chess players in history and I bought the book recently to get more insight into his character and mind. The book has about 400 pages and a little more than a half consists of his biography from childhood up to 1972 Fischer-Spassky Championship and the other part is 80 selected Fischer games with very good annotations and turnament results.
   
   The biography in itself consists very little of Fischer's personal life, and majority of it are various turnament events and how well Fischer did at them. I think it's well worth reading for people who have interest in Bobby Fischer, and would like to immitate his career to some extent.
   
   The part that has put biggest imprint on my memory is when the author (Bobby's early chess advisor) and Bobby went to meet one of the NYC bussinesmen who offered to fund Bobby's travel to a turnament. 'Tis what happened: after a short conversation the bussinessman added:
   
   "[...] 'However there's just one thing I'd like you to do. If I put up the money and send you to this turnament, and when you win and are interviewed by the press, or anybody, I want you to say: 'I couldn't have won this turnament without the help of Sam Blanker."'
   Bobby was on his feet immediately, seeming to have grown years in a moment. 'I can do that', he said evenly. 'If I win a turnament, I win it by myself. I do the playing. Nobody helps me. I win the turnament myself, with my own talent.'" Bobby rejected the offer for one particular reason.
   
   This gives a lot of insight into Fischer's mind.
   
   The pluses and minuses:
   1. Pluses: The book was written in a very simplistic form without input of unnecessary words and information which makes it quick and pleasant to read. I read entire book in 3 days and I don't regret it. The attached annotated games and turnament results are a very good idea for people who are interested in Fischer's chess style (if it can be called a style) besides his biography.
   
   2. Minuses: There's one huge problem with the book which to some extant destroys the postive impressions with the book. I took a way 2 points for this. The author over and over again rationalizes Fischer's behavior in a positive manner which might not be true and tries to impose on the reader the idea of Fischer being the greatest and most rightous genius on the planet. This happens especially in conclusion, of which I read only 2 pages as I couldn't cope with its "Fischer worshipping tone". I advise anyone who reads the book to simply not care so much about those parts.