5 comments about The Most Famous Man in America: The Biography of Henry Ward Beecher.

1. This book is the excellent product of twenty years of research and documentation by many people. The data upon which the book is based comes from the letters and diaries of the individuals portrayed and from the newspaper accounts about them at the time. The author skillfully weaves the data into a picture spanning from the 1820s to the 1880s.
   
   Reading this book is like sitting before a window and peering into the life of an amazingly charismatic individual and those upon whom he had a great impact. You see his gradual escape from the extremities of religious fundamentalism to an extremity on the other end of the religious spectrum. Along the way he succumbed to his human weaknesses. His temptations were made more potent due to absolute adoration by his followers and his spontaneous and haphazard personality. Perhaps, in this country, he was the most skillful speaker of his century in spite of his inconsistent message. Without him England might have intervened in our civil war on the side of the South profoundly changing our history.
   
   You get, not only, a view of their lives, but also of their hearts, minds and emotions because you read their diaries and most personal letters which were concealed from others at the time. Many are famous people such as Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Mark Twain and his sibling Harriet Beecher Stowe among many others.
   
   As you read this book you begin to understand nuances of the late colonial and early Victorian era that history books miss. You see the holes in the stereotypes of the time. You see similarities to current times and you will see profound differences. You see how lack of modern medical technology and birth control put intense pressure on women. The divisive issues of the day like abortion, promiscuity, drugs (including alcohol) and religious extremes are all still issues today. They addressed them in a different manner and with a different perspective.
   
   I don't read much fiction because it is just fiction and based upon the author's perception of reality at best. This book interests me because it portrays many people's perception of the reality of their time based upon their own written records.
   
   Jim Fuqua



2. I am an author, a Christian, and a Calvinist. I love good history. However, after the deep prejudice against, and misunderstanding of Calvinism portrayed in the first two chapters, I almost put the book down.
   
   Despite these reservations, I am glad I persevered. Applegate writes in an engaging, entertaining style. I finished with fresh incite into the political machinations of early 19th century America, especialy New York, New England, and the history of the early abolitionist movement.
   
   I also concluded down deeply disturbed and distressed by the subject of the book, Henry Ward Beecher. Applegate repeatedly stresses two attributes of Beecher's moral character. The first was his lust for fame and popularity. The second is his continual compromise of conscience to obtain that popularity. These compromises ruined his life and the lives of many associated with him. She closes by comparing him to Dr. Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton, all good comparisons, and in my opinion, all deeply distressing hypocrites like Beecher.
   
   I finished the book with mixed feelings of revulsion and empathy for Beecher. He was a first class hypocrite. He continually preached love, but abused and used his wife, his congregation, his business associates and the women with whom he comitted adultery. He pretended to be one thing, but in reality was the exact opposite. Was he weak? Yes, like all of us he was weak. But was he sincere? It doesn't appear that he was. A sincere man seeks help. He wants to change. He humbles himself and exposes his weakness. Beecher did none of these Instead, continually and habitually covered up the damning evidence that pointed to his sins. That is not the definition of a good person.
   
   Did he do some good? Yes. He was a key figure in the abolitionist movement. But, in other respects he was much like the men exposed in Paul Johnson's insightful book, "Intellectuals." He was a man who loved the world in general, but was incapable of loving those closest to himself.
   
   Despite these facts, the author was unwilling to call Beecher what he really was, "a wolf in sheeps clothing." She concludes, "His painful awareness of his own weakness and his ongoing battle to overcome them were the wellspring of his great and lasting contribution to American life: the all forgiving Gospel of Love. As Beecher would have said, without sin there can be no saving grace."
   
   It appears that Applegate, like Beecher, is in love with love, but not real virtue. True loves serves, expends itself, humbles itself, and dies that other might live. But Applegate's conclusion spins evil, refusing to come to grips with it or condemn it. Yes God is love, but He is also justice. The two cannot be separated.
   
   This is not the definition of a good man. I expected Applegate to draw this clear conclusion. I was disappointed.
   
   In short, Applegate writes well. I am thankful for her research, and the volumes of excellent information on Beecher and his times. I am deeply disturbed by her conclusions. They express the same loss of moral compass as the man she writes about, Henry Ward Beecher



3. This book was really great. You feel like you are alive at the time of Beecher. You watch as he emerges from his father's formidable shadow to become the most popular American preacher of his day.
   
   But in the process, you will also see Beecher jettison virtually every doctrine of Christinaity save the doctrine of love for God and for others. Unfortunately, it appears that Henry took the "love for others" part a bit too literally, as he was a very flirtatious and apparently adulterous man.
   
   It is amazing to see how he skirts out of trouble time and again. He somehow has his wife convinced that he is a man of high virtue, and he is also able to convince a number of his mistresses that their affairs with him are higher forms of love, even religious love.
   
   And yet in spite of his peccadilloes, Henry Ward Beecher was an indispuably great orator, a man who had his congregation eating out of his hand. Henry loved to preach about the pressing issues of his day, although one could accuse him of waffling on issues when the boat was rocked. He was at first neutral on the slavery issue, then he was a cautious abolitionist, then he even came to the point of advocating violence if necessary.
   
   Perhaps his most shining moment was in 1863 while preaching in England. His stirring speeches about America convinced the British not to lend their support to the South, and this may have helped Lincoln to preserve the Union.
   
   You will learn not only about Beecher's relationships with women (his wife Eunice, Elizabeth Thornton, Edna Proctor, Chloe Beach), but you will also get to know the New York newspaperman Henry Bowen, who convinced Henry to come to New York. You will also meet the complex Theodore Tilton, who goes from being a star struck Beecher fan to being a jealous husband who wants to see Beecher fall from grace.
   
   Debby Applegate writes in a stirring style, and you will want to drop everything else and keep reading. You learn a lot about history along the way.
   
   The only complaint I have is that Applegate slams Calvinism way too much. She treats it as if it is a terrible system of belief and that it makes happy people dour. She seems to think that Lyman Beecher (Henry's father) was a much better man than his theological system would allow.
   
   I am not a Calvinist, but I respect Calvinism as a viable and reasonable expression of Christian faith. The book would have been just as great without the anti-Calvinist bias.



4. A remarkable read for its insight into the America of the 1850s and 1860s and into the America of the 2000s. The only real difference is that the Evangelists of 1850-60 are now tele-evangelists, still raising money, still getting involved in politics, and still dabbling in sins of the flesh to one degree or another. The more things change, the more they remaint the same.
   
   A thoroughly fascinating read for the information it imparts about that time and the similarities to the times in which we live.
   
   Helps the reader understand in new and different ways some of the causes of the Civil War and puts those reasons in in very human terms. Politics and Religion were entangled then, as now....
   
   Henry Ward Beecher would be as much at home now, just as rich, just as popular and probably just as promiscious as he was in his day. By understanding his day, we have a better, cleaner understanding of this day.
   
   In other words, Men of God can accomplish good, sometimes great things without being perfect people.



5. Applegate's biography on Henry Ward Beecher is very readable, but too short. Some things are covered very well, and others almost ignored by comparison.
   
   You learn alot about his relationship with his father and siblings, but very little about his wife and children. His thoughts and actions regarding slavery are well fleshed out, but I wish word one had been said about his opinions regarding other controversies of the time. What did Beecher make of Mormonism, for example? Applegate doesn't have much to say about Beecher's theology either, after he breaks with his father - at least not enough to satisfy me. She prefers to pay attention to the intrigues and finances of his congregation (which, by all means, is worth while).
   
   In other words: I was left wanting more.

5 comments about Grant.

1. This is one of the most fascinating books i've read in a while. Smith has a clear grasp of Grant's life. Both his virtues and flaws are given equal attention. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in either the Civil War or the Presidency.



2. This is an excellent and highly readable biography of Grant. However if you are considering the Kindle edition, note that there are some transcription problems:
   
   * Footnotes have been transcribed as inline paragraphs within the main text flow. They are normally included closely after the relevant paragraph, but they sometimes lag by a screen (or even two) and in one place surfaced in a prior screen.
   
   * The maps have been omitted.
   
   * The full original index is included. But since it includes neither hyperlinks to the text, nor Kindle locations, nor even paper page numbers, it is essentially useless.
   
   * The paper version uses indented paragraphs to indicate extended quotes. Unfortunately these show up as normal undistinguished paragraphs in the Kindle version, so I was sometimes surprised to discover I was in a quote, or that I had left one.
   
   * There are also occasional minor transcription glitches such as words being erroneously joined together or erroneously split apart; or sentences erroneously broken into separate paragraphs. But these are relatively minor.
   
   Note that most of these issues aren't due to the Kindle itself: for example it handle footnotes and textual links just fine. The issues are mostly with how this particular book has been converted.
   
   I don't want to overstate the issues: the book is still quite readable in the Kindle edition, and suitable for (say) travel reading. However the various glitches are sufficiently annoying (and the book sufficiently good!) that I have ended up also buying a hardcover version, for browsing and reference.
   
   For the biography itself 5 stars. For the Kindle transcription, only two.



3. After reading Professor Smith's Grant biography, two apparent things come to mind: the same cult of ignorance that has removed George Washington and Eisenhower from the lips of children and TV ditto-heads was responsible for the "overlooking" of this great leader; and, they, the racist, largely-white Establishment is on the march as we wage unnecessary war today with clue-less leaders in charge. This southern biography in one volume does great justice to that 19th Century and our 21st Century that stands on a precipice,serving as a trumpet call-to-arms. From the middle of Grant's memoirs at Vicksburg, I went headlong into this thrilling read, moved many times by its revelations,riveting insertions of quotes that dramatize the action with tremendous clarity. Insightful, balanced and engrossing from beginning to end. Clearly, U.S. Grant was forgotten by those whose sensibilities were offended that one man could be charged with being a Negro-lover, Indian-lover and a unifier. And for once, Jean Edward Smith got it right: the man who masters the battlefield challenges can deftly handle the administrative ones as well, without the meddling of professional politicians and slicksters. Until reading this biography, I was led to believe that the Confederacy was more noble defending the genteel plantation ways and pleasantries against the crudities of Northern pride. Like, how dare they attack Miss Scarlett! The Civil War was much larger than Margaret Mitchell, and Jean Smith builds this biography to a deeper understanding about the war and its cost. Not only does Grant rise in dimension, but he levels off and enjoys a special relationship with Lincoln that is unique and illuminating, before moving into his White House years and retirement.If one needs to know why leadership is empty in the Executive Branch since Eisenhower, you need not look beyond the enemies of Grant's legacy. The standards of conduct,on and off the battlefield, by all participants, their levels of understanding of the cause, especially their civility was so moving and numerous that one is shocked to return to 21st century conduct. There is much to admire about those times and the great man, U.S. Grant. Read this, keep it and learn plenty.



4. I really loved this book. What a great General he was. Very underrated President. Should be ranked right up there. His battlefield skills saved the country.



5. Jean Edward Smith has written an outstanding biography of Ulysses S. Grant, one of the more complex heroes of American history. Grant's complexity does not stem from his own actions, but from the fact that his career as a general is considered such a success while his presidency has always been looked at as an abject failure. Henry Adams had even written that denunciation of Grant, saying, "The Progress of evolution from President Washington to President Grant was enough to upset Darwin." Mr. Smith had the good sense to compare what Adams wrote to the earlier thoughts of his brother Charles Francis Adams Jr. who admired the general and called him "an extraordinary man."
   Sometimes history needs to unfold over a longer period of time before a figure can be properly judged. With Grant the fact was that for over 100-years he came out on the losing end of history because he was for Reconstruction and the civil rights of the freed blacks. When Rutherford B. Hayes came into power in 1877 the freedoms of blacks had become a dead issue and Grant was destined to appear a failure in the eyes of history. It has only been with the success of the Civil Rights movement throughout the 1960s that Grant was in a large way vindicated. Finally southern biographers were unable to point to him as a man who picked the losing side of history, and a man who sympathized with blacks and therefore was wrong.
   It is always difficult to attempt to judge anyone or any act of the past by the standards of today. That is why it is hard to condemn George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves because it was common-place at the time. They don't deserve any positive press for owning slaves, BUT if they had turned over their slaves while they lived and fought for the freedom of all then they would have been so far ahead of their time to almost not have been real. There was no-such-thing as Virginia planters of the 18th and 19th centuries who refused to embrace the benefits of free slave labor. At least, I do not recall anything of such people.
   Grant is different because while he was President he WAS popular and DID protect the freedoms of people (which is correct even though it was judged as wrong in the south from 1877 to the 1960s). Mr. Smith is actually righting a historic wrong by trying to view Grant as the people of his time viewed him rather than those who came after and detested him for taking what was for 100-years the losing side of history. For instance, if George W. Bush has many biographies written by his supporters (now less than 28% of the population) that help to shape how he is looked at in the future, it would require a writer like Mr. Smith to come in and show that DURING the vast majority of his term, he was not exactly what one would call "popular."
   Re-writing history is a dangerous game and it takes writers like Mr. Smith to set the story straight after it has gone too far astray. In the south for instance, it was around a century or more before there started to be seen positive views of Abraham Lincoln. It is said that history is written by the winner, but really history is written by whoever happens to be holding the pen, and it isn't always the winner. How else could one explain the "Lost Cause" mythology that turned Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman into villains? It is only after carefully dissecting what actually took place that the story can be set straight.
   In "Grant" Mr. Smith has written a biography of the 18th President and first four-star general in the nation's history that is more accurate than a great majority of those that have come before. His biography is free from the anti-Grant bias that flooded the view for so long. However he also does not gloss over faults of Grant. Grant was a man who sometimes drank too much, and Mr. Smith doesn't hide it. But neither does he extrapolate and assume (as many anti-Grant biographers have done) that Grant was a hopeless drunk who stumbled around at all-times and was hardly ever sober. That such views have been accepted by many historians as fact is absolutely ridiculous, and Mr. Smith finally sets things to right.
   In closing, what we get from Mr. Smith is not a biography that overlooks all Grant's faults and pretends that he was a man heaven-sent who never made a wrong turn in his life. Instead we are given the portrait of a man who sometimes trusted the wrong kinds of people too much and who would other times have been better off as President had he sounded his views out amongst the public (especially the Cabinet and Congress). We see a man who as general came close to defeat more than a few times, but who had the nerves and calm to stand his ground. We get an accurate view of a man whose best traits as a general (indeed the fact that he was not easily perturbed in the most trying moments) are what got him into such trouble with historians for over a century. Not only did Grant wind up on the losing side by supporting the rights of black Americans, he showed no remorse for having done so (nor should he have, though it hurt his legacy).
   Time has vindicated Grant in the end and given Mr. Smith the clarity to write a definitive biography of the man from Galena, IL. Finally Grant can be reassessed and while he may never crack the top ten or even top twenty on the list of the greatest presidents of all-time, he at least can leave the likes of Buchanan, Harding, Pierce, and (something tells me) George W. Bush behind at the bottom forever.

5 comments about Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power.

1. Dallek frames Nixon and Kissinger as a "cautionary tale that the country forgets at its peril." He sees both men as arrogant and self-serving. Additionally, it is Dallek's feeling that both men used each other for political purposes. The great foreign policy victories of the Nixon administration - opening of China, détente and the peace in the Vietnam War - are all merely political moves by both men to win elections and prove that they are the smartest people in the country. Yet, the worst comes during the Watergate crisis, where actual foreign policy decisions have to be made including the Yom Kippur War. Nixon is merely seen as a second hand player in these dramas, thwarting when not ignoring Kissinger. It was a dangerous time with little oversight from outside the White House that we should all remember least it not be repeated.
   
   This good analysis drives the book. However, Dallek has the annoying habit of calling Kissinger "Henry." Its not like I'm gonna get him confused with the other major characters called Kissinger. Secondly, the most important foreign policy event between VJ Day and the fall of the Berlin Wall is the end of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates - where the United States basically used a steady dollar to keep the world economy on an even keel. On August 15, 1971 Nixon ended the convertibility of dollars to gold by closing the gold window. Yet, if you only read this book you would never have known. I am aghast at such an omission.
   
   Despite these problems, the book is still a good read. It attempts to conquer the myth that while Nixon was a bad domestic executive he was still great in foreign policy. Read it together with All the President's Men and you'll never like Nixon again.



2. Robert Dallek, biographer of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, has now written an account of the Nixon presidency, but it is not as good as Seymour Hersh's magnificent The Price of Power.
   
   In July 1968 Nixon and Kissinger told President Thieu of South Vietnam to reject US calls to begin participating in peace talks. In doing so, they broke the US law against private citizens conducting diplomatic negotiations.
   
   Nixon campaigned on a platform of ending the war, yet sabotaged Johnson's final efforts to negotiate, and then escalated the war. Nixon and Kissinger always opposed unilateral withdrawal. They aimed to continue the US aggression against Vietnam until victory could be achieved. When they talked of an `honourable settlement', they meant one that achieved all the USA's war aims. More US soldiers would have to die so that the earlier deaths would not have been in vain, which, absurdly, equates to saving the dead.
   
   Nixon and Kissinger cruelly indulged in sunshine talk about the war, promising the American people that one last push, one more invasion, would bring victory. But the truth was that the USA had lost. There was no alternative to withdrawal: their only choice was whether to end the war swiftly, or end it a bit later after killing yet more Vietnamese and having even more American soldiers killed pointlessly (20,000 were killed under Nixon).
   
   Nixon and Kissinger never grasped that a quick exit from Vietnam would have helped, not undermined, US credibility. They never asked other governments what they thought about a speedy exit. Détente was just a cynical device to try to divide Vietnam from its allies, and it failed.
   
   Dallek concludes that Nixon and Kissinger's policy towards Vietnam "was a disaster. Administration actions destabilized Cambodia, expended thousands of American, Vietnamese and Cambodian lives, gained no real advantage and divided the country." Actually, Nixon virtually united the country against him and against the war: by 1969, 71% of the American people wanted Nixon to withdraw 100,000 troops from Vietnam by the end of the year.
   
   Nixon and Kissinger claimed that their policies were realistic and intelligent, but neither could see that the Vietnamese people were justly fighting for their national liberation. Nixon and Kissinger were not the tragic, flawed heroes that Dallek portrays but despicable war criminals.



3. The relationship of these two incredibly insecure men is interesting to explore. Both were looking for constant reassurance from one another. Nixon seemed incredibly unsure of himself in Robert Dallek's book.
   
   Dallek explores other good biographies of Nixon and previously unreleased material to go in more depth.
   
   The problems faced by Nixon and Kissinger were varied, and handled with varied success. The failure in Vietnam sticks out like a sore thumb and is a major theme of the book. Smaller problems that they dealt with including Chile where the U.S. intervened to take a democratically elected leader out of power shed light on the deception and secretive measures used by the administration. The Nixon administration did more than stretch the rules...they broke many of them.
   
   Henry Kissinger appears as the hero of this book. Domestic issues are in the background of this book with Foreign policy as the star.



4. This book is a great history of the Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy. However, even more than that, it also shows how our government makes (or fails to make) foreign policy. It shows the day to day infighting, trivialities, and ego-stroking involved at the highest levels of government. In particular, Dallek details how Nixon and Kissinger sought to wrest foreign policy control from the bureaucracy for themselves, essentially personalizing foreign policy. They also had a tendency to ignore experts and keep others in the administration in the dark over major decisions. This book would have been useful before the Iraq War to understand how Cheney and Rumsfeld undertook a similar effort to seize control of national security policy and ignore intelligence experts.
   
   My only criticism of the book is that sometimes Dallek seems inject his own political views into the analysis. While I am sure Nixon and Kissinger often played politics improperly, and Dallek provides much evidence for this, there are times when I think he goes too far. For example, he blames their insistence on continuing the Vietnam War largely to their personal insecurities, but I think they had legitimate (if ultimately wrong) arguments about the world's perception of U.S. power. I think applaud Dallek for criticizing the administration's tilt toward Pakistan, but thought his argument could have benefitted from more discussion of US-India relations before and during Nixon. The final chapter of the book I think frames the author's overall arguments more coherently, but throughout the book they sometimes seem disjointed.
   
   If you are a die-hard Nixon/Kissinger fan, you might resent such asides. For most readers though, I think the book is overall balanced and well-reasoned.



5. I like this book
   Anyway to show that Nixon was A GREAT PRESIDENT is in my opinion OK

5 comments about Andrew Carnegie.

1. This book flows well and is elegant in its prose. Some biographies can be quite tedious this one isn't.
   
   This book is full of insights such as that Teddy Roosevelt although he sought for Carnegie's support he didn't like the man. Because Carnegie was an intellectual and a manager but Roosevelt hands on in the trenches type manager.
   
   For good or evil Andrew Carnegie is right up there with Washington and Lincoln in his impact to the United States. Through his management skills he drastically cut the price of steel. This allowed for cheap consumer and industrial goods. The low cost of steel allowed the US to build the its fleet of battleships, skyscrapers, bridges dams and other large scale public and private works projects. Carnegie's mills alone had a greater output and at lower cost then England and Germany.
   
   The second reason why he transformed the US was the Gospel of Wealth. He was the impetus of charitable giving. It wasn't until after Carnegie's vast sums that his peers such as the Rockefeller's started to contribute. While others focused on art, which has a small but important impact on this country. He focused on education and funding the retirement of thousands of professors from all over the country. 2,500 public libraries. Including 5 million dollar grant to the New York Public library system.
   
   The great cultural institutions of this country Carnegie Hall the Metropolitan Museum of Art by JP Morgan National Gallery by Andrew Mellon were all funded by Republicans. The same is true today see Bill Gates.
   
   Nassaw states that 5 million dollars circa 1900 was approximately 3.5 billion today. If this is true Carnegie gave away 20 to 30 million dollars a year a sum greater than the total assets of Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.



2. A fascinating biography of the exuberant Scottish-American tycoon and philanthropist.
   
   Nasaw covers all of Carnegie's life from early boyhood in 1830's Scotland, to ambitious telegraph boy in Pittsburgh, to iron and steel magnate, to philanthropist and finally to international peace advocate. Most of the 800 pages go swiftly. Nasaw writes well and I generally found his very detailed account valuable, especially for Carnegie's business adventures and for his final peace activities, although perhaps rather less so for all the details of his family life.
   
   In Nasaw's account Carnegie comes across as much more of a "businessman" than an "industrialist". His initial fortune was made in his twenties through insider dealings from his role as a key aide to railroad magnates who were making their own fortunes by tricks such as awarding lucrative contracts to companies that they themselves owned. But starting in his late twenties Carnegie did build a mighty iron and steel empire, with remorseless business logic.
   
   Carnegie in his middle age inevitably comes across as a great hypocrite. He had given speeches extolling the virtues of unions and of the need for employers to treat workers fairly, but he went on to mercilessly repress workers at his own plants, including cutting wages, extending hours, and suppressing all unions. He denied responsibility for the climactic Homestead lockout which was designed to break the steel unions, but Nasaw shows that he was kept fully informed and must have either made or supported the key decisions. Nasaw explains how Carnegie rationalized this harshness to himself, as a necessary part of business and of social evolution, but still his deeds fit poorly with his words.
   
   However in his later life, especially after selling Carnegie Steel, Carnegie became indisputably a genuine exuberant philanthropist. He lived well (very well indeed!) but he also gave away a vast fortune, founding an astounding 2500 libraries, plus many Institutions, the Carnegie Hall, various Hero funds, and many peace organizations.
   
   In his latter years, Carnegie's incessant lobbying for international peace is truly striking. Nasaw sometimes deprecates Carnegie's endless expressions of optimism in the face of repeated failures and his ceaseless lobbying of presidents, monarchs, and statesmen. But given that Carnegie believed war would be a disaster (as WWI proved all too well) and was committed to doing whatever he could for peace, then his behavior seems both entirely rationale and commendable. Yes, he was often grasping at straws and he did aggressively pester and "name drop" to try to move things forward, but given the stakes it is difficult to condemn his donning of a bold face and his trying again and again in the face of failures and cynicism. Alas, his efforts were probably inevitably doomed, but given his beliefs and commitment, it seems hard to criticize him for trying as hard as he did.
   
   Overall, Carnegie's life is a fascinating one, involving many contrasts and apparent contradictions. Nasaw captures it well and succeeds in making Carnegie a surprisingly sympathetic character, without concealing his flaws.



3. How to describe Andrew Carnegie? Certainly he would have to be one of the most fortunate individuals to have ever been born. Son of a hardscrabble weaver from a small hamlet near Edinburgh, Scotland, Carnegie and family immigrated to Pennsylvania whan he was a young man. Perhaps never before in history, has a particular man, with certain skills, found himself at the right place, at the right time and under the right circumstances as did Andrew Carnegie in 19th century western Pennsylvania.
   
   Despite having no formal education, Carnegie was certainly a very intelligent man. He educated himself over the years to the extent that he was considered a very philosophical author and sought after speaker on many of the issues of the day. He hitched his wagon to the right horse when he became assistant to an up and comer in the Pennsylvania Railroad. From an early age, Carnegie discovered the beauty of dividends and compound interest, money earned not by virtue of labor, but solely by virtue of having money. Due in large part to his connections, he was able to parley inside information into increasingly lucrative investments, to the point that he was soon able to turn over daily operation of his several businesses to very able lieutenants while he enjoyed the good life. These lieutenants, assisted by a series of unique events and developing technologies, made Carnegie the richest man in the world.
   
   While it may sound as if Carnegie was merely an observer and accumulator, he certainly deserves much credit for his success. He was an early pioneer in the concept of cost accounting and through a ruthless system of unit cost reduction, both in the areas of vertical integration and labor cost, was able to successfully grow his business and survive numerous economic downturns which bankrupted his competitors.
   
   Many decry Carnegie's business practices, most notably in the areas of labor/manangement relations and anti-competitive practices. However, this demonstrates a very common failing in many commentators; holding historical personages to current standards. The same people that condemn Carnegie's labor practices, denigrate George Washington for owning slaves, or Harry Truman for making racist comments. Each of these, though immoral by current standards, were men of their times.
   
   Owners of manufacturing entities were expected to battle with labor. Labor, in the mid-late 19th century was heavily connected with the burgeoning socialist movement which was looked upon with disfavor by much of society. In fact, it is no coincidence that those of Carnegie's competitors whose labor forces became organized, were largely those that failed in the repeated economic panics of the day. Carnegie succeeded, and grew, as a result of reinvesting profits and maintaining low unit cost. Ironically, though his Homestead steel works became the symbol for labor/management violence, he considered himself one of the most enlightened managers of the day.
   
   Carnegie is viewed, with Rockefeller, Morgan and Vanderbilt in the class of "Robber Barons" which sprang up during the era, however, Carnegie is vastly different than each of these individuals. While many of his contemporaries benefited and suceeded largely due to watered stock and market manipulation, he was very proud, and quick to point out that he never operated a corporation and never sold a share of stock. He was definitely NOT a monopolist (U.S. Steel was formed as a result of his sale of Carnegie Steel to J. P. Morgan and investors). He was simply a supreme capitalist and the first of his type and scale.
   
   He is condemned by others for taking advantage of political and business connections not available to others. Again, that was common practice in the era. Many things that he did, while legislated against now, were perfectly legal and accepted business practices of the times.
   
   All that having been said, I get the impression, especially in the later parts of the book, that Carnegie could be an insufferable prig. I imagine it becomes easy to view ones self as omnipotent and all wise, when everything one touches turns to gold and one is constantly praised for his good works. However, it is telling that he constantly bragged of being successful while only working 2-3 hours/day, lecturing his many employees to enjoy leisure time, while at the same time instituting a 12 hour/7 day a week work schedule. It seems almost unbelievable that he was unaware of the hypocrisy of some of actions, but after reading the book, I actually believe that he was. By letting his managers do the dirty work of making his money, he was able to "keep his hands clean" and disavow any unpleasantness that might result.
   
   Though hopelessly naive, it is difficult to condemn a man who literally pioneered the concept of philanthropy and spent his last decade in a never flagging crusade for world peace. He tirelessly advocated the formation of a League of Nations/United Nations style world arbitration body, with military enforcement powers, well before any of his contemporaries. While he would doubtless be overjoyed to learn of the existence of the current United Nations, he would nonetheless be less than pleased with its corruption and lack of effective authority.
   
   All in all, a rather good treatment, not just of Carnegie, but of the period itself and many of the historical figures of the era. At times, the book dragged and became tiresome, but not exceedingly so. I would highly recommend the book for anyone interested not just in Andrew Carnegie but in late 19th century American and British history.



4. David Nasaw succeeded in creating a complete record of the life of Andrew Carnegie. As the reader, you come to know that Carnegie was born to a family of poor weavers in Scotland before moving to the United States, beginning work at a young age and eventually becoming unfathomably wealthy as an investor and entrepreneur in the steel business.
   
   All of the details are there in this book, and in that way, you know the facts of Carnegie's life, but at the same time, you really never get the feeling you know Carnegie. I don't know if that is Nasaw's fault, or if Carnegie is just not a man who allows a biographer to know him very well. Either way, the book feels empty in a way that the best biographies feel full.
   
   You catch glimpses of Carnegie's true personality; he obviously liked to see himself as the wise elder statesman, handing out advice to protoges, even when those protoges were successful 50 year old business men, or even presidents. He seems to wear out his welcome, and relationship with a lot of these people because he only sees the knowledge and advice flowing one way. Carnegie comes across as a man too removed from the realities of life to understand (or maybe care) how he was truly perceived.
   
   Other than that, you never get a real feel for how Carnegie became wealthy, whether he possessed a unique talent or ability which allowed him to become the richest man in the world, or how he fit in to the world in which he lived. I recently finished "Mellon," by David Cannadine, which tackles a similarly tough subject, but I finished that book feeling like I had much more insight into the man than I did in this case.
   
   Recommended for fans of history or biography, but still missing a critical spark required of a five-star biography.



5. Insight into a fascinating and complex person living in a fascinating complex time. A man who was unique and had incredible influence on his surroundings, yet in many ways was typical of his era

5 comments about Life on the Mississippi (Signet Classics).

1. Let me guess: your total exposure to Mark Twain came in high school, when you were forced to read about the antics of Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer, right? Well, now that you've reached adulthood, you should make time to read _Life on the Mississippi_. It's mandatory reading if you live in a state that borders the great river, anywhere from Minnesota down to Louisiana. It's mandatory reading if you have come to that point in life when you can suddenly appreciate American history and post-Civil War stories written by someone who lived through that time.

   Writing in the first half of the 1870s, Twain retraces the steps of his youth: the watery highway he knew when he trained to be a riverboat pilot nearly 20 years earlier. He speaks of how life _was_ along the river, and what life _became_. It's almost a "you can't go home again" experience for him, while the reader gets the benefit of discovering both time periods.

   I have two favorite parts that I share with others. Chapter IX includes a wonderful dissertation about how learning the navigational intricacies of the river caused Twain to lose the ability to see its natural beauty. And Chapter XLV includes an assessment of how the people of the North and the South reacted differently to the war experience. If I were a social studies teacher, I'd use that last passage in a unit on the reconstruction period. So put this title on your vacation reading list, and don't fret: the chapters are short and are many -- 60! -- but you can stop at any time, and the words go by fast. _Life on the Mississippi_ should make you forget all about any Twain trauma and report-writing you may have suffered as a teenager. [This reviewer was an Illinois resident when these comments were written.]




2. I read this recently after having kept a copy around for years; I now wish I had read it years ago. It is witty, observant, and a wonderful slice of American history; the
   now-vanished steamboat culture comes alive like nowhere
   else. However, the best part is the contrast between the author's confident early youthful years and the much later, postwar years of bittersweet reminiscence and regret for what has passed, never to return. A wonderful book - I simply cannot praise it highly enough.



3. This is the book that Mark Twain himself thought to be his greatest. It is basically a memoir in two parts of his life spent on the river with historical sketches, statistics, and other matters thrown in.
   
   The first part of the book tells of Twain's early years as a riverboat pilot. He talks about being a cub pilot, about learning about the intricacies of the river and the difficulties of navigating it, and about his mentor Horace Bixby. Twain's love of the river and his pride in "mastering" it are made obvious in these chapters.
   
   The second part recounts Twain's return to the river in 1882, mainly to "see it again" in preparation of writing this book. Starting in St. Louis, he first goes south through Baton Rouge to New Orleans. He spends a bit of time there and describes life as he sees it in the city (there's a funny chapter regarding the above-ground cemeteries and an argument about cremation). Then he heads north on the steamboat City of Baton Rouge, piloted by his old mentor Horace Bixby. He stops off in Hannibal for three days, just enough time to see how much the town and some old acquaintances have changed, and then continues all the way to St. Paul, Minnesota.
   
   Twain's humor, as he recounts conversations with people, sights seen, reminiscences dredged up, and a myriad of other matters that fill the book, is always evident. It's one of the great books on the mighty river, and whether you are a lover of the works of Mark Twain or interested in the Mississippi River during the time period just before and after the Civil War, you will enjoy this book.



4. In Life on the Mississippi the steamboat is depicted as the workhorse of Midwest expansion. Prior to the advent of the railroad efficient inland transportation was confined to waterways and the Mississippi river basin , with "about 1,250,000 square miles," was the "Body of the Nation." (Twain, preface) Mark Twain fulfills his boyhood dream of becoming a river boat pilot and, returning some twenty-one years later, writes of his youthful experiences and later observations
   
   The steamboat was a technological phenomena. The vehicle that evolved to meet the unique demands of this particular environment was a special design of river boat. In his own inimical style Mark Twain captures both the excitement of the riverboat's arrival and describes its essential components:
   
   "She is long and sharp and trim and pretty; she has two tall, fancy-topped chimneys, with a gilded device of some kind swung between them; a fanciful pilothouse, all glass and "gingerbread," perched on top of the "texas" deck behind them; the paddle-boxes are gorgeous with a picture or with gilded rays above the boat's name; the boiler deck; the hurricane deck, and the texas deck are fenced and ornamented with clean white railings; there is a flag gallantly flying from the jack-staff; the furnace doors are open and the fires glaring bravely; the upper decks are black with passengers; the captain stands by the big bell calm, imposing, the envy of all; great volumes of the blackest smoke are rolling and tumbling out of the chimneys...the crew are grouped on the forecastle; the broad stage is run far out over the port bow, and an envied deck hand stands picturesquely on the end of it with a coil of rope in his hand; the pent steam is screaming through the gauge cocks; the captain lifts his hand, a bell rings, the wheels stop; then turn, back, churning the water to foam, and the steamer is at rest." (27)
   
   Within a period of ten minutes the boat has been offloaded, loaded and departed. It is an efficiency of system and design ideally suited to its unique purposes, but as the Civil War looms its days are numbered. By then the steamboat had already evolved to it most advanced state and the steam locomotive has become the dominant form of transportation
   
   As a literary piece by a "brilliant travel writer and incomparable humorist" (Kaplan, in Twain, xvii) Life on the Mississippi earned its accolades, but, as a window into a period of time, one can extract an eyewitnesses truth. In Life on the Mississippi, Mark Twain describes the latter period of the steamboat's heyday dramatically cut short. Wartime technology did not improve the riverboat other than to convert it into an instrument of war. What doomed the steamboat to oblivion was the advent of the steam locomotive and the railroads. The steamboat well served the purposes of river life in its time but was eclipsed by the railroad.
   
   That the steamboat was functional is indisputable, but if form determines function, it was a perfect adaptation of a water craft in conformity with purpose and contemporary technology. Combined with light weight and flexible wood construction the steamboat evolved into a shallow draft, wide beamed, low freeboard hull propelled by stern or side paddle wheels. The overall size of a steamboat was a compromise between maneuverability and economy. Power plant, fuel, cargo and passengers were accommodated within a superstructure rising above the hull. Bulk items, machinery, deck hands and low fare passengers were located on the main deck; superior public and private accommodations at higher fares were on the upper decks. Here travelers could enjoy incomparable luxury.
   
   High on top of all was the pilothouse. River pilots, by necessity of their position earned through their experience and knowledge of the river, had the best view. By status, they were the pinnacle of river hierarchy. Mark Twain, on his 1882 return to the river, quaintly asks of a fellow passenger he suspects of being a river pilot: "Have you ever traveled with a panorama." The passenger responds, "I have formerly served in that capacity. [Twain's] suspicion was confirmed." (315) Only higher than the pilothouse were the tall stacks made so for the purpose of disgorging noxious black smoke and dangerous smoldering ash to the wind.
   
   All components contributed to functionality, but perhaps the "stage" or ramp which bridged the gap between the boat and shore, contributed most to its versatility. It enabled the boat to be hailed from landings along the shore without the aid of a dock. As an apprentice, Mark Twain is left alone on the bridge for the first time by his mentor. His initial proud serenity is broken by a sudden awareness that the boat is heading for imminent impact with a "bluff reef." His panicked reaction throws the ship into reverse, but he is saved by the return of the pilot who calmly restores order and chastises him. "When you have a hail, my boy, you ought to tap the big bell three times before you land, so the engineers can get ready." (53) The "bluff reef" was actually a wind reef (from the effect of wind on the surface) and they sailed uneventfully through it.
   
   The romance of the steamboat era is tarnished by frequent tragedy. Mark Twain loses his brother Henry, a cabin boy on the Pennsylvania, who died when the ship's boilers explode in June 1858. The hazards of operating year round and during night and day, plus the varying river conditions contributed to mistakes of judgment and probably just bad luck too! The pilot may have been king, but he was still human and suffered from the human faults of vain glory, unrealistic confidence, ego, and infallibility.
   
   When he returns to the river in 1882 after an absence of twenty-one years, Mark Twain notes the changes that have occurred on the river. There are very few ships left in operation. Passenger travel is limited in frequency and destinations. The romance he once knew is gone, but a new one is beginning, the romance of the rails.
   
   Today we know that the railroad too would have its heyday and, in time, its romance would also wane. But has the romance of the steamboat and rail eras disappeared? Today you can take cruises on Mississippi riverboats and luxury train trips across the continent. The difference now is that trips are for novelty and not necessity. The romance only comes from the remembrance of a time past and not the needs of the present.



5. Every time I look at a river, I think of Mark Twain and his adventures on the Mississippi. His writing, always funny and warm, tells us first of the history and stories of his beloved river, and then of his experiences learning the steamboat trade. I found his description of being a steamboat student very similar to being a medical student: two-hundred years later and in completely different trades, route memorization and gradual responsibility for people's lives still have much in common. This book made me want to travel the Mississippi, not as it stands today but as it appeared to Twain in his youth. I feel the same way about Gabriel Garcia Marquez and his Magdalena river. I think it is amazing how these inspired authors can make me love a river I have never seen.

5 comments about Washington: The Indispensable Man.

1. This book is not worth your time. After reading the reviews by other users I expected to put away all other interpretations of Washington in favor of this title. However, after 50 pages of reading I simply could go no further. Having read several other Washington biographies, I was appalled by Flexner's elementary treatment of such an important individual. Events are dumbed down, simplified, or passed over entirely, completely leaving out the anecdotal flavor afforded by other titles. Really a perfunctory effort.
   
   Another reviewer really said it best, comparing Flexner's book to a high school or college term paper. Flexner's work reminds me of several I have written; all begun the night before the due date and handed in with an ashamed look on my face.
   
   Don't be deceived by the high ratings given this book. Pass this over and pick up another title. Try Ellis's short treatment or D.S. Freeman's one-volume distillation of his seven-volume work.



2. George Washington is known, of course, as the "father of our country"; that's not completely true, but what is true is that without Washington we might still be flying the Union Jack; he was "The Indespensable Man". He was a reticent, self-controlled, man who never let others get too close; this makes a biographer's task difficult, but it hasn't kept a LOT of people from trying. Washington may well have more published biographies than any man who ever lived; thus, we look hard at each new one, as if daring the author to justify his choice of subject. The volume here is James Thomas Flexner's abridgment of his own multi-volume work, and a wonderful offering it is.
   
   Part of the problem in a study of Washington is the immense wealth of available material; Washington was famous from his mid teens on, building a great military reputation at an age when Jefferson was still in school, and Patrick Henry was tending bar. The great Douglas Southall Freeman who wrote the definitive multi-volume biographies of both Washington and Lee commented on the differing problems; Washington was famous early; Robert E. Lee didn't "hit the big time" till he was 55, so a biographer has to hunt for the early material [again, this hasn't stopped a lot of folks from trying].
   
   Flexner has chosen to focus on the centrality of George Washington to the process of our becoming a nation...Washington was viewed as superior by his own contemporaries; their deference to him was as natural as breathing. Adams and Jefferson were better educated, many were better writers or public speakers [yes, yes, I know; Jefferson was a real thorn in his side...but that was later, and he still showed respect]. BUT, Washington had the limitless strength of character, the absolute refusal to quit no matter how bad things got [in 1776, they were pretty bad], without which we could not have won our freedom. It remained for Jefferson to think up, and write down, the ideas that make us work, but first, the battles had to be won......
   
   There are lies told about Washington, some important, some not...he never chopped down a cherry tree...he did not have wooden teeth [he had around nine sets over the years, mostly ivory, or animal teeth, spring hinged, set in a lead base...I've seen one set...hideous]...he was not without passion, he just controlled it well. Washington was not without faults; he was over ambitious, but always for the public good...he married Martha for her money...he was a lousy son to his Mother, but then Mary was a lousy mother, a real "Mommie Dearest"; still, George got his strength of character, and his horse riding ability, from her. The only real public blot I can find comes from the Presidential years....his lack of faith in Edmund Randolph.
   
   George Washington is tough for us to get a good handle on; alas, that was true for his contemporaries, too. The reasons that he is difficult to "figure out" are very different than those that Jefferson is, but still real. Everybody needs to read one good bio of Washington; this is a pretty good choice, easily readable, and readily available. Other good choices are Joseph Ellis' "His Excellency", Willard Sterne Randall, and Richard Harwell's one volume abridgment of Freeman's magnum opus [the full seven volumes are impossible to find at a decent price]. There are one volume versons of sets by Washington Irving and John Marshall, the latter abridgment done by Marshall himself. These are pretty much for people like me, and are only available thru specialized venues like Mount Vernon, or The John Marshall House. [both authors met Washington, though Irving was only seven; neither mentions Sally Fairfax...] If you want to read them all, go for it; if you only want one, try this.....



3. This just isn't sufficiently accurate nor well-written given its hype and other ratings here. One example is at page 13, where Flexner describes young Washington's trip to a French fort at the confluence of French Creek with the Monongahela ("now Franklin, Pennsylvania"). The problem is that French Creek flows into the Allegheny, not the Monongahela.
   Another problem occurs when he describes (p. 24) how Washington accompanied General Braddock at the disastrous defeat at Turtle Creek in July 1755. Of course, Washington was 23 in July 1755, having been born in February 22 (Feb 11 by the old calendar), 1732. In the next chapter, he describes how after Braddock's defeat the British Army left Virginia defenseless, so the Virginia Assembly created its own army, and Washington "now twenty-two" was elected colonel (page 28).
   In an early battle of the Revolutionary War he describes how Washington held a strong position at White Plains, NY, but was outflanked and decided to move to higher hills near New Castle. Although New Castle, NY and North Castle, NY are close geographically, the hills in question are in North Castle.
   The book is also written in an annoying manner, using words (not quoted) like "unwisdom" and "plaguey." The writing seems at the level of a sophomore term paper. There have to be better one-volume biographies.



4. As a student for some reason I have never been able to focus on the founding fathers. I have read an assortment of biographies of Revolutionary-era politicians and military leaders and always emerge with only the faintest understanding of who these men were and what the different issues were being debated in the 1780's and 1790's. This book is the first one I've read from this period that really held my attention. Too bad I didn't have it on hand when I took my first class in American history but perhaps it might come in handy somewhere down the educational road.



5. This book is a "distillation" of the author's award winning four-volume biography of Washington. "The extreme reduction of scale - to about one fifth - dictated that, if the shorter work were to have its own integrity and literary effect, the material would have to be revisualized and rewritten. Except for the account of Washington's death, the text is almost altogether new." (viii)
   
   The literary style is excellent. The narrative, however, stays so close to Washington that the historical context of his life is often only hinted at, and at times left out entirely. The chapters are, in almost every case, less than ten pages long. The book reads, with exceptions, like a series of extended, well polished essays written from selected notes compiled for a longer work - which I suppose is exactly what it is.

5 comments about My Life.

1. Undoubtly Bill Clinton will be remembered as one of the most influential presidents of the US. Politically he was a moderate as opposed to a liberal as seen in different policies he pushed forward. He was a savvy president too in terms of his political skills. The government shutdown, I believe, was one of his greatest moves in this sense. The 1996 victory was the corollary of the latter, besides the fact that Bob Dole was not a strong opponent. Clinton would have won anyways.
   A lot of lessons to be learned from Clinton's book. However, certain parts of it are too detailed.



2. Clinton supporter or not, you will find this biography to be fascinating. Clinton gives you the works, from his childhood all the way through his Presidency. If you're looking for lurid details, he doesn't give them. What he does give you is a chance to see how he saw things. What I found especially interesting were the stories about the fight over controversial issues with Congress and the long Whitewater investigation. This book is VERY long and is anecdotal, so be prepared to read a thousand short stories, with little or no overarching theme other than "this is how it happened".



3. A long and interesting read, overly detailed on fairly mundane aspects of his life and unsurprisingly brief on more interesting times.
   
   Nevertheless, an engrossing read. Who knows where his road will end.



4. When faced with impeachment after Monica rumor became The Story, President Clinton, to whom ambiguity was never part of his nature, took the worst situation to mean retreat from Office, which would not have relieved his soul.
   This autobiography is informative and tender in every corner. At times the ex-President aggravated his bitterness and despair; not a pleasing prospect for a vigorous man with an appetite for distinction. His excessive passions, one for his wife and the other for his daughter, at the end of the day had caused Miss Lewinski and partners to be removed from the White House. I believe the young lady was also a victim of irrational exuberance (Excuse me Mr. Greenspan)
   At times there is always some sort of melancholy demeanor than can grow daily more somber in high offices. President Clinton is telling us he could not possibly have been entirely impervious to the mounting evidence against him, such signs were motivated by political reasons from rival factions with nefarious ends - to hurt the Democrats from within.
   
   Clinton, once known for his vivacity, was now showing the strain of the shameful events.
   
   Clinton, the deep-rooted optimist who found it temperamentally difficult to resign from trouble, has had his face already sagging with worry as daily attacks compounded his sense of doom...
   
   At 55 he left office with a 65% approval rating. (One of the highest after WWII)
   However, the charismatic President looked a narrow-chest man with the face of a person much older in age. That did not at all resemble him nine years ago when he took that Office.



5. As I read this passionate memoir it felt like that the author opened the door of his life and led me through his memory lanes (Bill Clinton is obviously gifted not only recollecting his childhood events but also in mental strength). By the time I finished the tour I had known him well, met his parents and other family members. When I came out of the door I no longer saw Clinton as a politician but as a man who upheld his family values by adopting his step father's name; I no longer saw him as the 42nd president of the United States of America but as a man symbolizing the American spirit.

5 comments about For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War.

1. I don't know if anyone will ever read this review for a 10-year old book, but I'm reading it right now and I really wanted to share about it.
   
   I truly appreciate the scholarship of McPherson on the Civil War and all the research he has done on the subject. For this book alone, he read hundreds of soldiers letters and diaries to understand what motivated them to put their lives on the line. A great many of them understood the issues of the day, volunteered for the war, and did not need a whole lot of incentive to enlist. A 1982 movie, "The Blue & the Gray," contains a scene where Union soldiers in 1861 are inspired to enlist with the help of a beautiful young lady singing a patriotic song. In actuality, most of these soldiers would not have needed such encouragement.
   
   Anyway, a book like this is highly important. It has become very popular to say things like "the war was not fought over slavery" or "the Civil war had nothing to do with slavery." This book goes straight to the sources and finds out why the men who were there did what they did.
   
   Clearly, for some of them, North and South, slavery was THE issue. In fact, I have long believed slavery was just an institution, but the real issue for many Confederates was the preservation of white supremacy. Many soldier's letters cited declare that they saw it as an abomination- even laughable to some- that anyone would want to free "inferior savages" they thought could not be educated or assimilated into American society. In fact, on page 109, a private of the 25th Wisconsin Infantry wrote home that some captured Confederates told them they were fighting because "You Yanks want us to marry our daughters to the n----rs." But this book does show that while slavery was a huge issue, certainly the source of political and territorial strife for so many years leading up to the war, it was not the only issue. The book shares the letters of immigrant Union soldiers who fought to secure democracy, something denied to them in their oppressive native countries. And many Confederate soldiers clearly say they are fighting in defense of their homes and families and because their states have been "invaded."
   
   I tend to think some people who want to minimize or dismiss altogether the impact of slavery- or really, the place that black people would have in America, North AND South- unfortunately miss the understanding of the Civil War and American History. Personally, the older I get, the less I'm concerned about why the war started and why it was fought than I am with what happened when it ended. All I know is, the Union was saved and slavery was dead. Unless all people in "the land of the free" have access to liberty, that "land" is a hypocrisy.



2. James M. McPherson's For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War aims to answer the simple question of what motivated the men who became solders in the Civil War to fight and die in this conflict. The simple answer according to McPherson was duty, honor, patriotism, ideological beliefs such as liberty and freedom, and religious beliefs. These ideals or ideas are pretty much the same motivating factors soldiers from other wars in the 20th Century or those historians of ancient wars give to explain why they fought and died. McPherson certainly did his homework by reading twenty-five thousand letters and two hundred fifty diaries from soldiers to come to his conclusion that it was truly duty, honor, patriotism, ideological beliefs in liberty and freedom, and religious beliefs that motivated these men to fight and die in the Civil War cause. As a reader I was hoping for something more or different than the tired and tedious five reasons that every soldier indicates as motivating factors for them. There is not a dispute that these five factors are for the most part true. The excerpts from the letters indicate these five motivating factors over and over. Even though these were excerpts and pulling text out of the original context of a document can significantly change its meaning, for the most part the excerpts painted the picture that supported McPherson's argument that, "Yet for Civil War soldiers the group cohesion and peer pressure that were powerful factors in combat motivation were not unrelated to the complex mixture of patriotism, ideology, concepts of duty, honor, manhood, and community or peer pressure that prompted them to enlist in the first place." (p. 13)
   
   The reading of For Cause and Comrades felt as though it was another book that put soldiers and war up on a pedestal of what a great sacrifice soldiers gave to their country by participating in the horrors of war and akin to a child's hero worship. For Cause and Comrades also seemed as though it was reiterating the tired and worn out American patriotic themes of liberty, freedom, duty, honor, and religion. The book generated visions from daily life on par with "The Few, the Proud, the Marines" commercials on television to recruit soldiers, or popular mass media inundating the masses with typical American ideology such as Superman standing for truth, justice, and the American way, or another person who feels a particular generation was the "Greatest Generation" above all others. Watch out Tom Brokaw, McPherson feels Civil War soldiers out does any other group of soldiers including your beloved World War Two soldiers in the area of duty, honor, patriotism, freedom and liberty loving, and devotion to a higher power. McPherson did mention through the words of the soldiers that war was a horrible affair, but then uses it to idolize these men in their accomplishment of overcoming adversity and "staying the course" instead of ever mentioning that war is lowest form and action of human existence and should be something to be avoided at all costs. A true hero is one that can solve problems without resorting to violence. A truly wise hero knows not only how to solve problems without violence but also knows that war that involves murder, gruesome mutilation, and destruction which result in unspeakable pain, misery, and suffering whether physical or the destructive psychological impact on soldiers and civilians of the society and is a course that should never be traveled.
   
   McPherson's expertise in writing about this subject is not disputed nor is his findings. McPherson has been a professor at Princeton University since 1962 and his entire academic career has been focused on many aspects of the Civil War era. He has been nationally recognized numerous times for his work in this field including receiving the Lincoln Prize for For Cause and Comrades. For Cause and Comrades has made an important contribution in historical research by giving a voice to people who can no longer speak for themselves and illustrates their experience to give a more in depth well rounded picture of history. Futhermore, everyone is entitled to their own perspective and interpretation on any subject. Unfortunately, for this reader, it was filled with too much hero worship, idolization, and the standard tired historical interpretations of soldiers and war as being something someone does if they have a sense of duty, are honorable, patriotic, revere freedom and liberty, and are spiritual. These themes should stay in fiction such as stories of King Arthur and the Knights of the Roundtable. People in the real world should find other avenues besides war to achieve the admirable qualities of duty, honor, patriotism, believing in ideals, and spirituality and it should be the responsibility of learned people to point that out instead of seemingly making war and people who fight in wars the pillar and standard for achieving all those admirable qualities.



3. ...well almost. In 'For Cause & Comrades' James McPherson has set out to explain exactly why the average soldier sacrificed so much for his respective cause in the American Civil War. He has succeeded in convincing me. As the backbone of his thesis, McPherson has used hundreds of letters and diary entries from both Confederate and Union soldiers that offer some glaring insight into their motivations and beliefs. He first touches on the more universal motivations of warriors such as honor, duty, comradery, religion, vengeance and so on. And while these all played a significant part in the Civil War, McPherson argues that what ultimately separated Civil war soldiers from those of most other wars was a fervent belief in the righteousness of their cause. In other words, this was a truly ideological war and these convictions of righteousness, on both sides, was what carried these men through such horrific fighting to the bitter end.
   
   While I can't say there were any shocking revelations here, I was slightly surprised, for instance, at how many Union soldiers were fervently dedicated to their cause. It usually goes without saying that the Confederate side was truly motivated to defend their cause, but I had always assumed that most Union men served out of a grudging sense of duty. It turns out that many truly felt that they were defending the American experiment as a whole from the despised "traitors and rebels." In fact, this seems to have been a bigger factor than slavery for most, as a large portion of Union men were just as racist as their Southern adversaries. Which makes it somewhat ironic that they felt they represented the cause of the entire free world against tyranny and oppression. It should be noted though that many Union soldiers did passionately oppose slavery and this was an equally compelling cause for them. The Union side seems to be very complex. On the other hand, the Confederate cause seemed to be much less complicated. They were fighting not only for the right to continue slavery, but also for their independence from the hated Yankee. As much as white supremacy was a chief motivator (even poor, non-slaveholders resented the notion of black equality), most Southerners truly believed they were fighting for their own liberty and way of life.
   
   Of course McPherson concedes that not every soldier fit this description. There are skulkers, dodgers, draftees, and otherwise reluctant soldiers in every army, but as McPherson shows, there was a significant core of truly ideological fighters on both sides who refused to accept anything less than total victory. While those well versed in Civil War history might not find anything new here, I found it to be a concise and convincing survey on Civil War motivations and I would highly recommend it.



4. This month marks the 147th Anniversary of the beginning of the American Civil War and the fight to preserve the union and end slavery.
   
   Any war, as a violent, organized explosion of human emotions, produces some very unnatural responses on the part of soldiers and civilians alike. James McPherson, undoubtedly now the preeminent American Civil War scholar has, in the words of his own introduction, tried to make sense of what was similar to other wars but also what was different about that experience for the soldiers on both sides of the divide in that war. Working from a plethora of soldiers' letters and other observations he has tried to explain why the citizen soldiers on both sides of that bloody conflict kept at it despite the grueling circumstances, including extremely high casualty rates.
   
   I make no bones about my partisanship for the Northern, Union and anti-slavery side in that conflict. However in war, and civil war in particular, one can note the attributes of bravery, honor and heroism of the opposing side without giving an inch on the political questions. If one thinks about it if one does not recognize those characteristics in the soldiers of the other side one places oneself in a very hard place. The Geneva Conventions, weak as they are, codify that understanding.
   
   McPherson goes into great detail about the phases of the war-the general bloodthirsty and energetic desire of both sides to get at it; the sobering effects of actual combat; the psychological traumas produced in men before, during and after battle. In short, the passion and anger that drive men to fight-and soldiers to reflect a bit afterward. He details the sense of patriotism, honor, manhood, shame and other virtues of mid-Victorian America that further drove these men. Probably his weakest part is an examination of the personal politics of the soldiers, although that may be, in part, a function of the fuzziness of their goals as they became overwhelmed by the other considerations previously listed.
   
   However, overall, McPherson more than adequately makes his point that many considerations entered into the calculations of those who freely volunteered for the citizen armies on both sides, fought tremendous and bloody battles and slogged on through thick and thin. I will stop here with one comment that struck me from a Northern soldier about his reasons for fighting. Admittedly this soldier was a high abolitionist but here is what he said-" I want to be able to sing `John Brown' [John Brown's Body, the anti-slavery hymn and precursor for the Battle Hymn of The Republic] in the streets of Charleston [South Carolina]." Yes, I can, indeed, get behind that sentiment as a reason for fighting.



5. This book is mainly for academics and true historians. It's a short book, which makes it a quick read, but it's not as good as some of McPherson's other Civil War books. (like "Ordeal by Fire"). His thesis is that Civil War soldiers, both Union and Confederate, fought for three different reasons (or "motivations"). These are related to reasons why soldiers chose to enlist (enlistment motivation), to fight (combat motivation), and to stay in the service (sustaining motivation). The book seems pieced together to me and the chapters are not put in chronological order like most history books are. He uses so many excerpts from soldier's letters and diaries that it was hard for me to follow. Even though I understood his thesis, I did not like the book's style. I would give this one a pass unless you have nothing else to do!!

5 comments about My Life and Hard Times (Perennial Classics).

1. I am 52 yrs. old. I read this book in High School and couldn't put it down. When I read it again as adult, I laughed even harder because somehow it made having the weirdest family in the whole world a joke instead of a hardship. It made Thurber's family, the Coneheads, the Simpsons, and the Osbornes seem like life is good as long as you can laugh once in a while, and even better if you can laugh at yourself.



2. Take your mind back half a century and read these mildly amusing essays about life in the 1920s and 1930s. The style is so different from modern prose, but it is well worth the read.



3. Thurber is a great favorite of mine, and this was another fun book to read.



4. Should be required reading for all folks of any age looking for an introduction to life in these United States, for those learning to overcome despair and disaster with humor and grace, for any and all learning the English language.



5. James Thurber was one of the funiest authors of all time and this book cements his reputation. I enjoyed it many years ago and after re-reading it, I enjoyed it again.

5 comments about Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary.

1. Maybe its unfair that I read this book after reading the spectacular autobiography of John Lewis, Walking in the Wind. However, I found that this book was too detached from the man. I did not come away from this book with a better understanding of this man than I did before hand. Thurgood Marshall is one of the most important people of 20th century America but you don't see why in this book.

   The major problem with this book is its writing style which makes reading this book tedious. I found myself bored by page 200. Also, I believe the Brown decision is given 20 pages and his solcitor general appointment is given more.

   If you want to learn more about this guy, study the cases of the era. Sweatt v. painter, Brown of course, etc. Marshall's personal life really is irrelevant towards understanding this man's accomplishments. I would not recommend this book.




2. Juan Williams' biography of Thurgood Marshall is a worthwhile read. Williams has a great sense of the dramatic story in this man's life and he firmly sets him in the historical context of a nation in turmoil. I went away from this book with a better understanding of Marshall's life, personality and importance in American History. Williams also does a very good job with contrasting Marshall's social and political opinions with those of civil rights leaders in the 60s and 70s, with whom he occasionally butted heads. Williams paints him as the feisty individual that he was but he also does not sugar coat his flaws and mistakes. For me, the most interesting aspects of the autobiography were the accounts of Marshall's trials and travels with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and his inexhaustible energy to confront the laws of the times. If you have any interest in learning about this man and his place both in history and in the Civil Rights Movement, defintely pick up this worthwhile book.



3. As a white man from the deep south, it boggles my mind how a totally free republic could twist the best Constitution ever written to deny a class of people their freedom. Civil right, the Vietnam war, the 1960's in general fascinate me.
   
   Mr. Williams book is particularly good at setting up how Justice Marshall came to his way of thinking. He learned early on how to play the game in the other man's (whites) territory. If you want to know how hard it was to operate during these times, with the threats and bigotry, I suggest this book. I think it is paramount for the younger people in today's society to understand the severity of the risk and opposition that people like Justice Marshall had to deal with. I think it would make them realize that even though progress still needs to be made, these individuals put their lives on the line to advance society to where it is today.



4. As a review on the back cover states, this book truly "reads like fiction." It gives a fascinating perspective of his life, and although I've read other technical biographies and his opinions, lectures and decisions, I would recommend this as a "first read" for anyone studying Thurgood. You feel as if you know Thurgood after reading this, and knowing his personal background helps you understand his professional background. His role in black freedom is no less than that of Martin Luther King's. (And quite frankly I think he should be revered as such.) The realities of black history nauseate me, and I can't comprehend how people historically treated blacks -- but Thurgood fought, and he fought legally and intelligently. Our children need to learn more about Thurgood and his overcoming adversity and changing the history of our country.



5. I think this book a "must read" for anyone who wants to know the truth about "back in the days" and "Jim Crow" days and such. Thurgood Marshall was the most inportant African-American man of the 20th century and probably of all time! The things he did have never nor will they ever be equaled. I only wish I'd had the pleasure and blessing of meeting this great man and shaking his hand. I recommend this book to everyone.