1 comments about A. Lincoln'S Gettysburg Addres.

1. This 79-page examination of the Gettysburg Address provides kids in grades 4-6 with an excellent in-depth examination of the concepts and basic importance of Lincoln's historic statements. Chapters blend vintage black and white photos with fine insights on the events of his times.

3 comments about The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic.

1. Banning's book is a repetative, prolonged and far too lengthy an essay. He imaginatively and masterfully reinteprets Madison's ideas and actions as a member of several deliberative bodies that preceeded and followed the writing and ratification of the Constitution, finding him to be consistent throughout in his views on a central government and the powers of the states. The reading can be somewhat tedious for its redundancies, but worth the effort. Bannings scholarship is impecable, yet the book ought to be only an article in a scholarly journal.



2. Lance Bannings book is excellent, and long ovedue. History has left us a view of Madison that suggested he was Jefferson's lieutenant, an apostate to his nationilistic views in the 1790's, one view even diminished him to a 'trimmer' of ideas. The average person knows little of the Father of the Constituion, and as Jack Rakove stated at Princeton this February passed, we are learning what Madison always knew. Most views of Madison are not the result of individual study and research, many opinions of Madison arise from previous treatments. Banning began with the exchanges of Madison and found the consistency Madison always claimed. The actual history of Madison reveals an enormously capacious, hard working force behind the Constituion, Bill of Rights,The Federalist Papers, 41 years of public service, and the workings and definition of goverment. Viewed by friend and political foes as, brilliant and ' one adept at committee work and reasoned argument, one who could be depended on to speak and write with precision and force what others could express but vauely and in part.' Banning has surpassed those before him in Madisonian scholarship, by ardously discovering The Real Madison. The attention to detail is excellent, and the scholarship is not self defending just revealing. As Madison's true nature unfolds the consistency is revealed, from lieutenant to an independent thinker, and finally to the proper position of one the key thinkers behind American government. Being one dependent on scholars for my view of history, and granting then occaisonally the keepers of arcanum a merit they do not deserve, it is refreshing to have Lance Bannings contribution not only to Madisonian scholarship, but also to American History. The ongoing efforts by Dave Mattern and the Papers of James Madison have brought enormous information to light in the last few years, and it appears the work of Banning may be the beginning of Madison taking his deserved place in our history and common parlance, a parlance altered by the independent and ardous study this book represents.



3. Lance Banning passed away on Jan. 31 of this year. When I learned this I decided to change the focus of my review a little.
   First, what do I mean by the hermeneutics of generosity? By hermeneutics I mean a scheme or method of interpretation. An intellectual biographer who uses a hermeneutics of generosity starts off with certain assumptions. Everything people do they do for reasons. From the point of view of the biographical subject they are always good reasons.
   If you believe your subject to be a person of exacting moral standards and exceptional intelligence, then you assume that everything they have done can be back up by compelling arguments that have been long considered.
   This style of hermeneutics is obvious in two ways in Banning's work. Obviously, in the way he approaches Madison. But the first thing I want to talk about is the way Banning reacts to other scholars. His notes are extraordinary. Banning read everyone who had written on Madison and located his interpretations in relation to that of others. He not only carefully explains the differences between his interpretations and those of others (e.g., Martin Diamond, Gordon Woods, Paul Rahe and Jennifer Nedelsky among others) but he also points out the strengths of their alternatives. This was a man who knew how to listen to his sources and not just to one up them.
   But it is really in regard to James Madison that Banning's approach shines through in all its humanity. Banning believes that there is a standard version of Madion's intellectual biography that is largely wrong. That standard version is based on the biographies of Irving Brant and Ralph Ketcham and the intellectual histories of Gordon Woods and Martin Diamond. In the standard version, James Madison (JM) started off as a strong nationalist in the early 1780s. He was part of the movement at that time to modify the Articles or to change them completely. JM's method of constitutional interpretation at that time is usually considered to have been expansive or willing to loosely construe the document so as to justify non-explicit central government powers (e.g., Morris' national bank).
   JM's nationalistic period continued all the way through his work at the Constitutional Convention, the writing of The Federalist and his first year in the new Congress. However, when Hamilton's economic programs began to unfold during the second and third terms of Congress, JM began to backpedal on his nationalism and his expansive constructionism. By the mid-1790s, JM is usually seen as a strict constructionist and a states rights theorist who would remain so all his life. Thus the standard version gives us two Madisons, who can only be connected by various versions of the Madison as practical or conniving politician who changed his stripes due to the political winds of the moment.
   Banning will have none of this. He believes the standard version misrepresents all aspects of JM's career. Banning believes that if we take JM's writings throughout his life seriously, then he clearly see a very consistent thinker whose whole career is centered around the dynamic problem of how to ground government on the people without being exposed to the inconveniences or "excesses" of democratic rule. I will limit my discussion of Banning's revisionism (his term) to his interpretation of two aspects of JM's career that are essential to his argument.
   The first is JM's career in the Continental Congress of the early 1780s. The democratic excesses were showing up in the Confederation period in the behavior of the states.
   Banning shows that in the early 1780s that JM was indeed a nationalist but a qualified one. JM read the national scene from the point of view of Virginia and from his understanding of revolutionary politics. Any national measure that wasn't good for Virginia was unlikely to be favored by JM. As for the Conferderation, the problem was the weakness of the federal Union. If the structural flaws of the Articles could be amended, the misbehavior of the states could be controlled. Thus, at this point in his career, Madison was not part of the movement that wanted to jettison the Articles. He merely wanted to amend them to make implicit powers explicit. That point is very important. Banning argues forcefully from JM's writings that even at this point, JM was a strict constructionist. So the standard version is wrong in two ways about the early Madison.
   The other central moment in Banning's revision is the aftermath of the Constitutional Convention, especially, the writing of The Federalist. This is usually seen as one of the strongest arguments for the standard view. It is well known that Madison expressed dismay after the Convention about the prospects for the longevity of the new government should it be ratified. He was upset that his suggestion for a national veto of the laws of the individual states had not been written into the finished document. He also was dismayed that the representation in the Senate was equal for each state. He thought this repeated a fundamental flaw in the Articles.
   And yet, within two months, JM was well into writing The Federalist where he explicitly agreed with both of these decisions by the Convention. Most readers, including myself, find this to be a little disingenuous on Madison's part. But for Banning, this was indicative of JM having changed his mind. According to Banning, during the course of reflecting on the work of the Convention and of writing The Federalist, JM must have realized that his opponents in the Convention had compelling reasons for doing what they did and he therefore changed his mind. Banning states that anyone who has written out a long argument is familiar with changing their mind during the course of the writing. Fair enough.
   But this brings me to the two main issues that I had with Banning's whole thesis.
   As proof that JM accepted the counterarguments against his idea of a national government veto, Banning claims that JM never tried to push that idea again after his writing of The Federalist. In this, I think he can be shown to be, at least, partially wrong. When JM first introduced his Bill of Rights proposal to the first Congress, his fifth Amendment stated "No state shall violate the equal rights of conscious, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." It seems to me to be arguable that JM was trying to get through as much of a national veto as he thought possible. The theoretician was trimming his sails to the political winds. This is not a bad thing. Most any reasonable reformer will take what they can get.
   But it speaks to one of the central tensions in JM's thought and Banning's revisionism. JM obviously believed that any government, to be legitimate, had to be founded on the people. But he did not trust the people to behave, to not become a "factious" majority willing to strip the rights
   of some minority. As far as I can read, JM or Banning's version thereof never gives us a definition of what sets off a "factious" majority from a majority pursuing the true interests of the country. This is where Madison the politician enters. I often feel that JM, like Jefferson, was willing to take advantage of political changes and that they were more than willing to alter or bend their philosophies to do so. When they were out of power, it was easy to be consistent theorists. Once in power, it turned out that there were more things to deal with than dreamed of in their philosophies. Unlike Prof. Banning, I am okay with that. I do not feel that Banning succeeds in explaining away this tendency of JM's. I suggest that when you read this book that you keep a copy of the Library of America's edition of Madison's Writings near to hand. It contains most of the papers that JM wrote which Banning uses. Read each one before you read the corresponding section of Banning and see if you always agree with what Banning makes of that particular writing. I did not.
   Have I learned from the reading of this book? Yes, yes, O my yes. This is an extraordinarily learned book written with a generous and respectful scholastic spirit. Banning has changed much of how I read Madison if not as much as he might have wished. But the real pleasures of this book have to do as much with spending time with Lance Banning's intellect and spirit as those of JM.
   In fact, perhaps the highest compliment I can pay the author is that I think that James Madison would have found him a kindred spirit.
   One final note: the Liberty Fund is publishing a volume this summer edited by David Womersley entitled Liberty and American Experience in the Eighteenth Century. It will contain what is probably Banning's last publication- an article entitle, "Federalism, Constitutionalism, and Republican Liberty: The First Constructions of the Constitution". I plan to be among the first to read it. Do I have my geek on or what?

2 comments about General and Madam de Lafayette: Partners in Liberty's Cause in the American and French Revolutions.

1. After reading both Unger and Kramer on the astounding life of General Lafayette, I was very curious about his wife. This book of letters and history concerning her life of privilege and partnership is a complement to what most people know about her famous husband. Both the American and French Revolutions were pivotal in their life together of sharing their wealth to the very end. Adrienne generously gave the peasants working her land the best circumstances of the day, while Lafayette at age 18 bought and outfitted a ship to help the colonies win freedom. Three daughters and a son were born while the General was going back and forth across the Atlantic to muster more help from the French for the new nation. Their only son was named George Washington Lafayette and he escaped being imprisoned due to his mother's clever arrangement. Before she joined her husband in prison voluntarily, she snuck her son out of France to be raised for several years by Martha and George Washington. Lafayette's two daughters also joined their father in prison. When Lafayette was not allowed to enter France, his wife pursued their family interests in war torn Paris and environs. She regained La Grange for Lafayette's retirement. He survived Adrienne by almost 30 years at this lovely chateaux and never remarried. She died at 50 due to her illness contracted at the prison where she decided to join her beloved husband. Many relatives were guillotined, so Adrienne arranged their burial site at Picpus Cemetery to be close to the thousands dumped in a mass grave. An American flag flys over their grave for they were both truely "Partners in Liberty's Cause." Lafayette took a triumphal tour of all the United States and returned to France with American soil to spread over their graves. Both equal partners and generous souls.



2. After all that's been written about Lafayette, this book was a complete surprise. It added much to read of his wife's devotion and abilities and their lifelong relationship. It also places them in history, and by reading their letters, you are introduced to them directly. This book is not only entertaining but scholarly. Should be in every college library.

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 The West of Billy the Kid.

1. What lacks in this describtion in the life og Billy the Kid, is a bit more detail in the last chapters. Clearly Frederick Nolan is most interestet in the Lincoln County War - thats why I give the book 4 stars and not 5.
   
   Having said that I must hurry to make clear that this book probaly is the best biografy to read about Billy the Kid if you are just af normal human being knowning nothing first hand of the old west.
   I am such a person, and when I started reading the book, Frederick Nolan unfolded the true old west before my eyes in a manner I have never imagined anyone would be able to. He writes in a nice easy-to-read way even for a guy like me who hasn't got english as my first language. He mannages to tell all the details of the story in such a way, that it is easy to understand what was going on, and why people were acting as the were - and that is a very big accevement as some subjekts in the book - for exampel the Lincoln County War - is af very complicated affair involving many different persons.
   
   Frederik Nolans mission with this book is to show us the kid as he were in the old west as it was in the late 1870ties. And he succedes. He shows us a young man with a difficult childhood who has driftet from one bad area to another only to end up in the lions cave - Lincoln County - where a great cattle-war is about to break. And from their on his fate is seeled. Being the one he is with the past he has - he has no chance of avoiding bekomming a part of the war, and in the end one of the most feared - and wanted - outlaws in the territorry.



2. Frederick Nolan has established a book on "Billy the Kid," which out does most before and after it's initial publication in 1999. An easy to follow book for all readers that tells the true story based on documentation and "real" proof to the life and death of "Billy the Kid." Bye far the best out there on this subject matter. Purchase it!!!
   
   Mike Koch, Author of "The Kimes Gang."



3. Fred Nolan is one of the most recognized and popular historians of the old west, but where he makes many of his mistakes is by repeating too many things written by previous authors without sufficient evidence. I find most of his statements impossible to prove incorrect, but there are a few problems in his writing. Also, the editing of his book has a few flaws in that there are many glowing contradictions within the book. But, if you can figure out where the errors were made, the rest of the book is interesting and appears to be factual. In comparison to the other books currently on the market on Billy, this is one of the better ones, especially if like good pictures..



4. Nolan does a great job in describing the events of Billy the Kids life. One of the best historians out there. i would recommend this book for all who are interested in Billy The Kid. Unlike the book written by Jim Johnson this book is full of facts.



5. Several years ago while at work, it became evident that at least for several weeks Billy Joels'well known song, "The Ballad Of Billy The Kid" was getting airplay at the same time each week. We could almost predict it and kind of expected it.I had heard it before but never really listened to it closely.Now, I was paying attention to every line as others may have,and took it for fact.This was right up until I heard a well known disc jockey discount the song and state that much of what was in the song was not fact at all but just made up ,fabricated and just literal allusion. At first I was taken aback, a little annoyed, but then I realized that Mr. Joel had to rhyme his words and possibly used what worked and to hell with the facts,which of course, was his prerogative.In doing so however, he did Billy The Kid a great injustice.Now I became curious for real facts about Billy and I did some searching and boy was I astounded at what I found.His life was nothing at all like the song or even what I had thought Billy the Kid was like based on my general knowledge of him picked up along the way.I envisioned a killer cowboy,a bank robbing,train robbing outlaw terrorizing the early west.Well,I have since developed an enduring respect for him after reading a very accurate and truthful history of him as written by Frederick Nolan.This book reads like a Russian novel.There are so many characters and people involved in the Kids world it boggles the mind.This book is completely filled with photos,maps,references and mini histories, one doesn't know where to begin. It does get jumpy at times where I felt lost in all the action but each chapter ends well seemingly tying up all the loose ends.How these guys did it and why anybody would go west is beyond me.But go they did and it was less than placid. The early west was a dry, dusty violent place and the Kid was right in the middle of it.His beginnings were confusing from a historical point of view due to lack of information and it seems he rarely experienced any lengthy periods of true peace.He always had to scrape for an existence,fight for scraps and he did defend himself as any respectable person would.He killed when absolutely necessary and was not the sociopathic killer history's tall tales have made him out to be.He had emotion,compassion and youthful exuberance and was well liked among his peers and was respected as well for his sense of fair play and justice.This it seems, was all for nought for his death was both tragic and violent at the hand of Pat Garrett who has his own version to tell and did for profit.He lived his life as best he could under the circumstances and remains a tragically misunderstood chapter of our midwest history. Just a blip on the radar, but a person who stood fast for his rights and was cheated out of a fair shake on more than one occasion. Nolan reflects that and is honest in his assessment of just what is truth and what is fiction.He attempts to dispell the myths and report the events down to their absolute truths without using dramatic,theatrical scenes.I did alot of research on Billy and boiled down the real books on his life.This book glared like a beacon for its honest assessment of just who and what Billy Antrum,and then Billy Bonney and then who became finally, Billy The Kid, was and what his life was from its mysterious beginings to its abrupt yet vague end.If Billy the Kid is a source of mystery that needs to be cleared then Nolans book is it.It is clearly evident that he did his research and would not fabricate facts to enhance the history.I recommend this book to Mr. Billy Joel.Perhaps he could compose a second edition more accurate to poor Billy Bonney to give him proper justice.As a book about the man and his times I highly recommend it.It is an arduous but fun read and when you hear the above noted song you will smile to yourself and know better and perhaps hold a place in your heart for the young man that history crucified perhaps a bit prematurely.The book is tops if you need or want to know Billy the Kid.

3 comments about I Fought With Custer: The Story of Sergeant Windolph, Last Survivor of the Battle of the Little Big Horn.

1. This book is compiled from the found writings of a sergeant of the Seventh Cavalry who survived the Battle of the Little Big Horn. The first hand accounts of men like Sergeant Windolph and Theodore Goldin are very valuable and interesting reading. They were not men defending their performance as were the officers like Benteen, Reno, and Godfrey. They had their biases but didn't have to grind axes. This account is worthwhile reading for students of the Seventh Cavalry and the Little Big Horn campaign.



2. As a Custer buff, this book has been on my shelf for a long time. A great book to read, one that fleshes out a lot of the daily life in the Seventh as well as the battle along Greasy Grass. Right up there with "Son of Morning Star" and Walter Camp's book on the subject. Check 'em out, you won't be disappointed.



3. It is difficult to really rate a work like this. This is the story of Charles Windolph, the last survivor of the Battle of the Little Bighorn, in his own, simple words. Windolph told his story to a father and son historian team in the 1930s and 40s. Windolph's distinction as last survivor is a bit misleading--he was the last man who was present at the battle to die, but his title as last survivor does not mean he was with Custer's column of troops. He wasn't. In fact, he was under Benteen, and was one of many who survived the battle because they weren't as heavily engaged in it as Custer.
   Windolph presents an interesting perspective on the battle, and seems relatively objective. He does tend to romanticize a little, but for the most part he refrains from throwing blame on Custer, Reno, Benteen, or anyone else (though he does state up front that he is partial to Benteen). His story is not all that unique when compared to other primary accounts of the battle, but it is nevertheless valuable as the testimony of a survivor of that horrible tragedy.
   Included with Windolph's narrative are a number of primary documents, cobbled together in chapters and laced throughout with author's commentary. This is all right, but it would have been better to present these documents in their entirety, with only enough commentary (perhaps in the form of footnotes) to give the reader an idea of the background surrounding the documents. Still, the Hunts have done a relatively good job of remaining objective as well, something that is rare in a Custer historian. This is perhaps not the best account of the Battle of the Little Bighorn, but it is nevertheless an important one.

5 comments about Wade Hampton: Confederate Warrior, Conservative Statesman.

1. Wade Hampton III has been in need of a comprehensive biography for a long time now. Reserved and deliberate in life, both as a cavalry commander and as a political leader, he tried to restrain his annoyance when temporarily outshone by more flamboyant peers; with the benefit of hindsight, however, we ought to pay more attention to WHIII and his substantial achievements.
   
   The "untrained" officer whose pragmatic cavalry tactics proved more of an asset to Lee than the celebrated Stuart ever was; the reluctant secessionist who sacrificed family and fortune to the Confederate cause (or more accurately, to the cause of South Carolina); the conservative Democrat who reined in the bitter ferocity of his own party's extreme elements to become among the first Democrats in the nation to benefit from black voters - Hampton is a fascinating character and Cisco provides a worthy introduction to him.
   
   Walter Cisco does not repeat the bits of folklore that crept into the last Hampton biography, a 1940's hagiography; instead he quotes extensively from primary sources and lets his subject's character emerge naturally. Nor does he shy from uncomfortable aspects, such as the probable abuse of Hampton's sisters by another prominent South Carolinian, or Hampton's bitter exchanges with Sherman over POW executions in the Carolinas Campaign of 1865. However, by the time you finish this work, you'll understand Wade Hampton III as a major and underappreciated figure in both the military and civil history of the South and of our nation.



2. Wade Hampton is local hero here in Columbia, SC. His statue is prominent on the State House grounds and his home is a local historical society attraction. Outside of SC he may not be a household name, but within SC he is an icon, a figure respected and admired. This biography of Wade Hampton will give the reader an orderly summary of the key events of his life. When significant events occure the author goes into more detail, rightly so. Readers interested in Civil War military or political history, the history of Reconstruction, or American politics in general will benefit from this book.



3. With respect to the other reviewers in this forum, I must disagree with their positive impressions of this book. Cisco's book is strictly for the neo-Confederate reader. True, Hampton is in real need of a biography--there are basically three: Manly Wade Wellman, Giant in Gray, 1949; Ed Longacre's, Gentleman and Soldier, 2003; and Cisco's version. The best of the lot, Longacre's, is war heavy, and the other two are biased to a Confederate view. Indeed, Cisco's book can not be taken seriously by academics or even serious students of history with such outlandish comments that, "During the war many Southern blacks stood by their country--the Confederate States" (p. 170) Or, that Hampton "treated slaves as individuals and fellow human beings." (p. 41).
   
   This book is poorly written and ignores Hampton's role as a Redeemer and slaveowner. Hampton, and the reading public, deserves better.



4. I had trouble putting this book down and finished it in 2-3 days. I consider it one of the best books on my shelf, not only for its style, but because it is extremely well researched. Part of the fun after reading the book was going through the bibliography and the footnotes to see where Mr. Cisco came up with all the information he presented. "The Truth is (still) Out There", for anyone who cares or takes the time to look. Buy it, read it, and see what your school teachers left out when they taught you about "Reconstruction"!
   
   Much of the information contained herein will disturb those who are public school educated AND have never learned to think for themselves, or who see the past in terms of their own world. If this is you, then don't buy this book. Instead, do an amazon search for "video games" and stay in your contented fugue state because you will certainly be disturbed by what's in this book!



5. There are redeeming qualities in this biography of Hampton. There is much more material included about Hampton's postwar life than is found in Longacre's treatment. But Cisco has totally bought into the highly favorable southern examinations of Hampton that predate the Civil Rights era. There were certainly redeeming qualities in Hampton who seems genuinely concerned about black's welfare especially when compared to racists like Ben Tillman (a Hampton opponent), N B Forest and John Brown Gordon (a Hampton ally), but Hampton was a virulent opponent of any black who did not see things his way and presided over the end of large-scale participation of blacks in South Carolina governance. It is notatable that Cisco includes nothing about Hampton as a slave-owner (he owned over 900 human beings) other than a few "oh he was a fine massa" quotes from ex slaves who were in no position to state otherwise.
   
   There is still room for a scholarly study of Hampton particularly his role in slavery and his post war career. This one is for the Civil War buffs only.
   
   The new biography of Hampton by Rod Andrew is indeed a vastly superior work compared to Cisco's effort, but I doubt it will receive as much readership.

1 comments about Memoirs of My Life and Times.

1. California's 150th anniversary as a state has come and gone with very little fanfare. The reasons for the lack of celebration were vague and sinister. Were the early settlers guilty of such atrocities as to be censored from public record? Were the northern Mexican territories prized for greedy land expansion by the United States? What were the intentions of the other world powers: the English, the French, and the Russians? Or, was discovering and mapping the mythical Buenaventura River the singular goal of Fremont's pathfinder expeditions? Historians cloud over these issues with terms like "Manifest Destiny", "Greed for Land", and "Gold Rush".

   The Mexican-American War was fought on four fronts: Texas, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, and in California. Although hostilities didn't officially begin until June 1846, President Polk laid the foundation for expansion to the Pacific in his inaugural address in 1845, and implemented his plan in November. In today's era of instant communications, it must be remembered that communications with the coast of California took up to six months 160 years ago. Ship Captains and Army Commanders were given secret orders well in advance of any planned campaign. Lieutenant Fremont had secret orders in the event of hostilities and many historians have tried to interpret Fremont's previous writings to ascertain these orders during his expeditions in California.

   John Charles Fremont was a major figure in the history of the United States. He was the first Republican candidate for the President of the United States. He was a Major General in the Union Army and the first to proclaim the abolition of slavery. He was a wealthy California gold mine owner. And he served public office as Senator for California and Governor for Arizona. This book does not delve on these aspects of his life. These were to be the subjects included in volume two, which was never written. This book does include all of his official explorations as a topographical engineer from his journeys with Nicollet until the cessation of hostilities in California. It leaves out much of the technical information on plants and fossils, which was included in his earlier works. And it adds letters and other public documents to support the decisions he made in California during the Mexican-American War.

   California became the 31st state of the United States. Only a handful of men were major contributors to this outcome. John Charles Fremont was one of these men and this is his own record of events.

3 comments about A Muslim in Victorian America: The Life of Alexander Russell Webb.

1. In 1887 Alexander Russell Webb was made the American counsul in the Phillipines, at the time a Spanish colony largely Roman Catholic, but with a Muslim minority. Mr. Webb apparently experenced the Muslim faith at this time and in 1888 he converted. Upon his return to the United States he became active in promoting the Muslim faith including the writing of articles and the creation of study circles in various cities.
   
   Webb could well be called the father of the Muslim movement in America and he lived a life that reflected the best of what the Muslim religion could be. After his death in 1916, he was largely forgotten and the center of Muslim religion in the US moved to Noble Drew Ali in Chicago whose early writings implied that he knew or at least had heard of Webb. After Drew Ali's death the Muslim faith in American split into many factions.
   
   This is the first ever biography of Webb.



2. Abd-Allah, chair of the Chicago-based Nawawi Foundation, an organization promoting education about Islam, explores the life of Alexander Russell Webb (1846-1916), a convert to Islam who started some of the earliest U.S. Muslim periodicals.
   
   Abd-Allah traces Webb's early life to look for his inspirations for his subsequent conversion. He grew up in upstate New York at the time of the Second Great Awakening, exposing him to an active theological discourse. The Civil War dominated his teenage years. Abd-Allah blames the religious establishment for "beat[ing] the drums" of war and suggests that the destruction wrought might have turned Webb against traditional religion. He also grew disillusioned with post-Civil War materialism and sought solace in other spiritual movements, opening the door to his eventual conversion to Islam. After years of activity in Missouri journalism and support for the Democratic Party, Webb received a presidential appointment to be consul in Manila.
   
   While the Catholic church dominated the Philippines, Webb learned about Islam through Indian merchants and the writing of Indian Muslim intellectuals. It was not long before he converted to Islam. In 1891, he entered into correspondence with prominent Indian scholars and, the next year, resigned his post to travel around India to study and raise money to support a proselytizing mission in the United States. In 1893, he returned to the United States and established a mission and publishing center funded first by Indian and later Ottoman patrons. In 1901, he became the honorary Ottoman consul in New York.
   
   Webb submerged himself in his new faith and wrote that, among Indian Muslims, he had found a society superior to Western civilization. Upon his return, he did not shy away from public lectures but found study circles and, especially, publishing a better investment of time. Eventually, though, neither Indian nor Ottoman patronage could keep Webb solvent. His missions collapsed under a mountain of debt.
   
   Webb's story may have resonance with Abd-Allah, who converted to Islam after reading the biography of Malcolm X. Abd-Allah subsequently drifted from the Nation of Islam to radical Saudi interpretations of religion; for more than fifteen years he taught at King Abdul-Aziz University in Saudi Arabia. Like Webb, he is an American convert to Islam who seeks to propagate its spread.
   
   While Abd-Allah produces a well-researched work, making full advantage of Webb's myriad papers and publications (but not State Department or presidential archives mentioning Webb's mission), his sympathy may lead him to avoid critical questions. What does Webb's abandonment of his diplomatic post say about the compatibility of Islam and U.S. government service, especially after his acceptance of work for a foreign government? Is propagation of Islam dependent upon foreign subsidy? How does Webb compare to those today who drift from liberalism to "spiritualism" and, then, immerse themselves in Islam? For this, the reader will have to wait for another author to examine Webb. For those following Abd-Allah's path, though, the narrative will provide solace.
   
   Michael Rubin
   Middle East Quarterly
   Summer 2007



3. This look at the life of Muhammad Alexander Russell Webb, one of the first American converts to Islam, is well researched and written in a language that captivates one and takes you on a journey with Mr. Webb on his many travels. People in the West still view Islam as a late entrant to the scene in the US but as muslims continue to integrate in the American social life, one will read and hear (and see hopefully) more and more stories of how muslims have always been a part of the fabric of America. Some estimates say that almost 30% of the slaves brought over to the US were muslims and we have Alex Kronemer coming up with a documentary on the life a African slave who was a Prince and how he fought for and won his freedom after 40 years of slavery here to go back to Africa (The Prince among slaves). Dr. Abd-Allah is educated from Columbia, Cornell and the Univ. of Chicago and taught at King Abdul Aziz university in Saudia for 18 years. He has been back in the USA since 2000 and is the head of a non-profit organization called the Nawawi foundation based in Chicago which is dedicated to provide relevant, meaningful Islamic teachings to America's growing first and second generation Muslims - teachings firmly rooted in authentic scholarship and taught in a way that is dynamic and applicable to the modern world (See website www.nawawi.org). Dr. Abd-Allah is and has always been a voice of moderation amongst muslims scholars and is dedicated to more interfaith dialogue amongst people of various faiths. He has always been a proponent of peace and he has many Audio CD's out in the market dealing with various issues affecting muslims and has made his feelings on extremism and violence quite clear. Mr. Rubin needs to check his sources (if any) before making comments on Dr. Abd-Allah.
   
   
   
   Read the book, you will like it. It is a book about a man of his times, who lived in a time of turmoil and great change in the USA, andshould interest any student of American and Islamic history.

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.