4 comments about Let Them Call Me Rebel: Saul Alinsky: His Life and Legacy.

1. This book is required reading for anyone who is interested in understanding what a "community organizer" is and what he does in Chicago. Barack Obama worked for organizations founded by Saul Alinsky and run by his proteges.
   Obama never gives details of his community organizing, but this book tells what he would have been doing for his several years in the 1980's in Chicago: teaching people how to boycott, protest and threaten the economically and politically powerful in order to get what they want.
   It is a unique training, to say the least, for a Presidential candidate.



2. Saul David Alinsky, the subject of this biography, is oft written about but rarely presented without the bias of the writer leaking through. Alinsky's life was, by design, controversial. He maddened, inspired, angered and incited. Who can blame his critics from all sides of the political spectrum from having a last go at it now that he's gone.
   That being said, Horwitt's biography presents Alinsky in the clearest and fullest light of any who have undertaken this difficult chronicling. He does not get in the way of the wonderful stories and experiences that made up Alinsky's life. He brings alive Alinsky and the world he helped shape.



3. Saul Alinsky was a complex and colorful man of great integrity and a civic activist with world-wide influence. Dedicated to empowering the politically weak and unorganized, Alinsky is rightly credited as the founder of community self-help. In this highly readable account, we come to appreciate Alinsky's empathic genius and his flair for showmanship. He had an uncanny personal gift for discerning which acts of protest would get attention and results, as well as an ability to teach others some of the tricks of the trade. Of all the anecdotes in the book, perhaps the most memorable concerns the time that young Alinsky was hauled before his rabbi for socking a kid who had beat up his own best friend. Alinsky excuses his behavior as "eye for an eye", and part of the "American way". His rabbi's answer is memorable. "You think you're a man because you do what everyone else does. Now I want to tell you something the great Rabbi Hillel said: 'Where there are no men, be thou a man.' I want you to remember that." And Alinsky did.



4. Saul Alinsky, a complex and colorful man of great integrity and a civic activist with world-wide influence, deserves more than one biography. More than any other person, Alinsky was dedicated to empowering others and is rightly credited as the founding father of community self-help. In this highly readable account, we come to appreciate Alinsky's empathic genius and his flair for showmanship. He had an uncanny personal gift for discerning which acts of protest would get attention and results, as well as an ability to teach others some of the tricks of the trade. Of all the anecdotes in the book, perhaps the most memorable concerns the time that young Alinsky was hauled before his rabbi for socking a kid who had beat up his own best friend. Alinsky excuses his behavior as "eye for an eye" and part of the "American way." His rabbi's response is memorable. "You think you're a man because you do what everybody does. Now I want to tell you something the great Rabbi Hillel said: 'Where there are no men, be thou a man.' I want you to remember that.'" And Alinsky did.

5 comments about Slaves in the Family (Ballantine Reader's Circle).

1. Quite often history textbooks can be dry and boring. Edward Ball's "Slaves in the Family" illuminates many larger historical events -- the slave trade, the institution of slavery, plantation economies, the Revolutionary War, The Civil War, and Emancipation -- and brings these events down to the human level, to the place where flesh and blood people lived through these events, how the events shaped them, and how they in turn contributed to history.
   
   Ball's careful, meticulous research wove oral accounts with written records kept so well by the Ball family, giving a credible, well-balanced view of plantation life, slavery, and how it impacted the lives of both black and white Ball plantation residents.
   
   Ball paid special note to the nuances of each speaker's story as told, not only through their words, but also their body language. He is an astute observer of people's reactions and unspoken thoughts.
   
   I highly recommend this fasinating book. I couldn't lay it down.



2. Edward Ball made a courageous journey into his family's past when he researched and wrote this book about their slave owning history, and took the step of searching out and meeting descendants of their slaves. This paperback edition includes an insightful follow-up exchange between the author and one of his black relatives about the writing of the book, their relationship, and how their views of race relations have and have not changed since its writing. The book inspired me both to think deeply about my attitude towards race and to read more about southern history, using the prism of slave ownership and my own family's southern geneaology as a focus. Related recommendations: The Ruling Race: A History of American Slaveholders] and [ASIN:0465015557 My Confederate Kinfolk



3. Oh my gosh! I didn't realize that Dawn Langley Simmons had passed away. When I purchased her book about the life of Margaret Rutherford, "A Blithe Spirit", I wrote to Dawn, and was surprised to receive a reply from her or him. For several years she/he corresponded and now I realize that she/he may have mis-represented herself. She did send me several photos of Margaret Rutherford. Interesting story.



4. I thought this was a good read. I especially appreciated the details of the types of Africans that the planters preferred and detested. I recommend this book. Yes, I do agree that the author's writing style was dry. However, I find most books that have a historical base, unless it is fiction, to be dry as cracker.



5. Some reviewers below complain that this book is tedious. Well, sure. I bet the US Constitution and the Bible are tedious to someone who has no clue about, or doesn't care about, their context. To anyone with some understanding of US history, the project of writing this book marks a step forward in race relations, however big or small that step may turn out to be. If you care even a little about why this country is the way it is, this book crackles with a searing flame.
   
   Ball writes about visiting a wary African American man in Chapter 6, and what that man says at the end of his interview speaks for me and my opinion of the book. "Someone has to break the ice. I gotta give you credit, you were man enough to do it."
   
   People won't agree whether reconciliation or forgiveness apply in this situation, and I'm not sure either. But this is the author's best effort at telling the objective truth about black-white relations as it was lived by individuals over the centuries. "I decided I would make an effort, however inadequate and personal, to face the plantations, to reckon with them rather than ignore their realities or make excuses for them."
   
   Chapter 9 describes the shocking child mortality figures on the plantations. And on a slave voyage from Africa to Charleston, over a third of the captive passengers died en route - just the cost of doing business to the owners. No wonder some try to deny this history; it's too painful. Yet, the book also provides some episodes of humanity and hope. Readers will emerge with a greater understanding of our history and human nature. Maybe they'll become more vigilant against trespasses on human life and dignity in our own day as well.

5 comments about Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power.

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



2. 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.



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. 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.



5. 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.

5 comments about Lindbergh.

1. ~Lindbergh~ is an astute an well-written biography by acclaimed writer A. Scott Berg. Berg captures the life of this most fascinating character. What unfolds is an amazing tale of the aviator turned adventurer turned statesmen turned war hero.
   
   Aviator Charles Lindbergh, gained acclaim for the first solo, non-stop transatlantic flight across Long Island, New York to Paris, France in 1927 in the famed "Spirit of St. Louis." Not long after, he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. At the time, Lindbergh was seen as a man of seemingly impeccable character. He became an American hero overnight.
   
   A. Scott Berg casts light on Charles' complex marriage to Anne Morrow Lindbergh, the daughter of the famed J.P. Morgan investment banker. His marriage had its ups and downs due to his indiscretions, and it was not a fairy-tale marriage by any stretch of the imagination. Though, public perception certainly believed the marriage as a storybook romance in 1927. Berg also illustrates how tragedy hit the Lindbergh family and the whole nation in 1932 with sensitivity.
   
   Lindbergh, being an acclaimed aviator, was invited to Germany in the 1930s, where he subsequently received a medal. It was an opportunity that intrigued him, for the Germans were renowned for their innovation in aeronautics. With the approval of Nazi chieftains Hermann Goering and Ernst Udet, Lindbergh was permitted to inspect and tour German Luftwaffe facilities, and view some of their latest innovations such as the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Junkers Ju 88. He became enamored of German aviation technology not coincidentally thereafter. He believed that German aviation was superior to that of the Americans and British. Why? Probably, because it was. His trip to Germany, however, soon soiled his reputation, particularly after 1939, despite the fact that Lindbergh returned the commendation awarded by the German government. When misguided historians like Max Wallace present Lindbergh as a Nazi sycophant, he conveniently forgets, either out of ignorance or obfuscation, that Lindbergh came to Germany at the urgent request of the U.S. military attaché at the American embassy in Berlin. The military attaché was charged with learning everything possible about Germany's new warplanes. In other words, Lindbergh was covertly providing U.S. intelligence, and playing off of his reputation as an aviator of international fame to gain a warm reception by the Germans. He might not have brought back stolen 1:6 scale airplane models from the hangar offices and secret James Bond snapshot pictures, but he was doing his country a service nonetheless.
   
   His political odyssey took some strange turns, and it put him at the helm of the American First Committee which pressed the case for keeping the United States neutral and out of World War II with Germany. While his patriotism and motives have been brought into question, Berg gives us a few reasons not to question Lindbergh's sincerity. When the war began, Lindbergh was quick to uphold his honor, and be a part of the Army Air Corps unofficially. Unfortunately, being the bitter partisan, President FDR, stripped him of his opportunity to fly in dress ranks, and he flew unofficially as a contractor. But Lindbergh earned much success dogfighting against Japanese over the Pacific. He was denied his deserved commendations because of politics.
   
   This book is a marvelous journey into the life of aviator Charles Lindbergh. Berg sculptures a sensitive and astutely written account of the life of this acclaimed American. If read, in tandem with Lindbergh's on autobiographical journal "The Spirit of St. Louis," one can certainly get a fascinating picture of his life. The superb prose is matched by the fascinating insights of the author who had direct access to the Lindbergh family's personal archives.



2. This book is extremely readable, which is why everyone gives it 5 stars. But it fails to mention the fact that Lindbergh fathered at least 3 illegitimate children in Germany in the late 50's-60's. In 2003, 3 German siblings took a DNA test vs. one of Lindbergh's legitimate grandchildren and paternity was proved. Lindbergh kept their mother as a '2d family,' and he possibly fathered others. This book was extremely well-researched, so I can't see how Scott Berg can continue to sell this book without an update that talks about this.



3. If you want the most complete look at the life of Charles Lindbergh,then read this book.There are many glowing reviews on [...],about this book.Yet,the section about the famous kidnapping is NOT the full story.You are just getting a good historical account of Colonel Lindbergh,however,from an outsider looking in.I have yet to read a Lindbergh biography that comes as close as to the truth as this book does.Scott Berg did not research enough about the kidnapping,and as well as millions of other biographical book-readers.They just accepted the Bruno Hauptmann guilty verdict. World War Two is long over.And the Anti-German hysteria is mostly forgotten,by modern Americans. Lindbergh accepted Hauptmann's guilt because Bruno was a former Berlin communist,who helped kidnapp the Berlin burgermeister's infant son.And for ransom.When Hauptmann jumped off the 'Friedrich der Grosse',he swam to shore.He married Anna Schuffeler,who worked at Frederiksen's Bakery.Hauptmann invested heavily in the stock market,during the 1920s.And reaped the benefits,of the easy profits.Then Wall Street laid on egg,and Hauptmann's goose was cooked.Hauptmann's business partner ,Isidore Fish,also lost everything.These former left-wing radikals turned American capitalists may have discussed Lindbergh's fortune. Fish may have hatched the plan to kidnapp America's number one eaglet,the Lindbergh Baby. Fish died of TB ,a short time after the March 1st,1932 kidnapping.Hauptmann alone faced the electric chair.His only guilt was that of association with Isidore Fish.Updated-12.Jan.2007.=If the decomposed child's remains had a DNA link to Charles Lindbergh,there may be some truth, to the corpse being an illegitimate child of his.Elizabeth Morrow was believed to be a jealous sister-in-law of his.Did they have an unwanted child that Colonel Lindbergh sadly refused to accept?Lindbergh did have three German children from a secret affair.The mistress was a Bavarian milliner. If Dr.Bill Bass of the Knoxville 'Body Farm', does not have any DNA proof,then he is a "Quack".The story thickens.+Updated=June/10/2007 There is another guy that has been claiming he is the real Charles Jr.His website is 'Charleslindberghjr.com' and he was on the coasttocoastam.com show.He may be the real deal and Harold Olson may be the real son of Charles Sr. and Elizabeth Morrow.The direct Lindbergh children,Jon and Reeve, have refused to do DNA testing for him.The story continues.



4. Excellent. I enjoyed this book because of the ease of reading it. It was very informative and interesting.



5. Found this today at the annual library sale for $1 and now that I have read the reviews on Amazon I am anxious to read it.

5 comments about James Madison: (The American Presidents Series).

1. James Madison is often one of the least remembered founding fathers. However Madison was very important in the early years of the United States of America. Known as "the father of the Constitution" he was influential in the convention and is one of the best legislators of all-time. The book also reminds readers that George Washington asked for Madison's advice on Constitutional matters because he knew he would be setting precidents that would be followed by other holders of the Executive office.
   
   The book quickly addresses his pre-Presidential years but mostly focuses on his time in the Executive office. The book gives a good quick look at the interesting if lackluster Presidency. The war often referred to as "Mr. Madison's war" dominated his Presidency and he deserves some of the blame for beginning the war, even though the country was completely unprepared. His embargos were disasterous and left the U.S. economy in ruins for a short while.
   
   The book does a very good job at showing that Madison was a very good legislator perhaps one of the greatest in US History, but Madison was not made for the Executive office. He had the political knowledge, but lacked the size, leadership, and ability to stand up and announce what was going to happen (in an authoritative voice, perhaps because of his stature). Overall Madison was a very important man to the founding of the country although his 'flip-flops' are also shown throughout the book. Overall this is a good quick introduction to the Presidency of James Madison.



2. James Madison(1751 -- 1836) is revered for his role as one of our nation's Founders. Madison played a major role in organizing the Constitutional Convention, in drafting the Constitution, and in securing its ratification through cowriting "The Federalist" (with Hamilton) and through winning a difficult debate with Patrick Henry which led to the narrow ratification of the Constitution in his home state of Virginia. Madison also worked valiantly for the separation of church and state.
   
   Madison's accomplishments as the fourth President (1808 -- 1817) are less well remembered. Madison's presidency is the focus of this brief book by Garry Wills as part of the American Presidents series. Wills tries to explain why Madison's presidency was less successful that his brilliant earlier career. Wills points to Madison's provincialism, shyness, lack of executive experience, and tendencies toward idealism rather than practical politics to conclude that Madison's talents and prodigious learning made him better suited for a legislative, behind-the-scenes role than for a position as the nation's chief executive.
   
   After brief consideration of Madison's earlier accomplishments and his roles under the presidencies of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson (he was Jefferson's Secretary of State), Wills examines Madison's two terms as president. Early in his administration, Madison showed poor judgment about people in selecting his cabinet members, Supreme Court Justices, and military leaders. He also displayed weaknesses of leadership and administration in coordinating the efforts and minimizing the feuding of his subordinates. Even thought he came to see the wisdom of the Bank of the United States, (he had opposed Hamilton on the formation of the Bank) Madison foolishly allowed its charter to lapse, when any sort of endorsement on his part would likely have saved the bank in Congress. This mistake haunted Madison throughout his administration.
   
   Most of Wills's study of Madison's presidency is devoted, as it must be, to the War of 1812. If Madison's presidency is little-known, the War of 1812 remains our country's most confusing, obscure, and little understood conflict. The War had its roots in the conflict between England and Napoleon as Jefferson tried to steer clear of war. At the end of his presidency, at Madison's urging, Jefferson imposed an embargo with near disastrous results.
   
   Wills traces the complex course of events that led Madison into war. Some of these events were due to misunderstanding and to slowness of communication (Britain had repealed the Articles in Council to which the United States had taken offense in declaring war. The ship bringing the repeal to the United States crossed the Atlantic at the same time as the United States ship sailing to England with news that war had been declared.) But, Wills argues, Madison was active in bringing on the War, in part because he had grandiose visions of annexing Canada. The result was a conflict for which the United States was ill-prepared. The country had a weak army, only six frigates built during the Washington administration, no generals with military experience, and, with the end of the First Bank of the United States, no money to conduct the war. It was a harrowing conflict for the United States.
   
   The United States and Madison were fortunate to be able to end the War of 1812 without loss of territory. For Wills, Madison led the Nation into an unnecessary war for which it was ill-prepared. But Wills praises Madison for conducting the war without treading upon the constitutional rights of Americans. This was an important and difficult accomplishment which partially redeems Madison's presidency. And the United States came together as a nation following the conflict for the first time in its history.
   
   Wills's book is both more reflective and more detailed than most of the works in the American President's series. Indeed, Wills has written extensively about this period of our history. Readers of this volume may wish to turn to Wills's study "Henry Adams and the Making of America" which examines Henry Adams' monumental history of the Jefferson and Madison administrations. Wills' short study is heavily indebted to Adams's history. Ambitious readers may want to explore Adams's history of this period for themselves. It is available in a two-volume set from the Library of America.
   
   Robin Friedman



3. Garry Wills, eminent author on the American mind, writes a literate and compelling political biography of James Madison, "Jemmy" as he was called earlier in his life. Here was someone whose resume seems made to become president. Yet this man, "the Father of the Constitution," was not near the success that one might have guessed from his background.
   
   His pedigree includes: key figure in the Constitutional Convention--from getting George Washington to attend (a coup) to helping structure the agenda (from amending the Articles of Confederation to trashing the extant constitution and replacing it with something very different); to serving as a major figure in the early Congress (including helping to produce a Bill of Rights), to organizing the first political party (along with Thomas Jefferson, although it took Martin Van Buren and his circle to perfect the arrangement).
   
   Wills begins by observing that there is consensus that (Page 1) ". . .Madison, though one of the nation's greatest founders, is not one of its greatest presidents." Wills suggests that one can account for this by (a) bad luck falling Madison's way (which Wills discounts); (b) his temperament (he had more legislative than executive talent--more apt an explanation in Wills' view); (c) errors (a very poor reading of the British Empire, leading to foolish foreign policy and the War of 1812).
   
   As with other in "The American Presidents" series, this begins with a brief sketch of the future president's youth, his early career, and his rise to the presidency (from the Constitutional Convention to Congress to Jefferson's Secretary of State). Trivia is included: Madison was the shortest American President ever.
   
   This represents a standard, literate Wills' work. His literary approach is as expected (what a wonderful command of the language!). The work nicely lays out why Madison was not as good a President as one might have guessed--as well as his later life.
   
   All in all, an estimable addition to this valuable series.



4. Garry Wills is an exceptional documentarian, and this effort is a fine example. A very comprehensive review of the formative years of this Founding Father is provided, those years that helped define the political system and policy of early America. Madison's contribution to the constitutional constructs of Virginia and the U.S. are well-woven, even if his presidency is less a focus of Wills energies. Portrayal is of a deeply insightful humanist who performed best as a thinker than an administrator, WIlls has captured the essence of the man himself.



5. As stated in the Editor's Note, the American President series, of which this book is a part, aims to ".... present the grand panorama of our chief executive in volumes compact enough for the busy reader, lucid enough for the student, authoritative enough for the scholar." At 164 pages of text, this book is certainly compact. It is quite lucid and it is surly authoritative. The book is not, however, an analysis of the life of James Madison, or even a comprehensive presentation of his whole life. It discusses the many facets of his life in terms of his contribution to the United States. As the man considered to be the "Father of the Constitution", a co-author of The Federalist (the series of essays that were instrumental in getting the Constitution ratified), as a leader in the first Congress, Secretary of State (under Thomas Jefferson) and then as a two term President, Madison made immense contributions to the founding and early government of the Untied States. All these facets of his career are discussed, but given the compactness of the book they are only discussed briefly.
   
   The primary thing that I came away with was the feeling that Madison was an enigma. I guess that this just shows my ignorance of the finer points of American history, as historians have been trying, largely unsuccessfully, for the last two hundred years to explain the enigma that was James Madison. Indeed, Madison was also vexed with the difficulty of trying to explain his many contradictory actions. In working on the Constitution he unsuccessfully tried to give the federal government the power to veto state laws. Yet he later was secretly the author of the Virginia Resolutions that promulgated the idea that the states had the right to nullify federal law. He opposed Hamilton's Bank of the US, but then tried to renew the charter and when this failed he supported the formation of the second Bank of the US. He opposed war, yet he led the US into a war with Britain for which it was completely unprepared. Garry Wills tries to come to grips with these, and other contradictions, but I do not think that he was completely successful, but then again neither has anyone else. For me, just realizing that this conundrum exits was worth the price of the book.

5 comments about Washington: The Indispensable Man.

1. I don't know much about George Washington but after reading this book I would like to read something a little more in depth. In particular I was fascinated by the brief glimpses the book gave into how he viewed the constitutional powers of the presidency. It could hardly be more different from the interpretations of modern presidents!
   At times I felt the book may have flattered President Washington, not that he wasn't a great man in many ways, but surely he also had some flaws. They are very little in evidence in this book, aside from his early military foulups.
   This book only skims over the surface of many important parts of Washington's life. But many people who are not going to be interested in something of Robert Massie-type size and complexity, might enjoy a smaller, more simply written book. I believe what our democracy needs is more people who are informed about any and every aspect of this country's founding, the people involved, and the reasons behind their actions, and a generally accurate book about Washington with broad appeal can only be a good thing, even if it's not meaty enough for your average history buff.



2. This is one of the better books I have read on the life of an American President. Thorough, but written in a flowing, easy to read style. I would highly recommend this book.



3. This is an excellent book. It is well written and very informative. Not having read all of the single volume biographies of Washington, I cannot testify to its being the very best, but surly it must be one of the best. The book is Flexner's single volume abridgement of his four-volume biography. Being only one quarter the size of the complete work it cannot be as detailed, but it nonetheless provides a very coherent and compelling portrait. Perhaps the best accolade that I can give is that I now I want to know more and I am considering reading the complete Flexner series. As might be expected from the subtitle "The Indispensable Man" the book paints the most favorable picture possible and shows why Washington was indeed the "Indispensable Man". He was indispensable not only as the leader of the army but also as America's first president. His firm hand set many of the precedents that shaped the office of president.
   
   While Washington is shown in the most favorable light the same cannot be said of Jefferson and Hamilton. Both (but mostly Jefferson) are shown to be more loyal to their party (the Federalists in the case of Hamilton and the Republicans in the case of Jefferson) than to Washington. Confidences were betrayed, especially by Jefferson. If there was a villain in this story it was Jefferson, who is painted as one who was willing to bring on war with Britain in order to support France and to further his vision of an agrarian America.
   
   One word of caution - this book is not a military history of the American Revolution, or of the detailed causes of the revolution, the writing of the constitution or the complete history of Washington's presidency. All of these things are covered, but not in the detail provided in books devoted specifically to these subjects.



4. 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. 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 comments about Scars of Sweet Paradise: The Life and Times of Janis Joplin.

1. There are a whole bunch of biographies of Janis, including the well known Buried Alive, but this late comer published in 1999 appears to be the most even-handed, well-researched, and scholarly. In fact Alice Echols is a scholar of the 1960s (without any personal connection to Janis) so there is a lot of contextual information to put the period in perspective - I've probably learned more about the 1960s San Francisco scene in this book than anywhere else, it's worth reading for that reason alone.
   
   This is my first "rock-star biography", a genre I have avoided because of the groaning shelves of narcissistic "tell alls". I choose Janis to be my first (something she would have loved) after seeing a couple YouTube clips: one showing her singing "Ball and Chain" live, the other a TV interview at her Texas hometown high-school reunion. In these clips I saw a deep, complicated and obviously brilliant person, her charisma on stage was memorizing and off-stage equally so. For me she became more than a raspy-kinda-scary voice on the radio from another era, and I wanted to learn more about who she was, and why she had become so famous and died so young.
   
   Joplin's personality was a wild horse who kept on the move, never finding but always seeking a new home and greener pastures, running from her personal demons while embracing her desire for living life in the moment to the fullest. She drank heavily (Southern Comfort), f...ed thousands of guys and hundreds of women, got in fights with Hells-Angels, shot heroin and was a mainlining speed-freak. She was a vulnerable, loving and kind child from a well-off Middle Class suburban family. She was a walking enigma. Her origins are with the beatniks and folksie scene of the early 60s, she was never fully accepted in the San Francisco scene as a hippie, yet she is widely imagined as one of its founding mothers with her "Perl" costume of boa-feathers, clunky bracelets and lots of beads.
   
   In the end her death was no surprise even to herself, she put her body on the front-line of the cultural revolution pushing the boundaries forward on many fronts. It is unfortunate she was largely forgotten in the 70s and 80s but I think with historical reflection on the 60s her life will find more prominence - if nothing else than an archetype of a generation, but also for being ahead of her time as a woman rock star in a male dominated industry.
   
   Echols does a good job of balancing the exterior fame with the interior truths of Joplin, a psychological profile that will remind the reader of other people they know like her, it's believable because she seems so "normal" (in a somewhat abnormal way). I came away both with an intimate understanding of Janis and a much stronger sense of the 60s having seen it through the life of a single person who was a central catalyst.



2. If you want to know the basic facts about Janis Joplin's life and the cultural context in which she rose to fame and self-destructed, this book is perfectly adequate to fill you in. In some respects the book is quite exhaustive, especially in documenting Janis's relationships with various musicians and her series of bands. The author did a reasonably good job of showing how Janis fit in -- or didn't - with the cultural and political context of her day, and also gives some fun general background on the birth of the San Francisco rock scene. Most compelling was the author's description of Janis's tormented family life, and it was those sympathetic attempts to piece together her psyche that seem the most genuine. My complaint with the book is that the writing and editing are far from graceful. It reads more like an academic thesis, often dry, lacking in momentum, and wordy. I read a lot of biographies and I am sure it is very hard to write a good one, but it can be done. Writing about musicians is a special challenge because to really do it well requires deep knowledge and appreciation of the genre and a gift for metaphor. I found the musical criticsm aspect of the book particularly lackluster and it often sounded like the author was parroting others' musical opinions. The editing was a puzzle, too -- sometimes you would want more information on someone, sometimes there was just too much information. Not a page-turner, but I'm glad I read it.



3. An interesting read, both sad and sweet, about an interesting woman who lived during an interesting time in history. It lay heavy on my heart that such a tremendous talent as Janis, could never see it herself. This book would mean much to those who remember her and the time period. It would not mean much of anything to those who weren't part of those years.



4. I was never a big fan and I'm still not, but this well written bio seems to do full justice to its mythic subject. You don't hear Joplin much these days. Her voice is so over the top and she only managed to eke out three albums before she od'd on junk, so there isn't that much to hear. She didn't make it past 27, and it's no wonder, according to this account. She was either drunk or high most of the time. She didn't fit in in Port Arthur, Tx., but she did more than most of her generation ever managed. Bisexual and straight, Janis was a mess. You wonder where she'd be today if she'd lived. Of course, she'd never have been a misfit if she had been born a little later. Her quirks would barely register today. For that, in today's culture. Janis Joplin is probably one of the ground-breakers responsible.



5. This is my fourth biography I've read of Janis' and by far the most well-written and informative. Instead of being filled with personal judgements and opinions it seems to document the happenings in Janis' life and the lives of those around her in a very easy to follow manner. Lots of history about other San Francisco bands and connections in the music world. Photos are great!!

5 comments about Andrew Carnegie.

1. Andrew Carnegie was both the Bill Gates and Thomas Friedman of the Gilded Age. An industrial visionary and brilliant business practitioner with a ruthless drive to be the best and most efficient Andrew Carnegie would semi-retire in middle age, and in his later years focus on giving away his vast fortune to remedy what he believed were the most perplexing problems of his age. But Mr. Carnegie was also the Gilded Age's prophet and messiah, borrowing Herbert Spencer's philosophy to hail America's Gilded Age as progressive and splendid, and to justify the worst abuses of the age as necessary and right.
   
   In his preface the historian David Nasaw notes that much of what has been written about Carnegie has been overly sympathetic, or -- in the case of Mr. Carnegie's autobiography -- just plain self-interested. So we could happily expect a more balanced and nuanced view of the great man, or at least some juicy gossip. Unfortunately, Mr. Nasaw's book is yet another overly sympathetic portrait, and a sedated and boring one at that.
   
   Here is a man who did not marry until he was fifty, and who did not give his young bride (almost thirty years his junior) a child until she desperately begged for one -- and so how could Mr. Nasaw not speculate once that Carnegie was possibly a closet homosexual? His fanatical devotion to his mother and his narcissm -- he wanted to be respected as a writer and a thinker, and often paid for his writings to be published -- are hints as well.
   
   What's most annoying about the book is Mr. Nasaw's presumptive tone. He tells us that Mr. Carnegie's greatest mission before he died was to give back to his community all the wealth he had accumulated. How could anyone know what really went on Carnegie's mind, and who would dare to presume Carnegie's priorities? Throughout the book Mr. Nasaw would claim that Carnegie had a very good rationale in banishing the unions from his steel mills, and in forcing his workers to work for long hours and little pay -- because he wanted to make as much money to give back to his community as possible.
   
   Considering that Carnegie was a prime subscriber to Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism, that he was competitive (he worked hard to create the most efficient and profitable steel mill in the world), that he was a control freak (he would wrest back control of his corporation from his lieutenant Henry Clay Frick, who had proven himself nothing but loyal and competent), and that he was a megalomaniac (in his final years he would single-handedly attempt to solve all of the world's problems) it's fair to say that Carnegie in his heart felt he did not have to justify himself to anyone: he was just right. Breaking unions and exploiting workers meant efficient and profitable enterprises, and efficient entrepreneurs meant progress, modernity, and civilization.
   
   Even if David Nasaw considered reasons for Carnegie's asexuality and considered the extent of Carnegie's narcissm and megalomania it would still have a pretty boring book, and it's because Carnegie -- despite all his greatness -- is not deserving of an 801-page biography. A naturally optimistic and positive individual his life did nothing but justify his worldview. An early beneficiary of the cronyism in the railroads he became a beneficiary of the U.S. government's tariffs to protect the steel industry against British competition. The only bumps in Carnegie's otherwise charmed life (the 1892 Homestead affair where Carnegie viciously and violently broke the unions and his nasty break with Henry Clay Frick, who then publicly declared how the tariff regime was grossly enriching Carnegie at the expense of American consumers) are interesting but did nothing to change the course of Carnegie's life. There is no conflict and climax in Carnegie's life, just one assured ascent borne of his work ethic and his optimism and his incredible luck.
   
   The real star of the book should not have been Carnegie but the Gilded Age itself. Unfortunately and surprisingly Mr. Nasaw talks little of the Gilded Age, and instead chooses to write a a year-by-year account of Mr. Carnegie's life, including the tedious trivia of Carnegie's vacations. And do we really need to know every huge estate Carnegie bought and renovated?
   
   I haven't read enough of Mr. Nasaw to know his ability as a historian but the problem with biographers is that they often internalize the values and thinking of their subjects. And this is a book that Carnegie could have easily written himself: be charming and be glib, stray and amuse with the trivial and personal, and talk for a long, long time until your readers have no choice but to agree with you.



2. As a born and bred Pittsburgher, I really looked forward to this history of the Robber Baron years in my home town. I was not disappointed. This is a fascinating tale of Andrew Carnegie's life and his entanglements with the other powers of the era. Nasaw does a terrific job of getting into the detail of Carnegie's dealings and uncovering the myths of this powerful high roller. Living and making his millions before the Security and Exchange Commission came into the limelight, Carnegie and his friends were able to buy and sell stocks with impunity. Trading rights and warrants and patents for stock, these original Capitalists were able to exchange future value for present earnings/dividends. Additionally, their intertwined friendships and business dealings, perfectly legal in their day and totally illegal today, allowed them to acquire wealth by leveraging their current positions of power for insider information and contract preference in order to move money from stakeholders from one company and into their pockets. This was a fascinating time when "buyer beware" was not backed by the Government guaranties of today. They laid themselves on the line and used their own intuition to make their fortunes. Nasaw grabs the facts and headlines and details to the reader how it influenced Carnegie and his peers.
   
   The main avenue of initial funding came from the funneling of money from the Pennsylvania Railroad run by J. Edgar Thomson and Thomas Scott (soon to be Assistant to Secretary of War, Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania) leveraged their holdings and executive powers into contracts produced by Scott during the Civil War which allowed them and their protégé, Andrew Carnegie, to extend their influence and money making via the Pennsylvania RR. This was the relationship (Thompson, Scott, and Carnegie) that funneled money into Carnegie's next set of investments.
   
   This biography seems to be the definitive story of Carnegie's life as it is full of primary references to the original papers written by Andrew Carnegie and his friends and some enemies. This newly manifested documentation puts Nasaw's biography at the forefront. Nasaw often compares and contrasts this work to the widely read and referenced Andrew Carnegie Autobiography and points out the many discrepancies between that work and the actual documentation that Carnegie, himself authored. Additionally, the official biographer of Carnegie, Burton J. Hendrick, chosen by Louise Carnegie, is corrected many times by the exhausting research of Nasaw.
   
   Nasaw gets into the nitty gritty of the financial arrangements of the railroad barons and gives very good examples of the dealings and failings of the system at that time. As I continued to read into this tome, I couldn't believe how it kept my interest through nearly 800 pages. I can honestly say that the more I read, the more I wanted to read. This is truly one of the best written biographies that I have ever read.
   
   The only two small negatives that I found in this book (one is mentioned by at least a couple of other reviewers): there is not a lot to his private life that shows through once he is married. There are glimpses into his vacationing, but not really into the privacies of his marriage or his daughter, Margaret. This might be due to the length of the book. You do not get a good look at Louise or any depth of Carnegie's character away from business. The second flaw comes after the first 600 pages and we begin into Carnegie's retirement years. The book is very detailed and I'm not sure that I'd want it any differently, but these years are not the most exciting. There are very good nuggets of information along the way, but it seems a little long winded on the time frame being documented.



3. 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



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. 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.

5 comments about Co. Aytch: A Confederate Memoir of the Civil War.

1. First-hand accounts by combatants have always ranked highly in my list of favorite things to read. When I set out to read the highly touted Co. Aytch I was hoping for a gritty, down to earth story like that of another southern memoir writer, Eugene Sledge.
   
   There is no doubting Co. Aytch's value as a window into the daily travails of the Confederate soldier, whether in camp, on the march or in combat. However, with pickets freezing by the dozen, a falling tree crushing a group of mourners, tornadoes and narrow steamboat escapes, it would appear that there is more Guy Sajer than Eugene Sledge about Sam Watkins.



2. This has to be one of the best books written about the civil war. Reading the experiences of this common soldier you realize how close they were to death from day to day. If you have any interest in the civil war, this book is a must read.



3. Interest in this particular Civil War memoir increased due to its being frequently quoted and referred to in the documentary series on "The Civil War" that aired on PBS stations almost twenty years ago. Thankfully, the success of the series caused "Company Aytch, or a Side Show of the Big Show" to be reprinted.
   
   As a narrative device, film maker Ken Burns compared and contrasted the recollections of Samuel R. Watkins, a Confederate soldier who served in the Western theater of operations (principally in Tennessee and Georgia), with the diary entries of Elisha Hunt Rhodes, a Union soldier from Rhode Island. Both men saw significant combat action and both survived the war.
   
   Although Rhodes recorded his immediate observations, Watkins began his memoirs after the war had ended and his book was published seventeen years after the Army of the Tennessee had surrendered. He had the advantage of being able to meditate on his experiences and I found his book to be of greater interest as a result.
   
   I have read both "All for the Union" (Rhodes) and "Company Aytch" (Watkins). While both books have much to recommend them, I am partial to the latter. As a writer, Watkins produced more profound opinions. There seemed to be more color, humor, poetry and reflection in his prose. Rhodes seemed dull and factual in his summaries which often culminated with the slogan "All for the Union." I do not mean to diminish Rhodes or his military service in any manner, but Watkins is simply a better writer.
   
   The conclusion of Watkins book is quite moving. It was memorable when broadcast on television and it is no less memorable when read from the printed page.



4. Mr. Watkins tells a humble and epic story. A confederate private shares his unique perspective. Reveals the grim realities of a glorious cause going from bad to worse and back again. It is truly amazing he survived four years of warfare. Most often death was easier than survival. General Bragg routinely court martialed his troops with a firing squad for deserters. Further punishments like barreling, whippings and deprevations were routine. It got better under General Johnston and worse again under General Hood. The soldiers alternatively cursed and praised the war, its' cause and the Generals. Yet like in all wars, the men fought for each other. So many soldiers met their Maker, whereby Watkins extolls their virtues and praises. Eloquently written and graphically descriptive. Sam's survival is a testimonial to God's protection. Written in the 1880's.
   READ the book and you will find a friend from the ages.



5. Sam Watkins himself describes it best himself,A Side Show to the Big Show. This Book describes the War For Southern Independence, from the eyes of a common Private in the Confederate Army. He was in it from the Start to the End. I've read it 5 times, I enjoy it more each time!! A MUST for anyone studying the WAR!!

5 comments about A Slave No More: Two Men Who Escaped to Freedom, Including Their Own Narratives of Emancipation.

1. In a confluence of events that is hardly short of providential, not one, two unpublished slave narratives fell into David Blight's hands. The narratives, kept lovingly for over a century by the families of former slaves Wallace Turnage and John Washington, chronicle the early lives and desperate circumstances that propelled these two oppressed human beings onto the historical stage. Wallace and Turnage, while sharing the common bondage of slavery, led very different lives. Washington had relatively easier life and shorter route to freedom. Turnage's life was shot through with physical assaults, peril and cinematic close calls. Both men wrote with an urgency that revealed their thirst for freedom and deep desire to preserve their tales for their posterity.
   
   The first half of the book allows David Blight to provide the historical and cultural contexts that his two protagonists could only guess at. Ensnared in the day-to-day turmoil of slavery and survival, they could only guess at the political and military forces that were moving them toward eventual liberation. Blight muses too on the oft-asked question of who freed the slaves - Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation or the salves themselves. his complex and nuanced answer is seconded by the experiences captured by Washington and Turnage. The book's second half contains the unedited narratives, told in soaring but often rough prose, by the men themselves.
   
   "A Slave No More" is gripping, significantly because it is true. The poetry of freedom sings from its pages, crafted by the literary hands of men who were not expected to learn the alphabet, much less to pen epic odes to the liberation of the human body and spirit. Wonderful and worthwhile.



2. Frederick Douglass and Harriet Jacobs are among a handful of former slaves in the Old South who wrote famous narratives of their lives in slavery and their ultimate escape to freedom. It is a rare and important event to find additional first-person narratives that document the efforts of slaves to become free. The noted historian David Blight had the good fortune to become aware of two such narratives which had previously been held close by the families of their authors. Blight has published these accounts in his recent book "A Slave no More" (2007), together with background information on the manuscripts, a discussion of the lives of the authors following their escapes from slavery, and a brief history of Emancipation during and following the Civil War.
   
   The attraction of this book lies more in the narratives than in Blight's commentary. The narratives were composed by John Washington (1838 -- 1918) and Wallace Turnage (1846-1916). Washington and Turnage both discuss their lives in slavery and the factors impelling them to make their escape. The narratives do not extend to the subsequent lives of the narrators in freedom. The narratives are written in a non-literary style which nevertheless have great power from their very simplicity. Neither man was writing for the public. Their accounts of slavery offer the opportunity to get to know two people who did not make it into the history books but whose storyies have much to teach.
   
   The narrative of John Washington, which he titled "Memorys of the Past" is the more literary of the two. Washington vowed to escape from slavery when his mother was sold away when he was a child. Washington spent most of his early life as an urban slave in Virginia working as a house servant,in a tobacco factory, and in an inn, among other places. With the advance of the Union army through Fredericksburg in 1862, Washington saw his opportunity to cross the river to the Union lines. He became an aide to several Union officers and ultimately established himself with his wife, who had been born free, in Washington D.C. Washington's narrative has some excellent portrayals of the movements of the soldiers on both sides and of his experiences with the Union army.
   
   Turnage's account is untitled and substantially less polished that Washington's. Turnage spent most of his time in slavery in the deep south near Pickensville, Alabama. He was a field hand and subjected to more cruelty and violence than was Washington. His account is replete with descriptions of whippings given to himself and, especially, to women. Witnessing and receiving these whippings made Turnage determined to escape. Turnage made at least four unsuccessful attempts at escape before he succeeded, after each of which he was punished with increasing severity. In the first several attempts, Turnage went west to try to reach the Union lines in Corinth, Mississippi. He nearly succeeded but was returned to his master on each occasion. Turnage finally succeeded in a daring attempt to reach Mobile Bay, the site of a great Union naval victory. Turnage had to cross snake-infested swamps and achieved freedom only when Union soldiers rescued him from the sinking makeshift boat in which he had been riding to freedom. Turnage offers a graphic, gritty account of his escape and of the harshness of slavery in the deep south. Importantly, Turnage does not show bitterness towards his oppressors. He writes at the outset of his narrative: "I do not mean to speak disparagingly of those who sold me, nor of those who bought me. Though I seen a hard time, it had an attendency to make a man out of me." (Blight, page 213)
   
   In his introductory material, Blight retells and expands upon the narratives of Washington and Turnage. Through laborious historical research, Blight also describes the lives of the two men and their families after their escape. Washington spent most of his life as a painter in Washington D.C. and was active in the church and the developing African-American community. His five children went on to careers, with his youngest son enjoying success as a science teacher and athletic coach. Turnage had a much more difficult time of it living in the overcrowded, disease-infested sections of New York City and witnessing the deaths of his mother, wife, and several children. One of his daughters was able to "pass" for white, and she was the source for recovering her father's manuscript.
   
   Blight also offers an interesting discussion of the Emancipation Proclamation which focuses on the immediate reaction to it in African American communities in both North and South. I found Blight's discussion somewhat broader and more polemical than it needed to be to elucidate the narratives of Washington and Turnage. But most of his discussion makes for interesting reading.
   
   Washington and Turnage wrote inspiring narratives of their journey from slavery to freedom. Blight has done a service in making these narratives available to the public. This book will be of interest to readers concerned with American slavery, the Civil War, and African American history. Readers unfamiliar with other slave narratives may wish to explore Frederick Douglass's autobiographies and the volume titled "Slave Narratives," both of which are available from the Library of America.
   
   Robin Friedman



3. Recently two new important African-American slave narratives have come to light, published here along with scholarly commentary for the first time. They are considered significant by historians because they support a theory that slaves played a role in bringing about their own freedom. Traditionally slavery is thought to have ended with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation - Lincoln freed the slaves, we are taught in school. However, is it possible that the slaves themselves played a role in their own freedom, that their own actions, conscious or not, helped bring about Emancipation? This is what today many historians contend, and these two narratives support that view. "For most slaves", Blight says, "freedom did not come on a particular day; it evolved by process." It was the process of waves of slaves escaping into Union lines as the war moved south, often forming shanty towns of "contrabands" (as the Union called escaped slaves, they were initially classified by the north as property). Eventually something had to be done about the"contraband" and Lincoln signed some limited laws that gave them freedom, which eventually morphed into the Emancipation Proclamation. But it was the slaves desire for freedom, willing to risk life by escaping, that forced the issue of Emancipation. Further, many of these freed slaves then took up arms and joined the Union army. It is estimated over 700,000 of the nearly 4 million slaves found freedom through this "process", the remaining 3.3 million achieving freedom with the 13th Amendment.
   
   Whatever the historical debates, these narratives are interesting and even thrilling. Although not as well written as Frederick Douglass, in many ways the adventures of these young men are more real and tangible - as private documents they were not written to be published, not filtered through an editor. They were meant for friends and family and thus have a rough, raw real edge to them.
   
   David Blight has done a great service to historians and the public by both publishing the original sources and summarizing and expanding on them. Each of the two narratives has a corresponding chapter that re-creates the narrative in more detail and clarity for the modern reader. In addition there are two chapters that examine what happened to the men after the war including some fascinating pictures. No two slave narratives are alike and these will surely not disappoint as important historical case examples and thrilling stories. America has two new unsung heroes representative of 100s of thousands who sought and found their own freedom.



4. This book makes the Civil War period and slavery come alive, partly through the real voices of 2 emancipated slaves, and partly through the consumate writing skill of the author. The level is just right: carefully documented sources (endnotes) that authenticate the story, plus a wonderfully accessible writing style that is clear, never boring, and quietly compassionate. This is an engaging book I recommend even to those having only a casual interest in history.



5. The book provides an in depth look at the lives of two black men who were determined to escape slavery. The book also reveals the hopelessness experienced by slaves in their daily lives. It also exposed the cruelty of slave owners, who were considered in all other respects to be genteel and upstanding citizens in their community.