5 comments about The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin.

1. I, like most, know the ideolized stories of Ben Franklin and use many of his quotes in my email messages, but it was the recent HBO miniseries of John Adams that got me more interested in the man himself. Gordon Wood is one of my favorite historians when it comes to the Revolution and it was a no brainer for me to pick up this book.
   
   Though it lacked with depth in many areas, it was a good starting point for further reading on the man. Where Wood fails is where he actually succeeds. His analysis of certain events did lack depth (his failure), but his use of events as they pertain to Franklin were very good (his success). It gave me a better understanding of the connections Franklin had with England (the working man attempting to become a gentleman in a British world that in many ways refused to accept him as such), his love of France (that truly embraced him), and his at best questionable memory in the American mind throughout the 19th Century. It is the final few chapters of the book that are by far the most interesting aspects of the book. The discussion of the strained relationship Franklin had in the nation he helped to create, his confrontations with Adams, and most importantly the struggles America had in its recognition of Franklin.
   
   Though Wood does lack depth in many areas, this book is well written and should be the starting point for anyone wanting to learn more about a man who has so much myth and legend surrounding him.



2. The author does an excellent job of placing Franklin in the context of his time, and explaining his motives. There is an interesting account of what it meant to be a gentleman in the eighteenth century, and its significance to Franklin. The book is highly readable and not overly long.



3. When I saw Gordon Wood on Ben Franklin I thought look out! It's going to be like Ann Coulter on Bill Clinton. I was almost afraid to read because I adore Franklin so much. Alas, nothing new, nothing. (Spoiler!!!!!) Yes Ben cheated on his wife with numerous women, seduced wives, and may have even sold secrets to the British (that last one cannot necessarily be proven). But all Gordon did was write a GREAT little summary about the life of a great man. So why did I only give him only three stars? Well, when you see Mike Tyson you want to see a Pitbull off its leash. When I read Gordon Wood.... I want history off its leash. Now you know what to expect. Enjoy



4. This is a well written story about Franklin with interesting insights on How Franklin evolved from being a lover of England, to becoming "American." The process evolved over Franklin's lifetime. Franklin had to undergo embarassment by England's political elite til he realized that England was not so benevolent to the colonies. There were moments I was wondering if Franklin was a Tory. But like a magician, Franklin changed his tune and became so radicalized that it ended up being an inspiration to others to bring the colonies together and declare independence from England. This was a well balanced biography that pointed out Franklin's warts along with his good points. I was impressed how fast the book read and how packed with info. I would highly recommend this to anyone looking at insights during the early formation of the United States.



5. Gordon Wood's biography of Benjamin Franklin doesn't give you any earth shattering new details, but the book is concise and well written. Wood takes you from Franklin's early life and loyalty to England through his transformation and realization that the American Colonies were going to rebel. Franklin's love for France (and for the women of France) are clear in this book as the author clearly argues that Franklin loved living in Paris and everything about that city. The author also argues that Franklin seemed to have a "love hate" relationship with the colonies as he saw opportunities, but he also saw the refined world of France and its cities such as Paris as something he was drawn to and preferred.
   
   It is a good read and I have grown to understand Benjamin Franklin a bit more. He was a diplomat, a scientist, an inventor and a more complex man than we sometimes like to admit and the author brings these points out in the book.

5 comments about I May Not Get There with You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr.

1. I find it very refreshing when a product of multiculturalism throws a wrench in the system and violently turns against his masters. In this provocative (though unsurprisingly silenced) work of pop scholarship college diversity program poster-child and hip hop "expert" Eric Dyson sets to work on deconstructing the white-washed image of Martin Luther King, Jr. that the American left has successfully promoted without opposition for the past four decades.
   
   But wait a minute, Martin Luther King Jr. was an American patriot, someone who was deeply devoted to the ideals of its Founding Fathers and simply wanted to tinker with a few of the more archaic aspects of American society (Jim Crow) so that everyone could at least have a fair shot at the American Dream. I must admit that up until a few months ago I was captured (more like poisoned) by this ridiculous myth, probably more so than most even. The story of King's life seemed so inspiring, who wouldn't want to believe in it?
   
   Turns out pretty much everything taught about MLK in public schools are at best half truths and all of the most hideous aspects of his life go completely unmentioned. As Dyson tells us, the truly radical aspects of King's ideology - such as his close association with the American Communist Party - are silenced specifically to keep African Americans in check. Undoubtedly, but these facts are suppressed specifically to keep suspicious whites in a state of unthinking, unquestioning silence as much as anyone else. Dyson didn't have to dig very much to uncover this information, even King's closest associates and biggest financial backers were Communists.
   
   Dyson also quotes some of King's most damaging speeches and interviews on economics that leave little doubt about what King's larger social and economic objectives actually were. "Oh, gee willickers!," the multiculturalist will scream, tearing the hair from his head, "You've got it all wrong - King only promoted the positive aspects of Communism." Well that all depends on just what you think the "positive" aspects of Communism really are. Let's see, King patently endorsed the redistribution of wealth, destruction of the military, labor's seizure of private business, abolition of private property...oh but don't worry, no Gulags!
   
   Predictably the trail of putrid scandal doesn't end there. In what has become a recurring theme amongst American leftists King possessed a voracious and positively uncontrollable appetite for cheap prostitutes. The point in mentioning this type of degenerate behavior at all is so Dyson can tie King's participation in the Civil Rights movement to the anti-objectivity counter-revolution that occurred subsequently thereafter. Here as well King was quite an active critic of the military (not JUST Vietnam), did interviews with pornographic magazines, generally did everything in his power to undermine sensible restraints wherever they existed, and ensured that a whole generation was indoctrinated into loving themselves and living for themselves only. Most important in all of these activities by King were the rumblings of what would later become known as "Affirmative Action."
   
   Dyson of course supports this development unconditionally and who could blame him, he is where he is precisely because King and his predecessors (backed by the Federal Government) were able to intimidate employers, agencies, and universities into adopting certain "hiring policies" favorable to African Americans. Noticably missing however in this book is elaboration on King's despicable intellectual dishonesty and theft (60% of his doctoral thesis at Boston University was stolen from another student) of other people's work throughout the entirety of his career.
   
   The story of "Dr." King is not an entirely uncommon one for political figures and needless to say his story is hardly inspiring. Indeed, it's typical even for the most violent political leaders to take a relatively egalitarian approach in the beginning, only to shed this facade once they start gathering steam in favor of uncompromising authoritarianism. Vladimir Lenin was an outspoken critic of the Czar and railed against the regime for its suppression of political speech, exploitation of the working class, and persecution of ethnic and religious minorities. Well, we all know how that turned out. I seriously doubt that Martin Luther King, Jr. was any different. Just as another reviewer pointed out, if he were alive today I'm sure he'd be right there with Al Sharpton and Jesse falsely accusing random college students of rape, petitioning to get O.J. Simpson reduced bail, and doing anything he possibly could to exacerbate whatever racial tensions still exist in this country.
   
   Why Dyson thinks this new version of King is great for black folks is anyone's guess, frankly I don't care. I'm just glad I don't have to listen to this hippy nonsense anymore and for that I am thankful.



2. I agree with Dr. King's message of harmony and peace. At the same time I can appreciate Dyson's exposure of aspects of King's personal life that most authors do not address (an obvious exception is "And the Walls Came Tumbling Down"). In a very real sense it leads to questioning Dr. King's sincerity in asking others to value the character of a person and not the color of their skin. Dr. King was an admirable figure in American history; I wouldn't go as far as the author in saying he might be the most important American ever; that's a bit over the top. I've read a lot on the subject; this book is worth reading.



3. I have always been fascinated with Dr. King as one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century. I love the work that Dr. Dyson did in writing this book, because he is authentic in talking about Dr. King the man - strengths, weaknesses and all - while exposing the myths about him. Being African-American, I can understand why many within our community woud want to scold Dr. Dyson for exposing Dr. King's dirty laundry. I, however, consider it not only essential, but relevant that we talk about the true humanity of our leaders (espcially one as esteemed as Dr. King) to avoid the danger of us elevating them as idols. It is a great reminder that God uses people (albeit flawed people) for magnificent works in a fallen world. This is a great book that I highly recommed!!



4. I picked up this book expecting a fresh approach and analysis of Dr. King apart from the obligatory images we're force-fed each new year. Instead, I was disappointed to find that Michael Eric Dyson made heavy use of speculation with the intent to scandalize more than to inform and enlighten. One such example includes Dyson conveying the idea that Dr. King may have engaged in orgies with many different women along with his right-hand man Ralph Abernathy. He then goes on to infer that there was talk of King and Abernathy engaging in sexual acts with each other! The author had no commentary to either support or dispel this "theory" making Dyson's retelling of the alleged incident totally irresponsible and even libelous. He just dropped the information, true or untrue, in the reader's lap to do with as the reader pleased. To that end, it is my opinion that Dyson's intent in writing this book was in no way honorable or truth-seeking, rather it was a means to convey his baseless ideas to anyone who would listen. I'm reminded of something my grandmother and mother would always say to me, "an empty wagon makes the loudest noise." Michael Eric Dyson makes a lot of noise in this book but totally lacks substance. This was an expensive tabloid.



5. This book was not what I expected, but enjoyed regardless. I particularly liked his idea of banning the 'I Have a Dream' speech from public media. The stories about his philandering were a bit shocking to me, but I have never read any biography of King before, so I wasn't prepared. The ocassional tangents might irk some, but understand Dyson has to take some risks and expand on ideas to make the book worth his time. Realize the civil right movement is not over. Dialogue needs to continue in written forms such as this book to make progress.
   - logan square yuppie

5 comments about American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880 - 1964.

1. This superb biography examines the many sides to General Douglas MacArthur (1880-1964); superb commander in war and peace, vain malcontent, and megalomaniac. The author begins by examining his famous father`s service in the Civil War. Then we learn of MacArthur's upbringing and days at West Point (graduating first in his class in 1900), and his reckless bravery during World War I. As the author shows, MacArthur was a progressive-minded superintendent at West Point from 1919-1922, and chief of staff during the 1930's (where his aide was Major Eisenhower). Then we learn of his skilful island-hopping as commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific during World War II. My late uncle served in the Philippines and cursed MacArthur's name 50 years later, but Mac was talented and sparing of his soldier's lives. Ironically, his greatest success may have been as military governor of occupied Japan, where he helped implement democratic reforms. Then came his blundering command in Korea (1950-51) where he misread Chinese intentions and went over President Truman`s head - for which Truman rightly fired him. Mac had previously doubled-crossed President Hoover over the Bonus Army and made juvenile threats to President Roosevelt over retaking the Philippines. In his last years, he advised against action in Vietnam. As the author shows, a complex figure, talented but flawed.
   
   William Manchester (1922-2004) was a superbly readable historian, who used a nice mix of quotes, memos, messages, and family life to describe MacArthur. The result is a well-crafted, balanced account of a man the author probably disliked but admired. Readers should also consider the author`s other superb books, THE GLORY AND THE DREAM, ARMS OF KRUPP, etc.



2. I could not put the book down... Douglas MacArthur's life from beginning to end was so interesting... His life had meaning... Say anything you wish about his personality but his accomplishments during his life will never be out done... Well written book.. and well worth reading...



3. General Douglas MacArthur is one of the few military figures in American history who, even today, evokes heated partisan responses. The title of the headline for this piece clearly tells where this writer is on the partisan divide. The nickname "Dugout Doug" goes back to the days when after the Japanese invasion of the Philippines General MacArthur got himself out of harm's way, with a due fanfare, while his subordinates and the troops for the most part got left behind to face the brunt of the Japanese forces. It was not pretty. This story and many others are detailed in the late journalist William Manchester's biography of the general.
   
   The history of the United States has produced a few military figures who were flamboyant. It has also produced a fair number with some military skills. It is, however, unusual to have the two come together as they did in the self-advertised grandeur of MacArthur. Europe has had some familiarity with the `man on horse back'. One thinks of France, in particular. In America that notion, at least publicly, has not been presented by military leaders while in uniform. MacArthur was an exception. Manchester is not incorrect to see that if there were such a candidate for the role of Caesar (or its modern variant, Bonaparte) in the United States MacArthur by skill, élan and appetite fit the bill. That thread runs through the whole story line here.
   
   No one can question that MacArthur had exceptional military skill in both World Wars, especially his role in the Pacific in World War II. One, however, should note, and note carefully his role in dispersing the Bonus Army in Washington, D.C. in the early 1930's. That might provide a taste of what the American Caesar had in store if he ever took power. Furthermore, one should note that MacArthur was well out of his element when he faced essentially `unconventional' armies in Korea. Call it `limited warfare' if you will but he totally underestimated his North Korean and Chinese opposites in the age of new `warfare'. Later American generals faced, and are today facing, similar conditions. And making the same wrong estimation. That MacArthur's reputation has mainly survived his Korea debacle owes more to hubris, including his own, than reality. In any case, read this book to get a flavor of the old American Army and its most well known general.



4. william manchester & his work are a national treasure. i picked this up after being blown away by manchester's 3-volume churchhill series.
   
   few historians can produce a work like this that's both painstakingly researched & scholarly and so well-written and absorbing. be it churchhill or maccarthur, manchester always takes the long view in terms of how his subject fits in the pantheon of great leaders.
   
   this volume about america's greatest general of the last century provides both a great history of the time period (wwi-korea) as well as a colorful & in-depth look at one of the great personalities of american history. as with churchhill, macarthur is complex, courageous, brilliant and flawed.



5. This is perhaps the best biography of an American ever written. Manchester juxtaposes the good MacArthur (the military genius and patriotic family man) with the bad MacArthur (the megalomaniacal general whose lapse led to his entire air force being destoryed on the ground at Leyte; not even his wife called him "Douglas"). MacArthur is still one of the most polarizing figures in American history; I have spoken to WW2 and Korean veterans who either love him or hate him. This book is a study of greatness. No matter your opinion of MacArthur, one cannot deny the fact that he graduated from West Point with one of the highest averages ever, or how his post-war control of Japan shaped that nation's history. An excellent look into the life of an American Hero/Villain.

5 comments about Nathanael Greene: A Biography of the American Revolution.

1. Gerald Carbone has written a book that every Rhode Islander should read.
   Nathanael Greene was a true Patriot and unsung hero in this country's fight for freedom.
   
   Mr Carbone's journalist's background can be seen in his absorbing portrait of a true American hero.



2. In "Nathaneal Greene: A Biography of the American Revolution", Gerald Carbone provides the reader with an outstanding view of the American struggle for independence, at the same time providing tremendous insight into one of our country's most significant (and perhaps tragic) figures.
   The author's skillful use of the subject's own writings, as well as those of his contemporaries, provides the reader with an exceptional insight into both the characters and the tenor of the times. Exceptionally well researched and well written! An excellent read!



3. It is amazing that after hundreds of years of review and many factual accounts being written that an author can bring new life and perspective to the American Revolution....but Gerald Carbone has done it with this book.
   
   This review of the General Nathanael Greene's personal life and war time thoughts and actions are documented in letters to his family, friends, General Washington, and other major military players. These letters are woven into historical accounts of this war providing a play by play to the game of cat and mouse he played with British Generals in both the northern and southern fronts over many years. The race to victory over the second half of the book is especially exciting for a story which we already know the outcome.
   
   Over and above the insight into Greene's thoughts and never ending planning for the war, the book provides an interesting perspective of the communication, travel and logistics of operating a war in that time period. His personal thoughts of balancing the responsibility of leading an army in war time and family duties are also intriguing.
   
   Definitely worth reading for the whole family.



4. Gerald Carbone writes that Nathanael Greene's involvement throughout the entire war results in the general's biography being quite similar to that of the American Revolution itself. This is a good summary for the book. In fact, Carbone even provides a refresher on the litany of acts imposed by Parliament that precipitated the war and discusses some of the battles in which Greene was never even involved.
   
   The writing is succinct and moves quickly through the events. Largely, based on Greene's Letters (but, unfortunately, not those of many others), Carbone describes Greene as a meticulous tactician and fervent patriot. The reader learns exactly how Greene was so successful in battle. After initial defeats in New York and Pennsylvania, perhaps due to over-optimism, Greene distinguished himself in New Jersey - at Springfield and in a victory of sorts at Monmouth. His ability to impose discipline and thoroughly understand local geography and use it to his advantage was extraordinary.
   
   The second part of the book deals with Greene's Southern command leading to the British surrender at Yorktown. This is quite a thrilling read about partisan warfare and daring tactics. For a further account of the less discussed, but highly important Southern Campaign, refer to Walter Edgar's Partisans and Redcoats.
   
   Through all the battles, however, the reader learns little about Greene's character. Why was this man, raised as a Quaker, so intent on leaving his new wife and family and successful business to fight against the British? Was it ambition and glory that propelled him to seek positions of authority? Or was it genuine support for the Patriot cause? And if so, what had turned him against the British?
   
   Furthermore, Greene commanded the first segregated regiment in Rhode Island and he was not an insignificant slaveholder himself; however, there is scant discussion of his views about slavery. We know that most of the other Founders were against it, many of whom were from a Southern society dependent on slavery, yet they vehemently renounced it (at least in writing) and declared it to be opposed to the egalitarian principles of the Revolution.
   
   The author pays homage to Greene's military successes, but Greene, despite his absence from politics, was an important leader and deserves further analysis. Fittingly, the author notes that Greene was buried in an unmarked tomb - after reading this book we still don't really know who he was.



5. After reading Mr. Carbone's Nathaniel Greene series in the Providence Journal, I contacted him and asked if he had plans for a book. I felt that it was extremely well written. It kept my interest so much that I was anxious for the next morning's paper to arrive. It was written in such a way that you feel that you are there. As a big history buff and with the success of HBO's John Adams, I think that this book should be made into a major movie. Congratulations, GED!
   I highly recommend this book for all that are interested in American history.

5 comments about Andrew Carnegie.

1. 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



2. 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.



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



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



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

5 comments about Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley.

1. THIS IS AN EXCELLANT BOOK ON ELVIS' LATER YEARS (AFTER GERMANY AND MILITARY SERVICE). WOULD RECOMMEND FOR ALL ELVIS FANS.



2. What can i say about this book well written another great by: Peter Guralnick again every Elvis fan needs this in there library. I don't buy just any book that is written about Elvis i only purchase books by authors that is not going to be misleading and tell untrue things just to make the book sell. Mr. Guralnick tells the truth because he researches his material before writing anything about Elvis if you don't have this book you need to purchase it.



3. I just finished reading this book and am amazed at the insights into Elvis' life that the author showed. He covered a lot of things that have been covered ad nauseum by others yet made it read like a novel. And, he adds so much more detail to the day-to-day life of Elvis that provide a much fuller description of his life. Even reading the footnotes is fascinating.
   For a true Elvis fan, this is a must have for your collection. I could hardly put it down and this is not trivial reading, given that the book is more than 500 pages. Mr. Guralinick's 2nd book on Elvis ("Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley) is a must read also.



4. If you want to step inside the life of Elvis, these are the books. Peter makes it a very personal reading. So much so, that after 2 years I haven't finished reading the second book.
   Not because of disinterest, but just because it's so personal. I just wish that the ending could be different.



5. I thought Elvis was the Golden gift from God until I read this book.
   I can't give it a 5 because I had such a hard time keeping up with who did or said what. I found the book very hard to read. Some sentences were paragraphs long and so botched up that I had to read them over and over just to finally understand what he was trying to say. (When a person gets at a certain stage in his/her life, things wear out, ie, memory.) Time and again I had to revert back to even 2 or 3 pages ago to find out who said what, ie. "who did he say was talking here?" I asked myself.
   And further, not the author's fault, of course, but if what he's written was true, then Elvis was not, per his professed church's teachings, the type of good Christian that we were taught to be. I come from that same type of church. Holiness. We did not use profanity. It was very much a no-no. And it is written somewhere in the bible to not resort to swearwords/bywords. And using God's name in vain is very much a sin per our teachers. Elvis took God's name in vain on at least two occasions that I remember. And then reprimanded one of the "guys", "don't ever take the Lord's name in vain around me again".
   And he was constantly using that other most vile word -- the "f" word. I finally was able to skip over those, but not until I had seen them and too late. They embarrass me even as I'm reading them to myself and there's not another soul in the room with me. I know that God knows that I've read them to myself, and I have to just say, "Forgive me God". Makes my skin crawl to hear those awful words. It use to be said that people who resort to swearing were illiterate/uneducated and couldn't make any other type of sentence. Not so these days, at least it doesn't seem to be. I hear some very well placed and educated people resorting to it. It's a crying shame. I can't even watch movies anymore, and it's getting so on TV, and now in THIS book about one of the people I use to admire. My husband and I were sweethearts when Elvis put out that first record, and we really loved his singing. Today is our 51st wedding anniversary. We loved Elvis back in those days for who we thought he was. And, in the coming years, I didn't believe much of the stuff we heard about him. I still thought he was an outstanding person. After all, my own mother told me that a man who loved his mother and treated her good, would love his wife and treat her right. I believed it. My husband and his mom were very much like Elvis and Gladys. Neither thought the other could do any wrong. He's treated me very well over the years. And I will never EVER forget when my husband's mom died. He was as devastated, and more so, than Elvis was, I'll bet. I had never seen him even close to crying before that day. And I have only one more time since then. I have no doubt that Elvis loved his mom. I don't have any issues with him over that. Because I have first hand knowledge of a scenario in that. But, I just don't understand how he could be so loving and devoted to his mom and do some of the things he did.
   And about sleeping around as much as he did: He was taught, if he actually did belong to the Assembly of God Church and attended it regularly, he was taught that one doesn't sleep around with persons to whom that person is not married. That's called "fornication", and in the case of when he was married, it's also called "adultery". He should have been studying his bible more, because those words are well defined in any bible.
   Call me a prude or whatever you want to, but I was raised in that Holiness church to be as righteous as I could and the way God intended for me to be. I know at times it's hard and I won't say that I don't stray from my teachings, but Elvis didn't seem to be concerned with it.
   Then there he is saying that "nobody tells him what to do". Yet, every time Tom Parker or RCA dictated that he do something, he was right there, running his friends (hangers-on, some might say), running them off, and doing whatever would make "Kernel", and RCA happy. For instance, one of his good friends came by to see him, and Parker came by and called Elvis out of the room and told him to send the guy home. Did Elvis say "NO, You don't tell me what to do. I want him here and he's staying"? No he did not. He came back in the room and said "Kernel (that's what I call him since that's what he wanted to be called, but he was NOT a Colonel. That's an insult to even military people, of which I am married to one). Elvis told him "Kernel doesn't want you here so I guess you have to leave". How cruel. Elvis was the one who invited the guy to visit in the first place. Had to be humiliating to the man.
   And I'm concerned as well that he didn't seem to show very much loyalty or "payback" to those at the very beginning - from that first record: Sam, Scotty, Bill and Dewey. It doesn't say, though. I wondered all the way through the book, "did he ever do anything nice for them like he did the hangers-on? Giving them cars and houses and such. Maybe if he'd shown a little gratuity towards Dewey, Dewey wouldn't have stiffed him with that song, I've forgotten which one, by playing it too early before it's official release. After all he's the first one to play Elvis's first record so that it got heard by hoards. And he was always mentioning it and Elvis and pushing it. I've heard that it's great publicity and PR.
   And there's poor Sam, the guy who knew he couldn't do enough to help Elvis with his music, as much as he'd like to, and as much as Elvis deserved. He faced the fact that he'd done as much as he could do for Elvis due to lack of funds and lack of connections that Parker had, of which Elvis had NONE. And Sam in dire financial straits, about to lose his business, etc. I know he got $35,000 for Elvis's contract; however, look how much Elvis made from that deal. It wasn't enough to save Sam's business. I feel that he owed a heck of a lot of it to Sam and Dewey, even though they both had that "potty mouth syndrome."
   And then, poor Scotty and Bill. There they were from the beginninig as well. A TRIO. Just because Elvis twisted his pelvis around, he got all of the attention. Later on after they resigned, he realized that he really needed them. And that's where I am in the book right now. I just had to come and write this stuff down while it's fresh in my mind. And I'm about seething at Elvis. I know I shouldn't have hard feelings about the dead, but he did these things when he was alive. And I'M not dead. YET.
   I hope to read that he's going to share a little more of the wealth with them. Scotty was married (children? I've forgotten) but was terribly in debt due to making such low wages with Elvis, even for those days. $100/wk, only when he worked, while Elvis was making thousands???? And spending thousands on his friends???? UNREAL.
   One of OUR (in the Holiness Church) 10 Commandments is "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto YOU". I wonder how Elvis would have felt if the shoe were on the other foot. If the band had hired him as their "insignificant" boy singer.
   My final thought right at this moment is that old adage "be careful who you trample on your way to the top, because you could fall right on your face on the way down." Or something to that effect. I'd like to have been a fly in that bathroom where Elvis died. On his way out of this world, did he think of those people he didn't treat right? And ask forgiveness. Only God knows.
   Oh I know he passed out a lot of charity and stuff, but he neglected at least those 4 I mention. And in comparison with how much he had, the charity wasn't all that significant. Just one of those Cadilacs, or Lincolns or houses or jewels or vacations he was always treating to first one and then another, could have supported an orphanage for a whole year. Or an old person's retirement home. I do remember that he gave 900 DOLLARS to a boys outfit of some kind, and a TV to one of the teachers. BIG DEAL. In retrospect, no, I don't think he was all that generous. I wonder did he give 10% to the church? Like he was taught to do in the HOLINESS Church. That could count as some redemption for him. But I'm afraid not enough. I hope he's up there, for he surely knew the way he was suppose to live his life. I just don't believe he practiced it as well as he should have. In his case, it's good that I'm not one of the judges at The Gate.
   And if he made it to heaven, I still feel like I've got a chance, if that same judge will be my judge and forgive me for having such horrible thoughts about another soul.

5 comments about Write it When I'm Gone.

1. A very good book of Ford related memories. Excellent photos inside. The passages read very smoothly here.



2. Like many baby boomers,I was grateful Gerald R. Ford was there when the nation needed him. After the god-awful Watergate mess revealed a President at his worst, it was comforting to have Ford, a man widely liked and respected, assume the Presidency. Ford's reputation as an earnest, unpretentious and decent individual able to laugh at himself survived and even thrived in subsequent years when compared to those who followed him into the White House. That image is borne out in WRITE IT WHEN I'M GONE, Thomas DeFrank's touching memoir based on years of private interviews with Ford. DeFrank's book gives us a much deeper and illuminating portrait of both the man and the politician.
   
   While Ford's take on the American political scene from the 1970s on made for interesting reading and confirms him as an astute analyst, I was much more taken with the insights on the man. Though he loved politics and was an ardent spokesman for the Republican Party, Ford's values and innate courtesy caused him to be circumspect in his public comments. Unlike today's slash-and-burn politicians, Ford viewed his Democratic colleagues as friendly adversaries worthy of respect. If he had critical or harsh views of others, he kept them largely to himself...that is until he talked with DeFrank.
   
   Over the course of the book's 250 pages, I grew to like and admire Ford far more than I had in the past; the Nixon Pardon still rankles! DeFrank shows us a normal guy who loved to laugh and toss down a few with the boys; a genuine and genuinely kind man who never lost the common touch; a straightforward, old-fashioned ex-football jock appalled by the underhanded machinations of various politicos; a devoted family man who never cheated on his wife. Yet Ford has his moments of anger and pique as documented in the book. Likewise DeFrank doesn't shy away from some questionable aspects of Ford's life such as his merchandising of himself after he left the Presidency. After all is said and done though, you like Jerry Ford; reading of the decline of such a gregarious, active individual in the closing chapters is hard. He was a good man.
   
   Though I enjoyed DeFrank's book, I thought it could have been more tightly edited. Various redundancies occurred throughout the book.
   
   Whether you're a Jerry Ford fan or not, you'll want to read WRITE IT WHEN I'M GONE. It offers an unvarnished look at the unique life of a kind and decent man who gave America hope and stability during the worst of times. Historians will have the final say on Gerald R. Ford but, for me, I can only echo DeFrank's closing line: 'Thank You, Mr. President.'



3. I dove in to this book expecting new and exciting revelations only to find.. not so much. Yes, it was interesting to learn what Jerry Ford really thought about his fellow Presidents (especially Reagan), but where are the bombshells?
   
   It was obvious that Mr. DeFrank admired Mr. Ford greatly. I too remember the healing effect Ford had on the country after Watergate and admire him. However, this author did not have enough material for an entire book. Redundancies abound. The same sentence often appears in different chapters. His description of the pivotal meeting with (then) Vice President Ford appears verbatim several times throughout the book.
   
   If this had been an article in a magazine, I could have rated it higher. Even without any real revelations.



4. Who ever knew that Gerald Ford could be so interesting? I read over 70 pages in just the first day I got it and did not want to put it down. This is not a straightforward biography for a change-there are plenty of those out there. This is personal insight into a man that rarely let us see that side of him. He was a man of good morals, was extremely intelligent, and if you can get past the whole Nixon pardon, he really did deserve a second term in office. Even though his presidency was short, those were some very interesting times and Gerald Ford was a big part of bringing the country back together after Watergate and Vietnam. It is great to have the authors perspective of traveling with him for so many years and interviewing him, and even building a friendship with President Ford. You feel like you are along for the ride. I am glad I purchased this as it is a totally different kind of political book than anything else I have ever read. It is an easy and quick read, and I HIGHLY recommend it to anyone interested in US history and/or the Office of The President. My only wish was that it was longer- did not want to get through it so quick !!!!



5. A wonderful read about a good and great man. If only this country had more such men, then maybe there would not be the huge political schism in Washington today. Ford was a healer, who could be bipartisan and establish a rapport with his political enemies. Maybe, that was because he had no real enemies, and many on both side respected him for what he was: a smart, honest politician who did not have a huge ego.
   
   In this short book, DeFrank shows that Ford was really who he said he was. He loved the Republican Party and would not tear it apart for his personal ambition. He loved his country and tried to find common cause with some polical opponents like Carter and Clinton. He loved his home city of Grand Rapids, Michigan. He was like most people: an average man thrust into the leadership of the free world.
   
   This is a nice read about a true American Gerald R. Ford. His presidential service was short and his life long, but he made a difference in American political life. DeFrank captures the true spirit of Jerry Ford.

3 comments about Henry Kissinger and the American Century.

1. Jeremi Suri presents Henry Kissinger in a very unique way, unfamiliar to traditional biographies. His writing and analytic abilities set this book far ahead of any others. Sure, you may read an eight hundred epic on every little think Kissinger did. In "Henry Kissinger and the American Century" the author provides a concise analysis of Kissinger's life and its implications on his later decisions which have gathered such controversy and his impact upon history as a whole.
   A fantastic, well written, unique take on Henry Kissinger - a man who is, without a doubt, one of the most influential figures of the twentieth century.
   Five Stars - I can't think of a bad thing about it.



2. Henry A. Kissinger, one of a handful of memorable secretaries of state, is a German-born Jew haunted by the failure of democracy in his birthplace and the subsequent failure of the world's democracies to stop the Nazi drive for mastery of Europe in the 1930s. Those failures made possible the massive slaughter of World War II, the nearly total destruction of Jewish life in Europe (which marked Kissinger personally)and in its aftermath left the United States and the exercise of its power the main arbiter of the world's fate. Stalin's Soviet Union, however, had other plans.
   Kissinger did not view war with Soviet Russia as inevitable, nor did he regard Russian ambitions in Eastern and Central Europe as altogether unreasonable. But he did think that unless America was willing to project its power in strategic areas of the world, such as Europe and the Middle East, and confront Soviet ambitions in those areas, the Cold War would be lost with dire consequences for Americans.
   Kissinger thought the Cold War would make strange bedfellows--reactionary kings, military dictators and strongman-types whose personal vanity outweighed any concern for the future of their people.
   Kissinger was a supreme realist. He did not seek the make the world a better place, only a safer one for his adopted country and its friends.
   His hero was Metternich, of Congress of Vienna and Balance of Power fame. There was no room for sentimentality, and not much room for public opinion, in his world view. Wars and rumors of wars were not only expected, but exploited by Kissinger, which his critics viewed as coldly cynical, immoral and in some cases (Vietnam, Chile) indifferent to human lives.
   Kissinger owed his power, at the height of his career, to Richard M. Nixon, whose feelings toward Jews were mixed at best, bigoted at worst.
   Oddly, his Jewish background was an asset in dealing with Arab rulers. They figured that American Jews dictated U.S. policy in the Mideast anyhow, so Kissinger essentially cut out the middle man.
   The only weakness of the book is its brevity (less than 300 pages) which doesn't leave much room for analysis of complicated issues. Nuclear weapons negotiations are barely mentioned. None the less, an excellent introduction to a complex man who left a large imprint on America's place in the world.



3. In "Henry Kissinger and the American Century," Jeremi Suri has chronicled the political history of arguably one of the world's most brilliant personalities. Suri's book leaves out much of Kissinger's personal history, beyond his childhood in Weimar and Nazi Germany, which is generally vague. "Henry Kissinger and the American Century" does, however, provide readers with the background necessary to begin to understand the man and his policies. Suri pays particular attention to Kissinger's skepticism of democracy, which truly helped shape those policies.
   Henry Kissinger is a Cold War oracle, subject to the failings of the human condition as any of us, but arguably far more attuned to the strategic and political situation than anyone ever was.
   Suri does not dodge logical criticisms and critics and provides a groundwork for understanding of Kissinger's philosophies. Reading the book, you might notice how just when you begin to forget Kissinger's German-Jewish childhood, Suri extols this fact in context throughout.
   The book reveals Kissinger's innate ability to address both his genteel and gentile contemporaries. If any American in history ever leveraged their "outsider" status to the maximum and re-define the idea of an "insider", it was Kissinger.
   The book is full of exceptional quotes from Kissinger, his influences and his contemporaries that are no less relevant in the War on Terror than they were in the Cold War.
   REVIEW EVERY BOOK YOU READ!

5 comments about The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin: Second Edition (Yale Nota Bene).

1. The autobiography of Franklin was a worthwhile book to read. I suggest ignoring the footnotes as you read his autobiography since it distracts you from reading Franklin's work. It was a good book that details how industriousness results in a wonderful, useful public life at an older age. Franklin is the type of public servant that we are lacking today.



2. Like so many people I only know Benjamin Franklin from school and history books where he comes across as someone stiff and formal. But here in the first half of this book we find Ben Franklin the boy. We hear him complain of his parents, his restrictions, quarrels with his brothers, and of course things that all boys do. He steals from a construction site to build a fishing pier -- and gets caught. We see him finally breaking away and moving to Philadelphia where he arrives with very little money and must subsist on bread. He describes his youth and his gradual maturity as he builds his life and fortune. Interestingly this book leaves some doubt as to whether he was actually married to Deborah Read or had an "arrangement". I particularly enjoyed his description of General Braddock and his defeat by the Indians. Although this was only briefly touched on this and other similar references to the English gives you insight into why the colonists rebelled. Clearly the English completely misjudged the American Character as most Europeans do even today.
   
   Unfortunately the second half of this book was written after the war and when Franklin was an old man and clearly not terribly interested in finishing this book. It reads as an after thought and really doesn't provide any insight into his role or the extraordinary people and events of which he was a part. But it does show the close relationship he had with his son so when the estrangement came it must have hurt him deeply although this is a subject not mentioned at all in the book.
   
   However, the editors have kindly provided a marvelous timeline in the appendix, which really gives you a summary of the Revolutionary War as it places various key events into perspective. You see the impact that John Paul Jones's victory over the Serapis had on events in Paris. It shows how Franklin's diplomatic skills had a huge effect on the ultimate outcome of the war.
   
   Franklin was an extraordinary man who lived an extraordinary life. He writes about himself rather modestly and really doesn't touch on his activities during the war in any detail and for this reason I only gave this book four stars. Still this is an interesting book about a truly fascinating man.



3. Well, it has been nearly 30 years since I first read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography and one can still gain some insights after a good second reading. Both the American Icon's wisdom and insights are time honored and worth repeating no matter what your age.
   
   This edition has copious footnotes on every page unlike traditionally at the end of the book. The authors may have felt that the reader would be interested in the quick reference aspect verses paging to the back. Though this can be a little strange at first, I get their point and maybe it was better this way.
   
   One aspect that I would have liked; however, would have been if they had added some of his other selected writings like "The Way to Wealth" and others. Irrespective, this is a good edition and recommended as one of the more authoritative editions.



4. The autobiography of Ben Franklin is a worthwhile read simply because of who Ben Franklin is. It is beneficial to understand the character of this great man by judging him through his own words. There is no doubt that Franklin was an ingenius man and his witty rhetoric further confirms his intelligence. It also confirms his egotistical nature I hate to say.... But I suppose he had every right given his success...
   Anyhow, I thought the first portion of the book (written before the revolution) was much more interesting that the latter half. Unfortunately the autobiography was never really finished by Franklin. He ends off abruptly during the French and Indian War period and there is nary an remark concerning American Independence, which would have been interesting to read about from his point of view.
   Still, overall, it's worth the read.



5. The purpose of the book is difficult to pin down, primarily because Franklin never completed and cohesively tied his biography together. The purpose, it seems, is then left to the effects that it has had upon history. Although difficult to follow and often a confusing narrative, Franklin composes a portrait of the prototypical American success story, perhaps even the first. His emphasis on personal virtue and industry is a sermon not only to his son, but also to Americans throughout time, on the formula for success. His descriptions of life in the colonies and the nature of self-teaching seem to set the standard for history's view of pre-revolutionary America.
   
   The ethics of clean living and a hearty work ethic that Franklin sought to impart upon his son are still alive as ideals of the "American dream." Although it can be argued how much of a dream this really is, the value given to hard work and personal responsibility are very much a part of the American rhetoric that is indoctrinated through political and nationalistic institutions. It seems undeniable that Franklin hoped to have a lasting effect on future generations, as he certainly did not succeed in living the virtue of humility.
   
   While vanity certainly must play a part in the drive for any public figure to pen to paper and detail their life, part and parcel with that is the desire to be a good role model to a wide audience. Franklin seems to have prided himself on being a good role model throughout his life, from his time in England until returning to Philadelphia, assisting others in setting up businesses and becoming self-sufficient.
   
   We can only speculate what Franklin's reasoning must have been. Indeed, it may be that assuming history will have well recorded the time period, a personal account was unnecessary. It may be that Franklin simply never finished his Autobiography and certainly intended to return to the subject. Whatever the reasons may be, this is certainly the most jarring and notable deficiency from an otherwise detailed record of the life of one of our most important statesmen.

5 comments about My Bondage and My Freedom (Penguin Classics).

1. THIS BOOK IS POWERFUL, ITS SHOCKING, AND IT IS ASPIRING. THERE IS NOTHING ON CHANNEL 11 THAT BRINGS THE HONEST, INSIGHTFUL, VERY REAL ACCOUNT THAT MR.DOUGLASS DOES IN HIS BOOK. FROM SLAVE TO FREE-MAN, THIS IS TRUELY AN AMERICAN SUCCESS. SKIP THE INTRO, AND JUMP INTO IT.



2. Douglass's second, and lengthier, narrative fills in many of the gaps left in his first autobiography: we learn about his mother, his siblings, and more details about his psychological transformation from brute to man. It's quite insightful, as Douglass is careful to relate each of his personal experiences to the innate evil of the peculiar instituition, for both the slave and the slave holder.



3. Having read a biography of Douglass many years ago, I thought I knew his story. Hearing through his pen was an entirely different matter. What a master of the language and insighful set of observations on human nature.
   
   I am a man of many words, but words fail me in my endorsement of this book. The letter to his former master in the appendix is worth the price of the book by itself.



4. Standing in line at the Lincoln Memorial, a book beckoned to me that I previously hadn't seen before. The face of Frederick Douglas grabbed my attention; a man that I've respected for many years, encountering him mainly through my study of Abraham Lincoln. On the spur of the moment, I snatched up a copy of "My Bondage and My Freedom", and within a few days, my admiration in Frederick Douglass was transformed from interest to awe.

   Frederick Douglass orginially penned his book as a response to people's accusations that someone as articulate and composed as he couldn't possibly be a former slave. With that goal in mind, Douglass wrote his memoirs, in a straight forward, powerful way. In the book, he painfully and honestly documents the path his early life took; the memories of being owned, how slaves coped during these times, and how he managed to pull himself out of it all.

   While Douglass' life in itself is amazing, (as he describes the amazing process he undertook to learn how to read), what amazed me even more are Douglass' discourses that he sprinkles through the book, discussing relevant issues during the time. In one instance, he addresses the concern about why slaves simply didn't run away from their oppressive situations. It's almost as if you can actually hear the people talking to Douglass and he responding to them.

   This book does not only tell the tale of a truly amazing American, but gives us a unique insight to the times. This book should be required reading in every high school in this country.




5. What are your impressions of Frederick Douglass? What would you say about Douglass observation that "conscience cannot stand much violence? Do you think it was possible to be a good slave owner?Why or why not? Why does Douglass view slaveholders as well as slaves as victims of slavery? Why is education incompatible with slavery? Why do you think the white children's attitude toward slavery is different from that of their parents? How would you describe Douglass attitude towards Mrs. Auld?