4 comments about The First Ladies Fact Book: The Stories of the Women of the White House from Martha Washington to Laura Bush.

1. Now here is a really great educational book! I wanted to give this book together with Women's Letters by Lisa Gruenwald. Buy these together and have a wonderful women's birthday or Mother's Day gift.
   JQ



2. This made a wonderful gift that keeps "on giving."
   The facts are interesting and unusual and it's good to have an insight into the women behind the men that have been in office.
   Quite frankly I think most of them could have done a better job than their husbands.
   Would highly recommend this to anyone for a good read and quick reference.



3. I am teaching an extra-curricular high school class this semester on the history of U.S. presidents and wives. This book has some very interesting information on the wives of the presidents. I have found fascinating tidbits from this book which kept my students interested even when the presidents might have proven boring! I am enjoying reading the book on a personal note too!



4. This huge book bollows Mr. Harris earlier book The Presidents Fact Book where he talked of the Achievements, Events, People, Triumphs, and Tragedies of Every President. Obviously in this book he is not talking about the presidents but their wives.
   
   The first ladies have had their own share of the making of history. In recent years, Jackie Kennedy did a lot towards the creation of the Camelot image of the Kennedy years. Hillary Clinton is certainly remembered for her efforts towards creating universal health care.
   
   These are just two small details of the lives of two first ladies. This book has over 700 pages about their lives, their interests, their activities in the white house and the way that they worked with their husbands to assist in the governance of the country.
   
   And yes, there is a color section of pictures featuring mostly the clothes they wore.

5 comments about America's Constitution: A Biography.

1. This is a remarkable book. The author's knowledge, insight, analysis and synthesis are amazing. There's too much to praise about it, so I'll just mention one aspect: Amar makes a very compelling case that from the beginning slavery was a disease spreading infection in our society and political system (aided by the 3/5 clause), increasingly corrupting our character and institutions until a terribly bloody breaking point was reached. The evil was partially righted, then amorality returned, allowing a viciousness to fester until another crisis led to new progress. But it remains that slavery and its legacy constitute the central national failure, which we still haven't nearly corrected. Most of the book is quite positive, and slavery's not the principal focus, but Amar's treatment of it is both convincing and unforgettable.



2. For decades I've been wandering about with a mish mash of semi-contradictory ideas about the constitution. Mr. Amar has managed to correct, justify, and reframe most of them into a (_thoroughly_ documented) coherent whole.
   
   Where the constitution is unclear, he quotes the debates and letters of the founders explaining what they meant. Where there is modern debate, he footnotes where to look for different viewpoints. Where there was debate during the writing of the constitution, he tells you who said what and why.
   
   That would probably be enough to earn 5 stars, but he somehow managed to turn an erudite treatise on the history of one government into a page-turner. I don't know how, but there it is...



3. Wow, I learned more about the consitution then I ever could have imagined. I didn't have any idea about many of the themes and debates over the constitution and it's amendments. I'm a novice at political thinking, before the presidential campaign I could've care less about politics. Some of this is a bit over my head since I don't have a background in law or political history. However, Mr. Amar explains it well enough that most should understand. I can't recommend it enough for anyone interested in the constitution.



4. Although there are some tedious places, the book has a number of very valuable and interesting insights - especially the topics of the Second Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, and the "privileges and immunities" clause stood out for me. He does a good job interweaving historical context and the text of the document. There are some unexpected emphases and omissions:for example, it emphasizes slavery more often and more heavily than I expected for an issue that was resolved 140 years ago, and there was a little less on the Bill of Rights and on executive power than I was expecting, although those are more contemporary issues. His chapter on the path, pre-Civil War to the 13th amendment, was terrifically concise but there is very little discussion on the issue of habeas corpus during the war. These aren't complaints, just notifications; overall it was very stimulating. Like most constitutional scholars, he has some outside-the-box interpretations that are obviously developed to accomplish a particular outcome but these are fruitful to reflect on as well.



5. What an absolutely fantastic reference! Much of this book's praise has been sung by previous reviewers, but I'd like to add that I especially appreciate Amar's powerful paradoxes and equally profound "what-ifs." Buy the man's book so he blesses all of our futures with even more jewels of his erudition.

5 comments about John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights.

1. I was disappointed with portions of this book. But again, it was not written by a historian.
   In the first few chapters, Reynolds calls Harriet Beecher Stowe an adamant colonizationalist, without noting where the information came from. She did mention it in "Uncle Tom's Cabin," but stated afterward she was not supportive of it, although her father was.
   It is obvious he is very sympathetic to John Brown. But he did do a very good job of portraying John Brown as the family man he was. John Brown's letters supports this. John Brown was also for equal rights for African Americans and women. This is supported by his statements, letters, and other documents.
   But I would read other books, such as Stephen Oates, before I would use this one as reference.



2. Highly enjoyable read. Not written at arm's length; It's clear that Reynolds "gets" John Brown and the age he lived in, so his heart and imagination are fully engaged as he writes. He doesn't hide Brown's humanity however. What bothered me the most was that Brown seemed to harden his heart toward his wounded son at Harpers Ferry. (How it appeared to observers apparently.)
   
   All in all though Thoreau and Emerson got it right when they quickly came to his defense after Harpers Ferry. Thoreau compared Brown on the scaffold to Christ on the cross.
   
   If Brown had died at Harpers Ferry before the country could hear his defense and see the greatness of his character--his every word and behavior a challenge to the country to throw off the evils of slavery--history would no doubt have been different. Reynolds is redeeming Brown from neglect and misunderstanding to his rightful place as a heroic patriarch and patriot of America.
   
   In our age when "true believers" are highly suspect, Brown's character and long-contemplated actions shine as an example of exactly how and when a "fanatic" is not a fanatic. Brown founded a community where blacks and whites lived together as equals. He lived out his religious and political beliefs fully, whole-heartedly, yet included others of different beliefs in his inner circle (his first lieutenant was an atheist).
   
   I read mostly library books; this one I bought and buy for others.



3. David S. Reynolds background as a Professor of English Literature shows in this book: although focused on John Brown's life, you can see Professor Reynolds' interest in Mid 19th century literature on almost every page, with frequent and extensive discourses on John Browns' interactions-with and impact on many of the well known authors and orators of the day, such as Walt Whitman, Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Melville, and Emily Dickinson.
   
   In general, Reynolds makes the argument that John Brown sparked the Civil War, and that he was a high minded, intensely religious man who was not as crazy, and not as violent, as history has led us to believe. He further argues that Brown was a man a century or more ahead of his time in terms of his attitudes towards racism, and foresaw where the war of words between the North and South over the future of slavery would inevitably lead.
   
   Reynolds does a great job of helping us better understand Brown as a person; and brings to light many facets of his personality and life of which I'd been unaware, such as Brown's total acceptance of African Americans as equals in every respect - a stance that few, if any, whites had at the time (and is a viewpoint that is not as widely accepted as it should be, even today). The author demonstrates, quite rightly, that most other abolitionists of the time were not so much pro-African-American as they were against slavery and its impact upon America. Many were at best dismissive, and at worst rabidly against, accepting blacks as equals.
   
   Reynolds comes across as an apologist for Brown, and seems to be attempting to justify some of Brown's bloodiest and most violent actions as merely being the unavoidable side effects of a man consumed with a passion against slavery. Those side effects included the deaths of several of his sons.
   
   The book's pace is not the best, and hits some really slow spots here and there: especially when it reaches the aftermath of the Harper Ferry raid, where the author launches into a very extensive discourse on the impact of John Brown (and his execution) on American literature, thought, society and politics - again with a focus on the writers and orators of the day. These last chapters could have been reduced in length by half or more, with little loss in terms of content.
   
   I question the author's repeated and strong emphasis on John Brown's strong Puritan faith as being a basis for his actions: this refrain starts to sound hollow after so many repetitions - as if he's hoping we'll get the message if he hits us with it enough times. As an inheritor of several centuries of that same Puritan tradition myself, many of his arguments concerning Brown's faith seem (at best) forced and overstated.
   
   Reynolds' argument that John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry was the spark that started the Civil War is also overstated: While I think the raid certainly contributed to the paranoia of the time, particularly in the South, Reynolds' arguments that John Brown's attack and behavior following the raid destroyed the South's reputation for chilvalric military prowess and invincibility is not believable. The war was inevitable: Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry may have raised emotions, but the South was already diligently preparing for war by the time the raid occurred. The attack, at best, hurried things along a bit, but in my view, the country was almost certain to fall apart soon after the election of 1860, regardless of who won the Presidency.
   
   In the end, though with some significant flaws in terms of pacing, facts, and the arguments presented; this book is informative: it does bring out the nature of the man, and it helped me better appreciate his impact on the country and History. Dr. Reynolds' work especially helps us to understand Brown's impact upon many of the thought-leaders of the day, and how regional attitudes and cultural traditions played into the unfolding of events at the time and their impact on John Brown's own career and reputation during the trial, and in the years following his execution.
   
   To better understand how racism changed and evolved after the Civil War, I'd strongly recommend the book "Race and Reunion" by David W. Blight. For a better understanding of the four regional cultures in America at the time (Appalachian, Southern, New England and Mid Atlantic), which play a major role in Reynold's text, I'd recommend "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America" by David Hackett Fischer.
   
   "John Brown, Abolitionist" is a book that is worth the read, though its flaws limit the impact that it could have made, given the strong personality that is its subject. I give it a positive, but limited, recommendation.



4. Overall this book does not contribute significantly to an understanding of John Brown and his times. The strength of the book is within Reynolds grasp of Browns personal character. Reynolds convincingly demonstrates that John Brown was not crazy, at least from a clinical perspective. Also important is the way the book shapes how Brown's Calvinist views affected his own worldview. However, Reynolds often times errors in his analysis through his overt affinity for Brown. For instance, Reynolds too often takes Brown at his word, such as on the limited nature of his Harper's Ferry raid despite the solid evidence suggesting otherwise. If one wanted to understand the life of John Brown a much better choice of book would be Stephen Oates' biography on Brown.
   
   As far as understanding Brown within the context of his time, this book hugely disappoints. Reynolds is not a historian and it shows (he is a professor of English). Even if we ignore the absurd contention that Brown had anything to do with the Civil Rights movement, there is plenty of reason to believe Brown had nothing more than a negligible effect on the coming of the Civil War.
   
   From an epistemological standpoint, Reynolds is contending a revisionist interpretation as the cause for the Civil War (a war that could have been avoided had it not been for extremists on both sides). The key difference is that while typically revisionists see the war as a tragic consequence of blundering politicians among the free soil and fire-eater persuasion, Reynolds puts all the blame (or praise in this case) on John Brown. This of course ignores the traditional interpretation that sees the conflict as irrepressible. However, both schools of thought agree that events leading to Civil War were well put in place prior to Brown's raid in 1859. The Missouri Compromise, acquisition of Western lands from the Mexican war, the Compromise (or `armistice') of 1850, Kansas Nebraska Act, bleeding Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, and the Lecompton dispute, all significantly call into question Reynold's assertion that sectional hostilities were relatively tranquil prior to John Brown's raid. Perhaps one of Reynold's biggest blunders was emphasizing the significance of the abolitionist movement in the coming of the Civil War while completely ignoring the emergence of the much more significant free-soil Republican Party.
   
   While the book does a relatively decent job of presenting Brown as a person, Stephen Oates remains the Brown standard bearer. As for the larger picture, Reynolds demonstrates a dismal understanding of antebellum politics.



5. I expected Reynolds to write fluidly and clearly but he does not. The book turned out to be about two hundred pages too long. There aren't normal notes and many times I checked for them when I wanted to check a claim and found no note. His insensitivity to the role of Calvinism in Brown makes him overgeneralize claims and misidentify Brown as simply a Puritan. The book is marred by stylistic flaws that frustrate the reader and make the read an arduous one. In the end, it makes for an interesting even if one that makes the reader frustrated at the storyteller.

1 comments about James Henry Hammond and the Old South: A Design for Mastery (Southern Biography Series).

1. Hammond is not a nice guy. He married for money, was not a great father, and campagined for elected office at time when no one else did and against the 'party' candidate to boot. Most interesting of all was his commitment to the Confederate cause but resistance to the call for material and manpower to help the cause. In the end, he could not believe it when his slaves were jubilant about the prospect of freedom. Through Hammond's eyes we see the south changed forever by the Civil War, not only due to the lost of their slaves but also by the unsouthern actions the Confederate government had to take and how they affected the southern way of life. Hammond is not a nice guy but this very readable book provides an excellent insight to the antebellum southern mind.

5 comments about The Fields of Home.

1. I cannot praise Ralph Moody enough. This book is so well structured and well written that it is obviously a "made" work, but that certainly doesn't make it false. It is a truthful story inasmuch as the characters speak as they should, and the times are brought alive as good writing should do.
   An emotion-packed experience perfect for taking us back one hundred years. Highly recommended!



2. I recommend this series as a great alternative for boys who just don't like the idea of the Little House series. It is a well written series that really keeps the young and old alike interested in the way life was 100yrs ago.



3. This is the chronological fifth in Ralph Moody's series of memoirs, and while I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as I have the previous titles, it definitely chronicles a major phase in his life. In 1912, at age fourteen and a half, he has repeatedly run afoul of the police chief in Medford, who seems to think he's bound for reform school, so his mother sends him to Maine to stay on her father's farm. Unfortunately she neglects to explain to her father exactly why she's doing it, and Grandfather labors under the delusion that she wants him to "make a man of him." And there Ralph's troubles begin.
   
   Grandfather Gould is perhaps the most vivid character I've found yet in Moody's books. Past 70, he is (as his younger brother, Uncle Levi, explains to Ralph) bound by his position as a son born when his father was even older than himself (and already had a grown-up "first family") and "spoiled rotten" in consequence. "Father and the Almighty stand about shoulder to shoulder in Thomas's eyes," says Levi, "and the land they left him is holy ground." He can't see any way of doing things except the way his father taught him--the old, pre-industrial, farm-by-hand way--and as age closes in on him he has let the place go back mostly to pasture. Ralph sometimes comes close to tears at being called useless and worthless and a "tarnal fool boy," getting senseless jobs to do and being rebuked for "wastin'" or wanting to use "work-saving contraptions." Cranky, erratic, often laid low by the chronic malaria that is his legacy from a term in a Confederate prison camp, Grandfather succeeds in driving away just about everyone who cares about him, including his brother and his long-suffering housekeeper Millie. Another splendid character, as well drawn as any human in the book, is "the yella colt," an irascible buckskin work horse who's far from being a colt but apparently was never told so; to save his own hide Ralph is forced to improvise a way of teaching him who's boss, though Grandfather keeps undoing his efforts.
   
   In this book, Moody admits for the first time how difficult it was for him to adjust to life in the East after his years in Colorado and how much he missed both the "wide open spaces" and his work with his understanding father. More than once his grandfather's ways rub him so raw that he makes plans to run away and go back to the West he loves. Yet he also experiences the innocent joys of first love, and in the end he realizes how truly alike he and Grandfather are and how Maine has a beauty of its own, and the book ends on a positive note as the two seem to reconcile, having finally agreed to try some of the boy's ideas.



4. I have read all of the Little Britches books many times over the years, including reading them aloud. I recommend all of them heartily.
   Now I have some real problems with the audio books versions. Mispronounced words! And I checked everyone I questioned, just a few listed here. Cameron Beierle, the reader, should check a dictionary.
   This may seem nit picking, but I wince every time I hear one of the many mispronunciations, and I think of those who may not understand what he is saying, or worse, might think he is right.
   Victuals -- it is not pronounced as it is spelled. It is vit'ls. We may mock what we consider illiterate pronunciations, but it is correctly vit'l (vittles)
   Mow -- you moe - long o - the grass or the hay, but you then store the hay in the mow -- to rhyme with cow. Over and over the reader says moe.
   Row -- same objection. Things grow in a roe, long o, but when you have a fight or a quarrel, you row -- again rhyming with cow. It may be a back formation from rouse, and that gives a key to how it should be pronounced.
   My comments apply only to the books as read by Cameron Beierle. The books are wonderful, but I should have read them aloud myself and recorded them.



5. Having read the first several volumes of Ralph Moody's works, I didn't think they could get any "better" than they already were. "Fields of Home" is better though, although perhaps I feel that way because it struck a chord with me in where I live, in the cold northernmost part of New York State. The descriptions of the farming and other activities resonated with stories of my grandparents, my parents and my childhood experiences. The characters seem to be people I know. Awesome book in a great series of books that are appropriate for all ages (my parents love them too).

5 comments about Secret Lives of the First Ladies: What Your Teachers Never Told You About the Women of the White House.

1. I love how this book and the Secret Lives of the Presidents give us a real look at the personalities of the First Families and what was going on culturally and personally for these folks that have impacted our world. It helps to remind all of us that there never were the "good ol' days". Politics have always been a little messy. These book also help reveal the true brilliance of some of the First Ladies and their husbands. This is what should be taught in our schools. It makes history much more memorable!



2. the book arrived in good condition and in a timely matter. I am a very satisfied customer!!



3. Recently a foreign journalist interviewing George W. Bush asked the President of the United States to turn out his pockets. What an interesting, humanizing thing to ask of the most powerful man on Earth. And exactly the kind of thing that never occurs in the burlesque of today's 24 hour electronic news cycle. The contents of our pockets, those little handy nooks that serve as contingency storage for our day-to-day indispensables, speak wonderful, accessible volumes about us as people. Show me what you have in your pockets and, whether or not I know WHO you are, I get a glimpse what KIND of person you are. In Secret Lives of the First Ladies, Cormac O'Brien has politely turned out the pockets of the spouses of each of our presidents, and it's a neat-o treasure trove he uncovers. His style is neither lewd nor exploitative, though, to be sure, there's plenty of juicy stuff here. His project is a sort of cameo portraiture of some forty seven intriguing and often remarkable women. The only flattery in these portraits is a consistent, entertaining, and often astounding disclosure of each woman's individual humanity. It is tempting to read the book in little chunks (as I did at first) owing to its concise chaptering. However, it's a real pleasure go back and review long stretches, watching how the public appearance of the First Lady has evolved over time while her private role has remained remarkably consistent: she is the president's wife. Which is to say, sometimes she is a loving yet diminutive spousal anchor and sometimes she is a headstrong engine of scandal and outrage. Sometimes she is a fully enfranchised partner in even the weightiest decision-making at the executive mansion, including public policy. That there were first ladies fitting all these descriptions in every era since the founding of the republic, to me, was quite amazing. If you know any married couples, you will find the First Ladies, good and bad, tragic and heroic, satisfyingly and entertainingly familiar. Predictably, a frustrating aspect of The Secret Lives of the First Ladies is the rigid brevity of its entries, particularly in chapters describing women whom one would like to examine more closely. The challenge is to keep track of those First Ladies whose full biographies you now want to find and read. Alas, one has the nagging fear that those biographies won't be as frank and entertaining as these admittedly brief introductions. But, such is the nature of this omnibus beast. O'Brien's prose is a yummy balance of richness and skim-ability with very few false notes. The design and illustration are a constant reassurance that this is a social visit and not a college text. You're here to make friends and there is no requirement to pass a final exam. A pleasure to read cover-to-cover or simply to table hop as you meet these one-of-a-kind ladies. Of its genre, this is an A+.



4. If you like trivia, you'll enjoy this book. If you have only enough time to read short chapters or a few pages at a time, again, you'll like this book. Each chapter, which is about one first lady, is only a few pages in length -- perfect for bedtime reading for tired moms like me. There was enough information about each first lady to pique my interest, and make me want to find more in-depth biographies about many of the women.



5. A very good read! Interesting facts about all the first ladies. It is sure to make you laugh. You will find out things you did not know. Entertaining.

5 comments about The Final Days.

1. The American body politic cuts the president a great deal of error slack. We witnessed that during the Watergate years of Richard Nixon and we see it again in the presidency of George W. Bush. Both instances also point out one major fact of the American political landscape. No matter what they achieve or how high their popularity, if a President does the wrong things, they can crash down with great force.
   This book is one of the greatest political chronicles of all time. So great that no fiction writer could possibly create a story with such dynamism, force and sheer magnitude. Woodward and Bernstein were the reporting team that kept the Watergate story alive and ultimately led to Nixon's resignation. In this book, they describe the final days of the Nixon presidency and how the people involved tried to salvage what value they could and move on to the next phase.
   The greatest message of the book is the demonstration of how powerful and resilient the American political system is. Despite the slow pace of discovery, tortuous maneuvers by the prosecution and countermoves by the Nixon defense team, the system worked and worked well. The highest government official in the United States was a party to criminal acts and was removed without a shot being fired. There are few countries in the world where that could have taken place. It is one more demonstration of how extraordinary the writers of the American constitution were. Despite all of the changes in how the world works, advances in technology and other marvels of the age, a system put in place nearly two hundred years earlier functioned to near perfection.



2. This is a fascinating book regardless of your political persuasion or feelings about Richard Nixon. The detailed account of the last days of the administration reveals the human side of the names and faces you saw on the news everyday back then or read about in other books since then.



3. This gripping narrative takes us inside the White House during the last days of the Nixon administration in 1974. From inside we see President Nixon, his advisors, family, and congressional allies trying to stave off his inevitable downfall from the Watergate scandal. Readers see how Nixon tried to claim executive privilege to avoid releasing the "smoking gun" tape that proved he'd ordered the cover-up. Even after he surrendered the tape (by Supreme Court order) Nixon refused to resign until his fast-deserting congressional allies warned him that his impeachment and conviction were now certain. The authors credit General Alexander Haig for holding the White House together as Nixon unraveled, but pay less attention to Vice President Gerald Ford, a non-participant except for later when he gave Nixon a questionable full pardon. There's also a review of the two-year scandal and the President's adversaries (Leon Jaworski, Sam Ervin, John Dean, etc.) but this narrative is based inside the White House. Readers see that Nixon was very capable but also a lying, crooked tax cheat, one whose administration was awash in payoffs, hush money, bribes, and political espionage.
   
   Authors Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein first uncovered the Watergate Scandal as reporters for the Washington Post in June of 1972. Having begun Nixon's downfall, perhaps it's fitting that they should chronicle that descent with this superb narrative, plus their earlier effort ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN.



4. I was absorbed by this book. It's story is so compelling and amazing, I couldn't put it down. I also appreciate the writing style that made difficult content easier to understand and follow. I consider this one of the best books I have ever read and an incredible insight into the Nixon mind.



5. 
   a good historical review of Nixon. Especially how tape crazy he was. A little tough reading in few pages but picks up after a while. It should be required reading for college to show what cn really happen in the White House.

1 comments about James Jesus Angleton, the CIA, and the Craft of Counterintelligence.

1. This extraordinary new analysis of the life of James Jesus Angleton makes a fascinating connection between his training and early life as a poet and literary critic and his career in counterintelligence. Chillingly relevant to the current debate on the CIA and intelligence-gathering techniques it is a 'must read' for anyone interested in the current state of American democracy.

3 comments about George H. W. Bush: The American Presidents Series: The 41st President, 1989-1993 (The American Presidents).

1. This book, authored by Timothy Naftali, ends with the following comment (Page 176): "George W. Bush's controversial presidency led to a positive reassessment of his father's time in the White House. . . .[M]any missed the elder Bush's realism, his diplomacy, his political modesty, and, yes, even his prudence."
   
   George H. W. Bush was a one term president who presided over the end of the Cold War. This slender biography, another entry in The American Presidents series, provides a useful biography of the 41st president of the United States. The book begins with his childhood and youth, culminating in his estimable service in the Navy's air wing, including being shot down in the Pacific. Upon his return to the United States, Bush entered Yale and, upon graduation, became a businessman who did well, after moving from New England to Texas.
   
   In Texas, Bush became interested in politics, and public service consumed him until the end of his presidency. He was ambitious from the start of his career. He had successes (election to the House of Representatives) and failures (defeat in a Senate race). He became a person respected by his Republican Party leaders, and served in a number of important roles, from Director of the CIA, Ambassador to the U. N., Chair of the Republican National Committee, and head of the U. S. diplomatic post in the People's Republic of China.
   
   After his China tour, he began thinking about the presidency. It didn't work out in 1980 (Ronald Reagan simply did a better job as candidate); however, he got quite a consolation prize--Vice President. Then, the tale of his campaign to become President in 1988.
   
   Once elected, he displayed prudence. He ran into trouble when he backed off his "Read my lips; no new taxes" promise from the 1988 campaign. Many Republicans were angered. His presidency did feature both domestic successes and foreign policy successes (end of the Cold War and the stunning cobbling together of a coalition to boot Iraq out of Kuwait--and his refusal to advance on Baghdad). There were also problems, such as seeming sometimes to be out of touch. Then , his dismaying defeat by Bill Clinton in 1992.
   
   All in all, a good depiction of the man and his presidency. Another worthy addition to the series.



2. This was not a strict biography of the entire life of George H. W. Bush. The author. Timothy Naftali, gave brief information about President Bush's family background, military service and early career and of course how he came into public life. Most of the book centered on the challenges that President Bush faced during his years of presidential service and how his early experiences influenced the decisions that he made at a very difficult time in the history of the world.
   
   President Bush was at the helm during the period when the Cold War ended and the people of the Eastern European countries were throwing off the shackles of years of enforced communist rule. The author states that "Poland was the scene of the first dramatic change. In February 1989 Solidarity was legalized and Lech Walesa entered into talks with the Communist government to prepare for a new electoral system."
   
   President Bush's diplomatic relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev was good which was helpful in negotiating peaceful resolutions to some of the many problems which surfaced as the Cold War was ending. The nonviolent reunification of East and West Germany was also accredited to the President's intervention. A few years later in 1991, his diplomacy helped to garner a coalition of united forces that joined together to defeat Saddam Hussein's take over of Kuwait.
   
   On the home front, the President was not particularly popular. The American people found him difficult to understand. In some ways his aristocratic coolness turned many people off and within the Republican Party, he did not have the strong backing that President Reagan had experienced. The election promise that President Bush made when he ran for office was, "Read my lips--no new taxes." When he was forced to break that promise he lost a great deal of support and his bid for reelection.
   
   Timothy Naftali's assessment of President Bush was that he was probably the right man for the job at that time and that "George Bush answered the call for greatness when his country required it." I thought this book was well done and it helped me to understand more about world politics and President Bush. Time and history seems to be the best judge of how well a president performed while in office.
   
   
   
   



3. George Herbert Walker Bush - 1989-93
   "Read my lips!" the elder Bush said when he promised no raise in taxes. When taxes were raised, David Duke said he meant, "Kiss my hips!" The door opened for a stampede on the Oval Office from Pat Buchanan to Ross Perot. Perot was an eccentric billionaire. "You want jobs? Here's the deal!" He got scared he was going to win and dropped out. He re-entered and got 19% of the vote as his Reform Party's candidate. The legacy of Bush 41 is his confrontation with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Saddam invaded oil-rich Kuwait in 1990. Bush put together a coalition and drove him out. Bush said it was not about oil. If it was not about oil, then it was not about anything. Americans do not care about Kuwaitis or Iraqis. They care about driving to and from sporting events, getting home to their wives and kids and putting food on the table. Bush made enemies across the Muslim world. Americans who wanted regime change in 1991 would get their chance. Bush kept looking at his watch when he debated Clinton. He underestimated Baby Boomers.

5 comments about Benjamin Franklin (Yale Nota Bene).

1. While this biography of Franklin may not be for everyone I found it highly readable (except for a few sections on Pennsylvania politics), authoritative, and very interesting in the path in takes as the historian seeks to understand this remarkable man. It couldn't have been easy being a genius living in a time of superstiution, ignorance and enormous intolerance. Franklin not only navigated successfully but was able to quietly effect great change be it starting militias, hospitals, fire departments,and libraries or gently guiding his fellow colonists toward independence. He said he wanted to be remembered as a man who 'lived usefully' a suitable goal for us all I think.



2. I purchased this book because the author was a professor from the respectable Yale Univ and it was not too thick of a volume. I find the content is excellent and engaging. Morgan does not dwell too much on trivial details but seems to cover the important aspects of Franklin's life.
   
   One thing I am not happy about is the difficulty in reading this book. I can understand it overall, but there are sentenses here and there that are confusing to me. A good editor should have made some corrections to confusing sentenses. The Yale professor might be a good historian and scholar, but not necessarily well versed in composition.
   
   Am I the only one complaining about the rhetoric? Strangly, I don't read such comments/reviews from others here...



3. Edmund Morgan presents a very different approach to analyzing Ben Franklin's life. He does not go day by day or even year by year but instead looks at the overall legacy. While I think this is an interesting way to look at Franklin's life it is not as useful as Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Isaacson. It is still possible to learn a lot about his cultural legacy and intellectual legacy. I did learn things about Ben Franklin that I had not from other biographies because this does stick to the large picture. This book does cover the essentials as others have noted but I think it also sets a new and exciting trend for biographies. To get the place of a person in history it is worth looking at how they fit in to larger events as opposed to just their life. Morgan's writing is very engaging and this is a valuable addition to the literature on Benjamin Franklin.



4. I was sorely disappointed by Edmund Morgan's biography of Benjamin Franklin. Despite having America's most creative, funny, and interesting Founding Father, perhaps second only to George Washington in importance, Ben comes across boring and leaden in Morgan's account. I found little of Ben's humor and warmth in this book. While it covered Franklin's scientific and diplomatic efforts in great detail, it spoke little of how Ben helped make America...indeed, I found little to prove him a Founding Father. I persisted through the interminable treatment of pre-Revolutionary Franklin, hoping for a solid treatment of the Revolutionary War and the Constitutional Convention, only to be completely disappointed. In sum, I feel that I know only marginally more about Ben after reading this book; I hope Issacson's account illuminates Ben better.



5. I am interested in comparing the 5 best biographies of Benjamin Franklin that have been written (thus far) in the new millennia, emphasizing Morgan's account.
   
   THE BEST 5 BIOGRAPHIES ARE (in order of publication date)
   Edmund S. Morgan's Benjamin Franklin (Yale Nota Bene S.)
   H. W. Brands's The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin
   Walter Isaacson's Benjamin Franklin: An American Life
   Gordon S. Wood's The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin
   Jerry Weinberger's Benjamin Franklin Unmasked: On the Unity of His Moral, Religious, and Political Thought (American Political Thought)
   
   
   The first 4 of these biographies are presented as in the typical historically (and chronologically) biographical approach. Morgan's biography was the first written and all the later biographers mention his work and try to build (and critique) Morgan's interpretation of Franklin.
   
   There are 24 pictures in Morgan's book, no pictures in Brands's book, 32 pictures in Isaacson's book, 25 pictures in Wood's book, and no pictures in Weinberger's book.
   I am not going to write about how great Franklin was or what he did (he was great and he did so much). I want to write primarily about how each of these authors portrays Franklin's character differently by highlighting different aspects of his life.
   
   In London (1725) Franklin wrote "A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain," which seemed to show that Franklin was a young radical Deist. Later, when the pamphlet was reprinted in Boston, Franklin became a social outcast of sorts and he wrote that he was "inclined to leave Boston" because people were calling him "an infidel or atheist." When Franklin fled Boston he was 17 years old. He later wrote about that pamphlet that Ï began to suspect that this doctrine, though it might be true, was not very useful."
   Later, after becoming rich from his printing presses, writings, and scientific discoveries, Franklin became a statesman, diplomat, Founding Father, and icon.
   At the end of his life he wrote his "Autobiography," where Franklin said that he "never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity, that he made the world, and governed it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service to God was the doing of good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished and virtue rewarded either here or hereafter; these I esteemed the essentials of every religion".
   
   Morgan affirms what is in Franklin's "Autobiography" by writing, "Franklin seems never to have doubted...etc" (pg. 16). All the other biographers affirm Morgan's interpretation except Weinberger. Weinberger thinks that Franklin is purposely contradicting himself to play with his readers...to reveal a Franklin that would have possibly be called again an "infidel or atheist" if he had not cloaked his message. Morgan, however, highlights the phrase in the "Autobiography" where Franklin says "that the most acceptable service to God was the doing of good to man." After describing the 13 virtues listed Franklin's "Autobiography" Morgan notes, "What is totally missing from the list is charity, love of one's fellow man. And charity, it will become evident, was actually the guiding principle of Franklin's life" (pg. 24). Morgan says that charity brought Franklin to be a public servant; Brands agrees but says that Franklin was a skeptic and a pragmatist; Isaacson focuses on the Franklin who, it's argued, helped found American pragmatism, Wood focuses on the political Franklin who had to be "Americanized" because Franklin too often wanted to be part of the old gentry class and this was evident in some of his politicking, Weinberger calls Franklin a "radical skeptic" and says he was a political "Baconian."
   
   Morgan's work on Franklin is most like Brands's biography. Brands's work is much longer and often recounts extraneous things in accomplishing the most contextually based Franklin written so far.