5 comments about Grant: A Biography.

1. I am currently reading a biography of every President in order. I must say that none of the preceding Presidents (even Lincoln) seem to be as difficult to pin down as Grant as to their "definitive" biography. In addition to McFeely's Pulitzer prize winning effort is Geoffrey Perret's offering, which seems to be universally derided as a scholarly farce, Jean Edward Smith's biography of Grant is clearly meant for a more popular readership (indeed Smith's commitment to scholarly research is somewhat dubious himself given he was able to produce a 1,000 page biography of FDR in less than 5 years after writing his Grant bio), and finally Brooks Simpson's projected two volume biography which when complete will certainly be the most comprehensive modern effort. McFeely's biography was the Pulitzer prize winner and that ultimately swayed me in favor of it, although I was a bit concerned about some of the poor reviews it received.
   
   I will state from the outset that I think most of the criticism of McFeely's biography I have read in other reviews is either unwarranted or overstressed. This is a straightforward "old school" biography that is directed by the research and not by some new spin that the author believes will help sell the book. McFeely won the Pulitzer Prize for this work and rightfully so. This is a comprehensive and balanced biography of Grant that is a highly enjoyable read on top of that.
   
   I'm not sure what the negative reviewers expectations were before reading this book. Obviously most feel that Grant is somehow misrepresented by McFeely, however I definitely did not reach that conclusion. I believe this is the best comprehensive one volume biography of Grant available based on extensive research and solid writing.



2. Any good biographer has to have, if not sympathy, at least some understanding of his or her subject. Unfortunately, although this book is well researched, you get the uneasy feeling that Mr. McFeely is examining Ulysses Grant like a bug under a microscope. This is the classic example of an academic who lacks understanding of real life and as a result cannot grasp the dynamics of a man of action, as Ulysses Grant certainly was.
   
   Mr. McFeely also unquestioningly adopts the prejudices of prior historians without thinking for himself. As a result, an historian who DID think for himself, Frank Scaturro in President Grant Reconsidered, has rendered Mr. McFeely's book obsolete. Every biography since Mr. Scaturro has reviewed the Grant Administration with a fresh and generally favorable eye. As the last civil rights President before Harry Truman, Grant certainly deserves that revised opinion.
   
   Mr. McFeely's book is no longer worth reading, if it ever was.



3. The book covers the important parts of Grant's life. The book has good research on Grant's youth.



4. McFeely won the Pulitzer Prize for this book in 1982, but the conclusions he reaches about his subject have drawn fire ever since. Those sympathetic to Grant correctly point to errant assumptions and mistakes in character analysis. Most glaring is McFeely's insistence that Grant gloried in carnage, was insensitive to death and suffering, and was an incompetent chief executive.

   Actually Grant was one of the most exquisitiely sensitive men ever born and was nothing like the 'butcher' that McFeely describes. However, the research in the book is quite good and there are very few factual errors to be found, though his chapters on the civil war are relatuvely weak. This contrasts markedly to Geoffrey Perret's 1997 Grant biography, which contained inaccuracies on nearly every page. McFeely is most solid in the period of Reconstruction, though he is usually overly prone to criticize the hapless Grant. Throughout many chapters, it seems the General can't buy a break.

   McFeely's greatest admiration for Grant is contained in two areas of his life: his family relationships, specifically his loving marriage to wife Julia, and his abilities as a writer. McFeely leaves no doubt that he regards Grant's 1885 Memoirs as one of the great books ever written and the best part of this biography is in explaining the processes Grant used to produce such a masterpiece, while dying of throat cancer.

   With its flaws and uneven treatment of Grant, McFeely's book cannot be considered definitive, but it is still the only complete biography of Grant written in the past 30 years. Perret's limping entry isn't even in the same league as this book, in accuracy, writing or research. To sum up: overly critical, but a must read for Civil War buffs.




5. This is one seriously irritating book. There may be relatively few factual errors (at least, compared to Geoffrey Perret's work on Grant, a masterpiece of unintentional humor,) but McFeely's work is riddled with what I can only believe are deliberately insulting mischaracterizations and misrepresentations, tiresomely pretentious writing, and amateur psychoanalyzing of the most obnoxious sort. McFeely is particularly fond of quoting the words of Grant or his wife on some matter or another, and then proclaiming that--no matter how clear their meaning may have been to us poor dumb non-historians--what they were REALLY saying and thinking was something else altogether. If there is anything I can't abide, it's a biographer who persists in reading a subject's mind and putting words into his or her mouth and thoughts into his or her head that were never said and never thought. McFeely not only obviously believes he is much smarter than Grant (hah!) but more percipient than his readership, as well.

   If this book is worthy of a Pulitzer, then I trust my next grocery shopping list will earn me a Nobel Prize for Literature.

5 comments about Dearest Friend: The Life of Abigail Adams.

1. I am very happy to have read "Dearest Friend". It makes me sad that this kind of wisdom, courage, and selflessness seems to be lacking in our leaders today. I wish I had 1/4 of the courage Mr. and Mrs. Adams had. I am ashamed of my own lack of conviction and courage.
   Read this book and "John Adams" if you need to be inspired to serve your country and learn how to love unconditionally.



2. My book club read this several years ago. We went on the read John Adams, 1776, B. Franklin, etc. DEAREST FRIEND was the best of them all. I was as engaged and interested on the last page as I was on the first.
   If you are enjoying the HBO John Adams read this book next.



3. So I was disinclined to read it for a long time. I thought it would be a book of interest for only women. I was completely wrong. I won this book at a book fair years ago. It is not one I would have puchased on my own. I picked it up soon found myself reading it avidly. It is Abigail Adams' complete life story. A faithful, constant, patriotic wife for the cranky but brillant John Adams. Every bit her husband's intellectual equal, she was his most important advisor throughout his public life. She kept the family together during his long absences first in Philadelphia during the revolution & later in Europe. During these periods apart, once, over seven years, she raised the family, saw to the education of their children (Harvard for the boys) & ran the family finances quite well. All the time she was corresponding with John & we have many of her letters to him & others. After the war she spent several years with him in Europe. Although she was always loathe to leave her beloved New England, she knew she had to be with her husband to understand what he was trying to do, that is helping to build a nation. Her observations on the years spent in Paris & London are valuable social history. As mush as she was a revolutionary during the war, in her later years she turned into an uncompromising reactionary, unwilling to change & adapt to the evolution that she had fought to create. She became what she had fought against. Most of his career John Adams was unpopular & underappreiciated. This fact bothered Abigail all her life, more that it did John. How could anyone compete with George Washington, even if you were smarter than him? Eventually in her old age she mellowed. This was in part due to the sucessful career of her one of her sons John Quincy. She could be described as a earily feminist for sure. But for all her self taught political savvy, family always came first. Yes, there were Founding Mothers & she was. I fear very few people have read this book or will ever read this review. However, for the first person who reads it & gives me a positive vote I will send my copy, free, if you will read it, p&h included.



4. This is a somewhat disappointing book about a fascinating woman during a fascinating period of our history. The book was highly recommended to a friend of a member of my book club, but the women in my club agreed that the author failed to make Abigail Adams "come alive." The writing was tedious, especially in the first half. I read "The Summer of 1787" just before this, and "Dearest Friend" pales by comparison, especially in the richness of the story telling. Nonetheless, the book contains history I didn't know or had forgotten, and I'm glad I read it.



5. I assigned this book to college freshmen and sophs.... in US History.

   I did not like how it portrayed Abigail as "long suffering," yet strong. The two did not mesh well.

5 comments about Barney Fife and Other Characters I Have Known.

1. This book is simply Okay. I really hoped Don Knotts would go into more detail about his films. He only mentions his role in "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" merely once in passing. The photos are mostly duped over publicity shots fans have already seen. The cover is atrocious. I know that Don's publisher could have put out a better product for all of his fans.
   
   If you really want a great book about Don Knotts: See "The Incredible Mr. Don Knotts" by Stephen Cox and Kevin Marhanka. Now THAT's a fantastic book about the legendary comedian!!



2. DON knotts nipped it in the bud with this one. it was a very good book. I read it so fast because it was hard to put down. Barney Fife is the funniest man on tv! if you are a mayberry fan you will love this book.



3. I have really enjoyed reading this book, and have read some of the other reviews of it. I think Andy Griffith summed it all up in the foreword he wrote for this book, when he stated..."Don was not Barney Fife. Barney Fife was a character that Don created. I know Don to be a bright man and very much in control of himself. As everyone knows, Barney Fife had very little control of himself." Obviously Don did not write this book as Barney would have, but there are little traces of that personality hidden in it, if you infer it that way.
   People who buy this book expecting to hear the caustic ramblings of a Hollywood burnout will be sorely disappointed. Mr. Knotts seems as warm and fuzzy as your favorite stuffed toy, without a harsh word to say about anyone. If you want more real background information on him from a more objective standpoint, watch the excellent Biography Channel special on his life and career. Or visit the website www.interestingideas.com and look for the essay someone wrote about him, that was gritty and much more candid and philosophical. You will be fascinated!
   However, if you are new to watching the Andy Griffith Show, like I am, and this is the first book you read on the show, like it was for me, this book is a great way to get introduced to the show, and prepare you for the more theoretically advanced books you will read about it in the future. Especially if you are a "Trained Noticer" like me!
   Now, if Howard Morris (Ernest T. Bass) would just write his autobiography...



4. This is an excellnt biography of comic genius Don Knotts from his childhood and school years in Morgantown West Virginia to his radio,movies,theater and ofcourse his his famous portrayal of Barney Fife of the Andy Griffith Show.Barney Fife Rules!!



5. Andy, get Barney another bullet. He missed with this one. Okay, so the guy's sweet, kind, can't get a mean word out of him. He went through two wives, he had kids, he had disapointments and missteps, and he doesn't share any insight into the pains, joys and frustrations of his life with the reader. We see a picture of his kids, and that's it. What's their names, Don? Do you love them? We hear about a divorce, thrown out like an after-thought. With what little I've been able to glean from other sources, Don Knotts is maybe the greatest missed chances for comedy, ever. Without killing himself with drugs or stupidity, Knotts blew it. True or not? I'll have to look for the answer somewhere else. He blew it with this pablum book too. Hopefully someday someone will write a biography of the man, and we can see his humanity, instead of just his brave face.

5 comments about My Father, My President: A Personal Account of the Life of George H. W. Bush.

1. With the 2008 presidential elections coming up, I took it upon myself to learn about our future president ("Living History") and VP ("Dreams of my Father") and past ones. I just finished reading "My Father, My President". It's a candid "inside" look into the life of a former president. Talk about an absolutely wonderful book abt George HW Bush! "41" strikes me as a fun, loving, intelligent, family oriented stateman with emphasis on duty, honor, family and faith. In plain words, a good citizen worthy of admiration! (Need I mention I am a Democrat!)
   From his days as a WWII veteran to his brief work career at the UN, to his successful career as a director at the USLO, CIA, then later as a Chairman for the NRC then later as the head of state, it is extremely difficult not to fall in love with GHWB! His wit, charm and affection is just simply contagious... "41" is brilliant! I hope people will get a chance to read it and enjoy it as much as I did. God only knows how much we need more genuine heroes like him.



2. Learned many things about George H W Bush that I never knew. Very enjoyable book and easy to read.



3. This book provides more insight into the essential goodness of George H.W. Bush. Aside from the facts and figures of his early career, vice-presidency and Presidency, the book gives us a fascinating look at how someone so prominent can still adhere to the Golden Rule. I found the stories told by Secret Service agents and staff about his common courtesy, concern and humor to be the most interesting. He never felt he was better or more important than anyone else, although I think history will ultimately say otherwise.



4. What a wonderful tribute to her father! This is a great read and gives us an insight into what makes this man tick.



5. This was a very informative book. It is refreshing to hear good things about such public figures. Mr. Bush is thought of in endearing ways by many people and loved dearly by his family.

1 comments about Runaway America: Benjamin Franklin, Slavery, and the American Revolution.

1. It should merit 3 stars alone just to have Prof. Waldstreicher actually come out with a book that people can read! His other works have been dreadfully written (esp. his work in Journal of the Early republic), the worst prose in the business. However, not only is this book very nicely written, for which he deserves commendation, but its also interesting. What Waldstreicher does is demostrate how labor inthe 1st half of the 18th century in America was quite often "unfree": either due to slavery, indentured servitude or an apprenticeship. Waldstreicher's contribution here si to show how BF's life was marked by all three. He was an apprentice himself, kept Indentured servants and owned a slave or two. It is a great way to explore this issue of labor and freedom in the colonies, and to do so by using the life of a Founding Father.
   Given the subject and the prose, I have no reservations at all about rating this book 5 stars.

1 comments about Grant's Lieutenants: From Chattanooga to Appomattox (Modern War Studies).

1. Good collection of essays on Grant's subordinates. Interesting interpretation of O.C. Ord's career, of which I knew nothing. Nature of the writing precluded much in depth analysis or tactical detail of the various officers' battles/operations. Combined with Grant's Lieutenants, Vol 1, the book provides a good introduction to the war under Grant.

3 comments about Liberty of Conscience: Roger Williams in America.

1. This beautifully written book brings to light, in an understated but poetic way, the genius and greatness of the man who, as Gaustad says, "was out to do nothing less than alter the institutional structure of the Western world." It is a measure of our time that many people, especially young people educated pursuant to the fashionable bromides of contemporary social science education, have never heard of this first founder of liberty of conscience and disestablishment of religion in America. In our epoch of attempted "faith-based" governmental initiatives, Gaustad's book reminds us, by constant reference to the writings of Roger Williams, of those principles that, after a bitter struggle of more than a century, came to distinguish this nation from the government-controlled religion and thought of the rest of the world. The life of Roger Williams shows that deeply held religious belief necessarily implies an unwavering commitment to the principle of absolute separation of church and state. Williams' life also demonstrates that at least one colonial leader tried, unsuccessfully, to overcome the tendency of the Puritans to treat Native Americans as less than human or as mere subjects for conversion to Christianity. The tragedy of Williams' life consisted solely in the failure of his decades-long effort to resolve the conflict between rapacious, religiously hypocritical English settlers and the Native Americans. The triumph of his life was his original pronouncement, in this country, of the enduring but often threatened principle that government should be restricted to civil, not religious, tasks. More than a century later, Jefferson and Madison built on the foundation that Roger Williams so nobly established in his writings and in the constitutional documents of Rhode Island.



2. Gaustad did an excellent job of portraying not only Williams' beliefs, politic and theology but the state of the world that led to their development and need. Very readable, never boring, practical and insightful to William's America as it is to ours. WE could learn a great deal from Williams, even so mamy years later. Gaustad truly brought him to life.



3. Gaustad's Liberty of Conscience is the second biography of Roger Williams I have read this summer. Perhaps because the first, Covey's The Gentle Radical, was so prolix, I loved Gaustad's work. His selection of historical data, his clear sequencing, and his explication of Williams's own writings make this a delight to read. Seventeenth-century Britain and colonial America and all those names one vaguely remembers are vividly described. The prose is clear and attractive. I came away with a new appreciation of Williams. Gaustad sees him as the first to set forth those principles of religious liberty that were picked up after him by Locke, Penn, Jefferson, and others and which we take for granted today. Toleration is a subject of current conversation within the United States. This biography depicts someone who fought for toleration in a time when people were being banished and even executed for not believing what the political powers said they must believe. It really gives a healthy perspective on our times. I recommend it highly.

5 comments about Sleeping Where I Fall: A Chronicle.

1. some of these reviews with one or two stars attached are perfectly accurate. they express far better than i can just how bad this book is. the author is so smug and full of himself as to be laughable. the author becomes a parody of himself, if thats possible, maybe better said- he is everything he claims to hate. i felt pangs of embarrassment for him. awful.



2. This book is almost completely unreadable, a puff piece, really, navel-gazing by yet another grown child, raised in wealth and privilege, who turned his back on his family in order to drop out of society during the turbulence of the late 1960's.
   
   Peter Coyote's personal life story is nauseatingly boring, a life without any particular real angst or pain, a life in which one must import and manufacture angst and pain. One is reminded of Candice Bergen's autobiography Knock Wood, in which she admits that as a very young actress, a director tried to elicit some kind of sense memory within her, one of grief and loss, and she had nothing in her past upon which to draw upon the needed emotions. Coyote's life and self-realization in Standing Where I Fall just isn't very interesting, and beyond being some kind of catharsis for him as the author, there isn't much here to interest any reader.



3. Peter Coyote, was that incredibly cool "older brother", born just in time "to do" the sixties in all its guts and glory, that later generations would look back on with envy. Tall, dark, handsome and talented Coyote (are you really surprised that's not his real name) from out east lands smack dab in the heart of San Francisco just at the moment when the town is experiencing the labor pains that will soon give birth to hippiedom. We begin the journey of the sixties when Coyote was a twenty-something grad student sharing digs with the daughter of legendary Americana painter, Thomas Hart Benton, and continue to watch in fascination as he becomes an active participant in street theater, the Diggers (a band of revolutionary artists), the drug scene of Haight-Ashbury, radical politics, commune life and a lover to many lovely young women. Coyote and his friends drifted outside their urban existence when they took to the road like modern day gypsies in a beat up school bus carrying their caravan into the wilderness. It is there that they attempted to build a walden pond utopia in northern California; shooting and growing their own food, making their own clothes and birthing & raising the next generation, on a rustic farm. In his tell-it-like-it-was warts and all style, Coyote depicts how the unhygenic conditions they lived in lead to a bout with hepatitis and his baby daughter getting sick from eating dirt from the ground. Despite that rough road of youth, Coyote came out alive, and with his political & social beliefs mostly intact. Unlike many who never made the journey back from their drug addled and counter-culture adventures, Coyote, has made hay with the 2nd half of his life as an actor, political activist and can stake a claim to one of the most recognized voices in commercial television, audio and documentary narrations. Oh yes, and he can write.



4. I've read several books on this era, books I consider definitive. Specifically, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, Ringolevio and Hell's Angels, by Hunter Thompson. This may be a late addition but it actually points out a quite amazing fact, my claim of which I'm certain will be looked upon as utterly outrageous. But I've read this book and I know psychology. And I've read between the lines. The fact is this. If it weren't for Peter Coyote, the sixties would NEVER have happened. Not anywhere remotely resembling what happened. It would have been a rather disjointed affair and wouldn't have gone anywhere but Peter Coyote's involvement in the Diggers was what changed the world. And I'm not talking about any butterfly effect. I'm talking about an entirely NEW WORLD that was the inevitable result of Peter Coyote's having done what he did, all those years ago. HE himself never made such a claim. He simply states, in no nonsense terms, the specific things that he was involved in, things that were done BECAUSE HE MADE THEM HAPPEN - things that snowballed into an entire counter culture. The movie Forrest Gump was about a retard who caused world events to unfold. Peter Coyote was NEVER a retard but he has had more effect on the world than ANY HUMAN BEING ALIVE TODAY and more effect on the world than any human being in the last century save for Nicola Tesla. And I mean any politician, doctor, scientist, entertainer, what have you, Peter Coyote stands head and shoulders above anyone you can name as having some kind of effect on the world.



5. I lived through the '60's, but on a different, more acceptable level....married to a student. I did, however, live in Vancouver's "hippie district", and had a half-hearted admiration for those who thumbed their noses at society's norms. This book gives me a better insight to the ideals and the guts to live those ideals the hippie culture evoked. Peter Coyote's book was honest, insightful and informative. He creates a feeling in the reader of having been in San Francisco and in the communes. I couldn't help but being impressed by his knowledge, abilities and his joy at being what he had been.

5 comments about Oswald's Tale: An American Mystery.

1. I stopped reading Norman Mailer's Oswald's Tale after 150 pages. Frankly, I was bored. Mailer opens his examination of Lee Harvey Oswald with an exhaustive, numbing biography of his wife Marina's ancestors and Oswald's adolescence in Russia. I did not care to know so much about Marina's cousins or Oswald's Russian girlfriends. Furthermore, Mailer writes these chapters in a simple, almost oral way, so they do not benefit from his wry, spirited voice and style. It is possible that the book improves once Mailer digs into the meat of the assassination and Oswald's potential motives, however I will never know for sure. Maybe Mailer should have started the novel at that point instead--then I might have read until the end. After reading and enjoying The Naked and the Dead, The Fight, and especially Harlot's Ghost, I found Oswald's Tale to be a disappointment.



2. At almost 800 pages, Tale is weighed down with endless detail. Still much of the detail is fascinating in itself, such as the KGB's procedure in following Oswald in Russia. Mailer actually got the reports of KGB agents following Oswald. Mailer put incredible effort into retracing Oswald's travels in Russia, New Orleans, Mexico and Texas and speaking to dozens of people who had contact with him. Mailer quotes numerous other writers. Only the last hundred pages got down to the action. His account of whodunit and why is necessarily speculative, but I don't know of a more credible one.



3. Long as it was I regretted reaching the end of this book. Oswald's Tale purports to be a work of fiction. In fact, it impossible not to appreciate the wealth of research and analysis that informs the pages of this dense text. It becomes increasingly clear that Oswald very likely acted alone. Indeed, this is only a question because of the tributaries of zealots that seemed to work on the fringes of formal organizations, including the FBI and the MAFIA and so on. Yet, Oswald very likely acted independently; it would have been practically impossible for any one organization to control him. The novel Libra had it very nearly correct with its assessment that, had Oswald be chosen, it would very likely have been because he could have been depended upon to miss his target, or otherwise bungle the job. No one but Oswald propeled himself onto to the stage of Cold War history. In Oswald's world, his sense of destiny was confirmed by the chance occurrence of being employed in the Texas Book Depository in Dallas, stationed along the very route that President Kennedy's motorcade took that day in November. In addition to the quality of the writing and analysis, the book is to be commended for focusing so intently on Oswald's marriage to Marina, and the relationship he had with his mother, Margueritte. Like so many tragedies, one is all too easily reminded of Shakespeare's Richard, "my kingdom for a horse." Had Cuba provided Oswad a visa enabling him, ultimately to return to the Soviet Union he had already abandoned, history might well have taken a different course. Instead, Oswald's dyslexia, his sense of greatness, his determination and his lack of abilities in so many areas coupled with his gifts in others: all conspired, with chance playing its part, to place Oswald in the book depository from which he assasinated President Kennedy and subsequently murdered Dallas PD Officer Tippit.



4. Although an earlier reviewer gave OSWALD'S TALE a withering assessment, I couldn't possibly be quite that uncivil myself, as aggravated as I am. For, the book does serve history by providing much new background information on Lee Harvey Oswald. But I must agree with that reviewer in principal. I have not seen a book that more personifies the classic "2 plus 2 equals 7" logic warp. OSWALD'S TALE seems to set forth most of the facts, repeatedly flirt with and caress the truth, then suddenly to disregard it in favor of twaddle. A good example is Mr. Mailer's omission of the dictation belt discovered in the 1970s in Dallas. The belt contained a sound recording of the assassination recorded over the air as a result of a jammed "transmit" button on a police motorcycle radio. Analysis of the recording by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978-9 revealed that two shots were fired almost simultaneously. An obvious impossibility with a bolt action rifle, this shattered forever the fairytale of a lone assassin. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle coined a phrase many years ago, "profound and ineffable twaddle", which well sums up the illogic of OSWALD'S TALE. Brimming with massive and impressive information, but arriving at conclusions that are an utter nonsequitor, OSWALD'S TALE is very reminiscent of the original Warren Commission Report. Unfortunately for Mr. Mailer, the Warren Commission's thesis has long been discredited and relegated to the category of claptrap. Amazingly, so many reviewers have been overwhelmed by the quantity of information in OSWALD'S TALE, but are oblivious to the book's total failure to make anything of the information. It looks very much as if Mr. Mailer is either daft or has quixotically written yet another book to try to prop up the long-collapsed thesis of the Warren Commission, and in the process comes across as having compromised himself totally. Such a book seems particularly strange coming from someone who used to seem like such a radical and champion of the truth in the 60s. Mr. Mailer remarked in the book that "Jack Ruby buggers reasonable comprehension". However in the end, OSWALD'S TALE itself buggers the truth...



5. Norman Mailer's book does not resolve the question of the existence of a conspiracy in JFK's assassination (for that see The Man Who Knew Too Much by Dick Russell), but it does provide critical pieces of information about Oswald's psyche that help us assess the liklihood that Oswald was involved in the assassination. For that reason I highly recommend this book.
   
   Mailer provides interesting and frequently relevant detail about Oswald's life with Marina in Russia and their lives back in the US after they moved from Russia. The portrait that emerges of Oswald is one that is crucial to understanding what happened to JFK. Mailer provides convincing evidence that Oswald's activities were largely, if not completely, based on his own agenda and psychological makeup. It is highly unlikely that he was anyone's agent while living in Russia.
   
   Most important is the information about Oswald's desire to live in Cuba after his return to the US from Russia--this was his personal agenda in mid-1963. Mailer takes us that far. Dick Russell's The Man Who Knew Too Much fills in the missing pieces. Russell's book shows that this agenda of Oswald made him vulnerable to a ploy to enlist him in the conspiracy.
   
   Mailer's book on the psychological makeup of Oswald combined with Russell's book on how that makeup was manipulated solves the case.

5 comments about John Hancock: Merchant King And American Patriot.

1. His name is known to all, being a common part of the vernacular and synonymous with ones signature, yet, he remains largely unknown to history other than the placement of his signature upon our Declaration of Independence. The mysterious identity that is John Hancock is well presented here in JOHN HANCOCK: MERCHANT KING AND AMERICAN PATRIOT by Harlow Giles Unger. This is perhaps, singly, the most informative tome to date on Hancock's life and career, yet is not without criticism.
   
   Unger deftly replicates all the trappings of a good biography here, beginning with a good genealogy of the Hancock family and their path to prominence and prosperity, at least for parts of the family. The occurrences which set into motion, John Hancock's life being dramatically altered by being taken under the care of his childless and wealthy Uncle Thomas and Aunt Lydia, are well documented here. The book goes on to lend a credible chronicle of Hancock's life; his rise to wealth and prominence, his early involvement with the Sons of Liberty, his entrance and influence in the political spectrum, which covered the last three decades of his life and the many struggles, both politically and personally, of Hancock's life. Unger takes particular care to illustrate Hancock's benevolence to the less fortunate.
   
   Though I have a lot to say in favor of this book, there is also much to take exception with. For example, Unger, himself a correspondent for the London Times Herald and overtly unsympathetic to the Colonialists cause, states that Gen. Amherst's plan to send smallpox laden blankets to the Indians in 1863 was rejected, however, Amherst himself admitted in a private letter that infected blankets had indeed been a part of the British arsenal put into use against Pontiac and the Indians. Unger also continuously and viciously attacks revolutionary advocates such as James Otis, Patrick Henry and, in particular, Samuel Adams, who is the recipient of endless attacks of vitriolic banter throughout the book. Though the relationship between Hancock and Adams was strained, the authors' incessant loathing of Adams eventually detracts from the overall work.
   
   These shameless attacks diminish this otherwise valuable resource that accurately touches on an endless array of historically significant events, such as early disputes on the issue of slavery, Benjamin Church's betrayal of the patriot cause, and John Dickenson's invaluable dissertation on the Townsend Acts, just to name a few. Overall, I believe this a worthy read, accurate on most accounts, but would have been far better had Unger saddled his disdain for the patriot cause.
   
   John Hancock is certainly worthy of the praise of a grateful nation and a man we tend to know little about and often, overlook completely for his sacrifice and dedication to the liberty of the states. Perhaps in the near future, publishers will see fit to provide us with a more balanced biography on this great patriot, but until then, this book will have to suffice as the best source available.
   
   Monty Rainey
   www.juntosociety.com



2. Perhaps my expectations were set too high by the biography I read on Benjamin Franklin by Walter Isaacson. I found Unger's book on John Hancock easy to read, interesting, but lacking of facts and objectivity. I got the impression that the author did not like any of the people involved in the American Revolution. Is this author a Tory? His descriptions of people and things were often shallow and repetitive. For example...Unger used the description of a livered carriage with four horses for Hancock throughout the book many, many times, but does not describe once what this really means. How many servants were working the carriage? Were they slaves? Were they in uniform? If so, what colors? How fancy? The book does not describe in much detail the relationships Hancock has with other founders other than Sam Adams whom he paints extremely negatively.
   
   Plus, Unger gets at least one important historical fact wrong. Here's what I got from Isaacson's book: John Hancock, declared at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "There must be no pulling different ways. We must all hang together." To which, Ben Franklin replied, "Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." In Unger's book, he attributes the first quote to Franklin not Hancock and omits the second quote all together - which is the famous line!
   
   It just seems to me the author was sloppy in research and lazy in writing this book. If you can't find anything else about Hancock, then the information is interesting - I did find out that the Declaration was signed by one person - Hancock for the first month of its existence and that they created 13 originals - one for each state. It's a very quick read, but don't rely on this book as the final answer on what went on during the Revolution.



3. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. My own ancestor Major Reuben Colburn, a patriot from Pittston, Maine was a close friend and business associate of Hancock. While his Maine dealings are only mentioned in passing by Mr. Unger, his research is impeccable and after all the story is, and has to be, told from Hancock's point of view. This is what he was doing during the formulation of our country in legal form. It was surprisingly anti-Adams but I believe this is normal in competition for fame, ideas and recognition both then and now.

   General Washington and Benedict Arnold employed Colburn to supply and lead a 1100-man army to capture Quebec City in 1775. The mission failed and Colburn was stuck with the bill. He died broke as did Hancock. John Hancock was beloved in New England and Unger portays this with great accuracy and flair. He was big in our family, staying at Colburn House when in Maine seeing to his landholdings. One of Colburn's few surviving letters is addressed to Hancock from Pittston in 1786.

   Hopefully my new book "Patriot On The Kennebec: Major Reuben Colburn and the March To Quebec 1775: His Life and Times," will join this one on a new mission to educate the public about our collective roots as Americans. Both men risked everything to start America, and to them we owe everything.




4. So John Hancock turns out to be a pretty interesting fellow, the millionaire head of a mercantile empire who initially gets dragged into revolutionary politics to prevent the revolutionaries from vandalizing his property, but converts and becomes a leading, if moderate, revolutionary voice. A vain man and one accustomed to luxury, he nevertheless gives very generously of both his money and his time to the revolutionary cause and to the governing of Massachusetts.

   His career includes stints as the president of the continental congress, member of the Massachusetts legislature and governor of the newly independent state of MA. His roles in the revolution and the adoption of the constitution are central: as president of congress, his is initially the only signature on the Declaration of Independence; he coordinates and equips the continental army, including large expenditures out of his own pocket; he turns the tide in Massachusetts in favor of ratification.

   So the biography is interesting because the man is interesting, even pivotal. It's also well-written, in the sense of being easy to read.

   But the book's also a little spiteful. Anyone who clashes with Hancock, ever, comes in for a little sting from the biographer's pen. Sam Adams, in particular, is described as a bloodthirsty, erratic and backstabbing radical, who undercuts and betrays Hancock at every turn. Even George Washington is painted as behaving irrationally, in contrast with Hancock's genteel polish, in respect of some offers of hospitality that Hancock extends to the general, and Unger seems incapable of mentioning John Adams without calling him "fat little John Adams".




5. events leading to independence. After reading Unger's work, you would think that John Hancock single handedly brought this country to freedom. The author's extreme adulation for his subject constantly paints Hancock in positive light and ALWAYS as the victim of others, never at fault. Lame excuses are given for why Hancock did not receive this office or that praise. One of the most disturbing elements is the vindictive condemnation of Samuel Adams (probably the man most singularly responsible for influencing the Declaration of Independence) is incredibly overdone and grossly inaccurate. Speeches which were written by Adams (and some given by Adams) are credited to Hancock, a man who is overwhelmingly acknowledged as lacking the writing ability for such speeches. Hancock is instrumental in bringing about revolution but unfortunately, not in the way suggested by this author.