3 comments about The Cannons of Lucknow (Alexander Sheridan Adventures) (Vol 4).

1. Ms. Stuart does very well as a writer of historical fiction. She has a good command of the period and things of which she writes. The events are vividly chronicled, and accurate from a historical perspective insofar as I can determine from independent research. I would caution that the Lucknow book should be read after the preceding two books in the Alex Sheridan series--The Sepoy Mutiny and Massacre at Cawnpore. Ms. Stuart's works leave me reflecting on how hard it was to live in those times and places. Life was so brutal.



2. The Sheridan series is pretty weak. V.A. Stuart is no Bernard Cornwell. The author knows her history well enough, but the main character isn't very interesting, nor does he really do anything interesting, despite being involved in the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny. On the whole, I was glad I got these from the library rather than buying them.



3. The Cannons of Lucknow serves mainly to connect the events depicted in Massacre at Cawnpore with The Heroic Garrison.

3 comments about Wit and Wisdom of Robert E. Lee, The.

1. It was with great disappointment that I read in 15 minutes a book whose title had promised so much. A small, thin book to begin with, "Wit and Wisdom" is heavy on white space between too few quotes. The quotes that are collected herein appear to have been collected carelessly with little concern for their merit. The truly memorable sayings contained in this book can be counted on one hand and can be had for free with a good search engine on the internet. This is one of the few books that ever saddedned this Librarian.



2. Devereaux Cannon, Son of Confederate Veterans, expert historian, and true believer in the "cause" and its great leader Robert E. Lee, has chosen a wonderful selection of quotes that reveal the multi-faceted General Lee. He has captured Lee the leader, Lee the strategist, Lee the man, Lee the parent, Lee the commander and the many other Robert Lee's that we know and recognize as the greatest loved of American military commanders. One quote truly stands out, as General Lee speaks across the generations to us today: "The consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it...I grieve for posterity, for American principles and American liberty."

   Excellent book.




3. This great book, not only has great quotes, but gives you the primary source for each one. Some are from his letters to his daughters, Wife, or his Generals. The primary sources also include the day, month and year. ( Talk about historical accuracy!)

   Just this short book of quotes, shows Lee as an intelligent person, father, husband, Leader and Gentleman.

   Every Civil War buff, and every Southerner should have a copy.
   I keep a copy at my desk for inspiration.

3 comments about Reagan's Disciple: George W. Bush's Troubled Quest for a Presidential Legacy.

1. Lou Cannon, journalist and historian, is one of Ronald Reagan's most prolific and reliable biographers (I think his President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime is still about the best bio yet written of our 40th president). Carl M. Cannon is a resourceful and clear-eyed reporter in the Washington of Bush 43. Together, they have produced an interesting book that gives us some valuable insights into the motivations and actions of the Bush presidency. It also, perhaps unexpectedly, shines a fascinating light on Ronald Reagan.
   
   For years -- before, during, and after his time in the Oval Office -- Ronald Reagan was portrayed by his opposition as a dim ideological cowboy. In recent years, however, he has been granted a Strange New Respect (as R.E. Tyrrell might put it) by the Left -- in part, no doubt, to try to seize a bit of his own still-strong popularity with the American people for their own purposes, but also to use as a cudgel with which to beat the new, dimmer ideological cowboy, George W. Bush. To use the inevitable cliché -- so inevitable that even the Washington Post Book World review quoted on this page made use of it -- "George W. Bush, you're no Ronald Reagan."
   
   It's one of the many paradoxical features of today's political scene that it's now the Left who sees in Ronald Reagan a nuanced, deliberative statesman, while the Right (or at least the neocon, Bushian right) honors a one-dimensional, caricatured memory of who Reagan was and what he believed. One of the most valuable parts of "Reagan's Disciple," I thought, was the Cannons' accurate portrayal of Reagan as a leader far more practical, realistic, and conciliatory than ideological; far less willing to put American lives on the line or rely on military muscle than anyone thought; and far more willing to draw on a broad range of advisers and opinions than is his ostensible philosophical heir, President Bush.
   
   I found the most interesting parts of "Reagan's Disciple" to be the comparison of the two presidents' approach to warmaking. But the authors also discuss in some detail Supreme Court confirmation battles, the politics of White House personnel decisions, and what it means to be a "decisive" leader. There's also an interesting exploration of the validity of George W. Bush's current preferred presidential comparison, himself with Harry Truman: scorned and unpopular when he left office, but ultimately vindicated by history and honored in the memory of the American people. The Cannons find this comparison also ... imprecise.
   
   As this primary season has shown, Ronald Reagan is still a touchstone of Republican politics. As the Cannons and other historians have noted, if all the presidents since 1945 operated in the shadow of FDR, the presidents since 1989 have operated in the shadow of Ronald Reagan -- a shadow that seems likely to stretch, like a movie gunslinger's at sunset, for a considerable time yet. With George W. Bush having so explicitly claimed the Reaganite mantle, a book like "Reagan's Disciple" was both necessary and inevitable. That it was done so well, and by two writers so well-qualified to draw conclusions, is something to be thankful for. With so many books written about the Bush presidency, from so many different directions and viewpoints, how can you tell which ones are worth reading? Here's my helpful hint: this is one of the good ones.



2. Lou Cannon, author of several books about Ronald Reagan, has co-written "Reagan's Disciple", with his son Carl. A highly insightful, yet somewhat uneven book, it nonetheless makes some great comparisons between our nation's fortieth and forty-third presidents. Guess which one fares less well?
   
   The authors state in the preface that this is a book with "a fair and balanced point of view". In many respects it is, but it's hard not to notice (at least with the elder Cannon) a sense of awe regarding his subject. Granted, Reagan's star has been rising in past years and the Cannons take full measure of it. That legacy is still in dispute with many of us, but this offering certainly makes Bush look inadequate in contrast. If Reagan brought the Republican party into unanimity a generation ago, Bush has almost singlehandedly squandered it, as the authors point out.
   
   Much of "Reagan's Disciple" deals with war, beginning with a look at Woodrow Wilson's idealism, and subsequently how Reagan and Bush looked at war differently. Reagan, ever cautious about foreign entanglements, would almost certainly not have invaded Iraq as Bush did, much to everyone's chagrin today. The narrative of the Cannons is crisp but the subject matter tends to bounce around leaving a less than unifying story line. Yet the contrasting style of Reagan and Bush is the most fascinating part of the book and the authors tell this one well. While Reagan sought broad consensus and a balanced view, Bush has retained a small coterie of yes-men with hardly divergent views.
   
   As we reach the end of the tragic Bush years, "Reagan's Disciple" is a reminder of the bookends of the Republican domination since 1980. The "Morning in America" brand of Ronald Reagan has been wiped clean by the miasma of the past several years. As the authors rightly suggest, when Bush comes on tv people either change the channel or put on the mute button...Americans stopped listening to him a long time ago. People will invoke Reagan's name for years to come, but Bush's legacy, undoubtedly, will be something quite different.



3. I haven't read this book and don't intend to. I'm only writing this because these two nitwits clearly haven't a clue what Regan thought of George W. Bush. There is quote from the Regan Library archives in which Ronald Regan mentions George Senior asking the then President to find a job for his son (George W.) and Regan's personal thoughts, written in his diary, was nothing short of George W. Bush as a "Ner' do well son" of Bush senior and in fact Regan considered the "boy" as not too bright and possibly being able to "work in the mailroom"!
   
   Ronald Regan would have rolled in his grave had he seen what little Bush did to this country. To even allow that jackass' image to grace the cover of a book with a man that history is proving at the very least, to be one of the most couragious leader's of our modern time is a pure disgrace! Bush is a far cry from Regan's disciple and wasn't even allowed in the oval office when Regan was President!
   
   What is it that makes these Yahoos an authority on Regan? These two bumbling idiots should put down their crayons and actually visit the Regan Library, it's quite remarkable, as it what Regan did for our country to end the Cold War and squash Communism.

5 comments about Flags of the Confederacy, The: An Illustrated History (Flags of the Civil War).

1. I own both this book and the matching one of the Union. Both of these books belong in any Civil War hhistorians collection. Not only is this a good book for those who have found a new interset in the Civil War, but a well informed historian will ejoy this book too. The photos of the armaments, uniforms and flags will complete any book collection on the Civil War. This and the matching Union books are must buys.



2. Devereaux D. Cannon is an expert on vexillology (the study of flags). This book offers a history, profiles, design specs and an overview of the various flags (national flags, battle flags and naval ensigns) that were utilized by the Confederacy. The book features several pages with glossy photos of the various flags of the Confederacy. It features even the little known flags. Cannon's book has inspired flag maker's to revive the old flags in addition to the 3 national flags, the battle flag and the naval ensign. This book is must have for flag gurus, Civil War buffs and southern partisans.



3. Mr. Cannon has produced an excellent compilation of the flags used by the South during the US Civil War. I highly recommend it as a history and geography teacher. As an author myself I appreciate the style of presentation he uses in this book. I also recommend his companion book, "Flags of the Union".



4. I really liked this book it helped my with alot of questions I had thank you



5. The Appendix contains a reproduction of the original Bonnie Blue Flag sheet music (not merely some "lyric sheet") which contains the line "Fighting for our liberty, with treasure, blood and toil" as opposed to the "fighting for our property" version. Also detailed is pre-Confederate history of the Bonnie Blue Flag which I found particularly helpful in my studies of Florida area history. A fine sourcebook for those interested in the wide variety and development of flags during the War of Southern Independence.

3 comments about Boy Genius: Karl Rove, the Architect of George W. Bush's Remarkable Political Triumphs.

1. This book is based on the premise that Karl Rove is an evil genius. Once it asserts this it then fits all sorts of facts and rumours to prove this.
   
   Rove may be a talented operator, but an objective look at his results would show he is no genius. He got lucky in 2000 (lets face it the election was Gores to win) then rode off 9/11 to win in 2004. Given Bush's approval ratings in 2002, to assist in the loss of Congress in 2006 points to terrible advice.
   
   Cannon may be transfixed with Rove (and it comes across in this book) but you shouldn't be!



2. I, for one, do not support Karl Rove or our current President's policies. However, this book does not endorse those policies nor does it pretend to. The previous reviewers are so aggravated that they can not see past their own ideologies. This book follows the political victories of Republicans in Texas, followed by those of George Bush until 2002. Karl Rove is largely responsible for the Republican wins in Texas; however, the writers carefully assert that the political winds favored Rove in some circumstances. Yet, Rove managed to remove Texas from the Democrats. Anyone who understood Texas before and after Rove does not underestimate "King Karl". As one reviewer mentioned the 2000 election, I would point out the book clearly documents Rove's extreme overstatement of Bush's strength in the Electoral College. This book is very well balanced, but the same cannot be said of the reviewers here.
   
   PS
   I do not think this book is worthy of a five-star rating, but I have to attempt to balance two other ridiculous one-star ratings.



3. If you ever thought Karl Rove might be a man of questionable morals, but just didn't know enough to be sure, this book will make your jaw drop. What is truly remarkable is that a man of his low standards, willing to do anything regardless of ethics to win, could be closely associated with the most powerful man in the free world.

5 comments about Boy Genius: Karl Rove, the Brains Behind the Remarkable Political Triumph of George W. Bush.

1. This is an excellent primer to the illustrious career of "Bush's Brain" as he is called. Of the two books presently popular ("Bush's Brain" is the other) this is the more balanced and thorough; indeed, it often times seems that the authors of Bush's Brain had used this for their source, and there is very little information in that book that is not in here. Don't bother to read both, if you're just looking for an introduction to the subject. A careful portrait of the crafty man that learned his tricks (and even instructed others in the same) during the time of "Tricky Dick" Nixon himself. Must read if you are at all interested in learning how Bush Jr. got to the oval office and why all the "big money" lined up behind him as miraculously early as it did.



2. Every human endeavor has its masters. There are leading physicists, writers, teachers, architects, carpenters and chefs.
   The demi-monde also has its corp of top pick-pockets, pimps, snitches and flimflammers. It is to this latter list that we can write the name of Karl Rove. His talents add nothing useful to the world; to the contrary, he and his cabal of mayberry machiavellians' efforts are directed toward finding people's weaknesses and exploiting them, tearing down peoples lives and putting any skeletons on public display, so that "their" guy might win. "Boy Genius" depicts the political career of Karl Rove, how he honed his skill and applied them to the benefit of conservative Republicans and especially to George W. Bush.

   The authors do give some background information on Rove and briefly describe how he came to embrace right-wing politics.
   As a young man, he is described as a "nerd" and one can well imagine that he was the boy who gotten beaten up on the playground at school. But no thorough psychological profiles are hazarded in this work. We learn only that Rove is a rather emotionless person. The authors offer a couple of "Oprah moments" that hint that their subject might harbor some modicum
   of humanity. Despite a couple of these excursions into sentimentality, Dubose et al. stick mostly to the political highlights that mark Rove's life. And that is just as well, because we intuit that if we extracted the electoral machinations from this biography, there would be almost nothing left.

   But reading this book reveals as much about we Americans and our times as it does about Rove. We would hope to be titilated by some of Rove's underhanded schemes to win elections, but instead find ourselves rather bored with the enterprise. We are used to this sort of dirty dealing and know that both major parties engage in these activities. It's old hat. Karl Rove just happens to be the best and the scummiest at the game that goes on all the time. The victors in political affairs are not those who present the best ideas but rather those who know how to manipulate through the electronic media. We are given in this book an introduction to the Cardinal Richelieu of the Nouveau Regime, Karl Rove.




3. After reading the book "Boy Genuis" I have came to the conclusion that it is a bad thing that John Kerry is leading in the polls. Rove will go dirty fast because he simply hates to lose. HE has transformed Texas into what he hopes America will become, an unabashed Republican stronghold. His pandering to the religous right by being the liason between the White House and those groups is so laughable considering Rove himself has said religion is unimportant to him. That may be true except on one day every four years, on that day, his role as the Republican party's greatest asset comes in handy. Rove knows that economic conservatives and moral conservatives despise what they "perceive" the Democratic Party stands for: big government, tax hikes, loose morals, diversity, and weak foreign policy. Karl Rove has exploited these perceptions with a "whatever it takes" mentality. He blew through the streets of Austin leaving only like minded conservatives in his wake. He has been in Washington for almost four years, four more and the divide and hate in this country will reach a fevered pitch. Lets hope Nixon and Lee Atwater won't be proud this election cycle. After reading this book, I'm sure they will though.



4. This book is particularly relevant concerning the current election and how things are done in this White House. It is difficult to believe someone with Karl Rove's track record is a close presidential advisor, and it says a good deal about a president who chooses a confidant who has exercised the techniques Rove has used.



5. Love him or hate him, this book is a fascinating historical account of Rove's ascendancy from Texas political consultant to White House policy maker woven in with that of W's. Because of its publication date, it doesn't cover the Iraq war debacle, though the authors hint at the duo's motivations for the invasion. Great read for political junkies on either side of the spectrum.

2 comments about The Book of Deeds of Arms and of Chivalry.

1. This book from 1410 consists of two main parts. The first part deals with military strategy (mostly based on Vegetius), and the second (mostly based on Bonnet's tree of battles) with laws of war, and the concept of just war. I found this work much more enjoyable than Macchiavelli's Art of War, for one thing Christine doesn't dwell so much on the supposed superiority of the Romans in all things, and she adds some interesting original material, such as detailed lists of fortification and siege equipment (up to sizes and amounts of timber, nails, etc.). This book is unique, being the only military classic written by a female author. The translation to english is very readable.



2. I first read about this book in the forward to another book by Christine De Pisan (Treasure of the City of Ladies.) I became wild to own several of her writings, and am glad to own this one. I find it interesting reading even though I am not really a scholar of military history, at least not in the usual sense.

   As a member of an historical re-creation society I take particular enjoyment in this book, as I have stood on the sidelines of our "battles" and know a very little about field tactics from watching. As the organizer of our medieval version of the USO Canteen, I really, REALLY liked the parts about how to feed an army before battle!

4 comments about Cannons: An Introduction to Civil War Artillery.

1. A friend of mine recently recruited me into his Civil War re-enactment unit. It was an artillery unit and this book was my introduction to Civil War artillery. Dean Thomas writes an excellent introduction starting his readers with organization and drill. Many readers may have known that sponging the barrel cooled it, but they may not have thought about the added effect of extinguishing any smoldering cartridge bags. Thomas then leads his readers through ordnance and types of cannons (where, when, and how used), and concludes with implements used with the cannons. To top it all off Thomas supplies his readers with a lavish supply of actual Civil War photographs.



2. While this might look like a simple kids book/pamphlet on the cover, there is far more inside this extremely well illustrated guide. The author does a fine job providing a wide overview of the most important cannons of the ACW, textual summaries of each and sufficient details of their fundamental stats. The amazing part is how much the author has fit between a mere 72 pages. This work is very inexpensive and should prove useful to anyone touring Civil War battlefields, interested in Civil War gaming, reenacting, or curious about civil war cannons.



3. A nice basic little book on this subject that might suit a child or anyone with a little bit of interest in the subject and can not find better books in the library or find a good source on the internet.



4. For someone who (like me) knows next to nothing about Civil War artillery, this little book is a gem. Generously illustrated with both photographs and line drawings, Thomas' book provides basic information about battery crews, the "anatomy" of cannons, limbers, and carriages (including the surprising fact that artillery batteries carried portable anvils for quick repairs in the field), the manufacture of both cannon and projectiles, and a typology of projectiles (solid shot, shell, case shot, canister, and grapeshot) as well as cannons, howitzers, rifles, and mortars.
   
   What struck me especially about Thomas' discussion is the vicious killiing power of Civil War artillery. Solid shell, when used against soldiers, was fired so as to ricochet for maximum physical and psychological effect. Case shot, canister, and grapeshot could rip apart not only individual soldiers but entire columns and files of men. And these weapons were used in unimaginable quantities. Thomas ends his book with a "Summary of Federal Purchases" of artillery. Between 1 January 1861 and 30 June 1866, for example, the army purchased slightly under 3 million projectiles for smoothbore guns, just over 3 million for rifled guns, 6.5 million pounds of grape and canister shot, almost 10 million pounds of cannon powder, and nearly 8 million pounds of mortar powder. Trying to translate these figures into an appreciation of what all this did to human bodies and hopes and families is impossible. But really: we ought always to try, lest we forget the true cost of war.

5 comments about President Reagan The Role Of A Lifetime.

1. Those who read this account of Reagans two presidencies in the year 2008 will doubtlessly be disappointed when they compare the lavish praise for the book with what they actually find in it.
   
   Lou Cannon is a Washington Post journalist who followed Reagan already since he became governor in California. As can be expected from an author with this background, he accurately recounts the day by day events, press briefings, cabinet gossip, reshuffles. His sources are therefore his personal memories, countless on- and off-record interviews with all members of Reagan's inner circle and cabinet. This accurate account of the events of Reagan's presidencies is the real merit of the book for which the author deserves praise.
   
   The lavish praise of the book as the definite account of Reagan's presidencies is however undeserved. For such an accomplishment the author should have focused more on the long-term and lasting effects of the presidencies. Having written the book shortly after Reagan left office and updating it ever since, it has by construction a short-term view.
   
   From today's perspective the extremely detailed (but also interesting) account of the Iran-contra affair takes too much prominence. By comparision other areas are not covered in detail: the Reagan tax reform for example. The whole issue of Reagonomics is also analysed from a journalist's perspective: recounting the contradictory remarks of what others have said about them instead of offering an analysis from an own (economic) perspective.
   
   I also doubt that the book is unbiased. According to the author, Reagan held a small set of firm believes, which happened to be right. But in general, Reagan was totally uninterested in governing if apt at all. He was an actor in the White House performing for the American people the role of his lifetime. Whithout doubt there is some merit to this account. But it is difficult to imagine that such a president would have been able to run one of the most successful presidencies of modern times.
   
   As Reagans achievements become generally accepted over time, we see Lou Cannon updating his book with all these achievements, while maintaining his critical assessment of Reagan as a mere actor. Reagan appears like one of these monkeys that happened to draw wonderful pictures of modern art - at least according to some experts. As was the case with those monkeys, rather than blaming or praising them, one should question the assessment of those experts.



2. This book is filled with blatant lies, half-truths and hearsay. There is nothing credible to this guy's ludacris accusations and slander. If you are a thinking person then put this book down and save yourself the trouble of reading this liberal hatchetjob. But if you believe aliens are stealing your thoughts, JFK and Elvis are still alive and dogs are telepathic then this is the book for you.



3. The second of the 2 part series is by far the weaker of the two books.
   
   First, the second book appears to be written as almost a standalone. It continually rehashes happenings in the first book like the reader either doesn't remember or didn't even read the first book. This gets in the way of what is happening in the Reagan Presidency and tended to get me offtrack. I would suggest that Cannon should not make it easy for readers to be lazy. Anyone willing to read 700+ pages on the Reagan Presidency is probably willing to read the first volume so don't rehash things.
   
   Second, I couldn't figure out what method Cannon was using to tell this story. It jumped around quite a bit. At times, it seemed chronological and it times it seemed more subject based. The only part of the second book that really captivated me was the 100+ pages describing in detail the Iran-Contra affair. I was in high school when this took place and appreciated Cannon's detailed account. I though he was even handed with this account, but I can't say that for the rest of the book.
   
   Clearly Reagan was in over his head but haven't most Presidents been in the too too deep end throughout history. Reagan may have had his cue cards and his talking points, his stories and his jokes, but the President is a figurehead more than anything else and Reagan was a great figure who knew more than Cannon gave him credit for.
   
   I wish Cannon would have spent more time dealing with the Cabinet, specifically those not named Donald Regan or James Baker. He spent way too much time talking about these guys. It got to be a chore rehashing what a bad job these guys did at times. How about Reagan's relationship with Bob Dole, GHWBush, Margaret Thatcher, others... not enough analysis there.
   
   Cannon's liberalism shines through in the second book. I didn't think it was untrue but I did think it was unfair. Reagan was a figurehead but Cannon thinks that made him a bad President... I think that was what made Reagan a very good President. He didn't get bogged down in the details and instead gave the country something to get excited about as we emerged from the Hell that was the Carter administration.
   
   I'm not saying Reagan was the best President ever but he sure deserves more credit than Cannon gives him. Familiarity breeds contempt and that is the only thing that can explain Cannon's interpretation in the second book.
   
   You still should read it to complete the series but make sure you pack plenty of grains of salt with that highlight pen.



4. Lou Cannon's start to this book is not very appetizing to the Conservatives that have loved Reagan for the economic policies that he has been associated. Cannon begins the first chapter by taking Reagan to task with statistics that show that Reagan really wasn't what Conservatives have always thought. However, what Cannon fails to explain or even hint at is that economics do not start with the inauguration and end with the next president's inauguration. Additionally, this is the real problem with writing about a historic subject too quickly. Without the years necessary to allow various plans to come to fruition, the conclusions drawn can be absolutely incorrect; and that is what we have in Cannon's analysis of Reagan's economic policies. Many can agree with Cannon that the results did not show up when the Reagan administration predicted, but the statement on page 254 made by Stockman is used by Cannon to show this conclusion: "A forecast that combined soaring real growth with sharply declining inflation described an unlikely combination of events". This is a topic that Cannon hits very hard. However, time has now shown this to be exactly what happened as the years progressed; although is was not as quickly as the press, the people or the administration expected. Cannon shows his distain for Reaganomics over and over again.
   
   As the writing progresses, it is obvious that Cannon was truly touched by Reagan, the man, but wants or needs to show his liberal bias and his skeptical side to the beliefs that Conservatives hold dear. The first chapter will probably set off many Conservatives and set a bad tone for the remainder of the book.
   
   Cannon's approach is really not a biography nor is it truly historical; it is more a look at Reagan's administration. It is not presented in a very logical, linear, or chronological order; and many times the chronology skips from year to year and can easily lose the reader; this can be annoying at times. Each chapter starts over with a new topic with the chronology changing to the topic at hand. In some historical biographies this might work, but in this one, there are so many players that came and went, it is very difficult to match the parties to the events and keep them straight.
   
   The primary references are mostly from interviews with Reagan insiders, other Washington Post writers and Lou Cannon's own articles and writing notes from the many years that he covered Reagan. While using interviews can be good, they can also be used in whatever light you deem to use them. With a twist here and an absence of a remark there, you can turn meanings easily. I don't particularly like biographical studies that are entirely interview oriented due to this problem. However, as a reporter, Cannon is comfortable with this style. Cannon can be an very entertaining writer, but much of this book seems to be an anthology of vignettes of detailed points of each small event in the Reagan White House. Additionally, Cannon tends to repeat himself a number of times and quotes someone different for each iteration, but the manner in which it was done left me wondering whether or not the complete context was used. He often uses hearsay as fact - it doesn't work in court and should not be allowed in a nonfiction work either.
   
   Cannon gives Reagan credit for his intellect more so than many others have done, but he takes shots for things that really are opinions rather than statements of fact. President Reagan ran the White House in a very different manner than previous Presidents. Cannon alludes to this style as that of a movie star rather than the executive commander of the largest county in the free world. However, in the next sentence Cannon will state that all of the men surrounding Reagan were definitely selected by him for the jobs that they had. In my business background, that is exactly what an executive does. He surrounds himself with smart people and gets out of their way. Understanding that this is not the norm for Washington doesn't make it the wrong way. The President of the Unites States is the Leader of the Country and the White House staff. He doesn't have to be the doer or knower of everything. These are points of contention I have with Cannon's conclusions.
   
   The Iran-Contra affair is front and center in this work and commands a couple of hundred pages. Over time, this particular event has become a mere speck of dust in history of our country. Again, this is one of the problems with writing about a current subject. Time must pass to really ferret out the important and lasting stories from the chaff. For example, the assassination attempt on Reagan barely gets a couple of pages and that is in the context of Alexander Haig's behavior during that time period. The chapter on the Soviet - Reagan relationship was very interesting. There was very little about Ron and Nancy's relationship during the White House years. And although Cannon describes the relationship between Reagan and Bush to be closer as the years went by, there is almost no information about anything that Bush did or how the two related to each other.
   
   No matter your politics, this is a decent look from the inside of the Reagan White House. It is less a biography and more a series of newspaper-like stories crafted together to give you the inside dope of the Reagan Administration; albeit from somewhat jaded interviews from staffers that had been fired or had "resigned" or as Cannon proclaims "unappreciated" individuals from the inner core. Additionally, when this book was written, Reagan's Alzheimer's condition was yet made public and some of what is written makes me believe that Reagan may have been beginning this progression sooner than many thought or could see. I will still await the definitive book on Reagan as this is just not it.



5. I grew up in the 1980s. I remember lots of vague pieces of the Reagan presidency but few details. Mostly I remember his presidential addresses coming on television to interrupt my TV shows like Different Strokes and Facts of Life. I bought this book hoping to fill in the gaps and it certainly delivered. Lou Cannon knows Reagan and his cabinet very well. He gives a nice overview of Reagan's time before he became president, back when he was an actor and governor of California. Then he gets into all the details of his two terms - the elections, Iran-Contra, Grenada, the Russians, Libya, all of it. As I read each part, I found myself often thinking, 'Yeah, yeah, I remember that now.' The part about Reagan's negotiations with Gorbachev was riveting. To think of these two men, representing the super powers of the day, arguing back and forth over nuclear arms. Great stuff. Cannon's prose is easy to read. Some parts dragged since he tries to truly give a thorough account. But for the most part the text flowed nicely. I do not consider myself someone who easily devours dense historical books yet this one was not a problem to get through.

1 comments about Blue and Gray Diplomacy: A History of Union and Confederate Foreign Relations (The Littlefield History of the Civil War Era).

1. American diplomacy during the Civil War centers on preventing England from recognizing the Confederacy. The short story is that England did/did not wish to recognize the Confederacy, depending on the person you are talking with. America's threat of war caused them to hold off until the Emancipation Proclamation at which time recognition was impossible. This story, with few variations, always told from the American point of view dominates this story of diplomacy during the war.
   Howard Jones refuses to follow the accepted story. In doing so, he wrote what might be the best book available and one that is required reading for anyone interested in the subject. The most important change is to look at the Civil War from Europe's perspective. Switching viewpoints produces a very different history, nuanced, complex with opportunities and dangers. Emancipation and slavery are important as moral questions but in diplomacy, advantage outweighs morality every time.
   In 1860, England had fought two wars with the United States in less than 90 years. They are facing a republic that is on the verge of becoming an Atlantic power and a potential challenge to their supremacy. Having the United States split into two nations, one of them a semi-client state is an advantage. War with the United States, a possible invasion of Canada, is dangerous. The danger is even greater as the United States Navy is going to ironclad ships and England is lagging behind. England fought France allied with Russia, Austria and Prussia at the turn of the century. However, the last war found England allied with France fighting Russia. Napoleon III is untrustworthy, unskilled in diplomacy and given to adventurous pronouncements. The alliance with France is an advantage as Prussia building the German states into a nation but it is full of perils. The cotton famine hurts but they can manage the pain for now.
   Napoleon III waits for England's lead. He needs to maintain their friendship while adventuring in Italy and Mexico. Austria dragged into France's adventures is less happy as time passes. France would like to restore their possessions in the "New World" and sees the Confederacy as a possible path to this goal. Even allied to England, France tries to gain the upper hand at England's expense. France hurt by the cotton famine is not managing as well as England.
   Russia is the United States' firm friend and objects to any European meddling in the war. However, Russia is still smarting from the Crimean War and would like to derail the English French alliance.
   The United States of America suffers a rebellion that becomes a shooting war creating a host of questions, opportunities and dangers for Europe's powers.
   England has mixed emotions about the combatants. Most of the upper class favors the CSA. Initially, since the war is not about slavery, the working class wants cotton so they can work There is an underlying pro USA feeling but it isn't going to stop the government from doing what is best for the country. What is best for England, suffers a series of twist and turns that tax all participants and bring them close to war more than once. The Trent Affair and the Laird Rams are the best-known examples. English neutrality is a major question during the war that the book fully explores. The reasons why selected, how the English sees neutrality, their obligations and expectations are the foundation of their policies. The America reaction mystified them, as neither understands the other's objections.
   An area seldom explored is the humanitarian reasons for intervention. International Law provided for neutrals to intervene when a war could not be won and was hurting them. The author gives us an excellent look into this area and why England and France could consider this course of action.
   Why did intervention not occur? How close did England come? Would France elect to go it alone and intervene? The author's answers to these questions challenge the accepted story but he supports these answers.
   The book is fully illustrated and footnoted. This well written very readable book is a "must read" for any student of the war looking beyond "Battles & Leaders". It will be a valuable addition to your library. This is a book that you will read more than once and should be an award winner.