1 comments about The Human Tradition in Colonial Latin America (Human Tradition Around the World, No. 5.).

1. the product came late, I'm not sure if its the sellers fault, but she doesn't respond well to emails

4 comments about Sam Houston and the American Southwest (Library of American Biography Series) (3rd Edition) (Library of American Biography).

1. This is an excellent little book. It's entertaining reading and highly informative. I'm not only glad I read the book but I find myself wanting to know much more about Sam Houston and his era. I think Texans and all Americans are much more indebted to men like him than we realize. Would to God we had some Sam Houstons today!



2. Randolph B. Campbell writes about a man I never knew had that much impact on Texas and the United States in Sam Houston and the American Southwest. The writing is quick and simple to read, and flows from one topic to the next easily.
   
   The book covers everything from Sam Houston's beginnings, to his forrays as a military man and finally to his exploits as a political leader. He impacted Texas more than any other person, and was a leading voice in both the War against Mexico and the Civil War. To characterize his impact on Texas, one would only have to look at the political atmosphere of Texas in their early Republic days. Texas was a two party state, those who were Houston supporters and those who were anti-Houston.
   
   I loved learning about Sam Houston's command during Texas's fight for independence, his thoughts on the Civil War (always a Union man, something unusual for a southerner), and the love he had for his wife (his last words will emphasize this). He was the first President of the Republic of Texas, served as a senator after the state was annexed, and is the only man to serve as governor in two states (Texas and Tennessee). I would have never known three fourths of this information if it wasn't for Randolph B. Campbell's Sam Houston and the American Southwest. I highly recommend this read, for literature lovers and history buffs and all those in between. Everyone enjoy!



3. This particular portrayal was a mandatory reading in a History course in college, and by far, the depiction from Campbell is astounding, and amazing. He brings to the surface far more than just the fable you hear about in junior high Texas history. The man was tall, but this piece makes him larger than life.



4. Texas's Savior Ever since Texas was a territory in the middle of no where, one man stood up to lead the way to statehood. That man who rose above the rest and conquered endless, unimaginable barriers was Sam Houston. Rudolph B. Campbell wrote a chronologically correct book about Houston entitled Sam Houston and the American Southwest. He became the most popular and most honorable man in Texas. The battle of San Jacinto, acquiring Presidency of the Republic of Texas, and obtaining a place in the United States Senate all proved that Sam Houston was a competent and trustworthy leader. First and foremost, the battle of San Jacinto was one Houston's greatest accomplishments, defeating Santa Anna and shamefully returning him to Mexico. This battle turned out to be the turning point in Texas's becoming a Republic and Sam Houston's popularity beginning to soar across Texas. Even though the revolution was a failure and Mexico still didn't recognize Texas as a republic, Houston still received the recognition that he deserved. It happened "...at three o'clock in the afternoon, Houston ordered his 'effectives' into battle formation that stretched across the prairie" (Campbell 68). After this strategic move, Sam Houston attacked and eighteen minutes later ended the battle. With this fight under his belt, Houston slowly arose to become a powerful and noteworthy man. This rise in power enabled Houston to become the first President of the Republic of Texas on September 18th, 1836. He was basically the only man for the job, supported by a landsliding "5,119 vote to Smith's 743 votes" (74). Houston saw himself as the candidate who could bring unity to Texas, despite its ambiguity and immense size. With Mirabeau B. Lamar at his side as vice president, Sam Houston would find as much

   money for Texas as he could, balance the budget, and keep good relations with Mexico. In order to make and save money, Houston sold Texas's navy. Even the money gained from this sale didn't help the budget at all. By the time Houston's term of presidency was over, the debt had grown to roughly two million dollars. As far as keeping relations with Mexico, Houston must have apparently done a very good job because they did not attack again for a long period of time. Plus, he helped the Indians, especially the Cherokee, as much as he could, considering how he U.S. was driving them farther and farther away from their land. After Houston's three-year term was over, he resigned and moved to a higher position. In addition to already being President of the Republic of Texas more than once, Sam Houston became one of the first senators of Texas as well. Nothing is more suitable for a man with Houston's recognition and fame than to represent "his" state in the United States Senate. Even a more powerful and demanding job than president of a republic, Houston represented Texas better than any man possible. As a senator, and included in his inaugural address, Houston believed that "...finance, Indian policy, and relations with Mexico" were the most important things needed to be taken of in Texas and all over the United States (93). In the interest of finance, Sam Houston recommended that suspending all payments of interest and principal on the debt should be done. In addition, signing treaties, describing boundaries, with the Indians would depress war and bring on peace. Finally, the Texas senator thought it would be best to "...leave the Mexican nation alone," since "diplomatic relations had not been improved" (93). Overall, Sam

   Houston improved Texas by taking its troubles all the way to Congress by using his intelligence and popularity to serve as a weapon for political listeners. Rudolph B. Campbell showed how Sam Houston became the most prominent, influential, and powerful man of his time. Houston basically devoted his entire life to serving other people's needs and wants. There wasn't a man during his time that was even close to becoming as great a hero as Sam Houston.

5 comments about The Wives of Henry VIII.

1. A few years ago David Starkey wrote a book on Henry VIII's three wives which received much publicity. It was even turned into a PBS documentary. I read that book and while I found some of his research compelling, his arrogant style and dubious conclusions irritated me. The book is overlong (880 pages), and lopsidedly devoted to Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn. Out of the 750 odd pages of actual text, a whopping 600 are devoted to Catherine and Anne! In particular, Catherine of Aragon's seven years of being the sort-of-fiance of Henry VIII after her first husband's death is chronicled in excruciatingly boring detail. Starkey is also fond of making pronouncements such as "In short, it rewrites history." Henry's other four wives are mentioned in a rushed, careless way.
   
   Antonia Fraser's book is half Starkey's length but it's quality, not quantity, that counts. Whereas Starkey holds most of Henry's wives with a fair degree of contempt, Fraser is more sympathetic. You can tell she cares about her characters, even Henry. She too draws some conclusions that I might not agree with (her insistence that Catherine of Aragon's first marriage was not consummated for instance -- I'm on the fence about that one), but overall her book rings true. She surmises, for instance, that Henry and Anne during their 7 year courtship probably used coitus interruptus as birth control. She details Catherine of Aragon's sad descent from a plump and spirited bride into a lonely, embittered woman is poignant. Her style is witty, engaging, and heartfelt. After reading her book I felt like I knew the queens as old friends. The book is beautifully illustrated with a section of photographs for each queen.
   
   But more importantly, she devotes much care to Henry's other four wives, and not just Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn. She follows their stories all the way to the end. In Starkey's book, Anne of Cleves is shuttled off to become Henry's "sister" after a disastrous short marriage. And as he writes, "that was that." Fraser by contrast mentions that Anne of Cleves continued to occasionally visit the court, developed rather expensive tastes, and hoped to be "taken back" as Henry's wife after Henry beheaded the sweet but careless and indiscreet Katherine Howard. She mentions Henry's children's relationships with their stepmothers -- Mary and Anne Boleyn were openly hostile to each other, but Mary liked Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr, Henry's last wife. Elizabeth too was fond of Catherine Parr.
   
   I should say that I am not an unqualified admirer of Antonia Fraser. Her most recent work, on Marie Antoinette, I thought veered into hagiography. But none of these faults are in evidence in this book. For a more detailed look at Henry's most fascinating wife, Anne Boleyn, Eric Ives' study is considered definitive, but for a more general book about Henry's wives, I would consider Fraser's the book to get.



2. Great book about the many interesting women married to the famous Monarch. Ms Fraser is a great writer breathing life into each one of the Queen's, showing their vulnerability as well as strength. I will be reading more by this author.



3. As I described it to my friend, Fraser's work reads like a novel with footnotes. There's definitely research, and she has an excellent grasp on what she is saying, but as a biography of the wives, there isn't much of the usual dense analysis to grapple with. Fraser's strength as an author is in the narrative. Her narrative is lively and well informed - her background in writing novels definitely comes through. She is also successful at ensuring that she has given you all the background information to attempt to explain the context - it was, after all, more than just a husband's wandering eye. This work of popular history is definitely accessible and entertaining, and even though you might already know how it ends, the narrative still keeps you coming back to it, waiting for the next high emotion scene where heads will quite literally roll.
   For those of you who enjoy history, this will be a delightful, easy read.
   
   If you are considering going to see The Other Boleyn Girl [Theatrical Release] or you're a fan of the Showtime series The Tudors - The Complete First Season, or even if you aren't, I would definitely recommend picking up Fraser's book. At the very least the book will allow you to be watch such recent Hollywood hits and say, "Hey! They totally got the timeline and context wrong on this whole situation." It will also probably make you wonder why Hollywood has bothered to change the story at all - when the real one is dramatic and entertaining enough on its own.



4. This was the first Antonia Fraser book I read and from the "Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived" I was hooked. I read it after hearing her speak at Peterborough Cathedral about Catherine of Aragon. The book looks at Henry VIII's from his wives' perspective. What drove them to marry this man especially after he beheaded Anne Boleyn. Also, it is great introduction to Tudor England.



5. For those who say history is boring. Better than reading a novel, with real characters sometimes going beyond the imaginary. An amazing study of the six wives, and the power crazed king they called husband. Used every means imaginable to justify ridding himself of one wife, to marry another. Even to the point of falsely accusing one of commiting incest with her own brother (Anne Boleyn), and having her beheaded. A powerful study of the British monarchy, and one of its most shameful periods.

No comments about Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief.

5 comments about Barefoot Gen, Vol. 1: A Cartoon Story of Hiroshima.

1. This manga is unsophisticated in its artwork, storytelling, and politics. Yet that very lack of sophistication seems to me to be what gives it power that probably could only otherwise be generated by poetry, or perhaps opera.
   
   You might as well go ahead and buy the four volumes in this series now, to save time & postage. Then you can wait, like I am waiting, in the hope that Project Gen manages to publish the next six volumes in the series.
   
   Note: there is at least one prior English edition of Barefoot Gen, and the volume contents are not the same as in the latest edition. So if, for example, you buy volume 3 of the earlier edition (1979), you will find that it overlaps the latter part of volume 2 of the current edition (issued in 2004.) The volume titles seem to be the same in each edition, so things can get confusing if you don't stick with the same edition. If you buy used, pay attention to which edition you are getting.
   
   According to Wikipedia, these are the published & projected volumes in the current English translation series of Barefoot Gen:
   
   * Barefoot Gen #1: A Cartoon Story Of Hiroshima (ISBN 0-86719-602-5)
   * Barefoot Gen #2: The Day After (ISBN 0-86719-619-X)
   * Barefoot Gen #3: Life After The Bomb (ISBN 0-86719-594-0)
   * Barefoot Gen #4: Out Of The Ashes (ISBN 0-86719-595-9)
   * Barefoot Gen #5: The Never-Ending War (17 April 2008, ISBN-10: 0867195967)
   * Barefoot Gen #6: Writing the Truth (17 April 2008, ISBN-10: 0867195975)
   * Barefoot Gen #7: (Not published in English)
   * Barefoot Gen #8: (Not published in English)
   * Barefoot Gen #9: (Not published in English)
   * Barefoot Gen #10: (Not published in English)



2. Barefoot Gen - I grew up with this famous comic series by Nakazawa. It's about a boy called 'Gen' and his life in Hiroshima during the WWII and soon after the atomic bomb. Volumes 1 & 2 are probably the most important ones. After I read them in English, I just had to lend them to everyone I knew. If you read this story, you'll realise how silly to hear some popular opiniton 'Dropping two atomic bombs in Japan was necessary to end the war'. The author Nakazawa says that each and every event illustrated here is a true story. You'll see, for example, that two young brothers fight against each other for a little grain of rice. Gen trying to encourage a girl who used to be dreaming about one day becoming a professional dancer, but now her face was badly burnt by the bomb, although she still didn't know it - he refuses to let her see the mirror.
   
   The bombs were dropped onto civilians in the two cities, and, in Hiroshima alone, 100,000 people, including children, elderly people and western prisoners of war, were killed instantly, and the pain they suffered from it was tremendous. The way some of Gen's family members, including a new born baby sister, were slowly dying is simply too sad to look at. But the reality is that it actually took place and was caused by human hands.
   
   I sincerely hope that many people will find the opportunity to read this book at least once in their life-time, and I strongly believe that this book will enlighten the whole world with the message: 'What really happens when a nuclear bomb is dropped onto humanity', which hasn't really been talked about in history books for some reason. But I think it's time to face reality.



3. In our present time this portal to the topic of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and our nature as the only nation to build and to use nuclear weapons, and against strictly civilian population centers may inform our moral consideration of the present failure of our total war alone against civilians to establish a peaceful and stable and democratic society.
   
   This present volume serves as an excellent introduction to the topic. Centering on Hiroshima, as may supplement this strong introductory reading with the recent study by Prof. Takaki, or the new Racing the Enemy, which explores the lack of military reason for dropping the Bomb against an already defeated Japanese Empire. We may also read on this specific event of crisis the moving Letters from the End of the World, or HIroshima Diary, written as was Gen by eyewitnesses and civilian victims of this our nuclear holocaust. Hershey is also important to read of course, and the reissue of Hiroshima Mon Amour, but I keep returning to this child's eye view in Barefoot Gen.
   
   We are fortunate in this reprinting for the informed and astute introduction by Art Spiegelman, the creator of the Maus series which does a similar though more symbolic treatment of the Nazi Holocaust. Art strongly recomends this first person account of a small boy on the morning of the Bomb, and its immediate effects upon himself and upon his family. Please read this book and remember. Our Popes continue to visit the Peace Park at Ground Zero in Hiroshima, to pray for peace and nonviolence and for the development of peoples.



4. The manga form of presentation makes reading about the prelude to this event easy and fast. The book seemed to be reasonably accurate with historical documentation and the visual format allowed the author to include detail that might otherwise have become difficult to work into the story. The clothing, clogs, air raid hoods, etc. that are be depicted add depth of information to a quick read.



5. Keiji Nakazawa, Barefoot Gen (New Society Publishing, 1983)
   
   Keiji Nakazawa's four-volume graphic epic Barefoot Gen has become legendary in the field of graphic literature, and also, in no small way, out of it. While many Japanese artists working in every medium have examined the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and their aftereffects, Nakazawa, who lived in Hiroshima at the time the bombs were dropped, has an understandably closer perspective than most others who have tried it. For sheer power, Barefoot Gen's only rival in the subgenre is the similarly legendary Grave of the Fireflies.
   
   This eponymous first volume takes us through the life of Gen, an elementary school student, and his family in the months before the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. Gen's father, while not a pacifist, is notorious in town for his speaking out against the war, which gets him and his family branded traitors. Because of this, they don't have an easy life. The family members try to find various ways to survive in the face of shunning at best, and aggression at worst, from the rest of the townspeople.
   
   Do you need to be told that this is a book that's going to hit you in the face like a sledgehammer with its message? The artistry, or lack of same, in the delivery is the place where Grave of the Fireflies is clearly superior to Barefoot Gen, but while Nakazawa is not above letting his message get in the way of his story on occasion, it never happens for too long a period of time. Nakazawa's characters are well-drawn, and the story spends more time focused on its characters than on its message. There is a lot to be liked here, and a good deal to be mulled over, as well. Well worth your time. ****

5 comments about Andrew Jackson.

1. Sean Wilentz submits his mostly positive take on Andrew Jackson for the American Presidents series edited by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. Jackson's reputation and ranking among US presidents has fallen in recent decades, mostly due to his treatment of Indians, his stance on slavery, and misunderstanding of his economic policies. Wilentz argues, and I concur, that any attempt judge Andrew Jackson by standards of other time periods is doomed to failure.
   
   In his time, Jackson was considered the great champion of democracy. As set forth in his first annual message, `the majority is to govern' was his emblem. New York editor William Leggett considered him the `leader and champion of the people'. While these words sound like 4th of July political platitudes to our ear, in his time Jackson faced opponents who still believed in a `natural aristocracy' and who feared `mob rule' as they saw democracy. The anti-Jacksonsonian William Henry Seward summarized the Jacksonian principle: `That principle is democracy....the poor against the rich; and it is not to be disguised.'
   
   Jackson stood against what he called the `few monied Capitalists' as represented by Nicholas Biddle and 2nd Bank of the US. Again, in the modern view the necessity of a national central bank seems obvious, but Biddle's bank used its power to grant `special privileges to unaccountable monied men on the make as well as those already well established.'(Wilentz at p. 83) In his words, Jackson wanted to get the wealthy off the backs of the `humble members of society'.
   
   In one his major feats, Jackson defeated the `nullifiers' led by John C. Calhoun. The theory of state nullification of federal laws undermined national unity and indeed the survival of the Union.
   
   Jackson also considered the removal of the southeastern Indian tribes, the Creeks, Cherokee, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, as one of the greatest accomplishments of his administration. Jackson professed, and Wilentz accepts, that his intent was to remove the Indians from the harm they would suffer at the hands of local whites especially in Georgia. The removal also served Jackson's aim of US western expansion. And whatever Jackson's intent, the Indians generally opposed the removals and suffered tremendously from the policy (Note: The Trail of Tears actually occurred during the presidency of Jackson's protégé, Matty Van Buren).
   
   Jackson also vigorously opposed the nascent abolitionist movement. Wilentz asserts that Jackson believed that anti-slavery politicians were `ambitious demagogues' (Wilentz at p. 164) who simply used the issue for personal gain. His great desire was to suppress the slavery issue because he accurately saw it as the greatest threat of disunion. The effort to suppress the debate was foredoomed to failure.
   
   This book is well worth a read for anyone interested in American history generally or Jackson specifically. It meets Schlesinger's goal of being compact, lucid, and authoritative. For those who want a fuller consideration Wilentz suggests Robert Remini's Andrew Jackson and notes the newer (and acclaimed) biography by HW Brands, Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times.



2. The 2008 Presidential race is in full swing, and interest in the contest runs high. In order to keep my own bearings, I wanted to try to take a short but broader view of our Presidents and our nation's history. One way to do this is by reading some of the volumes in the recent "American Presidents" series edited by the late Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Each volume in this series offers, in short compass, the life and accomplishments of an American president together with an evaluation of his achievement.
   
   I chose Sean Wilentz' biography of Andrew Jackson (1767 -- 1845) because of our seventh President's role in broadening the basis of American democracy and because of the controversy he inspired and continues to inspire. Jackson was a flamboyant, larger-than-life figure with great virtues and as many faults. He was orphaned at an early age and bore for life the physical and emotional scars inflicted upon him by a sword gash to the head by a British officer during the Revolutionary War. Jackson fought off poverty and his own impulsive nature to serve an early term in Congress and in the Senate before the 19th century. He became a lawyer, a judge and a large plantation owner of the Hermitage in Tennessee. He became famous as an Indian fighter in wars against the Southeast Tribes such as the Creeks and Cherokees and against the Florida Seminoles. Jackson won a great victory against the British at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, (the War of 1812 was officially over at the time) which secured his fame.
   
   Jackson ran for President in 1824 but, following a close election, he was denied the presidency in the House of Representatives as a result of what he claimed was a "corrupt bargain" between John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay. In 1828, Jackson defeated Adams, inauguarating what he and many American people believed was a new age for American democracy. Wilentz describes the themes of Jackson's presidency as including:
   
   "robust nationalism on constitutional issues tempered by a restraint on federal support for economic development and a strict construction; a distrust of what Jackson called the corrputed power of 'associated wealth'; and a celebration of what one pro-Jackson newspaper called 'the democratic theory that the people's voice is the supreme law." (p. 112)
   
   In his biography, Wllentz reminds the reader that Jackson's age was not our own. Thus, the issues Jackson faced cannot be transferred directly to our current situation with the label of "liberal" or "conservative". Jackson was an enemy of big government. But in Jackson's time, this position made him a foe to the power of wealthy and powerful people and businesses who had a close relationship to the government and who, Jackson, believed, were gaining too much privilege at the expense of the people. Thus, a major activity of Jackson's presidency was his destruction of the Second Bank of the United States, a private bank which had been chartered by Congress and which exercised strong power over the American economy.
   
   Jackson thought that American government up to his time had been the province of the leisured and elite. His avowed goal was to make the government responsive to the will of the majority and to expand the basis of democracy. He did so, in part, and at a terrible cost. Jackson's democracy was formed by a coalition between Southern planters and northerners. This coalition inevitably led to compromises with slavery and to sectional tension. Jackson censored the mails to prevent anti-slavery tracts from flooding the South and opposed attempts to curtail slavery.
   
   In his younger days, Jackson had been a cruel Indian fighter, and in his Presidency he set in motion the removal of the Southeastern Tribes across the Mississippi over what became known as the "Trail of Tears." Wilentz, together with many other scholars, has some sympathy for the goals of the removal policy, but he emphasizes the cruelty and carelessness with which it was carried out, resulting in the death of thousands of Indian people.
   
   Jackson was a strong, even autocratic, excecutive. Perhaps his finest hour was in defusing, with a mixture of strength, compromise, and cunning, the "nullification controversy" resulting from South Carolina's attempt to set aside a Federal tariff with which it disagreed. Jackson was also an expansionist president who foresaw the acquition of Texas and the West even though no new territory was added to the United States during his two terms.
   
   Wilentz praises Jackson for his democratic vision and for his early version of egalitarianism even while he recognizes that, in its treatment of Indians, African Americans, and women it was quite different from our own ideals. Wilentz is favorably disposed towards Jackson's economic policies, including his war on the Bank. Many historians have different, less favorable views of Jackson. Those readers wanting an in-depth view of the period might want to compare two lengthy studies: Wilentz' own "The Rise of American Democracy" (2005) with the more recent study by Daniel Walker Howe "What hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848", which takes a less favorable view of Jackson and a more positive view of his predecessor in the presidency, John Quincy Adams, and of Jackson's opponents, the Whigs.
   
   Those readers wanting to reflect upon the history of our country and on where it may be going during this election year will enjoy reading this short study of Andrew Jackson and its companions in the American Presidents series.
   
   Robin Friedman



3. Nice book and an easy read. Not very much depth, but well written and informative. I would recommend to the casual reader, but not any historian.



4. Today's historians are still in a quandary on why Andrew Jackson, the Seventh President of the United States and one of this nation's greatest leaders, was a man of complete contradictions in his public life.
   
   Was he the populist politician who championed the rights of all citizens in the growing republic, yet owned slaves to do the hard work on his own property?
   
   Was he the grandiose dictator who tried to crush his political enemies whom he viewed as elitist or just a man from the working class battling those seeking to dominate the masses?
   
   Was he the brilliant military genius who defeated the British in the War of 1812 for America's only major victory in that ill-conceived conflict against England? Or was he the racist extremist who conquered the Indian Tribes and removed them from their homelands in the south because it was good for his own political career?
   
   Was he all of that and more?
   
   Sean Wilentz is a Professor of History at Princeton University and has written a new examination of Jackson in `The American Presidents' series that are published by Times Books which are edited by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Schlesinger had previously written about the famed chief executive sixty years ago in the Pulitzer Prize winning biography `The Age of Jackson.'
   
   Wilentz tries to explain in the brief 195 page tome those many contradictions of the Tennessee military commander nicknamed `Old Hickory' for his toughness who is generally accepted as one of our nation's top half-dozen greatest presidents.
   
   Jackson served as chief executive from 1829 to 1837, when America was transitioning from having leaders who had participated in the Revolutionary War and the immediate years after to those politicians who would serve in the two decades leading up to our nation's civil war. Jackson was a soldier in America's struggle for independence against the British in his early teens, earning a scar on his head when he was struck by a sword belonging to a British officer and is the only American president to ever have been a prisoner of war.
   
   His greatest military triumph came in January, 1815; albeit two months after the War of 1812 had officially ended with a peace treaty signing, when troops under his command defeated an invading force of British soldiers twice their size landing near the southern port city of New Orleans, Louisiana. He then spent a few years in battle with several of the Indian tribes in the southern states which culminated in those tribes' relocation to the Midwest part of the country that came to be known as `The Trail of Tears.'
   
   Jackson first ran for president in 1824 and got the highest tally of popular votes in the election. But none of the multiple candidates running that year were able to get a majority of the Electoral College votes to claim victory. The contest was then decided in the House of Representatives where runner-up John Quincy Adams was selected as the new chief executive after he made a deal with third-place candidate Henry Clay to gain his votes in exchange for Clay being promised the job of Secretary of State.
   
   Jackson was livid on what happened to him that year and vowed revenge against what he considered to be the thievery by those politicians belonging to the New England aristocracy he so hated.
   
   He ran again in 1828 and soundly defeated Adams in a re-match. But that victory turned bitter sweet when his wife Rachel died a few weeks before the March, 1837 inauguration which the president-elect believed was caused by stress when his political enemies spoke ill of her and her marriage to Jackson before her divorce to another man became final.
   
   Wilentz writes that once in office, Jackson was a champion of the concept of the republic, meaning the will of the majority ruled while he attempted to re-structure the functions of national government into how he believed it should operate.
   
   Modern pundits complain that today's politicians can be nasty and uncivil towards each other in their rancorous discussions on the issues of the day. But today's media sound bite zingers are tepid and restrained compared to how those of the different political parties and viewpoints treated each other two centuries ago when many disagreements ended with the two participants settling their feud with a duel.
   
   The political opponents of the president referred to Jackson as ruling like a king or dictator, since the new chief executive did his best to re-tool the government into a bureaucracy of his liking such as making multiple changes in his cabinet to get those advisors he desired and would do what he wanted. The colloquial phrase `to the victor goes the spoils,' refers to Jackson's selection of those political supporters of his choosing into specific national government posts to do his bidding.
   
   Jackson considered himself to be a man of honor and believed his words and those spoken by others to be a reflection of their firm beliefs. That's why he terminated the relationship with John Calhoun, his own vice-president, in 1832 when he determined the South Carolina politician had crossed him when Calhoun supported that state's desire to secede from the union in seeking nullification of certain laws over keeping the union together.
   
   Calhoun resigned as vice-president, the first national officer to do so, got himself appointed as a senator from South Carolina while that state made plans to secede from the union if the federal government continued to demand its share of taxes through tariffs. Jackson mobilized federal troops to send into that state and let it be known that he would publicly hang his former vice-president if cessation plans went forth.
   
   They didn't.
   
   Compare that to today's politicians who say or do anything to keep their particular electorate happy, even it will hurt the nation in the long-term as long as it keeps them being re-elected.
   
   Jackson also hated bankers and the concept of paper money that's not based on gold or silver. He closed down the Second Bank of the United States, (today's version of the Federal Reserve) and paid off the national debt in 1835 which endeared him to the masses. So it is with much irony that his image ended up on our twenty dollar bill, the most popular American paper currency that is issued by today's Federal Reserve Bank which is privately owned and makes a profit from the public debt that increases every year and has no chance of ever being paid off.
   
   Wilentz states that Jackson put the nation on the road to true democracy for all the people, although the democracy he believed in is not what we have today because that process evolved over time with the work of the many presidents who would follow.
   
   By the end of Jackson's second term, his popularity and large group of supporters across the country helped to start the creation of the modern Democratic Party and he was able through his influence to get his second vice-president, Martin Van Buren, elected to the presidency in 1836. Jackson's own political beliefs also led to the formation of the political parties movement when the Whig Party, mainly composed of those politicians who opposed Jackson on just about everything during his time in office, was created in 1834. They lasted for twenty years until it was replaced by the Republican Party in 1856 for the continuation of the two major political party system this nation still has today.
   
   Can it be considered unfair for those of us now alive two centuries later to judge Jackson and the other early 19th Century presidents on their stands regarding personal liberty when slavery was still prevalent to today's standards of freedom for all citizens? Yes. But that's not Jackson's fault. He made the decisions he believed on what was best for the country's long-term survival without compromise to any special interest group seeking favors for their particular cause to the detriment of the nation as a whole.
   
   What politician of today can make that same claim?



5. Clear and consise prose; well documented; theories of future effects well substantiated.

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

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



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



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



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



5. History buffs in general will find "A Slave No More" a highly valuable read. For students of American history, and particularly for those who are interested in the Civil War and Reconstruction period, this book is must reading. There are not many first-person accounts by former slaves available to us. This volume contains two such narratives, hitherto unpublished: one is by Wallace Turnage and the other is by John Washington, both former slaves who found their way to freedom during the Civil War. David Blight presents them here in their original form "with virtually no changes to the grammar and spelling," although he has done some minor editing in their structure (primarily providing paragraph breaks) to assist in reading.
   
   The reader is not, however, immediately thrust into the narratives themselves. Blight spends the first 162 pages introducing us to the two writers, using genealogical data, and to the context in which the narratives were written. Turnage's and Washington's escape to freedom occurred during the chaos of this nation's most bloody war (over 600,000 casualties) and amidst a political and cultural conflict (state's rights and slavery) which had been ripping the country apart for many decades. It is, I think, essential to understand the plight of the Black slave on a personal level, to understand what it means to be someone else's "property," completely and totally subject to someone else's will, to recognize and accept that slaves were not thought to be fully "human." Blight does an outstanding job of providing the necessary background for the narratives.
   
   I recommend this book to all readers who love the study of history. It is a valuable contribution to the genre.

4 comments about My Three Fathers: And the Elegant Deceptions of My Mother, Susan Mary Alsop.

1. This book is a fascinating look at the world's elite and the very small circle they traveled in during the mid 20th century. The prose is excellent and the story compelling. I heartily recommend it as a great read.



2. read the same book I did. I thought Bill Patten did a wonderful job in bringing his interesting family to life by concentrating on his three "fathers". His "real" father, Duff Cooper, his "assumed" father, Bill Patten, and his "step" father, Joe Alsop. All three men were members of the WASP aristocracy, either in the US or in England, and all played important roles in both the US government or the British government in the first fifty or so years of the 20th Century.
   
   But between all these men was one woman, Susan Mary, herself a product of the same background as the men, who married two of them and bore a child - Bill the author - to the third. Susan Mary, a seemingly cold woman, certainly nicer to her friends than her children, a rather calculating woman, more at home in London and Paris society than with her children. Maybe the coldness came from having lost a beloved older sister when she was a child. Whatever caused it, the reticence and distance she imposed on her older child was partially to blame for what seems like a life-time "search" for identity by her son.
   
   Patten writes well and the reader can tell that he certainly seems to have gotten his life together. Maybe it took his mother's death in 2004 to put the pieces together.



3. Don't get me wrong. I think the author is in many ways an entirely estimable fellow He had personal problems that he worked hard to overcome. He has a degree in theology. He helps prisoners
   But after I read this memoir I couldn't help thinking that he had to diminish his family in order to feel better about his own life.
   He grew up believing that Bill Patten, who remains something of a dim presence in this volume, was his father.
   In the mid 1990s while his mother was being treated for alcoholism, she reveals to him that he is the son of Duff Cooper, a British diplomat. His stepfather is Joe Alsop, a closeted homosexual, who was a major opinion maker in Washington in the 1940s-1960s
   All of these folks drank and none were models of marital rectitude Mr Patten congratulates himself on how much finer in these regards he is than those who came before him
   What he doesn't dwell much on is the fact that Duff Cooper showed great courage in resigning from Neville Chamberlain's cabinet when Chamberlain came back from his talks with Hitler declaring that he had achieved "peace in our time." Duff Cooper also jollied along Charles DeGaulle following the end of the war and was the first British ambassador to Paris. Mr Patten reduces him to a sad alcoholic and notes that in his diaries Cooper determines to quit drinking and never mentions it again. That's not really true I finished the diaries about 3 weeks before I read this book and Cooper does make more of an effort to quit drinking than Mr Patten gives him credit for.
   His stepfather made every effortt to provide his stepson with opportunities to learn and get ahead and the story of his career in Washington and the willingness of journalists and official Washington to ignore his sexual orientation harks back to a time when privacy was respected.
   Mr Patten's mother, Susan Mary Alsop, was perhaps a wretched parent but she was a noted Washington hostess who derived her power through men which was the way one did it in her time and she did write some very fine books indeed. Her biography of Lady Sackville is riveting and well worth reading.
   Did the adults in Mr Patten's life let him down? Yes. But they are being held to a standard of self-awareness that did not exist when they lived.
   None of them should be writen off because they were more at ease at embassy parties than AA meetings.



4. This memoir is documentary proof that merit trumps birth. The author's lineage - he is descended from John Jay and a clutch of American and British aristocrats - counts for very little when the story he has to tell is so thin. His ancestors are simply not interesting enough to bear the weight of so many pages of narration. What is fascinating family history within the family, does not make for compelling reading to those outside the family circle. I want to read about people who have accomplished something, whose lives are worth recording and reading, but the author's mother, grandfather, grandmother, and various fathers simply do not rise to the level of page-turning material.

No comments about The Book of Mychal: The Surprising Life and Heroic Death of Father Mychal Judge.

5 comments about A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan.

1. I must say -truthfully- that that is the best political biography I've ever read (and there have been many).
   
   I accidentally happened into discovering William Jennings Bryan. He is a figure who is given only a brief mention in any grade or high school history book, and that is a shame. While reading a biography of William McKinley (Bryan's rival for the presidency during the election of 1896) I found myself wondering, "Who is this man Bryan?" I wanted to know more. How did a man rise to the head of his party and lead three unsuccessful bids for the presidency? He had to have been a considerable figure. Only Grover Cleveland (who won the popular vote in three elections) and later Franklin D. Roosevelt held such a command over their party. Bryan had to have been just as dynamic.
   
   Thankfully, the author, Mr. Kazin, provides his readers with a deep, very well-researched and enjoyable account of Bryan. Turns out that Bryan WAS a considerable figure. Though he might seem very distant and certainly out-of-place when seen in the context of current events and attitudes, William Jennings Bryan was a perfect fit for the times...someone who could -without apology- campaign for the highest office as a common man of deep faith, extolling the romance "of Jefferson and Jesus." One is left to question what it would have been like had Bryan attained the Presidency of the United States.
   
   The events covered in the pages of this book occurred during the late 1800s/early 1900s...right around the time when many students in their history classes begin to daydream with heavy eyes. (The tariff debate of the 1890s for example, can't possibly hold as much interest as say the question of secession leading up to the Civil War during the 1860s). It would take a pretty determined writer, then, to engage his audience into discovering William Jennings Bryan. Michael Kazin proves to be such a writer.
   
   I can't be sure whether it was Mr. Kazin's strong writing, which given the subject matter could have been very plodding and boring in lesser hands, or the subject himself (Bryan deserves to be remembered for the role he played in our nation's history, even if he did fail to acheive the Presidency)...but I enjoyed the hell out of this book. And that is saying something.



2. There isn't much of substance that I can add to the many excellent reviews already posted here. But perhaps I can provide some comments in minimalist fashion that can get this important book into the hands of "a wider audience." I think there is much we 21st century Americans can learn from William Jennings Bryan. I will divide my comments into two sections: the first dealing with the literary value of the book and the second noting things we can learn from Bryan's life.
   
   The Book -
   1. The organization and pacing is excellent. Nine of the twelve chapters are divided into discreet time periods that correspond to the various political episodes of his life, which was largely defined by his participation in the political life of America. The other three chapters - his early years, his career on the Chautauqua public speaking circuit, and the response of his political admirers - work very well, never losing the focus of the book, politics and evangelical Christianity.
   
   2. This is a good read. The level of diction and writing style is just right for a popular audience. Best of all, Kazin does not "get in the way" of his subject, Bryan. Some academics seem to want to display ALL their knowledge, whether it fits into the narrative or not (are you listening, Joseph Ellis?), but Kazin resists the temptation. I am quite certain that Kazin knows a lot more about Bryan and his times, but, thank God, he is keeping it to himself. I read a lot of history and biography and this effort would have to be in my top 10% in terms of its literary value.
   
   William Jennings Bryan -
   1. He is a very important figure for the history of the Democratic Party, but I am not sure why, even after reading this biography. Certainly, he was an important figure in the Democratic Party during an era when they transformed themselves from the conservative laissez-faire era of Grover Cleveland into the liberal activist times of FDR. If you can overlook his racism and support of prohibition (more on that below), almost all of his positions would be cheered by 21st century liberals. Was Bryan responsible for helping the party make this remarkable transition, or was he simply in the "right place at the right time", fortuitously carried along by other leaders or social forces beyond his control? In either case, he is far more important in the making of modern America than historians have heretofore recognized.
   
   2. He is important for evangelicals who want to be engaged in politics(Self-disclosure: I am an evangelical who is vitally interested in American politics). I think he lived an exemplary life, one that other evangelicals could emulate, but what does that look like for me? It seems to me that 19th century evangelicals generally favored an activist government, working for reforms like abolition, temperance, education, care of the mentally ill, etc, yet that seemed to die after Bryan left the scene. The social gospel seemed to suck them into a new paradigm of seeking "salvation" only in this world and ignoring the next. They turned formerly evangelical denominations - Presbyterian, Methodist, American Baptist, Evangelical Lutheran, etc. into sects that seemed to downplay Christ's gospel for the social gospel. Personally, I am disappointed in their religious direction, yet I am also disappointed in the path taken by those who stayed "true" to evangelical principals. They largely abandoned politics until the abortion controversy of the 1970s and since then, have all too often been used by economic conservatives for purely electoral purposes. I think there is a "third way", in which one defends the gospel in spiritual matters, yet also sets an independent course in political matters, all the while using scriptures as the guide to best "love your neighbor."
   
   3. He is important for today's Democrats. He was obviously deeply committed to many issues that 21st century Dems feel are important, yet he came at these concerns from a Christians perspective. Can Dems allow this type of person to have an important place at their "table"? I'm not talking about phony rhetoric. That will not work because it will be obvious that it is not sincere. I am talking about being serious about making people of faith feel welcome in the Democrat Party. For example, could a Pro-Life Democrat ever be allowed by party bosses to run for President? Not in the past, but perhaps in the future. Secularists and secularism has controlled the party for many, many years. I feel it hurts the party very much in "fly-over" land.
   
   4. A word about his racism and silence about the KKK. Indefensible in our day, but in his? Wilson was certainly racist, and did much to deepen Jim Crow. Why is he given a pass? (For that matter, why is Sen. Robert Byrd of West Va., former KKK organizer, given a pass on his embarrassing past?)Most people were very racist in Bryan's times, including most of the Democratic Party. So why is he singled out for censure? I think a lot has to do with his evangelical identity, and his role in the Scopes trial. Some secularists loathe evangelicals and, I think, have trouble thinking in a balanced way about someone like Bryan. Take a look at the ridiculous review of this book by Publishers Weekly on this site. How does someone read this book and produce that review?



3. If you want to know more about William Jennings Bryan, this is the book for you.
   
   Very well done!



4. Why read a book about a politician who lost the US presidential election three times in a row, and was a white racist to boot?
   
   More than just retelling an American history story, Kazin's masterpiece of US political history does an excellent job of bringing back to life a political scene that has long since passed and mostly forgotten. I burned through this book in one sitting.
   There has not been a WJB biography of this magnitude for quite some time.
   
   Kazin himself in the introduction admits mixed feelings about his protagonist, and there are certainly warts to Bryan's character seen through our 21st century lens. He does an excellent job pointing these issues out, despite the title of the book that makes Bryan sound like a saint. He wasn't - he profited impressively from his public speaking, and like many of his party, was a racist.
   
   What makes Bryan's life worth studying is one sees the start of the 20th century Democratic party in terms of their economic issues. Additionally, one also sees echoes of Bryan's religious bent to politics in modern politics today (think: what recent presidents have invoked the name of God repeatedly, and managed to win overwhelming majorities in rural areas? hmm). No wonder many politicians like him, at least pieces of him...



5. William Jennings Bryan is somewhat of an enigmatic figure in American history. Many of his contempories saw him as a dangerous radical while today he is often seen as a fundamentalist reactionary. How in the world can one man be thought of in such vastly differing ways? In this book Michael Kazin has attempted to answer this question and at the same time he has gone a long way toward clearing the reputation of this great man.
   
   To be sure, Bryan had his flaws and Kazin does not try to gloss over them at all. As a product of his time Bryan was not a friend of African-Americans but how many politicians of his time were? Bryan was also had a terrible problem ever admitting that he was wrong as did his fellow progressive Woodrow Wilson and both men ran into trouble because of it. Still though, when one looks at his entire career Bryan looms as a very large presence in the history of the reform movements of early twentieth century America.
   
   Of course the biggest thing that Bryan is remembered and reviled for is the famous Monkey Trail in Dayton Tennessee. It is all too easy to look at this episode and see a reactionary rather than a progressive thinker but even on the issue of Darwinism this book shows that in some ways Bryan was very much ahead of his time. Bryan critics often fail to mention that many of the early proponents of Darwinism used Darwin's theory to justify eugenics, which is the idea of taking the weakest people out of society so that only the strongest genes will be passed on. Bryan foresaw the serious implications of this idea and it was one of the key reasons that he fought Darwinism so fervently. It was almost as if Bryan could already see Hitler and Stalin with their death camps and this aspect of Bryan's stance on this issue should never be forgotten.
   
   Mr. Kazin has with this book given us the most balanced biography of William Jennings Bryan that I have ever come across. His close association with race bating bigots like Ben Tillman and Tom Watson is not the least bit whitewashed but then again neither are his accomplishments. This book shows us the Bryan who had his warts but who also fought long and bitter fights to gain equal rights for women, to see that free enterprise run amuck would not trample the rights of the average wage earner, and who is as responsible as anybody for the adoption current Federal Reserve System. People all over America owe Bryan a debt of gratitude every time they get their Social Security check and every time that they go to the bank feeling secure because their money is insured. Yes, this author points out Bryan's flaws but he also takes pains to remind the reader of all the positive good that Bryan did and he does so in a very pleasing way. There is not in fact a single boring page in this book. The author's arguments are clear and well defended, his writing style and research are superb and most importantly he has taken up this project with an open mind and because of this he has turned out what I consider the authoritative biography of William Jennings Bryan.