1 comments about Billy Mitchell: The Life, Times and Battles of America's Prophet of Air Power.

1. Billy Mitchell was a real war hero who did more for America than most people realize; and for those historians who are, in fact, aware of his pioneering achievements, they rarely pay him the full amount of credit he earned during his lifetime. After reading this book, one is awestruck by General Mitchell's ability to predict the future, and cannot but wonder why few took him seriously. Had the political leaders done so prior to WWII, thousands of lives subsequently lost in the Pacific would have been spared on both sides.

2 comments about William Randolph Hearst: The Later Years, 1911-1951.

1. He was bigger than life and one innovative person ...maybe the first gorilla marketer whether you agreed with him or not. Great read.



2. WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST: THE LATER YEARS, 1911-1951 presents the second volume in a biography series which follows Hearst's life, and is a pick for college-level holdings which already have the first volume, as well as for college-level collections strong in media or journalism history. It surveys how Hearst built an empire of newspapers in nineteen of the largest cities in the U.S., and how his final forty years strengthened his hold. Previously unavailable letters and manuscripts, along with Hearst's own powerful political editorials, make for a powerful testimony not just to Hearst's life, but to the evolution of the newspaper as a whole, and its political impact on American lives.

No comments about U.S. Military History For Dummies (For Dummies (History, Biography & Politics)).

No comments about Gullah Statesman: Robert Smalls from Slavery to Congress, 1839-1915.

No comments about Chief of Staff, Vol. 2: The Principal Officers Behind History's Great Commanders, World War II to Korea and Vietnam.

5 comments about The Long Pursuit: Abraham Lincoln's Thirty-Year Struggle with Stephen Douglas for the Heart and Soul of America.

1. This title is essentially a dual biography of the political lives of Douglas and Lincoln. Although well-researched and informative, with numerous personal anecdotes covering both men, it never quite brings Lincoln or Douglas to life.
   
   Instead, Morris emphasizes the growing struggle of words, political parties and ideas as America grappled with its "irrepressible conflict." The author conveys Douglas as a capable conventional politician with "practical solutions to political problems" who nonetheless "failed to recognize that many northerners and southerners had moved beyond mere politics into a realm of theoretical certitude as exacting and precise as a hard-shelled Baptist's understanding of sin." (p. 193) Douglas strove to stand on a middle ground that was dividing like a geological fault line. The chasm opened and Douglas fell through - obvious with historical perspective but not so to Douglas and his followers in the late 1850's.
   
   Too intellectually intense to be a simple "good read," this book nonetheless conveys well a recurring theme in politics when a paradigm shift suddenly renders a "reasonable" viewpoint out of date. In ordinary times, the experienced and capable Douglas might have become president. But times were not normal, and so a rustic, funny man with a gift for speaking and a latent consistency of purpose rose to become America's president in its hour of greatest need.



2. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas were the two preeminent Illinois politicians of the pre-Civil War era, and their debates are an important part of American political history. On the eve of the 150th anniversary of these debates comes the release of "The Long Pursuit," which chronicles the complicated political relationship of these men far beyond these famous debates. I'm a neophyte to Lincoln history, so I approached this book with some trepidation. Fortunately, the book is well-written and straight-forward enough that I was able to follow along without knowing a great deal of Lincoln history.
   
   The average person knows Douglas mostly through his debates with Lincoln, and Roy Morris Jr. notes with irony that most people think that Douglas lost the political race in which the debates occurred. Instead, Douglas won the Illinois Senate race against Lincoln; he was considered a star in politics, whereas Lincoln remained essentially a relatively obscure country lawyer. When Douglas became an obvious Democratic nominee for the Presidency, these debates actually ended up helping Lincoln, as his supporters in the Republican Party could argue that Lincoln knew Douglas and his debating style so well that he could match up well with Dougles, despite the earlier loss. Fortunately for Lincoln, his stance against the spread of slavery into new territories gained greater acceptance in the North than did Douglas' appeasement approach, and he managed to spring to the Presidency over the better known Douglas (helped by the entry into the race of several third party candidates).
   
   Indeed, throughout his early career, Lincoln seemed to be inexorably tethered to Douglas, although history obviously has dimmed the reputation of Douglas, who was known as the Little Giant in his day. "The Long Pursuit" is interesting reading, and the material is certainly timely given the anniversary of their famous debates. Roy Morris Jr. does a good job placing their relationship in historical context and including enough interesting stories to keep this Lincoln newbie interested. I was a bit disappointed that the Lincoln-Douglas debates were not covered in greater detail; however, that simply may have been beyond the scope of this book, and that material does seem to be covered in many other texts. What this book did do is whet my appetite for more information and to seek out other books on the topic.



3. Coming, as I do, from the Land of Lincoln, new books on our 16th president are always of interest. Rarely do they seem to take a new tack on an old story. Though some are better written than others, many seem to cover the same ground. Morris, however, does something interesting in his book, The Long Pursuit. He gives us a look at Lincoln through the long-standing relationship/rivalry between Lincoln and the other important Illinois politician of the time, Stephen Douglas.
   
   In fact, if the truth be told, Douglas was the more important of the two figures right up to the point that Lincoln won the presidency in 1860. Throughout the 1850's, Douglas was the powerhouse Democratic senator from Illinois and perennial candidate for president while Lincoln remained, if not an unknown, certainly a small-time, provincial politician. It was, of course, his series of debates with Douglas and the resulting fallout during the senate election of 1858 that finally took Lincoln to national prominence and gave him his shot at the presidency two years later.
   
   In some ways, it is too bad that Douglas has been all but forgotten except as Lincoln's foil in those all important debates. (Can you tell I'm from one of the cities in which those debates took place?) Considering his impact during those antebellum years, Douglas deserves better. And, to his credit, Morris does him justice here. We are offered plenty of fair insight into Douglas's character here and how he tried to navigate his way through difficult times while being a powerful leader. In many ways, I feel I know Stephen Douglas much better from reading this book.
   
   Still, this is Lincoln's story. And it is Lincoln's story under a spotlight focused on a very particular period of time. We get very little of Lincoln's youth, now well-passed into legend. The story really picks up with Lincoln's arrival at New Salem, Illinois, as a young man, soon to enter political life. It follows Lincoln through his ups and downs in Illinois, his encounters with Douglas (including details on those all important debates), his positioning as the Republican candidate for president, his improbable yet inevitable election, and finishing up with his swearing in as president. Nothing is mentioned of his years in the White House. Which is just what this book needs as it tells a different story. Within months of Lincoln's swearing in, Douglas was dead.
   
   In the end, this is an excellent book. In a well-ploughed field of history, it is unique. Not only that, it is well-written and informative about a period of Lincoln's life that is less well-known and brings back to life Stephen Douglas--a man who, but for some twists of fate, could be as well-remembered as Lincoln (if not as well-respected, perhaps). For anyone interested in Lincoln's life, this is a book that should be read.



4. It is a common observation that we are shaped, morally and intellectually, by the people we choose as friends. As demonstrated by this book, we may be shaped even more dramatically by our enemies and competitors.
   
   Abraham Lincoln was such an amazing president that we often forget how difficult was his climb from obscurity. As Roy Morris makes clear, Stephen Douglas was essential to Lincoln's training. The competition between these two men brought out the best in Lincoln, and forced him to refine his political skills and ideas. In particular, it forced Lincoln to define a moral yet measured approach to limiting the scope of slavery in the territories, with the hope of sending the institution to its ultimate extinction.
   
   My main surprise was Morris' limited treatment of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. However, he makes up for that deficiency with many insights into related issues, such as Douglas' struggles within the Democratic Party at the time of the 1860 presidential election.
   
   Morris weaves into his narrative many interesting opinions and suppositions about Lincoln's subjective reactions to the events swirling around him. However, at times Morris seems to get carried away, and projects onto Lincoln opinions that are inconsistent with the historical record. For example, he makes a passing reference to the "notably irreligious Lincoln," which is hard to reconcile with Lincoln's profound religious beliefs, reflected in his many speeches and letters, and culminating in his powerful Second Inaugural address. (See e.g. White, Lincoln's Greatest Speech)



5. Abraham Lincoln is probably the most famous past president in our history, with the possible exception of George Washington. Lincoln was a great man, but most people don't remember that for much of his life, he was largely a political failure, if a principled one. The chief reason for this was a political rival, a Democrat named Stephen A. Douglas. Douglas was a powerhouse in the Senate for a quarter century, forging compromises and legislation, arguing the cause of compromise with the South so that discord didn't destroy his party and country. Douglas and Lincoln met in debate repeatedly, and were rivals in Illinois politics for a considerable time.
   
   While they were rivals, they were also at least cordial, if not outright friends. Finally, in 1857, Lincoln was nominated for the Senate seat Douglas held, and the two met in a series of debates. Douglas won the election, but had to say things in the debates that alienated the South, while Lincoln managed to engage, even energize the Republican sentiment in much of the country with his side in the debates. Within two years, Douglas was a weak candidate for president, fatally wounded by a rival Democrat nominated by the Southern Democratic party, and so Lincoln triumphed in the presidential election in 1860.
   
   The story of all of this is very well-recounted in this book by Roy Morris Jr. Morris is careful to give Douglas his due. Frankly, Stephen A. Douglas should be a better-known figure in American politics. When Lincoln won the presidency in 1860, Douglas, in spite of the animosity that had permeated the election, immediately endorsed Lincoln, and castigated the South for their threats to secede. This sort of politics is today very unusual, and you wonder whether anyone today thinks they could learn from the past.
   
   I really enjoyed this book and would recommend it to anyone interested in Lincoln or the 19th Century.

No comments about Cumberland Blood: Champ Ferguson's Civil War.

5 comments about Dearest Ones: A True World War II Love Story.

1. This book is the journal of Rosemary Langheldt who left her job and home in San Francisco to serve with the Red Cross in London and then Germany. The story is told through letters home and journal entries, and both are highly informative and well written missives. Mrs. Norwalk recreates what it was like to live in England during the last year of the war. She is an empathetic observer of the many tens of thousands of men (boys) who stop briefly at her Clubmobile for a donut and a cup of coffee after disembarking in England and re-embarking for the fight on the Continent. Once Rosemary is transferred to Germany, she sees firsthand the near destruction of many German cities. Her writings are true to the time: these people were our enemies a short time ago and they tried to kill the boys who I helped serve. It also offers an honest appraisal of the Occupation where the black market made many Americans rich. This book will be of interest to anyone who wants to know about life in England after the Allied landings in June 1944 and the early days of the occupation in Germany.



2. I picked up "Dearest Ones" in a discount store and didn't expect much. There's a certain sameness to the World War II diaries of young women: young woman from small town bucks convention, kisses parents good-bye, and runs off to get liberated. She has some very mild adventures, makes a lot of friends, says "gee golly whiz" a lot, and swans on home at the end of the book. A postscript informs us that she settled down with a man named Bob or Hank or Earl, of whom we heard absolutely nothing in the course of the book except for a few mentions of "letters from So-and-So in the South Pacific," and is living somewhere in the midwest near her three grown children.
   
   Boy, was I surprised, and pleasantly so. Perhaps it helps that Rosemary Langheldt was older, in her mid-twenties, and already a career woman when she applied to join the Red Cross overseas. It also helps that she seems to have been a very curious and thoughtful person. As other reviews have mentioned, she takes notice not only of the glitz and fun of work abroad, but of Britain's sometimes stifling class distinctions, American racial prejudice, and the difficult moral compromises involved in the occupation of Germany. There is also plenty of romance, fun, and gee-golly-whiz adventure, but one never gets the sense that Rosemary lost track of her primary reasons for being in the Red Cross or saw her job as a mere means of adventure. Rather, she was there to work and the adventure happened along the way.
   
   She was keenly interested in other people, making this book a pleasure to read-- it can be incredibly frustrating to read a diary when the only "character" the diarist is able to make three-dimensional is the diarist herself. She had a skill for interacting with people (I get the sense that I would never in a million years have been able to handle her job) and trying to understand them, and that curiosity and interest in humanity permeates the whole book. (I also feel compelled to mention, as a reader, that I really appreciated the narrative cohesiveness of this book. If someone is introduced, then they will be around until a reason for their departure is given. A lot of diaries suffer from people and events appearing, disappearing, reappearing, necessitating either a lot of head-scratching or awkward footnotes. This book doesn't have that problem. Rosemary was a really excellent correspondent.) This is really a stellar example of the genre, probably one of the best I've read.



3. Rosemary Norwalk left ardent swains and professional position to become a "doughnut dolly" with the American Red Cross. This University of California graduate and San Francisco native brings a disciplined eye to the social climate and
   the broad spectrum of Americans thrown together by World War II. Following training in Washington, D.C. where she had to be restrained from sitting in the back of the bus, to commentary on the bravery of the ordinary Londoner under the buzz bombs, to experiences managing the large operation at a major port, she is insightful and forthright. Her many letters home are tied together with good historical notes on military operations and progress of the war. Mistitled a love story, it is instead a story of women who dared to step up and take on great responsibility for providing troop support both departing and returning through Britain. An example: A new"girl" arrives and one of the current Red Cross "girls" rushes to Rosemary with misgivings over her attitude and different looks. " The new girl announces: I'm Lil...I'm a Jew and I'm from Brooklyn and I don't like to take orders.' It was a challenge, not a greeting. I took a deep breath in the silence, then stuck out my hand and smiled. I hoped cordially. 'Welcome, Lil. I'm a gentile, I'm from San Francisco, and,' I groped for the right words, 'I don't like to give orders, so we ought to get along fine.' "



4. This is a wonderful book that I enjoyed the entire time I was reading it. It is one of those treasures of American history that should be read by anyone interested in WWII history. It is valuable look at the war from the perspective of an American Red Cross volunteer stationed in England. Not a nurse, as the author points out as the usual assumption, but one of those moral boosting "doughnut dollies" that sometimes were the last friendly female face a soldier would see before embarking for the battlefields of Europe.
   Mrs. Norwalk was a wonderfully skilled writer at the time she wrote the letters and journal entries that make up the book. And the book is equally well crafted and edited, giving a detailed look at the work of the Red Cross workers on the docks of Southampton, England, their everyday lives and yes romances as the subtitle implies. It also includes personal photographs taken at the time.
   An interesting item on page 99 is a list that explains the code used by the Red Cross to communicate the number of ships arriving or leaving, their sailing dates, and the number of soldiers to expect so they would be prepared and have enough volunteers, coffee, and doughnuts for them.
   My sincerest thanks to Mrs. Norwalk (now deceased)for sharing this personal history with us, it reminds me very much of the letters my father wrote my mother during WWII that I have published into a book entitled: All My Love, Forever: Letters Home From A WWII Citizen Soldier. - Dale Lane



5. I came across this book at a local bookstore and thought it was a very touching and well-written account of love during wartime. As the author lived in my area, I was able to meet her and have her sign my copy. I'm so glad I did as she passed away August 22, 2002. What a great keepsake for her family and a wonderful book for the rest of us. So if you've been meaning to write your memoirs, don't put it off! It may not ever be listed on Amazon but it would probably mean a lot to your loved ones.

5 comments about The Generalship Of Alexander The Great.

1. Do we know much about Alexander the general? The accounts of his campaigns contain gross exaggerations of the number of battles he faced and are full of what are probably heroic glosses. Hans Delbruck(History of the Art of War) a famous German historian made it his business to try to calculate accurately the numbers of troops involved in many famous battles. He did this by looking at the logistics of movement and feeding armies. He concludes that most of the Greek accounts of the various Persian Wars are wrong.
   
   Prior to Alexander the Greeks were a weak militarily. The reasons for this were partially tactical partially political. Greece did not exist as a political entity. Rather Greek people were split into large numbers of small city states. Yet we should remember that there were a lot of them. Greek people not only lived in Greece but in what is now western Turkey, southern Italy, Sicily and southern France. The Greeks waged war by the use of heavily armed infantry called hoplites. Their infantry were the most advanced infantry of the time and in fact Persia used mercenary Greeks as there strike infantry. The weakness of the Greeks was that they had no real cavalry and they were useless at siege warfare. The Greeks thus had some potential and were able to defeat the Persians in defensive campaigns were they could control the ground and negate the use of cavalry. However in offensive campaigns they were useless as shown by the amateurish attempt by Athens to build an empire in Sicily. When Sparta became the leading power in Greece they were not able to put together any long term campaign to challenge the Persians. In fact the Persians most effective means of defence was to use their treasury to sow discord between the Greek states.
   
   Phillip built up a strong army that had strong cavalry detachments and Alexander became a master at siege warfare. Both Phillip and Alexander were able to unify Greece to form a basis for an assault on the Persians. Some ruthlessness was required as shown by Alexander's destruction of Thebes.
   
   The best argument for Alexander's strategic genius is that advanced by Engels in his book Alexander and the logistics of the Macedonian Army. The Spartans had put armies into Asia Minor but they had not achieved much. Alexander worked out a plan to liberate the Ionian Greeks to increase his logistic base and to keep a supply line open. He then had to defeat the Persian navy. As he did not have the ship to do this he instead conquered the land bases of the fleet. The Phoenician cities. He then was able to conquer Egypt. This meant that the Persians could not send a fleet to invade Greece and he could use the sea to supply his armies with men and food.
   
   If we look at the various battles it would seem that they were mainly decided by the use of heavily armed Greek infantry. At Issus and Gaugamela the Greeks lost less than a thousand men in each battle. At Issus Delbruck makes a convincing argument that the Persians were outnumbered and fought a defensive battle. At Gaugamela the Persians had been unable to recruit mercenary Greeks and had to rely on inferior infantry and cavalry.
   
   If we turn to Fuller's book rather than looking at the broader picture he tries to reconstruct what went on in the battles. He then tries to evaluate from his reconstruction the nature of Alexander's skills. However it is not clear that his reconstruction is more than guesswork and he fails to grasp Alexander's true genius which is his strategic rather than his tactical vision.
   
   The book also contains a long rant in the epilogue about the evils of Britain and the allied adopting a policy of unconditional surrender in the Second World War. Fuller suggests that if it had not been for this the "good Germans" would have removed Hitler from power and it would have all ended with sweetness and light prior to 1945. This of course is simply a bizarre fantasy and raises a question mark about whether he has any ability as a historian.



2. There are many great books about Alexander the Great out there and this one certainly ranks along with the very best. Alexander is many different things to different people, but if there is one thing that the big majority could agree on, it's that Alexander was one of the greatest military commanders (if not THE greatest) of all time and this book focuses on the military aspects of his most astounding career. J.F.C. Fuller is considered one of the best military historians of the 20th century and it's refreshing to read the insights from someone with a thorough military background instead of the opinions from a classical history scholar. Alexander was great at many things but it was as a military leader that he really stood out and this book focuses on that aspect instead of delving into so many other areas as other books tend to do.
   
   I've read many books about Alexander the Great and it's easy to notice the difference between the writings of someone with a military background like Fuller and Peter G. Tsouras and those of "pure" college scholars. This book isn't as thorough as a biography as those from historians dedicated to ancient Greece and Rome, but that's what I liked about this book. It reads fast and is informative without bogging you down with so many names, places, and high-browed academia that seem to be more about impressing other scholars than informing the general reader. When I read some of the "scholarly" books about Alexander, I can't help but think that these historians are simply trying to out-do the other with their opinions than really trying to present objective history.
   
   Surely, Fuller sits in the positive camp and he focuses on Alexander's achievements, strategies, and tactics from a military leader's perspective rather than a college professor's. Fuller doesn't delve into moral ramblings like so many historians seem to do these days. We get the facts and the expert analysis from someone who knows the military inside out, not bookworms sitting in a college office or the home den. You get the insights of someone who understands war, who has been on the front lines with other soldiers, and who knows what it's like to face the enemy and death itself. My beef with historians who sit on some moral high horse and criticize Alexander is that they don't know what it's like to be a soldier, which is what Alexander was - first and foremost. And that's why I believe this book is significant.
   
   Some critics charge that Alexander was a reckless commander who endangered not only his life but those of his soldiers. Well, let's look at the results. Alexander was often heavily outnumbered - sometimes as much as 6 to 1 or even 10 to 1 - but Alexander and the Macedonian army won virtually every battle decisively with minimum losses while the enemies suffered catastrophic casualties. The enemies often suffered 10~20 times as many casualties as Alexander's army did. To those who criticize Alexander's "recklessness" as a general, what would YOU have done to do even better and save more Macedonian lives? Of course, these people wouldn't have a clue but it's easy for them to sit in their easy chair or a school desk and say, "I could have done better."
   
   This book is written by a renowned military general and historian and that means a lot. You can't quite compare that to most books written by university scholars who have no idea what it's like to put one's own life on the line as a soldier in times of war. Fuller writes and extrapolates from the perspective of a soldier, a general, and a leader of men in battle. I just can't see how anyone who hasn't been a soldier can understand what that's really like. Fuller illuminates the mind of the soldier as well as that of Alexander himself as a leader. This book isn't the definitive biography about Alexander, but if you want to read a detailed analysis of Alexander's military battles, campaigns, and achievements from a lifelong military man, it doesn't get any better than this.



3. "The Generalship of Alexander the Great" is a fascinating book on Alexander the Great's life, political leadership and generalship. It was written by Fuller, a retired British General who is a world renowned military historian.
   
   Alexander was a unique leader who inspired his men to perform extraordinary feats and who was highly revered. He led from the front and his presence had decisive sway on his troops. He could quickly read a tactical situation and make decisive moves that would change the course of battle in his favour. His troops were highly mobile and adaptable to various tactical situations.
   
   This is a well researched book with the author citing various credible sources to reinforce his claims and arguments. The book can be easily understood by anybody with an interest in Alexander the Great. The author provides the reader with background information about Macedonia, Persia and other places, has maps which indicate the geographical areas referred to in the campaigns as well as the background to Alexander himself, among other useful details and insights.
   
   From the study of Alexander the Great, today's military commanders have a lot to learn, just as Caesar, Napoleon and Hannibal and others carefully studied Alexander and emulated and adapted some of his methods and techniques to good effect.



4. This book was the first text I ever read about Alexander and was a little bit disappointing. The information is all there (somewhere) but it is not presented in an interesting manner. I was given the book at Christmas and did not finish it yet (May, 02). More than often, the author describes the various conflicting sources of information but does not gives his opinion about which one is the most likely. This happens very frequently with the number of soldier involved in the battles he describes. The book is also rather poor in maps and figures and the text very often mentions places and roads without referring the reader to the existing maps. Some times you read through 2 or 3 pages without fully understanding the description just to find out that the map was there, some pages ahead. Finally, there is no detailed description of the battle units and armaments used at Alexander's times, leading the non-specialist reader to confusion.



5. There are many biographies of Alexander the Great out there. Most tend to look at his influence on the the times he lived in, as well as his legacy to the world. There are many ways to view the Macedonian juggernault. Here we have a unique perspective by a reknowned military historian. JFC Fuller takes Alexander's career and provides a first-rate look and analysis. The book is divided into two roughly equal parts. The first section provides a fast moving mini-bio of his life, emphisizing the major battles and campaigns of Alexander. The depth here is lacking, and purposely so, as this information is only provided in order to follow the discussion of his generalship.
   
   Alexander exercised a unique kind of leadership. In addition to leading from the front in battle, he also combined the abilities of general and statesmen all in one person. In battle Alexander's presence was a decisive influence. He had an innate ability to read a tactical situation, and adapt it to the abilities of his Macedonian army. Its important to understand how important this army was to Alexander's strategy. Without this carefully crafted force which his father, Philip II created, Alexander could not have accomplished what he did. Fuller helps us to understand this by showing how Alexander used this army as a tool for all his endeavors. Its important to remember how much the Macedoonian army out-classed its Persian and Indian opponets. It was also a very versatile army, able to operate in almost any circumstances.
   
   We see Alexander's brilliance both in major and minor battles and campaigns. This book is a must have for the Alexander specialist. It can serve as a useful guide for any of the numerous biographies out there which tend to gloss over many of the details of his generalship. Highly recommended for Alex buffs, and for the recent interest generated by the new movie on this subject.

5 comments about Toussaint Louverture: A Biography.

1. Toussaint Louverture who lived from roughly 1744 to 1803 was the preeminent leader of Haitian independence, a model of a rebel, and a paradox of a person. He was a self educated slave who was freed shortly before his uprising in 1791. In 1793 he allied himself with the Spanish against the French but later changed sides and fought alongside revolutionary France, whose Jacobins had freed the slaves in 1793, to help expel the English who Toussaint noted had not freed the slaves of their colonies. By 1799 he was master of the island and was forced to put down a rebellion by mixed-blood freedmen (known variously as `mullatto' or `coloured'). By 1801 he was in charge of the whole island but the next year Napoleon sent an army to wrest it back to France. Toussaint was kidnapped and whisked away to die in France while his former slaves fought on and eventually gained independence in 1804, only the second independent country in the New World and one of only a few independent black countries in the world.
   
   This book is a very readable masterpiece of writing drawing mostly on secondary sources to flesh out the fascinating life of the former slave and rebel leader. The story pays close attention to the class and ethnic destinctions on the island, showing the great degree of animosity between the French, the creoles, the free Gens De Colouer (coloreds) and runaway slaves. This is a fascinating portrait of the New World, the Carribean, a French colony and slave life and rebellion. Toussaint was an ardent Catholic and persecuted Voodou. The last chapter is a lively discussion of the problems Haiti has faced since the time of Toussaint, a story that can also be found in `Why the Cocks fight'.
   
   A riveting and important book.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman



2. Well known for his trilogy of historical novels chronicling Haiti's struggle for independence from France (ALL SOUL'S RISING, MASTER Of The CROSSROADS, and THE STONE THAT The BUILDER REFUSED), author Madison Smartt Bell is familiar with the primary and academic sources on the people and events that led that country through its chaotic and bloody triumph to becoming the first black state in the Western Hemisphere. Of those men, the most important of all was Toussaint Louverture.
   
   Madison Smartt Bell's TOUSSAINT LOUVERTURE: A BIOGRAPHY is a necessary addition to a subject only few have dared to take on. As a biography it provides a sober and ubiased account of the former slave and self-taught veterinarian who, at age 50, would also prove himself a brilliant leader and military genius.
   
   Unlike most others who've written about the man, Bell provides much detail on Louverture's early life and ambitions. He presents a Louverture who was shrewd (the man ably manipulated the interests of both the British and the Spaniards) and level-headed, but who was also just and often disgusted by the bloody excesses of the slaves' rebellion.
   
   What makes this such an excellent work is in the way Madison Smartt Bell fleshes out Louverture's world with an indepth look into the various social classes and ethnic groups of Saint Domingue, the role religion and spiritualism played in the daily lives of the slaves and the strong influence of Voudoun on the rebellion--something that, depending on the situation, Louverture would either persecute or encourage. By highlighting the social and ethnic groupings of upper-class white landowners ("grand blancs"), lower-class white laborers and merchants ("petit blancs"), those of mixed race ("gens de coleur"), freed blacks, and the slaves, Bell shows how each one was antogonistic towards all the others and makes a strong point of presenting Haiti's war of independence as something much more complex than a slave uprising.
   
   Highly recommended.



3. After finishing another great work from Bell, I felt like there could never be enough written about this overlooked and distingushed figurehead named Toussaint. Bell chooses a subject which is quite frankly haitian, but who is more importantly american and borne of the spirit of enlightenment. This book unveils the complexities that surround this great leader who was free, propertied, owned slaves and was a devout catholic who was belived to also practice voodoo by the time the revolution started. A worthy read for those not only interested in haiti but also how leaders emerge...



4. The French Revolution, as all great revolutions, had effects on world politics and the struggle of other peoples whom awoken to political life in the afterglow of that event. The fight for freedom in French Santo Domingo (now Haiti, the name that I will use to avoid confusion hereafter) led by Toussaint to a point just short of independence is a prime example of that effect. Without the revolution in the metropolis it is very unlikely that at that time the struggle in Haiti could have been successful. The history of the times was replete with unsuccessful slave rebellions. Why it was successful in Haiti and how that success was accomplished, mainly under the leadership of Toussaint in its decisive phases, is the subject of Mr. Bell's book. Mr. Bell's scholarship and necessary updating of Toussaint's story compares very favorably with that of the eccentric Marxist, later Pan-Africanist, historian C.L.R. James.
   
   The freedom struggle in Haiti, a tropical island well suited to intensive agricultural development for the new international market in those goods necessary for the embryonic industrial system, was above all the struggle for the abolition of slavery. The fight against that servile condition that even many revolutionaries, white and black, and former revolutionaries of the time broke their teeth on. Today that freedom struggle, successful in its way in the Haiti of the early 19th century, remains a shining example of the only really successful fight against slavery by the slaves. So it pays to pay particular attention to the fight.
   
   The forces which pushed the French Revolution forward in the metropolis had their its own set of priorities, among them the fight to move the population from a condition of subjugation to a monarch to citizens of a democracy. I have noted elsewhere how important that changed social status was to the historical and psychological development of modern humankind. Nevertheless that same psychology applies to the struggle in Haiti although even more so under conditions of chattel slavery. Thus, the events in French had their reflection in the colonies particularly in Haiti. One can observe in France the changes in attitude and policy from the early revolutionary days when all classes were good fellows and true through the rise of the leftist Robespierre regime based on the plebian masses, its eventually overthrow and establishment of the Directory and then the various manifestations of the regimes of Napoleon. That regime and its treacherous colonial policy attempting was a very far drop down hill from the early heady days when even moderate revolutionaries were in both places prepared to go quite far to eliminate slavery in Haiti.
   
   There is something of a truism in the statement that great revolutions throw up personalities fit for the times. Certainly revolutions shake up the traditional order of things and let some who might have stayed dormant rise to the occasion. That is the case with Toussaint. For most of his life he was a middle level functionary on his master's estate respected by not slated for greatness. Early on, as the struggle against slavery heated up among the black slaves he exhibited the military, social, political diplomatic and other skills that would eventual thrust him into the leadership of the liberation struggle, This is really saying something special about the man because in the context of that Haitian revolution with the initial disputes between British Spanish and French interests and then the conflicting interests on the island itself between white, black and mulatto would have driven a lesser man around the bend. That it did not do so and that in his errors that which at times were grievous, especially around his seemingly obsessive commitment to maintain the French connection, does not take away from the grandeur of the experience. A cursory look at the latter developments on the island and the seemingly never ending series of tin pot despots who in their turn devastated the island only brings out Toussaint's fascinating role, warts and all, in the earlier liberation struggle in broader relief.



5. Madison Smarrt Bell writes a incredible Book on a True Leader who was bold and Revolutionary in how he commanded. this Book on this Man is long voerdue. Toussaint Louverture lead the Greatest slave Revolt. Toussaint is a Towering Figure in the History of Defending yourself and this Book is a Must read for all generations now and in the future.