1 comments about The Sky Suspended: A Fighter Pilot's Story.

1. The Sky Suspended: A Fighter Pilot's Story is the remarkable and memorable autobiography of Jim Bailey, who in the summer of 1939 while a 19-year old student at Oxford University felt strongly that war between England and Germany was inevitable. That was when he signed up to become a fighter pilot in the Royal Air Force. Baily flew British fighter planes in aerial combat missions that ranged from the Battle of Britain, through the action at Gibraltar, and the Anzio beach-heads, to the landing in the South of France. One of the true heroes for which Winston Churchill was to acknowledge with his famous declaration that never had "so many owed so much to so few", The Sky Suspended is the true life story of heroism, survival against the odds, and a remembering of so many that did not make it through -- but to whom so much is owed to that generation of young men by all of the generations that follow. This special large printed edition of The Sky Suspended is a great read, and a welcome addition to the growing library of World War II memoirs and biographies.

3 comments about Finding Jefferson: A Lost Letter, a Remarkable Discovery, and the First Amendment in an Age of Terrorism.

1. ....and that's a hell of a thing for a conservative Republican to say. I've always liked his style, even when I disagree. This short, but profoundly great, book gives his views of the First Amendment, filtered thru the metaphorical lens of a short letter written by Mr. Jefferson in 1801. Despite profound differences, Mr. Dershowitz and I share some things in common: [1] We are both pack-rats [2] We both revere Thomas Jefferson [3] We both love America. But then, he's a Red Sox fan, and I'm a Yankee fan......and, while we agree about the First Amendment, I suspect that we might part company over the Second...
   
   Alan Dershowitz found the letter in question in a rare book store a couple of years ago...it deals with Mr. Jefferson's disagreement with the views of Reverend Stanley Griswold, who advocated limitation on the freedom of speech. Jefferson decried limits, prefering to await "the first overt act". Well and good, but Jefferson did not face weapons of mass destruction [though he did have to deal with Islamic criminals]. The book deals point by point with Mr. Jefferson's arguments, with Dershowitz playing "Devil's Advocate". Dershowitz then branches into specific examples of how Jefferson dealt with problems in his own day. [I may add one slight point of disagreement; Dershowitz states that the Aaron Burr treason case of 1807 brings no credit to Jefferson...well, neither was it John Marshall's shining moment...Burr should probably have been acquitted on the merits, but Marshall still ran it as a rigged trial for political purposes]. He ends with his own views of the First Amendment...no limitation of free speech by the government. Period. I am fairly sure he would support me in the arguments I had with school authorities over my son's right to wear a Confederate flag T-shirt {I won}. But, nobody questions my Confederate flag tie at work...strange.
   
   This is one of the greatest books I have ever read. EVER. It reveals a human side of both Jefferson and Dershowitz that is engaging. Brilliant people are still people. And, this is a good place to give my own theory of what made Jefferson tick, though it's probably way off base...he was a man not bothered by contradictions. Mr. Dershowitz defended the idiots in Skokie; it bothered him [still does], but he made himself do the right thing; [I think] Jefferson would have done the same, and never worried about it a bit. If you want to spend an afternoon really understanding the First Amendment, this book is for you. I can't recommend it highly enough!!!!



2. Alan Dershowitz and Thomas Jefferson were collectors. Dershowitz, inter alia, collects antiquities. He loves objects with aesthetic and historical significance. Dershowitz travels to flea markets and book stores seeking treasure. Much of the focus of his legal activities has centered on the line between speech and act.
   
   The greatest acquisition of the author's career as a collector came from the Argosy Bookstore. It is a Jefferson letter about freedom of religion, (and of speech and ideas). The letter had been passed down through generations of the Boardman family who reside in New Milford, Connecticut. The historian Charles Beard learned of the letter's existence in 1926 and quoted from it. In turn, the sentence appeared in several important legal decisions.
   
   The letter was sold to the Argosy in 2006. Alan Dershowitz's daughter believes he has become obsessed with Jefferson. (He has now bought a number of books and souvenirs pertaining to Jefferson.) Through his letters a person is able to get into Jefferson's head the author asserts. John Adams hoped that Jefferson's letters would be published. Jefferson pardoned persons convicted of violations of the Alien and Sedition Acts when he became President.
   
   This book is of great interest to lawyers and to historians of ideas.



3. Saturday Night:
   I received Finding Jefferson as a gift today from my sister-in-law Linda. Thank you Linda, I loved it. I read the book today, I thought about it today, and I wrote these comments today.
   I have always thought of myself as a Free-Speech Absolutist. I still want to call myself that but here are my thoughts - inspired by Jefferson and Dershowitz.
   1) An anonymous man on a soapbox in the middle of a public park is the perfect symbol of what "free speech" seems to suggest. Why? Because, no matter what he says, people who choose to listen to him are under no obligation to believe him or to be swayed by him. They are as free to listen as he is to speak. In any event, he will most likely be thought a crackpot for speaking in public to a crowd that may or may not form.
   On the other hand, the speech of your military superior, your gang leader, or your boss at work is not JUST speech. The relationship between unequals in a formal hierarchy is not just speech. Coercion is a necessary part of this kind of speech, the result of discourse among unequals. If your CO or your boss tells you what to do, your refusal to obey may have serious consequences. For example, a neo-Nazi speaking in front of a crowd of onlookers who are totally free to listen or not is exercising his right to free-speech, even if he advocates mayhem. On the other hand, the same speaker speaking to his lieutenants and his subordinates and advocating mayhem is conspiring to commit crimes and ought (perhaps) to be accountable even before the commission of any crimes. In sum, speech between unrelated equals is always free and ought always to be protected; speech between members of a group with a pecking order may be coercive and ought not to be entitled to protection as free speech. (vs. Jefferson & Dershowitz)
   2) Not all speech consists of IDEAS. a) Some speech is opinion or taste, which of right ought always to be free. b) Some speech is factual, or not. PERHAPS the propagation of some kinds of untruths among a closed group ought to be actionable: should society allow the teaching of blatant falsehoods? Should the teaching of 2+2=5 be allowed to be taught in a religious school? Should the denial of the Holocaust be permitted under the law? I don't have an answer to this, but it is worth examination. Teaching falsehoods as the truth is not the same as propagating an idea or an opinion or a political preference. c) Some speech is directive: do this! Is the command of your leader merely a case of "self-expression"? I think not. d) And some speech, masquerading as IDEA, is just emotional vomit. Again, the fellow on the soapbox in a park ought to be free to tell lies and to urge insurrection; the leader of a gang or a religious group perhaps ought to be constrained not to tell utter falsehoods or urge insurrection to his ignorant followers. In other words, directive speech from a superior to a subordinate ought not to be protected, because it is not really speech at all.
   3) Religious speech ought always to be free (PERHAPS excepting outright falsehoods); but speech turned into action is no longer speech. The fact that much religious speech is ridiculous is no reason to deny it protection.
   4) Imams directing their obedient flock to kill the infidels are conspiring to incite to murder or treason. When your spiritual leader tells you what to do, you exercise your freedom to refuse to do it on pain of eternal damnation. This is the same as being told what to do by your CO or your boss, but more so. It is not free speech because the speaker's listeners are not free to ignore it; it ought not to be protected, as it is NOT JUST speech. When a speaker thinks his words are law, his speech is not just speech. Many Catholics are pro-choice, despite the Pope and their own priest. When listeners are truly free to disobey, speakers ought to be free to say what they will. (vs. Dershowitz & Jefferson)
   5) The free marketplace of ideas is just as free as the economic marketplace is free. Neither is free! There are areas in this country where all the news is filtered by one corporate owner with a significant political agenda to push. Or many big owners with similar agendas. Not to mention the fact that many Americans are so closed-minded that alternative ideas will not be listened to and cannot be heard. The speech of such monopolistic speakers must be seen not as free as in a market of multiple viewpoints. In other words, some kind of regulation is called for in this case. (vs. Jefferson)
   6) It seems to me that Islam has real cause to be angry with the West. Just as black and red men have real cause to be upset with white European Americans. We should sit down and air our grievances openly. Well, no, we should sit down and listen to them air their grievances with us; WE should just shut up and listen for a change. However, insulting Muhammad is within our most narrow definition of protected speech; the freedom to insult the Prophet is protected, and that freedom is not negotiable. Neither is a new Muslim Empire spread by force negotiable. But we would do well to listen. For a change.

5 comments about Son of the Morning Star.

1. Those who study the Little Big Horn battle seem to fall into two camps where this work is concerned, some love it for it literary style, others loath it as it doesn't adhere to a strict timeline in recounting the events preceding and encompassing the battle. Instead, this book is a literary collage but its coverage is so well written that it is absolutely captivating. It encapsulates the spirit and mystery of the Little Big Horn like no other book. It's all here-the "hotspur" Custer as Connell calls him, the defiant Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, Reno described by the Crow scouts as "frothing at the mouth," the surly Benteen, Keogh and Comanche, spurious survivor stories galore and the evocative landscape of the battlefield itself. All captured in words and conveyed in a highly entertaining manner. It's almost as if Connell says we can never solve all the mysteries of this battle, so let's dispense with chronological history and just have fun! Besides, there are tons of excellent histories that do follow the conventional route that one can turn to for a more ordered look.
   
   My first visit to the Little Big Horn took place in 1994 and I took a special paid tour that included the Crow's Nest. I remember our guide talking about Connell and how, when he was shown factual errors in the first edition of this book, he readily agreed to change them and acknowledlged his mistakes. Our guide said that not all authors are that way where their books are concerned. Speaks well of him and his book. Only drawback--the index is very scanty so don't rely on it if you look for references for, say, the names of all of Custer's officers.



2. On a whim, I purchased this book at a London bookshop in the late 1980's, and was immediately captivated by it. Since then, I have reread Son of the Morning Star at least half-a-dozen times, each time with greater pleasure. Notwithstanding the passage of more than two decades since its original publication, "Son of the Morning Star" remains magisterial. One Amazon review I read denigrated this book because it was, according to the writer, inadequate for the serious historian. Perhaps. There exists no shortage of books devoted to Custer, intended for the "serious historian," among them Evan's 1999 exhaustive "Custer's Last Fight." "Son of the Morning Star" does not purport to cater to the "serious historian." It is, as Dee Brown remarked, "unique and for that reason should endure." Buy it. Read it.



3. I have been to the battlefield and have read and seen numerous documentaries of the Big Horn" battle (even watched the made for television series by the same title as this book), and I can say that the series was not as good as the book and neither has anything else I have seen or read about that fatal day in Montana over one hundred and thirty years ago.



4. Being a longstanding, confirmed student of the frontier Indian War era, Custer and his likes, etc., by now I must have read and collected several hundred books on these topics. In my opinion, Connell's is one of the very best and most entertaining, compelling, witty, and informative "reads" in this genre. Perhaps its not "perfect" (I have long been aware of some of the criticisms that have been directed toward it, some of which may be substantive and others just silly), but -- and this is unusual for me -- I found myself reading it all the way through more than once when I first got it a few years ago. I highly recommend this book.



5. As a student of history, especially the Battle(s) of the Little Big Horn and Custer, Son of the Morning Star, provides an unbiased look at this crucial western battle. This book provides great details on the various tribes as well as Indian leadership. It does not show George Armstrong Custer in any kind of good 'light'.
   Extremely well written.

5 comments about American Warrior: A Combat Memoir Of Vietnam.

1. This is one of the best books I've read. Worked this area with the 1st Infantry Division. It was like being there again. Knew a lot of the stories from a friend that was in the ARP.



2. This riveting non-fiction book describes leadership, bravery, compassion, dedication, and determination to seek out and destroy the enemy that should be the model for any officer going into combat. Although the setting is the Vietnam War it could just as easily been WW2 or any other war. You will find that this book ranks with anything written about General MacArthur or General Patton. Much of it has applicability for anyone who aspires to be a leader/manager in any civilian occupation.



3. Agree that it is one of the very best books written about the Vietnam War. Numerous killings, almost without count, and cold, unemotional narration with no attempts to be anything but a factual report. General Bahnsen told it exactly the way it was, whether you like it or not.



4. THIS IS A GREAT BOOK THAT BROUGHT BACK MEMORIES. DOC TELLS IT LIKE IT WAS AND WAS ONE OF THE BEST COMMANDERS I HAD THE PRIVLIGE SERVING UNDER.



5. A sobering and provocative account of a difficult time in American History, where unparalled valor and dedication were the norm. American soldiers rose valiantly once again to our Nation's defense, but failed to receive the recognition and appreciation they deserved. The writer has captured that sacrifice and dedication in vivid detail reflecting that teamwork and courage are paramount in combat, whatever theater, whatever war, whatever cost. Well led, well trained and well equipped, the American soldier is "Army strong".

5 comments about My Detachment: A Memoir.

1. The tone of Tracy Kidder's excellent memoir from his tour of duty in Vietnam in 1968 and 1968 is dour, full of resentment and disbelief in the value of war, and one of the stronger pacifist statements in book form. Rather than re-living the horrors of the Vietnam War and struggling to stay alive in a combat zone not marked by peripheries but rather by indistinct underground burrows where the ubiquitous 'enemy' remained hidden and disguised, Kidder's 'Detachment' was an Intelligence unit, for the most part safe from assault attack, but a unit that suffered the psychological destruction that accompanies an isolated band of men living in filthy conditions and always under the threat of 'inspection' by commanding officers seemingly more concerned with polished boots than by healthy mental states.
   
   Kidder, who never believed in the concept of the war in Vietnam, was a Lieutenant in charge of a small band of enlisted men whose job was to gather Intelligence to pass on to the war planners. His memoir unveils his own need to transmit to his family and girlfriend back home a sense of constant danger and participation in killing, and it is this disparity between his own convictions and the 'image' he felt necessary to send home that makes his memoir so frighteningly memorable. He shares his relationship to the men under his command, the multiple problems he confronted with personality types and aberrant situations, and the manner in which he grew as a man during his prolonged exposure to the underbelly of the commanding officers of the war. 'But to represent something is to command power over it. Maps are the tools of many ambitious people, of policy makers, commanders of armies, and youths who like to play at being one of those. And the problem is that the maps are easily confused with the world'.
   
   Where Kidder succeeds in his memoir about his war experience is in his brutal honesty, his fearless approach to report the reality of a war everyone is electing to forget, and the impact that Vietnam had on the mentality of the world and especially now with the youths who face another very similar war. His pacifism may annoy some readers, but his intelligence as a reporter and a writer cannot by ignored. As Kidder completed his tour, he observed a lifer, Major Great, on his way to back into Vietnam and ultimately society: 'I tried to imagine the life in front of him. Paperwork and acronyms and young men who wouldn't get dressed right. Too bad he wasn't a more prepossessing villain. But what a horrible life. Incomprehensible, really. And, of course, he probably walked off still shaking his head, thinking much the same about me.'
   
   Kidder has written a gripping book, one that would serve us all well to read - a different view of the long-term effect of Vietnam, and war in general. Grady Harp, March 08



2. My Detachment is the story of Tracy Kidder's one year tour of duty serving in Vietnam. He describes his experiences, command style, and attitude to the war and the Army in this memoir.
   
   This book has received many accolades, but I find this hard to understand. The story Kidder tells about himself doesn't inspire respect.. He portrays himself as a superficial, lying coward.. Having read the reviews others have written, I think most reviewers found these traits to be endearing. I did not. I think the acclaim this book has received has largely been from people who thought poorly of the Vietnam war and found expression of these feelings in this book. But certainly there are better, more thoughtful and intelligent anti war books than this.
   
   Kidder says he is against the war because a friend told him should be. He gives it no more depth of thought than this. By the end of the book he has become a true believer in the anti war cause, but we never see this develop.. He never gives any indication that he has given this any depth of thought.
   
   Kidder's experience in Vietnam was unremarkable. Nothing happened. He did not see any action. He did not talk to people who saw action. He never interacted with the Vietnamese. He was never exposed, even second hand, to the realities of war. He gives us nothing as a basis for why he opposes the war
   
   The only example he ever gave about something tragic was when he mentioned how the Communists had shelled innocent civilians in a refugee camp. It was the enemy who did this.
   
   The only thing I found interesting in the book was the brief description he gives of his work. His detachment's job was to use radio detection techniques to locate enemy units. The brief description of this was the most interesting.
   
   "When I'd left the United States, some people in the antiwar movement were still saying this was a war waged only between a corrupt South Vietnamese regime and valiant local insurgents. But on the part of our map that covered the brigade's AO, most of what you saw were large North Vietnamese units, and just a couple of Vietcong companies. And here was the kicker..... All of those units, including the two little VC companies, communicated directly with a giant corps headquarters across the border in Cambodia....... which in turn communicated directly with Hanoi. More than geography separated me from my principled antiwar friends back home....... He should be against the war, of course, but I'd bet he didn't know why"
   
   I was appalled when I read this. He offers us proof of North Vietnamese aggression, but this has no impact on him at all.
   
   Kidder dislikes the Army. He volunteered in hopes of avoiding being sent to Vietnam. When he finds out he is going to be sent he argues that his Harvard education made this a waste of material.
   
   Initially Kidder believes that he is too good to be sent to Vietnam. He comments that the war is for the uneducated and unsophisticated. However, once in Vietnam he starts to identify with these people in a total reversal of his attitude. He is their champion. He is an officer but has nothing but contempt for other officers no matter how good they are to him. He likes all enlisted men no matter how shameful their behavior. He doesn't like officers because he doesn't like regulations and inspections.
   
   Kidder makes a big display over how he feels he must protect "his men". But when he says protect, he means protect them from annoying inspections and regulations, But, he has little use for true protection concerns. His men are supposed to wear their helmets. He thinks this rule is ridiculous. His men are supposed to keep the sandbags maintained around their living and working areas to protect from mortars. He thinks this is just "make work" doled out by the Lifers as harassment. The real shocker is even when he hears about people getting killed by mortars in the camp, he still thinks the sandbag filling is harassment.. So much for protecting his men.
   
   His men didn't respect him. He showed no leadership qualities whatsoever. The whole book is a celebration of his weaknesses. He wanted to be a good leader, but in his mind his men had to like him for him to consider himself a good leader. So, to "Protect" his men and make them like him he asks very little of them. No expectations whatsoever. They live up to these expectations. He wants his men to like him yet by the end of the book he is still hopelessly not respected by his men and he knows it. His sergeant didn't have this problem with leadership, so the men listened to and respected the sergeant. But this leadership lesson was lost on Lt. Kidder.. As if to highlight his weaknesses he even tells us that while he was on R&R in Singapore a prostitute rejected him and the madam thought he is gay.
   
   He lied in his letters to family and friends. He never got anywhere close to any danger, but in his letters he constantly suggested he was in the thick of the war, and he is a good and respected leader. He is a writer so he wrote stories about the war while he was there. He wrote stories about soldiers in the field. People with whom he had no contact whatsoever. Stories of combat, racial problems, drug problems, the raping Vietnamese girls. Yet he had no personal knowledge of any such activities nor heard anyone tell him of such things. He admits this, yet he disingenuously wrote these things anyway.
   
   Kidder paints a truly pathetic picture of himself in this book.. I found it very hard to read. Almost embarrassing to read.



3. Having read "House", I knew that I liked Kidder's writing style and was curious about this book because of my own experiences. Much like Kidder, I was attending graduate school in Boston when I was drafted into the Army and ended up doing a tour of duty in Viet Nam. Also like Kidder, I was somewhat ambivalent about serving in the Army as I did not support the war and did not believe the U S should be in Viet Nam. So we both were sent off to do something that didn't need to be done for people who didn't want it done for them. Kidder does an excellent job of describing the almost fog-like state of mind that someone in their 20s adopts while in the military in order to get through the entire process, from basic training to final discharge.
   Kidder discusses how the day you arrived in-country, you started counting off the days until you could leave. It was rare to find anyone who couldn't tell you the number of days until they could DEROS (date of estimated return from overseas) or ETS (estimate termination from service). I will never forget drunken soldiers at NCO clubs, who had been in country all of three days, singing the "Short Song" - the Animals' version of "We Gotta Get Out of this Place."
   Kidder does a marvelous job of sharing the sense of tedium you experienced as well as the sense that you were completely and totally wasting your time. For most of us, your only goal and objective in serving in Viet Nam was not to be killed and Kidder helps the reader understand how one would adopt this philosophy. It was clear that we were not out saving America for democracy. Kidder also brings parts of his failed novel on Viet Nam into this book in helping describe the fantasies of those who were serving in the rear echelons.
   Kidder does a good job of explaining that many of the people who were sent to Viet Nam were not humping through the boonies but instead were placed in mindless jobs in the rear echelon. There they had to take orders from officers and senior NCOs who were putting in their required time in a war zone because it was a box that needed to be checked off so they could get their next promotion. The constant rotation of new officers on a one year tour meant that for at least the first six months, an officer was learning his job before he became any where close to being proficient. It was almost constant OJT.
   This book resonated with me in terms of reminding me of having many of the same experiences and feelings as Kidder described in his book: misadventures on R&R (I was in Bangkok and Kidder was in Singapore but the experience was quite similar); dislike and disdain for "lifers": a sense of how unfair life could be if you received a "dear John" letter from your fiancee; frustration over the fact that most of one's college friends had been clever enough to avoid being drafted and sent to Viet Nam; the fact that your peers viewed you as a "baby killer" instead of a patriot.
   If you served in Viet Nam, particularly as a REMF, you will enjoy this book. If you have ever wondered what it was like to spend a year of your life mostly bored to death with moments of abject fear when under mortar, sapper or rocket attack, this book will help explain those sensations. It is well written, is a good read, has a good deal of humor, and takes one back to what it is like to be 23 years old, depressed over being rejected by "the one great love of your life," and totally clueless about what you are doing in a foreign country taking orders from people you do not respect and performing a function that seems completely useless. I really liked the book, but I also lived the experience. Maybe you had to be there.



4. I almost met Tracy Kidder on October 10, 2006 because he gave a free public talk as an author participating in the Creative Writing Program of the University of Minnesota. Reading the book was a snap for me because I have been reading about Nam since I bought PAPERS ON THE WAR by Daniel Ellsberg back in about 1972. Putting little pieces of that big puzzle together is one of the things that keeps my brain active as I rapidly approach the age of 60. Probably the best idea I found in the book was "creepy lifer puke." Ain't like a man, when people run for public office and ads on TV smear someone for things that you do every day and salute people when you are not in a war zone, but to hear people in the good old U. S. Of A. complain about hippie freaks is just a bunch of creepy lifer puke, as far as I am concerned. When he was questioned about Iraq after his presentation from things he wrote, Tracy Kidder said some things about the terrible nature of war. The big green machine we know so well is unlikely to solve the kind of problems that people in Iraq have after their door gets kicked in. I also liked a bit about things to do in Singapore on R & R. It did not say you have to be in the army to get away with stuff like that, but who'd want to ?



5. I read a lot of genre books and have rated novels with less merit higher than Kidders 'My Detachment'. The reason I mention this fact is that I am holding 'My Detachment' up to a higher light than I would if Kidder had written a story along the lines of James Patterson or Stephen King. Instead I think that this story cries out to be considered along with other war novels that have shaped the great American novel, from 'Red Badge of Courage', to Norman Mailers, Tim O'Brien, Hemingway, and Joseph Heller's first efforts. And if I stack what Kidder has given us against these masterpieces, it is lacking on many fronts.
   
   On the other hand this is an enjoyable little book in its own rights. It follows the time line of Kidders early years, from his college days to his time in Vietnam. The story repeatedly brings up Kidders first foray into writing... a story that he wrote just after coming home from Nam. This story is portrayed loosely, but I felt as though it were along the lines of John Wayne's Green Berets. Kidder mentions this book often and contrasts the story he wrote to his actual experience which is what he is writing in My Detachment. He looks back at this story as a bit of young foolishness, and he looks back at himself as an ignorant self centered young man.
   
   Part of the problem with My Detachment, or maybe it is what makes it appealing, is that Kidder really pulls no punches when dealing with who he was at that time. He is a wholly self engrossed person, and the character that Kidder presents us with is both loathsome as well as fascinating. Its hard to find an affinity for the young Kidder, the novel gives you little in the way to latch on to personality wise, and you are left removed from events. Also, the story itself is an almost minimalist war story. Not too much happens, and this is kind of the point of this book.
   
   Kidder is a fine writer. I don't think that this story will be remembered as his best. It almost felt as though Kidder were going for a Nicholson Baker effect. Baker is a writer who is at his best when writing about the inconsequential. He wrote an entire novel about a trip up an escalator. It would have been interesting if Kidder had investigated his time with a different edge, by this I think that Kidder approached his time as if he were Hemingway crossed with a bit of our post modern culture, and not himself. I think he wrote for what others were expecting and not for originality's sake.

5 comments about The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson.

1. While this book is an excellent telling of the major events of Jefferson's presidency, it is not an intimate portrait of the man himself during those years. In the early couple chapters McDonald gives the reader what I would call a "Jefferson primer" for the unacquainted which is masterfully written, yet as he carefully and thoughtfully steps through the events of Jefferson's two terms, he does not delve into the mind of the man himself. There were several points where I thought to myself - 'gee, I would really like to hear more about what Jefferson was thinking as he made this decision'. A further inclusion of written sources from Jefferson would have alleviated this lacking.
   
   However, despite this major flaw (which may be intentional, leaving such thoughts for a biographist), it is a superb book. The narratives are interesting, well balanced, and complete. The book sticks to a well defined chronological organization. And, finally McDonald delves just enough into the characters surrounding Jefferson without overstepping his dues. A great read as a whole.



2. McDonald analyzes Jefferson's presidency, discussing the early successes in stopping Federalism, as well as the limitations to the changes that Jefferson and the Republicans could achieve. He discusses the failures of his presidency, notably the embargo of all trade, in a fair manner. Finally, he provides an interesting analysis of the motivations and sources of Republican policy and places Jeffersonianism in its historical context in a much clearer way than I have ever read before.
   
   The book is well-written, although perhaps on the short side. It also contains almost nothing about Jefferson's life before or after the presidency--it really is a history of his presidency.



3. McDonald is not only a great scholar, he is a storyteller without peer. He presents the Jeffersonian presidency in an objective and even-handed manner, highlighting both the successes and the tragic shortcomings of the Jefferson administration. Despite Jefferson's reputation today as a civil libertarian and a champion of liberty, McDonald shows how his heavy-handed tactics and his disregard for the Constitution led to disaster both at home and abroad. Despite ushering in the Republican Revolution of 1800, by 1808 Jefferson had lost control of the party he helped create and found himself at the mercy of John Randolph and his ilk in the House. McDonald never attacks Jefferson, however; he simply tells the rather sad story of a man consistently unable to meet the challenges with which he was faced. Another masterpiece from America's foremost historian.



4. Due to his primary authorship of the American Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson is widely viewed as a strong civil libertarian. The words of the Declaration and the American constitution speak so strongly about the limitations that government has when dealing with the citizens that they are just as valid over 200 years after they were written. He was also the primary individual around which the fledgling Republican party coalesced. In fact, McDonald commonly refers to the party as the Jeffersonian Republicans.
   Less well known is the manner whereby the Jefferson administration callously ignored those rights so clearly stated in those magnificent documents. People were arrested for their political persuasion and he attempted to have Federal judges removed simply because he was unhappy with their Federalist philosophy. This really was a sad time in history, as it was the first case where a president openly interpreted the law as it suited him. In my opinion, the clear statement of these actions of Jefferson while president is what makes this book. Since the Louisiana Purchase was the greatest event in the United States between independence and the war between the states, it tends to overshadow many of the other things that Jefferson did during his presidency.
   Jefferson's wholesale destruction of the American military left the country defenseless when it was being drawn into the wars between Napoleonic France and Great Britain. The consequences of these errors were monumental to the new country and his diplomatic mistakes contributed to a senseless conflict between the United States and Great Britain that served no useful purpose and could easily have destroyed the United States. Once again, McDonald is right on the mark in explaining what Jefferson did.
   Thomas Jefferson is often held up to mythic proportions as a champion of liberty and as an early statesman. In this volume, he is described as he truly was, a man who professed liberty for all, but practiced it only when it suited him. This is a superb account of what he did while president.



5. Forrest McDonald has produced a succinct, penetrating and fascinating history of Thomas Jefferson's Administration.

   This book is part of the Univ. of Kansas' history of the presidency series and the second effort from McDonald (he wrote a wonderful history of Washington's Administration). This book is about the policies, international relations, politics and style of America's third chief executive. Running at less than 200 pages, McDonald manages to be both thorough and interesting in his telling of this period.

   Jefferson and his Administration produced wonderful contradictions. His party espoused a "Republican" philosophy that basically wanted to liberate Americans from Hamilton's financial system and Adam's heavy handedness as witnessed by the Alien and Sedition Acts.

   Jefferson's early term saw him implement much of his program. As McDonald points out, few if any other Presidents have had their way so successfully with Congress. Jefferson also added greatly to the US through the Louisianna Purchase, despite his concerns with the Constitutionality of the aquisition.

   Jefferson and his Administration reached rough shoals in foreign affairs. Blinded by anti-British sentiment, the Administration prooved less than adroit at negotiating the position between Napolean and England. America was buffetted by this struggle and it reverberated back on our domestic situation. Suddenly, Jefferson's first term accomplishments became liabilities and were revealed as short sighted. The scheduled reduction of America's debt through the slashing of the Navy budget left us without the ability to challenge foreign powers. The abolition of Hamilton's system of internal revenues that left us entirely dependent upon tarriffs and thereby upon the grace of the British (who had the ability to determine how much trade our country could enjoy)for government revenue.

   In the most surprising irony, Jefferson -- who had decried Adams and his anti-liberal legislation (Alien and Sedition Acts) would go much farther than Adams in restricting liberties and in executive arrogance through his Embargo Acts and various executive orders designed to limit trade with the European powers.

   This is a fascinating story well told. Besides the policies, McDonald gives insight as to how Jefferson governed, his relations with Congress and the Judiciary as well as the toll of the office on the man himself. A good book.

2 comments about Lt. Charles Gatewood & His Apache Wars Memoir.

1. 
   
   Louis Kraft writes sensational books, my first knowledge of him came from GATEWOOD AND GERONIMO (New Mexico Press, 2000), which was also a History Book Club selection. And for being an "independant historian" he has turned out several very good books of history, this being a notable one.
   
   Unless one has read on the Apache wars in Arizona Territory, 1878-1886, the name Charles B. Gatewood may have very little meaning. But finally due this book and the efforts of Mr. Kraft, Lt. Gatewood is at last receiving some well deserved historical attention.
   
   Within a couple years of being posted to Arizona, Lt. Gatewood was in charge of the Apache Scouts and pretty much the key man concerning operational relations with the Apaches. Now, from Mr. Kraft and the University of Nebraska we can read Lt. Gatewood's 'recorded experiences', but only up to a point, for Lt. Gatewood died before he could complete them. What we receive here though is a valuable primary source printed for the first time.
   
   Have interest in the Indian Fighting Army in late Arizona Territory Apache Wars? Then you cannot pass this book up.
   
   Recommended.
   
   Semper Fi.



2. Louis Kraft does exactly what you're supposed to do with a memoir--he illuminates Gatewood's own words and Gatewood's life. Gatewood's description of meetings with the Apache, of life trying to manage the reservation, is absolutely priceless but Kraft puts the lieutenant into the broader context of his time and circumstance. Gatewood is a man worth knowing, and Kraft does an excellent job of introducing him to us. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and highly recommend it.
   Deb Goodrich,
   Publisher
   Kansas Journal of Military History

No comments about El Lazarillo De Ciegos Caminantes.

1 comments about An Unpopular War.

1. An Unpopular War
   
   This interesting book consists of a series of first-person vignettes provided by individuals who had served on the South African side in South Africa's Border Wars in the 70s and 80s. The accounts seem to be in the language and words of those who provided them, save for their translation in some instances from Afrikaans to English. As such, they are provided with no contextual supporting text, except for an appendix of slang words and their meanings. A reader coming into this material for the first time may be puzzled at times but the intention of the editor was clearly to provide an authentic `voice' to the protagonists without any comment or interpretation of her own. The individuals who provided their stories varied from army chefs to helicopter pilots to conscious objectors , and each have a story to tell, sometimes funny, sometimes poignant and sometimes macabre. For this reason the material will be of interest to a broad readership anywhere in the world. Although not an historical account of events at all (for which the reader should seek some other source, such as Wikipedia, or The Silent War by Peter Stiff) the situations and events reported appear to be accurate, and are certainly consistent with other accounts with which I am familiar. A recommended read.

No comments about Lincoln's White House Secretary: The Adventurous Life of William O.Stoddard.