5 comments about Khomeini: Life of the Ayatolla.

1. This is one of the only, and one of the best biographies about Khomeini written in the English language. it is obvious that the people who gave this book 1 star did so because of how they feel about khomeini, not because of what they think of the book. Moin's book is well researched and referenced. It is not a propoganda tool, seriously! how ridiculous! It is a great book that serves a great function- to actually give a thoroughly researched, well investigated, heavily footnoted, comprehensive discription regarding the life of, whether you like it or not, one of the most influential and powerful figures in modern history. So, you can now do one of several things: be a baby and not read the book and rate it one star anyways since it is about khomeini, and you have linked him to evil and death, or you can read the book, and say it was terrible because you dont believe what Moin is saying because it flies in the face of all you thought you ever knew, even though you are not head of bbc persian, OR you can read the book with an open mind. If you choose the latter, you will come out of the experience with actually factual knowledge regarding the life of Khomeini. I read the book, and i thought it was very objective. I actually wondered what Moin's personal view on Khomeini was. I still do not know. That is how objective the book is. If you are an Iranian ex-pat, i dare you to read it. But only if you are ready to take a look at the facts, and not all the propoganda they have been feeding YOU.



2. There are two main problems in this book. First, this is one of those books where a single sentance really damages the credibility of the writer. The author talked about the people getting tired from all the slogans, from the economic situation and from the blood the revolution has spilled. All this is fine (you can agree or not agree, thats not the point here) until the writer says that six million people attended the funeral which was one of the largest in history. Here the only explanation the author could come up with was that in the end, what was done was done and people forgived Khoemini. I think the reader deserves a better explanation than this. The second problem is that you cant be sure if its a biography, or a book about the political events in 20th century Iran. Other than that it was quite interesting to read. There are many facts in the book and the author has done quite alot of research.



3. A very well-written biography on a rather unknown man in the West (which is odd, considering the effect he has had on the latter part of the 20th Century).
   
   As other reviewers have noted, this book is more than just a biography of Khomeini. It is also the story of an evolving Iran in the 20th Century, and can be read for that reason alone. But, from the humble roots of Khomeini's ancestors, to the man who became known as the "Imam," the book tells the often fantastic tale of Khomeini's remarkable, yet ultimately destructive, life.
   
   Now, I must say first that I despise the man Khomeini for the things he has done to this once rich and beautiful country, full of intelligent people and beautiful history. But, after reading this objectively written book, I have grown to respect the man - not for his horrible ideas, and not for his brutal nature, but because of the things he was able to accomplish, however horrible and misguided they were.
   
   As the jacket notes, Khomeini helped overthrow the rule of man and replace it with the rule of God (according to him, of course). This seems backwards when considering the modern revolutions, where dynastic kings and divine monarchs were tossed out (with their arbitrary rule) in favor of the rule of man, law and justice. What's remarkable is that Khomeini was able to do this while wearing the robe of a cleric. Unlike other dictators like Saddam, Mao, Stalin, or even Castro, Khomeini did not strut around as a tough-guy in military fatigues. he did not openly carry a weapon nor did he openly rule as a "thug." Rather, he appeared holy and worked hard at keeping that image. In fact, there is no doubt that Khomeini was probably a very deeply religious person who truly believed he was instituting the rule of Allah on Earth. It is this aspect of Khomeini that sets him apart from other dictators (although the bloody aftermath and the arbitrary and brutal rule he imposed keep him firmly in the dictator category). The author does a great job of explaining, throughout Khomeini's life, with examples and contemporaneous reports, how he was able to use propaganda, the spiritual nature of Persian society, unhappiness with the Shah, perceived influence by the Brits and Americans, and the power he attained as a religious leader, to overthrow the regime and put in place his "rule by God."
   
   Of course, he had the help of the Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah once he got the ball rolling, but the story of the man and his Religious Revolution is quite fascinating. The author includes excerpts of Khomeini's writings (some of which are no more than spiritual poems, others give hints to his eventual rule and treatment of women). The author also includes anecdotal evidence of Khomeini's hatred for the Western world while he was in exile in Turkey and France.
   
   The book also does a good job of detailing the moves of Khomeini's rivals and enemies, showing you just how close his Revolution was to failing, etc. A few times you wonder why the Shah did what he did...
   
   And, like all good biographies (if you ask me), this book starts from the beginning and works to the end completely chronologically, from his grandparents, to his birth and boyhood, to his young ministry, to his aging, and finally his death. The book does not skip around between decades and so it reads smoothly. The author does not overwhelm the reader with names and places, either.
   
   Very well done.



4. The Ayatallah Ruhallah Musavi Khomeini was the central actor of the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, and one of the truly transformational men of history. Without understanding Khomeini, one cannot understand the revolution, nor the state he left behind (with which we are still dealing to this day). This is probably the best treatment of him available in English, despite its limitations, and so I consider it an essential part of the reading of anyone who wants to understand modern Iran. I also found it entertaining to read.
   
   Yet I have to say that this book would have been better subtitled "The PUBLIC Life of the Ayatollah." Baqer Moin has not written a true biography of Khomeini, for few details of his life are included which are not directly relevant to his public role. We read virtually nothing of his family life, for example, and only learn of the names of two of his sons (he had several children) when they become part of his public life. Maybe he had no hobbies or acquaintances outside of theology and politics; nevertheless, the book is fairly narrowly drawn.
   
   Moin does well to bring out Khomeini's mystical side. The ayatallah was not simply a radical Islamist, he was a mystic and a theologian of rare intellectual creativity. He is best known for his doctrine of velayat-e-faqih (the principle is a general one, but his conceptualization of it is radically different from most Shia clerics, including those considered authorities worthy of emulation by all believers, the marja-e-taqlid). Yet his ideas on Islamic spirituality, while not original - they were controversial because they derived from Muslim mystics long condemned by clerics - were combined with his concept of Islamic political philosophy in a revolutionary way.
   
   Khomeini was also a philosopher, and he enjoyed writing poetry, some of which (in translation) is pretty good. There is also some discussion of the more traditional elements of his thinking, although not enough to really constitute an intellectual biography. A fuller biography would flesh out his intellectual development much more.
   
   Readers should beware that Moin assumes a fair amount of knowledge of 20th century Iranian history. For example, with regard to the November 1979 hostage-taking at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Moin doesn't mention it at all when he covers 1979, but later - assuming the reader is aware of the ongoing hostage crisis - begins talking about how Khomeini used it to his advantage in internal struggles. He does the same thing with regard to Iraq's invasion of Iran in the fall of 1980; he doesn't mention the war starting or discuss it on its own terms to provide background, but at one point just jumps into how Khomeini reacted to it. (The reviewer who described this book as a history of 20th century Iran clearly hasn't studied Iranian history.)
   
   Moin's picture of Khomeini includes the elements familiar to Westerners; his intense dogmatism, his radical commitment to Muslim power, his ruthlessness and his blindness to the immense suffering caused by his decisions. Yet demonization does not bring understanding, and it is important for Westerners to understand the charisma and power of mind and person possessed by this man. Khomeini was not representative of most Shia Muslims, and certainly not most Muslims, but the phenomenon he and his movement represented is an integral part of the Muslim world, and of our world today.



5. Baqer Moin has the information to take you through all the twists and turns the Ayatolla took on the way to establishing his vision of an Islamic State in Iran. The author spends a lot of good words on Khomein's mysticism. From other books about Muslims I had gotten the impression that followers of Islamic mystics tended to be mellower and generally wished to get along with the outside world. But this is a false impression with regard to the Ayatolla, if you believe the author's analyis of His mysticism. --- "For Khomeini the mystic, when Man reaches a sense of unity with God, his anger becomes that of God." (page 296).

1 comments about Power House: Arrington from Illinois.

1. Reviewed by Debra Gaynor for Reader Views (1/07)
   
   "My birth on July 4, 1906. It was a hell of a long time ago." Perhaps the birth of Russell Arrington was a sign of his future. Arrington rose from scarcity to affluence. He was a businessman, an attorney and a politician. Senator W. Russell Arrington was a man that wanted to solve problems. "He was not possessed by a need to be liked, which gave him an advantage over colleagues who were concerned about offending others." "He was often an intractable foe of one governor and an invaluable ally of another." "He could be ruthless one minute and sensitive the next." "Arrington would be both a true legislator and a representative." He knew that he had to read the people around him. He spent hours networking with them and learning what made them tick. There were times when his stand on issues made both Democrats and Republicans uneasy. "Charles Nicodemus, the Chicago Daily News political editor, was in a majority at the dawn of 1969 when he predicted that Ogilvie "seems certain to find Arrington one of his greatest blessings and biggest burdens."
   
   Taylor Pensoneau is an exceptional writer. He tells an exhilarating story of an extraordinary man. He is careful to demonstrate that his subject is not faultless. Mr. Pensoneau shows Russell Arrington as he truly was, supercilious, a man that loved clout and wasn't afraid of it, a man that used those talents to work for the betterment of his state. The photographs bring the reader closer to the life of Russell Arrington. I highly recommend "Power House: Arrington from Illinois" to those that enjoy biographies, politics and history.

5 comments about Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1961-1973.

1. Fine, scholarly biography of the Ph.D.-thesis type. Dallek relies mainly on documentary sources (which he reviewed copiously). The result is somewhat detached.
   
   You get little feel for the lengendary "Johnson treatment" that LBJ used to such great effect. There is, though, much quasi-psychological stuff. Johnson was poorly educated but intellectually brilliant. He was absolutely driven. He was Lincoln-like in his humor, his yarns, his frontier similes. But these gifts were often misdirected. He just had to be first, the best, at everything. He was frighteningly insecure, almost to the point of true paranoia. There are many stories of his abuse of subordinates.
   
   Dallek is a New Deal/Great Society liberal, and this viewpoint pervades. He is mostly enthusiastic about the Great Society and civil rights achievements, but scathing about Johnson's handling of Vietnam. The most revealing part is the recital of how Johnson felt forced to back into the war, and to try to do it almost surreptitiously. Reassuringly, Dallek presents Johnson as simply misguided and ill-advised. There is none of that Oliver Stone crap about being a tool of the military-industrial complex.
   
   Robert Caro's latest volume in his multi-volume opus, "The Master of The Senate", takes Johnson only up to 1960. Dallek's two volumes cover Johnson's whole life. Caro puts in ten years of research for every one that Dallek has put in, and Caro's doggedness is beyond herioc. Dallek is a solid, straightforward writer (unusual for an academic), but he has little of Caro's inspired literary style. Flesh, blood, and sinew pervade Caro's books. Dallek's sounds like a political science seminar.
   
   Read it by all means, if you are interested in Johnson. But wait for Caro's next volume is you want the definitive treatment.



2. I sped through last year reading all three mammoth books in Robert A. Caro's Pulitzer Prize-winning LBJ biography series, and found them an incredibly readable, detailed portrayal of a man who was half megalomaniac, half incredibly gifted politician, a complex American Shakespearean character whose presidency crumbled into self-induced tragedy. Caro hasn't written the final book in his series yet concentrating on LBJ's presidency, so I decided to check out a competing LBJ biography by Dallek focusing on those years. And it's solid history, with great insight into LBJ's character and the disastrous decisions he made in Vietnam that undermined all the powerful social changes he achieved in civil rights and Medicare. Yet "Flawed Giant" is also kind of a slog, which Caro's books weren't. I can't quite put my finger on it, but Dallek lacks the fluid prose, deft research into place and era, and storytelling talent that Caro brought to LBJ - I was able to read hundreds of pages about dry as toast subjects like congressional redistricting and vote tallies and found them compelling reading under Caro. Yet here, I ended up getting bored silly by Dallek's bland recitation of the ups and downs of Vietnam, which you think would be interesting stuff. Dallek is a bit more even-handed in his appreciation of LBJ than Caro, but it just all felt a little too much like work. Guess it goes to show that it's as much in the storyteller as it is in the story. I'll be eagerly awaiting Caro's take on this same era, whenever it comes out.



3. Robert Dallek completes his two volume biography of Lyndon B. Johnson with "Flawed Giant". Its a well written book that tells the story of a brilliant politician who is overwhelmed and outmatched by events he failed to anticipate.
   
   The book begins with Johnson in the unhappy position of serving as Vice President under John F. Kennedy. A most difficult place for a man of Johnson's ego and stature to find himself. Nevertheless, Johnson struggles and does the best he can with this job obtaining recognition in his efforts to further U.S. diplomacy abroad and advance the space program.
   
   On November 22, 1963, President Kennedy is assassinated and Johnson becomes President. No one could ever accuse Johnson of not seizing the moment and this he does masterfully. Within a year, he obtains passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a number of domestic initiatives aimed at reducing poverty and improving quality of life for Americans that become known as the "Great Society". Johnson's accomplishments as President all took place during the first two years of his presidency. Some of those accomplishments include the Head Start Program for disadvantaged children, a federal student loan program for college students, the Job Corps program for kids who dropped out of school, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which enfranchised millions of blacks, the National Endowment for the Arts, and Medicare.
   
   Johnson proves his skill as a politician by defeating opponent Barry Goldwater with almost 62% of the vote in the 1964 election. Unfortunately, these same skills waned as time went on. By the end of 1965, the positive accomplishments of the Johnson Presidency had come to an end. Johnson inherited the Vietnam War from his predecessor, John F. Kennedy. However, he made a series of mistakes after doing so. First, he concluded that America had to hold onto South Vietnam and prevent a "take over" by the North. He never grasped that the conflict was not an attack by the communist world upon the free world, but simply a regional civil war that had gone for decades. Second, he failed to grasp early on that the conflict was not winnable by conventional means, so he committed 500,000 American soldiers. Third, he failed to understand that the American people wouldn't stand idly by for years supporting such a war with no measurable progress being made. Fourth, he failed to consider steps such as simply withdrawing when it did become apparent that the war was unwinnable.
   
   As the Johnson Presidency unfolds, the accomplishments of the Great Society are overwhelmed by the Vietnam War. Johnson finally realizes his mistake at the end of his presidency. He announces he won't run again and initiates peace talks with North Vietnam.
   
   One must look at Johnson carefully and not jump to conclusions. He was a complicated man who did much good during his presidency. Sadly, though, he will most likely be remembered for the Vietnam War which cost America 58,000 lives.



4. Over the last several years I've read more than 30 presidential biographies, usually letting Amazon reader's guide me to the best choice. While I would place Dallek's LBJ Volume 1 in the top five presidential biographies, Volume two is not quite in the same class. Dallek continues to write well, and I think he presents a complex man and a very difficult time in a balanced way. But over half of this biography details the morass of Viet Nam, and it is truly depressing to read as Johnson and his advisers relentlessly lead the country over the cliff.
   
   During the first two years of LBJ's presidency he led the US Congress to pass some of the most significant legislation in our history - Medicare, greatly increased low income housing, legal aid, increased funding for education and student loans, the most important civil rights legislation of the 20th Century, and the Great Society legislation, a muddled effort to end poverty.
   
   Then, slowly and inexorably LBJ took the US deeper and deeper into Viet Nam. Dallek argues that whatever other geo-political factors were involved, LBJ's drive to be a great president and his fear of failing made the Viet Nam catastrophe inevitable. Johnson simply could not admit to being the first president to lose a war, he couldn't cope with the reality of the corruption of Viet Nam's leadership, and he couldn't stand to be honest in telling the American people just how poorly the war was going. Dallek presents a president who was increasingly paranoid of a nonexistent communist menace influencing the anti-war movement and of Bobby Kennedy leading JFK's ghost to steal LBJ's legacy.
   
   Today, there are numerous editorials comparing the war in Iraq to Vietnam (or denying any comparison). I've yet to see an article comparing President Bush to LBJ, and in most ways they are polar opposites. Still, this biography is very timely. There are unmistakable similarities between America's descent into the two wars, Iraq and South Viet Nam's lack of resources to provide leadership to their own people, our leaders' reluctance to level with the US, the isolation each president sought to avoid criticism, and a society that was so polarized by other issues that it is somehow ok to not take an objective look at the facts of the war.



5. Capt. Lance Sijan, USAF Medal of Honor winner, was tortured to death while a captive in a North Vietnam prison. Gerry Coyle, Army PFC, died in Tay Ninh . Bill Fahey, Marine PFC, died in Quang Tri . Leo Matylewicz, an Army Spec 4, had his body literally blown to pieces in Kontum. Dave Rozelle was killed in Quang Tri while a Marine Lance Corporal. Tom Malloy, Army Spec 4, died in Bien Hoa. Mike Turose's body was never recovered for a return home or even a burial when his F-4 was shot down over North Vietnam. Dick Christy was killed over Cambodia when his forward air control aircraft was shot down. Mike Bosiljevac's remains were not recovered until Vietnam opened up to allow forensic search teams years after the war was over - 20 years after he was shot down over North Vietnam. Mike Blassie's remains were placed in the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. in 1998 DNA testing identified the remains as Mike. He had been shot down over An Loc.
   Why do I list these men killed in Vietnam as the introduction to this review of Robert Dallek's biography of Lyndon Johnson - "Flawed Giant"? Because Lyndon Johnson as President of the United States from Jack Kennedy's assassination until 1968 might as well have pulled the trigger or pressed the button that sent them to their deaths. Jane Fonda may have posed on the North Vietnamese anti-aircraft weapons but Lyndon Johnson placed those men in harm's way - for no reason other than his fantastic ego. Let me quote Dallek's afterword:
   "Vietnam was a larger mistake. It was the worst foreign policy disaster in the country's history. Aside from the sacrifice of the many brave men and women who lost their lives or suffered because of the conflict, there seems nothing heroic about the struggle. ... Vietnam was a morass. The battlefield clashes and constant discussions in Washington and Saigon about the war were a confusion leading nowhere. ... the planning for Vietnam led to unproductive commitments in what came to seem like an open-ended conflict.
   ...
   "The principal products of administration discussions about the fighting were false hopes, self-generated illusions, and paranoid fears of domestic opponents, who were not the Communist dupes Johnson believed them to be but men and women devoted to the national security and well-being as anyone in the government and military."
   "Johnson knew from the first that he might be pursuing a losing case in Vietnam."
   "Even less flattering to LBJ is the reality that he also pursued the war for selfish motives. To admit failure on so big an issue as Vietnam would have been too jarring to Johnson's self-image as a can-do leader."
   During the 1964 presidential campaign when Johnson ran against Goldwater, one of the Democrat slogans was "If you vote for Goldwater your sons will be in Vietnam." Well, my parents voted for Goldwater and I ended up in Vietnam.
   This book covers the years from 1961 to Johnson's death in 1973. Of course there is more than Vietnam. Johnspn's outstanding record on civil rights is well covered. But, for me, I cannot help but think about being in the Boy Scouts with Mike Turose and wondering what our futures would be after we got out of engineering school. Fortunately for me. I ended up with a future. Thanks to Lyndon Johnson, Mike didn't.

5 comments about The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict: Sixth Revised and Updated Edition.

1. I will not spend a lot of time writing about how valuable a reference this is - the other reviewers on this site have already more than done it justice. Aside from the relative lack of material on early Zionism (also pointed out by one of the other reviewers), this book has most if not all of the relevant documents. I have only one major criticism (the reason I gave the book four stars instead of 5): the almost complete lack of information about the original sources. Apart from a one-liner preceding each document, no information is given regarding 1) the citation of the original work, including page numbers, where appropriate; 2) the language in which the original work was written; 3) if the work was not written in English, credit for the translation, the date thereof, etc. While these may not be of interest to the casual reader, to anyone doing research in the field, if only for a college paper, these details are critical. Furthermore, in an area as controversial as the Arab-Israeli conflict, the ability to trace documents back to the original and verify translations is everything.



2. What else can be said about a book that contains every UN and League of Nations document about the Israel-Palestine conflict? It is a necessity as a reference for those engaged and a great book to learn about the conflict and its basic political evolution.



3. If one is a previously biased reader, this book will doubtlessly contain some documents that are upsetting to read on grounds of including inciteful material. However, the only real criticism that I have is that the 3rd edition has several documents that are of interest to those seeking to research the early Mandatory period, such as documents by Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the Revisionist Zionist and ideological founder of the Irgun Zvai Leumi. It is understanable though, that as future editions come out the length could get phrohibitively long without pruning some data. As a basic and intermediate level documentary text it is one of the best I have come across.



4. I write in relation to the sixth revised and updated version of this work. My purchase was based upon the recommendations of others here and I was certainly not disappointed with my acquisition of this book.

   It really is a priceless reference and guide to the way in which the Middle East has taken shape and how the whole Arab-Israeli issue has developed since it's inception. Indeed, references are quoted with effect from 1882 through until the present day.

   We are treated to a seemingly endless accurate list of letters, speeches, reports and articles from a considerable cross section of sources, both in the international arena and in the region itself. This latest version even contains sections on the Camp David negotiations and their subsequent failure in 2000/2001.

   One is able to see from the direct quotes of the parties concerned, exactly what was said, and moreover in it's true context, making this an indisputably essential asset to understanding the conflicts and `peace-making' in the region. This level of understanding is made accessible not only to the Camp David talks but also to virtually every other episode of significance relative to this ongoing issue throughout the many decades.

   A highly recommended read.




5. The book is simply a collection of documents on the Arab-Israeli conflict, dating back to the British Mandate in Palestine. The editors included all the important papers such as the Balflour Declaration, the "White Paper," various UN declarations, and speeches made by both Arab and Israeli leaders. The latest documents it contains are those covering the Camp David meetings between President Clinton, barak, and Arafat near the end of Clinton's presidency. While it is not a history of the conflict (merely a collection of historical documents), it certainly can provide you with plenty of info on the subject.

5 comments about Woman of the House: The Rise of Nancy Pelosi.

1. I must say after reading through this collection of half truths and actual deceptions that it's easy to see how the media props up this woman.....
   
   Her wickedness is almost palpable, and her treatment of the American people like the great unwashed amazes me she can get re-elected....Her abuse of her power as demonstarted by cutting off debate and electricity to her fellow congress people shows an incredible lack of appreciation for free speech.
   
   I'm sure madame dictator would be much more at home in Cuba....



2. In short, this is a typical rush-job first bio, especially a typical first bio of a political figure produced by a journalist rather than a professional historian.
   
   Bzdek does a decent job on Pelosi the politician, at least as far as Pelosi the political strategist. But, we don't get nearly enough about her pre-election years in San Francisco, not enough detail about how she juggled this and five children, though we do get a few anecdotes, and we don't get a long-term perspective view of how frustrated she does, or does not, feel, with how little the Democratic Congress has accomplished on Iraq in 2007.
   
   Among other things that are missing -- pictures. In a biography of one of America's top politicians, AND one who had children running all around when she was sworn in as Speaker, for this book to not have a single picture other than what's on the dust cover is ridiculous.
   
   And, for the Washington Post's news editor and/or copy editors to misspell John Dingell's name with one "l" and Charles Rangel's with two is sloppy.
   
   So, three stars it is. And, maybe, a bit generous three stars. (The fact that it is already available for under $10 new and $5 or so used should also indicate something.)



3. I found this book to be very informative about Nancy Pelosi. It has many stories of her life. The author interviewed many people and they give us an inside view of Nancy and also the working of the political system. I have a much greater respect for Ms. Pelosi after reading this book.



4. Vincent Bzdek takes a close look at Nancy Pelosi, the political cauldrons from whence she came, how she has risen to the challenge of well representing her Congressional district while herding together Democrats of all stripes; and the characteristics and values she's held along the way. From Baltimore to San Francisco to Washington, DC - from mother to candidate to grandmother to Minority Leader to Speaker of the House - from supporter of candidates to the woman in the limelight - and from My Job Is Mom to two heartbeats away from the most important office on the planet - Bzdek profiles the complex, consistent, and canny woman who helps keep her House in order.



5. Speaker Pelosi, by claiming "Impeachment is off the table" gave the bush administration the go-ahead to continue the destroying of America. I would never give a penny of my money to support her in any way.

5 comments about Napoleon Bonaparte: A Life.

1. This book offers a tremendous amount of detail and information and that makes it an ok work. However, the problem with it is author's bias and an outright, unconcealed animosity toward Napoleon. In general I am against historians making moral value judgments in their books, however, if the do it than the bare minimum which we as readers should get is balance. In this work Schom essentially highlights all the bad traits which marked Napoleon and by skipping over the faults of other historical figures he makes Napoleon look like a 19th. century Hitler, as someone already said. While he goes into gruesome detail to explain the problems of 19th. century battlefield medicine in the French army he never mentions the fact that other armies were not all that great either, and when English loose thousands soldiers to disease as they did when they tried to take Antwerp, he does not describe the details of those 4,000 gruesome deaths and does not blame the surgeons, the lack of medical staff and equipment etc. in the British army.



2. THis is a truly bad biography of a seemingly masochistic writer who strongly dislikes his subject. The author suggests to be more diligent with sources, thus justifying his particularly negative view of Napoleon. However, even from the citations he inserts into the text, it may be gleaned that these sources are far from giving an objective view. Occasionally it is quite unclear when the statements were given - in particular in the case of Bourrienne, this is interesting: Bourrienne tried very hard to obtain the approval of the new masters after Napoleon's downfall, and he had a clear personal interest in speaking badly of Napoleon. This is clearly different from an immediate, unbiased first-hand accord of circumstances from within a given situation. Schom nonetheless tries to convince his readers that these statements are without guile and given without a particular aim - while they were often given much later out of memory, with the clear aim in mind to debase the fallen emperor, and to cleanse himself, Bourrienne, from any negative role he may have played. This use of sources can by no means qualify as diligent, in spite of all the allegedly well-researched details.



3. This is a sweeping, almost lush, detailed and comprehensive story of one of the greatest Military and political leaders and thinkers of world history, told with great skill, sensitivity but without sentimentality and without pulling any punches: We get to see Napoleon in the raw, warts and all. One gets the impression that Mr. Schom has lost his taste for the heroic image of Napoleon and has replaced it with a more realistic one based on "deeply honed" research into his life.
   
   Nowhere have I ever seen such an ambitious project pulled off so well. It covers Napoleon's life from cradle to grave. It covers his thinking during all of his various military campaigns, the military triumphs and the strategic and tactical failures. It covers Napoleon's brooding reaction to his mistakes and his elation to his foreordained victories. It covers the conflicts and romps with all of his wives and his many female consorts. It covers the feuds with his family and with his general staff, his personality flaws and his lack of sensitivity to his soldiers and to the great harm his campaigns did to the peoples of the lands he conquered. We get a front row seat into the mind and the actions of one of the foremost heroes of Western History.
   
   Altogether this is a thoroughly engrossing although not the most balanced book; yet it will endure. There may be better books "out there" on Napoleon, but I doubt if there are any as complete as this one. We must be grateful to Alan Schom for the prodigious effort exerted to produce this masterpiece of a tome. It is the one book on Napoleon that is a must read. Five Stars and Amen.



4. Do I think that books critical of Napoleon are of absolutely no value? Not at all, but any author who writes such a book should at least present all of the facts, and not just give the half of the story that supports his thesis. Alan Schom definitely distorts the facts and stacks the deck in favor of his biases.
   The most glaring example is his treatment of the battle of Austerlitz, where Napoleon demolished the combined armies of Austria and Russia. Schom gleefully tells us how Napoleon instructed his troops to take no Russian prisoners-to kill every Russian in their path. "Seldom had Napoleon shown himself to be so vicious," says Schom.
   As anyone who has read anything about Austerlitz knows, in the earlier battles of the Austerlitz campaign, the advancing French had been fired upon from behind by wounded Russians; it was actually a quite common occurrence. Napoleon's order was thus not motivelessly malignant; he simply was sick and tired of seeing his troops shot in the back. Schom not only fails to give us this background information;he also fails to mention the thousands of Austrian prisoners taken in the battle. Napoleon had no reason to order the execution of wounded and captured Austrians since they didn't shoot his men in the back!
   Schom also posits, without offering any evidence, that Napoleon murdered Admiral Villeneuve(who actually committed suicide after being defeated at Trafalgar) and Marshal Berthier(accidental fall from a window). He takes the very complex individual who was Napoleon and turns him into a one dimensional cartoon character. Napoleon was much closer to being an early nineteenth century enlightened despot than the twentieth century genocidal dictator Schom portrays him as.
   The only thing that saves this book from being a one star waste of ink and paper is Schom's ability as a writer. If you've never read anything about Napoleon, then I suggest you balance this book with the more favorable biography by Vincent Cronin.



5. Alan Schom is very vocal in praising Napoleon as military tactician. He finds him audacious and personally brave, though often quite lucky. There is absolutely nothing else positive to say about him and he says alot. There frankly isn't too much positive one can say about Napoleon but what makes Schom's book unique is the vitriolic attack on his personality, detailing several obscure episodes that expose him as an awkward seducer of his friends' wives, a cheater of parlour games with a boorish social sense. He includes a medical appendix where he amateurishly argues that Napoleon was psychotic. Brutal megalomaniac? OK, but incapable of feeling genuine love or remorse with no friendships? Schom's accounts of his tolerance of duplicitous subordinates, his wife's lover, love for Josephine and Duroc and many others-belies his own assertions of psychosis. His coverage of military matters is decent, but better realized in the work of specialized accounts like Chandlers' and Eltings'.

5 comments about Theodore Roosevelt: (The American Presidents Series).

1. Want to know more about American presidents? The American Presidents series is one approach. This volume in the series focuses on the old Rough Rider himself, Theodore Roosevelt. First, a confession. I have read 2 of the 3 volume set by Edmund Morris. Obviously, I have an interest in depth (the second volume alone features 555 pages of text). But most people would welcome a shorter--but still good--view of TR. And this volume will meet the needs of such people.
   
   Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. has a standard Introduction to each volume. With respect to TR, some of his observations are apposite. On page xv, he says: "Great presidents possess, or are possessed by, a vision of an ideal America." Surely, that describes Roosevelt. At another point, Schlesinger says that (Page xv): "To succeed, presidents must not only have a port to seek but they must convince Congress and the electorate that it is a port worth seeking." Both observations seem to fit TR, where they did not fit Warren Harding or Chester Arthur or Rutherford Hayes or Benjamin Harrison or. . . .
   
   The book begins by describing TR's rather well off childhood. Some problems. His beloved father dies prematurely. He had physical ailments. To address the latter, he exercised and even spent time in the Wild West, building himself up physically.
   
   His public life began in rather exotic positions, such as president of New York City's Board of Police Commissioners. He was named as Assistant Secretary of the Navy after William McKinley's victory in the presidential campaign of 1896. After the Maine's destruction and the road to war with Spain, he resigned and, as we all know, became head of a group of troops named "The Rough Riders." After estimable service in Cuba, he returned as a war hero. The governorship of New York and then nomination as vice president to William McKinley (perhaps to get him out of New York?).
   
   He became an accidental president after McKinley's assassination. The book chronicles his views and actions as president, when he was known as a "trust buster" and as the advocate of a "Square Deal." He was known for many accomplishments (some of which might raise eyebrows), such as the construction of the Panama Canal (as some Senator said years later, "We stole it fair and square!"). He left the presidency, followed by his handpicked successor, William Howard Taft. Then, the tale of his disillusionment with Taft, his Bull Moose campaign, his disgust with Woodrow Wilson is depicted.
   
   Auchincloss is a fine writer, and this book reads well. For those who want a "quick and dirty" introduction to TR, this will fill the bill.



2. The short biographies that form the American Presidents series do an admirable job in capturing the heart of the accomplishments and characters of our country's leaders. Some of the volumes succeed further in offering, in addition to an introduction, challenging reassessments of their subject's place in history. Bunting's book on Grant and Diggins's study of John Adams are in this latter category. With a leader as complex and energetic as Theodore Roosevelt, (1858 - 1919), the task of a brief portrayal is daunting indeed. Louis Auchincloss has generally succeeded in offering a portrait of TR and his presidency that will serve for basic information. For a more complex and detailed view, the book should encourage the reader to explore further.
   
   The American composer Scott Joplin wrote a delightful ragtime called "The Strenuous Life" in honor of TR but with a hint of satire as well. The phrase aptly describes TR and his era. A sickly child born to great wealth, the twelve-year old TR took seriously his father's injunction to "make your body!" as well as his mind. TR became a dynamo, moving out west to become the owner of a cattle ranch in Dakota in the 1880s and leading the fabled charge of the Rough Riders up San Juan Hill in Cuba during the Spanish-American War. In the midst of a busy life, TR found time to write about 40 books, including his autobiography and innumerable letters.
   
   In his politics, TR developed a unique position as a Republican party regular and as a progressive. He served in the 1880s' as a New York State assemblyman and as Governor of New York, among other accomplishments, before being called to the vice-presidency. He became the 26th president upon the death of McKinley in 1901, and then was elected to a term of his own. TR famously declined to run for a second elected term, a decision he lived to regret.
   
   TR's presidency had many accomplishments, striking out in as many directions as the man himself. He was a trust-buster who believed in American capitalism, individualism and business. He was also a famous conservationist. In foreign policy, he was a mixture of calmness and bellicosity, acquiring the Panama Canal, expanding the Navy, and receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for settling a dispute between Russia and Japan.
   
   Following his term, TR took a lengthy safari as a big-game hunter in Africa and upon his return became disillusioned with the presidency of his chosen successor, William H. Taft. TR bolted the Republican party and, alas, took the progressives with him. The split in the GOP between its progressives and its conservatives has lasted to this day. The immediate result was the election of Woodrow Wilson to the presidency.
   
   Auchincloss tells the story of TR simply and well. But I came away from this book curious to know more. In particular, I would have liked to learn more about TR's writings, some of which are available in a two-volume set published by the Library of America. Auchincloss evidences a certain skepticism about TR, pointing out ways in which TR's America, as well as TR's values, differ from contemporary America and from the choices of many contemporary Americans. As explained by Auchincloss, these values, which seem closely interrelated, center upon TR's elevation of the worth of toughness -- "machismo", -- his sexual restraint and even prudery, and his views on the relationship between men and women, which today would commonly be regarded as sexist. I remain fascinated with TR's strength, vigor, and sense of purpose, combined with his high powers of intellect. His forcefulness and belief in our country, tempered as it usually was with prudence, still has much to teach us.
   
   Robin Friedman



3. A nice concise summary of the life of Teddy Roosevelt. Auchincloss does a good job of detailing the essentials of his life. Roosevelt was a Republican with a progressive bent. The author showed how his policies were often at odds with the pro business Republican party. However, TR managed to compromise and get a program through Congress that was progressive. He also used power overtly as in the Panama Crisis, even though it was for the good of the country and world.
   
   The American Presidents series are all nice reads. Although some presidents do not merit the full book, TR certainly deserves more space and attention. He was truly one of the better presidents as the author points out.



4. This book serves as a good introduction to Theodore Roosevelt to either satisfy or stimulate one's curiosity before indulging in a lengthier biography. This is a "short" bio, and not meant to be a treatise on T.R. The author was better with his Penguin Lives book on Woodrow Wilson, but he seemed to have more fun with Roosevelt.
   As a subject T.R. is especially enjoyable, but more for his forceful character than for any of his objective accomplishments (for which the author notes several, e.g., negotiating the peace between Japan and Russia, and his national conservationist orders, etc.).
   The author addresses Roosevelt's sense that his presidency was relatively unspectacular, and since war time presidents receive the most historical attention (e.g., leading to positive evaluations for Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, but negative for Wilson due to his post war failures), Roosevelt felt himself cheated from his place of greatness due to being a peacetime president.
   As this author notes, many of T.R.'s beliefs had long lasting value (especially, I feel, his beliefs on the limitations of capitalism as spoken by a pro-business chief executive). Those who followed him, though, soon abandoned these attitudes. The reason for this seems to rest with T.R. He accomplished much emphasizing the forcefulness of his personality and took credit for improvements as being uniquely his. Since he can be the only T.R., his philosophy could not be transmitted to others. When out of office, he was no longer "T.R." and his so-called system collapsed as with a deck of cards. He was ultimately left a shell of his former self.
   What if Roosevelt had toned down some of his tendencies? Might he have extended his influence over the next administrations and the country? If so, might this have led to a different result in how America influenced the developing European disputes that resulted in the First World War? These are some of the questions that remained with me from reading this book.



5. This is the second volume in the new American Presidents series edited by Arthur M. Schlessinger, and like the first on James Madison, provides excellent, although brief insight into one of America's most fascinating characters. The prime focus of this book is on TR's presidential and post-presidential years. Limited space does not allow for anything more than a brief summary of Roosevelt's early life, which may actually be his most interesting period. Still there is enough to give the reader a basis for understanding Roosevelt's revolutionary power-expanding actions as President. Auchincloss does a wonderful job of filling this short volume with all of the important events of Roosevelt's life while keeping to a very enjoyable and readable style. It is a good introduction to Roosevelt and will leave you wanting to learn more.

5 comments about A Mighty Heart: The Brave Life and Death of My Husband, Danny Pearl.

1. Even after seeing Michael Winterbottom's compelling 2007 film adaptation starring Angelina Jolie, I cannot imagine the unrelenting nightmare Mariane Pearl, five months pregnant, must have felt for those endless weeks back in early 2002 when her husband, Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, was being held hostage by radical Islamic terrorists in Karachi. It is a tribute to her as both investigative reporter and grieving widow that she has written such a moving and cogent book about her husband's kidnapping and expands the picture to include an unblinking portrait of the man responsible, Omar Shiekh. His conversion into a jihadi is treated just as comprehensively as Pearl's more personal account of her relationship and eventual marriage to her husband. I was particularly moved by her story about how they went to Cuba to return her mother's ashes to her birthplace. As a former reporter herself, she is never overly sentimental, but you cannot help but be touched by the loving portrait of her husband, a tough-minded reporter who was also a charming dilettante and avid mandolin player. Her lucid narrative paints a marriage of great passion and mutual trust, and she successfully articulates his mission of building understanding between Islam, Christianity, and his own Judaism.
   
   I have to admit some part of me felt Daniel Pearl sealed his fate when he chose such a dangerous assignment, risky not just for an American and all the more so for a Jewish-American. But his widow gives me a much greater understanding of his mission and the passion he had to carry his mission through the most horrifying circumstances. It has since been reported that he was fully aware of his inevitable execution and refused to be sedated during his final moments of life. This added knowledge makes her book an even greater abject lesson in courage, which she delineates in the most poignant yet clear-eyed way. This could have been easily sensationalized into a clarion call for anti-Islamic hatred stateside, but her book is remarkably controlled and free of self-pity. Mariane Pearl goes well beyond my expectations in documenting not just a personal tragedy and ultimate triumph in survival but a true lesson in reconciling one's immediate circumstances with the greater purpose of building tolerance. Beyond remarkable books like Bob Graham's Intelligence Matters or Michael Scheuer's Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, it is her book that captures the power of the human spirit against terrorism and will continue to resonate well beyond the upcoming election.



2. This book is absolutely amazing! It's very well written and the movie doesn't do it justice.



3. "I signal to Danny to take the first (cab) since he is in the greater hurry. After he tosses his bag in, he cups my neck with his free hand, pulls me to him, and kisses my cheek."
   
   "In a matter of seconds, Danny is gone."
   
   Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl was kidnapped then murdered by terrorists in Karachi, Pakistan, in February 2002. The person he kissed was his wife Mariane Pearl, co-author (with Sarah Crichton)of A MIGHTY HEART. I call this writing pure poetry.
   
   "There might be dozens of reasons for Danny to turn off his cell phone, but he doesn't usually. 'Your correspondent cannot be reached at this moment. Please try again later,' says the cheerily robotic, feminine voice... I will come to detest that voice."
   
   This is Mariane-as-narrator's first intimation something's wrong. As a reader, I know Danny's been kidnapped and soon will be beheaded, but her words "I will come to detest that voice" grabs my gut and shakes away that knowing. Maybe he'll be okay? Maybe the news was wrong?
   
   Marianne relates this beautifully poetic truth: "I call and call Danny's phone; it is never answered," and still I find myself turning the page, hoping Danny picks up. How does she get me to do this? By leading with her heart. My heart has to follow hers.
   
   Some writers lead with thier heart, excitement, fear, pain, joy. Read A MIGHT HEART for a glimpse of how it's done.
   
   Note: I read the book when its title was A MIGHTY HEART:The Brave Life And Death Of My Husband Danny Pearl. I don't like the new title. It doesn't say the book is a memoir. Perhaps this is a way to appeal to a broader audience.



4. A very sad story. It also makes the anger towards these terrible people come out. I wish that Bush would stop being a sissy and go after these people. I also lost my husband but to an auto accident. Nevertheless, the pain is the same. I would hope that her story will stop people from going to these countrys for any reason. The US also needs to be more militant in going after the hostage takers.



5. This is a touching memoir. The epilogue letters are probably the most emotional part of the book. However, there are other touching moments throughout centering around the relationships she forms with the people who helped her through the tragedy of her husband's kidnapping and murder. It's clear she learned who her friends were and made many.
   It didn't seem to me that she lacked emotion, as the previous reviewer criticized. However, if there are times when she does, she makes it clear that she never wanted to give terrorists the satisfaction of her tears. People deal with emotions and adversity differently. She is clearly an exceptionally strong individual.
   The writing gave the feeling of a suspensful page turner despite knowing what the tragic outcome would be. An extremely sad narrative.

5 comments about Autobiography (Penguin Classics).

1. I read this book for a graduate Mill seminar in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.
   
   John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term.
   
   I have to say that I found Mill's Autobiography left me wanting to read a good biography of him in order to learn more about his personal life and interaction with family and friends. He certainly did not reveal himself in the way Jean Jacques Rousseau did in his much-ballyhooed autobiography The Confessions. I do understand that his wife Harriett edited the autobiography to the extent that there is no mention of Mill's mother in it. Other than his education and his reference to taking walks with his father to talk about books he had read, he says little about their relationship. In addition, there is only a passing reference to having to serve as schoolmaster to his siblings while he was an adolescent and he does not mention them again. Mill spent most of his adulthood working for the East India Company; however, he says little about that experience in his autobiography. It seems he had few friends as an adult, if you go by his autobiography. There is a brief reference about his friendship with George Grote, the eminent historian of Greek history. Thus, the impression that I got of Mill the man was one of an emotionally cold person socially except to his wife Harriett, who I believe was the only person in his life he truly loved. Most of his autobiography is dedicated to his education; such as, books he had read or written and philosophers he was influenced by, and this is a part of his life that I found most interesting.
   
   In Mill's autobiography, he tells readers how he benefited and suffered from having one of the most unique educational experiences known to humankind. His father was personally involved in both his education and that of his other siblings He was a brilliant student who read Greek by the age of three and Latin at eight years old. By the time he matured to adulthood, he was extremely well read. Thus, he received an academically rigorous education at home, and I find that his education really defined and shaped his character. Providing and improving education for all humans was a cornerstone of his philosophical belief in Utilitarianism. Education meant that people could develop their higher pleasures; a concept that Mill thought was of paramount importance to increase one's happiness. He invented this concept and differed with Jeremy Bentham, the progenitor of Utilitarianism, on this point. Bentham did not believe there was a qualitative property to happiness--Mill did. Thus, it is no mystery that in adulthood he developed very strong views on the advantages that universal education would have on improving people's characters. Mill believed universal education would lead to fostering social change for the betterment of all mankind. He stayed consistent on this belief throughout his life. He gave what I think was one of the great speeches on education and character formation in 1867 after accepting the position as Rector of the University of St. Andrews. In his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, one of the points that he made in his speech was the responsibility that universities had in building their students' characters. He also wrote about the importance of character formation had on the ability for people to enjoy freedom in society in his book On Liberty. However, he personally found that his education had come at a great price to his emotional well-being.
   
   During the winter of 1826 and into 1827 while in his early twenties, Mill recognized that he was suffering from a bout with depression. This is the only portion of his autobiography where Mill exposes his inner emotions to his readers. He believed his depression stemmed from an inadequacy in his education. He came to realize that although his father provided him a superior education on many intellectual levels, it was negligent in social contact with children of his own age, and did not prepare him emotionally for interaction with other members of society. His parents and visitors treated him as an adult from early childhood. Mill realized that his upbringing led up to his inability to feel a normal range of human emotions; thus, he felt detached from humanity. Mill found that reading poetry by Wordsworth in 1828 ultimately broke his depression. In poetry, Mill found that he could feel sorrow, and sympathize with others.
   
   I found this part of his autobiography of importance for three reasons. First, it is the only painful human emotional event in his life that he divulges to his readers. Secondly, it is an indication of the importance that the concept of sympathy played in his life and formed his philosophical views as well. Mill understood the need for humans to be sympathetic to one another. Sympathy is required for social interaction and is a useful character trait that we use in order to keep us from harming each other. Thirdly, without his awakening of this emotion in his life, I seriously doubt that he would have found the capacity to love his wife Harriett in the manner that he did. One does get the sense from his description of her that she was his true soul mate and only real long lasting friend in his life.
   
   Mill's friendship with Harriett while she was married to another man, caused them both to endure scandalous gossip, even though they both denied there relationship had any sexual component to it. When they eventually married each other about two years after she became a widow, Mill stayed true to his life long conviction in believing in equal rights for women. During Mill's time, married women's property automatically devolved to their husband and he correctly saw this as one more inequity against women placed on them by society. Therefore, on the day when he married Harriett Taylor in 1851, a financially secure widow, he wrote a formal renunciation to all of her property in protest against the current law. He was a life long feminist who wrote in his essay The Subjection of Women, about the scathing inequalities that women endured since the history of mankind had been chronicled. I have no doubt that his essay paved the way in changing marriage and divorce laws and fostered the improvement of relations between the sexes. He was also the first Member of Parliament to introduce a bill in the Commons to enfranchise women. He worked tirelessly at the end of his life, supporting women's rights with his pen and his purse. His stepdaughter Helen carried on his feminist work by becoming a leader in the suffragist movement in her own right.
   
   In total, I would say that although the Autobiography provides scant information into Mill's daily life, when he does reveal himself, it appears he consistently lived up to his philosophical teachings and beliefs.



2. This book is so wonderful on so many different levels that to give it a review at all would be a disservice. My recommendation is not on whether or not to read it but instead on how to read it. I suggest a quiet room, comfortable chair or couch, cup of coffee and a few hours of uninterrupted reading time. After completing the book, rest and repeat as desired.



3. Mill's remarkable childhood education prepared him to be one of the leading intellectuals of his day (far surpassing his father, James Mill, who was no slouch, but not in his son's league) but while I admire his erudition and achievements, one has to wonder if the deep depression he fell into in his mid-20s had something to do with that.
   
   Mill's contributions are better remembered than many of the other famous British intellectuals of the period--such as Herbert Spencer--whose particularly invidious version of the theory of Social Darwinism is best left languishing in obscurity. Who today remembers the prolific Spencer, whose collected works run to over 20 large volumes?
   
   Mill is frank about his depression and how debilitating it was, and what a struggle it was to pull through it. But with the help of his best friend, he pulled out of it and went on to write many important works in philosophy, logic, political science, and economics.
   
   Mill's I.Q. was certainly very high (estimated by psychologist Katherine Cox using a modified ratio I.Q. method to be at least 200), but very likely his father's misguided efforts to produce a prodigy and homegrown, British Wunderkind (to compete with the legendary "Infant of Lubeck," no doubt :-)) were the cause of his long, serious depression.
   
   Mill's text on econonics, which was called Political Economy back in those days (also the title of his book, if I remember right), was the longest running and most successful college text of all time, being used for the next 50 years until the 1920s when the "New Economics" of the day, championed by the field of microeconomics and the theory of the firm, made a more modern, updated text necessary.
   
   For me the most interesting part of the book was Mill's theory of history, with positive periods of creative cultural development being followed by periods of negation and dissolution. Mill summarizes it as follows (I think I'm remembering the quote more or less accurately): "During the positive periods mankind adopts with conviction some positive creed, claiming jurisdiction for all their actions proceeding from it, and possessing more or less of the truth and adaptation to the needs of humanity; when a period follows of negation and dissolution, during which mankind loses its old beliefs, of a general and authoritative character, except the belief that the old are false." Mills theory has parallels to the earlier Hegel's historical dialectic and later to Oswald Spengler's theory, and to later 20th century historian Arnold Toynbee's idea of "challenge and response."
   
   For another more literary (and probably more interesting) take on depression by another British intellectual, you might try Richard Burton's The Anatomy of Melancholy (not to be confused with the African explorer by the same name). After all, anyone who says that "Giraffes live for love," not to mention palm trees, can't be all bad. :-)



4. Ever wonder for which bipolar monomaniac the Sorcerer's Apprentice worked? Now you know. Drier than Dryden, boot-licking admirer of the thief of his childhood, humorless bookworm of a dusty aristocrat, protonerd ex machina in extremis. When Continent-lazing navel-gazers concern themselves with improving society, oil your firearms. I'd rather a deep belly laugh than Mill's musings, any day.



5. John Stuart Mill was raised by his father to be his intellectual heir, and a great genius. There is something moving about the care taken by the father to teach his wunderkind son all that he knew. The father was with Jeremy Bentham the guiding spirit of the philosophical movement Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism was a mechanical kind of philosophy which thought it possible to measure the goodness of action by measuring the amount of pleasure against the amount of pain. Mill followed the path his father set out from him, adopted his father's values and social conscience and was already by the tender age of twenty a distinguished intellectual figure. But then he asked himself the question if the realization of all his social schemes and all the grand social ideals would bring him happiness. And he understood that it would not. He understood in other words that all this focus on outward good and action, on mechanical measures for human life was missing some vital component in life and in himself. Mill went into a great depression. What brought him out was the reading of the poetry of Wordsworth and the understanding that there is a dimension of feeling, a dimension of the inner life which is somehow more important than all the social thought. This did not mean that Mill abandoned the path of social reform but rather that he changed its direction. Part of this change had to do with his meeting his relationship with Harriet Taylor, his embracing in a certain sense of liberal ideas on the role of women in society. Mill found himself and continued on his intellectual path, a path which would lead him to produce one of the masterpieces of modern political thought, "On Liberty ".

5 comments about Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man's Friend.

1. This book is very informative and very accurate. It is told from the viewpoint of the Black People. I would recommend it to everyone who is interested in the truth about the history of the Civil War and Stonewall's compassion for the Black People.



2. REJOICE IN THAT DAY WHEN THEY CAST OUT YOUR NAME AS EVIL
   
   REJOICE
   
   This book has had my name on it and I had a hard time finding it. The book is dear to my heart in that I do not think the whole truth has been told about the South and the Civil War. Somehow I may be related to Stonewall Jackson. Most of my ancestors were protestants from Northern Ireland as were Jackson's.
   
   This is the book to read to reveal a gentler glimpse of slavery in the Old South. Stonewall Jackson broke a Virginia law by teaching his slaves to read and teaching many others about Christianity. Mr. Williams presents this untold story of the famed Confederate General as Stonewall's most enduring legacy. Many descendants of Jackson's black Sunday School class completed divinity studies and have pastored untold hundreds of others in the way of the cross. The blacks of Lexington, Virginia loved Stonewall Jackson and that love was passed down for generations to people like Richard Williams.
   
   The book is a true gem, not to be missed for a completed view of slavery in the Old South. Thank you so much, Mr. Williams.
   
   This side of the Civil War story has not been told. Little do you know the real reason why Thomas Jackson left the U.S. military. His commanding officer was using his influence, as we would say today, to obtain sexual favors from a little slave girl. Such were some who liberated the slaves and their descendants are here with us today. The abolitionist movement was christian supposedly too, yet what a huge mess they made in my neck of the woods. O.K. Being a christian man of honor, (would that there were more these days), he quietly left the service, though his immediate family knew the real reasons. Most people see white southerners as hypocrites. We live in the bible belt, but we're not really christians in that many of us had slaves at one time. I could go on and on about this subject. Careful who you listen to, careful who you ally yourselves to; 99.99999999999999999999999% of self-professed christians ARE NOT.
   
   IF the truth be told.



3. This is an excellent book about a side that most people do not know about Stonewall Jackson. Not only was he a great general, but he was also a great man and christian. I found this book easy to read and really enjoyed it.



4. I find this book extremely interesting. The other side of General T. Jackson and the work he accomplished within the Confederacy. A must for the students of Stonewall Jackson.



5. This is an excellent work on the in-depth Christian character of Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson. Mr. Williams has obviously spent countless hours gleaning the information contained in this volume. His interviews with several direct links to the Lexington Colored Sabbath School add just the right touch to tie all the information together.
   I highly recommend this book to anyone seeking information on the true character of T.J. (Stonewall) Jackson.