2 comments about George Washington: A Biography (Southern Biography Series).

1. Washington. This is a pretty good one. It's value to me was Washington as a colonial officer under British generals during the French-Indian War. It is essential as this was the making of the man & frames everything that comes after.
   A stupid blunder, of so many by the British after defeating the French was the denial of Washington a generalship in the regular British military establishment. It was the one thing that he wanted or ever would want more in his whole life. Mr. Alden explains why Washington or any colonial could not hope for a career in the regular army. It chilled me to think of the course of American history & world history if Washington had remained a loyal British subject. Our history without Washington is hard to imagine. There was no one even close to his stature in America. So he did become a general after all. The rest of the book is well done. Good reading for someone not too familiar with the first president, with a little revolutionary era history thrown in.



2. A brisk, but not too brief account of Washington and the times surrounding him. Alden touches on most every event and aspect concerning the subject: from Shay's Rebellion to Martha's disposition, from the Hamilton-Jefferson Feud to his agricultural experiments. It is objective without trying to debunk a great man. Only the cursory discussion on slavery does the junvenile yankee condescention surface (Whose ships were involved in the slave trade even after the Virginians pushed through its ban via the Constitution? Yankees ie the Great Hypocrites of All Time.) It is, however, a thorough and interesting biography and highly recommended.

No comments about The Life Of Abraham Lincoln.

No comments about Stalin and Stalinism (Lancaster Pamphlets).

No comments about Lbj's Texas White House: "Our Heart's Home".

5 comments about Jefferson's Vendetta: The Pursuit of Aaron Burr and the Judiciary.

1. I live near Richmond, where the final events of this tragedy took place, and had studied the topic prior to reading this book. I even published a very small bio of one of the actors, John Wickham. This whole mess was indeed a tragedy...God alone knows the full truth, and I suppose that, under our system, that makes Aaron Burr "not guilty", or at least not "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".
   
   The author makes John Marshall a hero [which he was on some occasions], Thomas Jefferson an evil malefactor [which he was not], and Aaron Burr charming and brilliant [which is true, but so were Ted Bundy and Adolf Hitler]. Look, not even the greatest Jefferson admirer, and I come close, can defend his conduct here...it was reprehensible, politicizing the justice system. John Marshall flat-out prostituted the judicial system for political gain. That, too, is reprehensible. {Not to mention the dinner at John Wickham's house...that was a serious ethical lapse on his part; Wickham did nothing wrong}. Both were great men, though I am obviously on Mr. Jefferson's side in the controversy between them. Did Burr strive to become Emperor Aaron I? Damn if I know.........
   
   If any good came out of this black chapter in history, the credit, indeed, goes to John Marshall for defining constructive treason. The framers of our constitution set a high bar to prove treasion, remembering the British excesses wherby "imagining the death of the King" was treason. Marshall defined that bar...were it otherwise, the definition of the crime would depend on which party was in power at the time.
   
   I give 4 stars not 5 due to the author's bias [which happens not to fully agree with mine]. I give 4 not 3, because the book is very well written, and gives a good view of the background, events, and side players. You really should read this...prepare for the whole sorry mess to make you sick, but history does that at times...even great men have bad days.



2. I've often come upon Burr's escapade in reading U.S. history, but I was never able to get a clear picture of what happened. This book is well researched and gives the details of what went on and the trial that resulted from Burr's adventure.
   
   The one question that "Vendetta" doesn't answer is why did Jefferson and Hamilton hate Burr with such a passion? Burr's character comes off as complex and not as crazy as history has made him out to be. Wheelan is obviously in Burr's corner and wants to present a more positive picture of him than historians have previously given him.
   
   If you want to dig deeper into American history then "Vendetta" is an excellent choice for you. Wheelan gives the reader more "color" of the day and keen insight into the way that our society thought at the time.



3. This is a part of history I had not studied before, and the same story is told in the earlier "The Jefferson Conspiracies" which continues on with the death of Meriwether Lewis and the rest of the career of General Wilkinson the really corrupt and treasonous person in both books. Both books are very readable, I found some of the points more clear in the other book. Both books feel Wilkinson betrayed Burr to hide his own involvement and would have killed him rather than see him go to trial. The second book speculates the same may have happened to Lewis as he was traveling East because he felt he was being framed in the same manner as Burr (thou in this case apparently competely innocent), and Wilkinson may have thought he was also going to provide evidence of his corrupt land deals.
   
   This book tries to portray Burr as an innocent, which is hard to believe. While it is clear with just 50 men on there way to live on land owned by Burr , no treasous armed uprising against the US or Spain had yet occurred, (rather than the thousands of armed men approaching New Orleans that Wilkinson claimed). But it seemed that both Wilkinson and Burr solicited British and others for help with attacking Spain with Burr to be King (not President) and perhaps to divide the western territory from the US so at least in todays standards treason had occurred. Back then the Federalist were considering withdrawing New England from the union as well and before it was made illegal (but only a high misdameanor) there were US forays into Spainish terrority Jefferson at least wanted Spain to worry about a rogue attack from the US,such thoughts were not unusual in those days.
   
   It is clear that Wilkinson was in Spain's payroll, and was traitous. Both books argue Jefferson shielded him by letting him have a phoney Court Marshall rather than an investigation by Congress. The one book claims it is to protect himself and his support of his star witness against Burr. The other for the national interest, from New England threatening to leave the Union and Britain invasion from Canada , the country could not stand for the distraction, plus Wilkinson's contacts with Spain made him useful with negotian about Florida and Mexico. He escaped conviction again in 1815, which even President Madison found troubling.



4. Every society has a moment in time where a decision affecting civil liberties has enormous repercussions. For example, laws giving the government power to curtail political assassinations were abused by Stalin and Hitler to consolidate their dictatorships. This book covers the issues and personalities involved in the courtroom battle over whether the United States would adopt the British doctrine of constructive treason in which merely thinking that it would be desirable to have the King killed would be sufficient grounds for capital punishment. Jefferson, who intensely disliked his former vice-president Burr, sought to press treason charges for an alleged plan to cause the western regions to sucede from the United States. Faced with shaky evidence, the prosecutors urged that the Constitution be interpreted to enable them to convict Burr on the basis of constructive treason. The book cogently describes the societal and personal issues at stake, and how Chief Justice Marshall navigated the intense political and judicial issues involved in the grand jury proceeding and trial. The author does an excellent job of setting the matter in its historical context and does so in a very readable style.



5. I don't know why Mr. Wheelan has such a sore spot about Jefferson. I would just warn readers that if you read this book, make sure you read many other historical books about these same characters. If you happen to read this book, and have not read other material about these characters, you will come away with a slanted view about Thomas Jefferson, and the other historical characters in this book. There are so many writers who, for reasons of profit or ideology, have taken upon themselves the job of rewriting history to their own liking, or that of their publisher. This book has several historical mistakes, but the overall tone reminds me of some of our current extremists who take a one sided view about many issues. Jefferson was a flawed human being, that is clear to anyone who reads history. But to paint him in this light is unfair. Burr, on the other hand, was not a nice guy. He was the kind of man Bush would have been if he had lived during that time. Power hungry, instigating failed military missions, and willing to kill to get his way. Yes, that is harsh, but painfully true. Be wary of revisionist history. I give this book four stars for its inventiveness; it does have some entertainment value. Wheelan writes well, but perhaps he should switch to fiction and stop trying to turn Jefferson into someone he was not. Thomas Jefferson was a man who would not tolerate tyrants and insisted on civil liberty. Not perfect, but not the character created in Mr. Wheelan's book.

1 comments about Thabo Mbeki and the Battle for the Soul of the ANC: Second Edition.

1. Mbeki set up what's happening now in South Africa in several ways. He subverted the ANC's internal democracy, centralising power in the presidency, he started the tradition of riding populist demagogues to the leadership even if he wasn't one himself, and he pushed Jacob Zuma to the limelight as someone he thought he could ride as a substitute for his own lack of the common touch.
   
   The second edition updates some events like the rise of Jacob Zuma as Mbeki's heir apparent, and the chaos in Zimbabwe though naturally with such fast-moving events, you can't expect the book to be up to date. It does however provide very useful background even for events that overtook it.
   
   I don't agree with everything Gumede says but separate out the opinion and the fact is pretty good on the whole: he seems to have real insider contacts.
   
   Some of his nostrums -- more state intervention in the economy for example -- are not terribly likely to have had a significant effect without a much wider change the style at the top -- but he presents a compelling case that South Africa's first 15 years of democracy, the Mbeki era (even if most see the first 5 years as belonging to Mandela), are a big disappointment. From the mismanagement of the HIV-AIDS pandemic through the glacially slow implosion of Zimbabwe, it's hard to see anything that the ordinary person would count as a success. Managing the economy more prudently than the apartheid regime should count perhaps as a bigger success than Gumede credits Mbeki with. However, he does have a good point that in some sense, the government may have had it backwards. Whereas other emerging economies have at times managed to get away with talking fiscal conservatism, while acting a little socialist behind the scenes, Gumede accuses the Mbeki-ites of doing the opposite: talking left, while acting right. The effect (I am guessing, he doesn't spell it out) is little delivery, while frightening off investors.
   
   Overall, the book is a compelling read, despite the odd editing lapse (some unnecessary repetitions, the odd sentence where it becomes hard to untangle the references). Strongly recommended for anyone wanting to understand current trends in South and Southern Africa.

No comments about Young Bob: A Biography of Robert M. La Follette, Jr..

5 comments about Eamon de Valera: The man who was Ireland.

1. comprehensive bio,no punchs pulled,the man who was Ireland to rhe rest of the world for most of the 20th century,



2. Author Coogan's works on Irish history tend to be long, very well researched, deeply documented and rich in detail. They are written for the serious, not the casual reader. This biography of Eamon de Valera is no exception. Moreover, de Valera s life was complicated and controversial. He is scarcely a hero to many Irish Americans familiar with their native country's past. Most of all, he suffers-pitifully it says here- from comparisons to the true hero of Ireland?s struggle for independence-Michael Collins. Bad feeling between them was directly responsible for Ireland?s tragic Civil War in the mid 1920s. This reviewer freely admits to his definite prejudices against de Valera and one suspects that author Coogan agrees. The advice from here is to read Coogan s Michael Collins: The Man Who Made Ireland first. Those with ravenously whetted appetites may proceed-with caution- to this weighty and gloomy text. This reviewer's father once told him that one cannot understand modern Ireland without understanding de Valera. That much may be true-but why torture oneself? Why devote hours reading about a gloomy, narrow minded and devious Spanish Irishman such as this? And a math teacher no less! The bottom line is that both Collins and de Valera inspire strong feelings. Some actual knowledge of Irish history deepens this effect. The result is an abiding difficulty in writing a neutral review on one of those men just after you have just posted one on the other. This reviewer urges his amazon friends to read all the posted opinions on this weighty effort from the gifted, if long winded Tim Pat Coogan. Too much hand wriniging? Welcome to Irish history 101.



3. Tim Pat Coogan compiles a sober and thorough history of Eamon deValera, the most influential Irish leader of the twentieth century. Combining painstaking research with first-hand accounts, Coogan presents a well-rounded portrait of this most complicated and controversial figure. Those who hold deValera in a saintly reverence may be angered at some of the less flattering depictions of the "lay cardinal." But this ranks as a most important read for anyone interested in tracking the course of twentieth century Ireland.



4. Must read for anyone who wants to know history and politics from 1916to 1950 in Ireland,USA AND England.



5. In many ways a superior work, but only if you are aware of Coogan's bias, which is blindly pro Collins and unfairly anti Devalera. An anology would be a Nixon apologist [i.e. Pat Buchanan or William Safire] writing an "Objective Biography" of John F. Kennedy. Despite their obvious intellectual talents,neither is capable of an even handed analysis. Devalera was a Giant of the 20 th Century,despite the fact that he represented only a very small nation on the World Scene for nearly 40 yrs. He was the central figure in the the War of Independence with G.B., + in the formation + leadership of Eire in the League of Nations, W.W.11, + post W.W. 11 /U.N., + as a respected + influential nuetral leader.Coogan for all is literary skills, is simply incapable of objective analysis except on rare instance. The detail is impressive, the sources are broad, and the scope is massive ,but he simply finds it virtually impossible to see what history has proven; that Dev was the superior soul in intellect, vision, ethics, and historical perspective. Collins was a good man , but seriously flawed with human weaknesses; while Dev...not a saint,who really is?....was a monumental tower of basic decency,judgement, + historical insight + instinct. Harry Boland,a great Irish patriot, who was extremely close to both Collins + Devalera, choose Dev, + the Collins' forces made him pay with his life. He declared that Dev was "the true Chief" and that the greatness of the man lay in his " incorruptability".If the reader knows Irish history, and if he/she can seperate the bias from the facts, they will gain meaningful insights into Dev and the glory that was his Ireland.

5 comments about Star-Spangled Men: America's Ten Worst Presidents.

1. I have to say, as a Presidential trivia buff, this book is bully! Not only does it explain why these fellows made the bottom 10 list, but it also gives us plenty of wonderful trivia on all these men. And it is written in a very entertaining way. I couldn't put it down (I even read it twice). Where else can I get such a potent chapter on Franklin Pierce or Benjamin Harrison?
   
   And to those that think this thing is biased: do not be absurd. Dems and GOPers are both raked over the coals of damnation.



2. This book helps you absorb a lot of material in 248 fast pages. The last 10 pages may be the best. A chapter on the 2 most overrated Presidents.
   
   Jefferson purchased 8 additional slaves While President! Also his terrible hatred of Alexander Hamilton, one of our real hero's. Read Alexander Hamilton, by BrookhiserAlexander Hamilton, American I bought The Long Affair: Thomas Jefferson and the French Revolution, 1785-1800 to confirm what Nathan Miller wrote.
   
   And a surprise, JFK. The start of Vietnam, initially cool toward civil rights struggles (Bobby Kennedy was the real force), too many women, and his enduring contribution, raising the curtain on the age of political imagery. I read several books about the Kennedy's, including the lost older brother. (I think that was the Lost Prince?)
   
   If you like those three books you also might like Scam, Jesse Peterson Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America, Vital Remnants: America's Founding and the Western Tradition, and AMERICA'S REAL WAR



3. Who is this Nathan Miller to bedevil the reputations of past leaders because they were fat,like he does with Taft,or unsocial,like Ben Harrison,or because they were products of thier time,like Kennedy,jackson,or even a saint like Jimmy Carter?I would think that LEADERSHIP,or the lack thereof,would be the single criteria by which to judge a president,but apparently a doofus like Miller is more interested in making fun of personality traits than in giving any real thought to the achievements,or mistakes of our presidents...Don't buy this book under any circumstance,unless you are one of those worms who enjoy making fun of people based on size,or personality quirk,rather than seeking any understanding as to why these men were either great or mediocore...



4. (original version posted May 8, 2000)
   While the title does offer a warning that this might be a "fluffy," sensationalistic, or overly cynical offering, it's fortunately none of these things.
   
   Unfortunately, that doesn't imply there's a lot of depth to this work. Miller does a competent job of picking ten of our less distinguished Presidents and compiling a lot of well-documented facts about their respective administrations. The book does a satisfactory job of telling us why someone is on his ten worst list. But the facts pretty much do this for us already without the need for much synthesis or supporting argument. In fact, it's hard to argue with any of his choices...with one exception.
   
   I did find Miller's choice for the absolute worst President rather surprising and far too critical considering this President's skills and accomplishments (although I should note that I'm not a big fan of the 37th President). While I understand Miller's point, I really needed some more support for his argument.
   
   Short on interesting arguments, viewpoints, or in-depth analysis, this book could still make for a nice quick read if you're looking for an overview. One last thing... if you're wondering if Miller may have forgotten any of our recent Chief Executives, note that the book was written before 2001.



5. Handicapping best and worst Presidents is a popular pastime for the politically inclined and even Presidents sometimes take turns critiquing our Chief Executives. Nathan Miller, best known for his biographies on Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt, takes his turn here critiquing our ten worst Presidents and there are few surprises to be found here. Miller singles out the usual suspects (Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson, Grant, Harrison, Taft, Harding), but adds a few surprises (Coolidge, Nixon, Carter). Miller addresses each in a chapter making the case against them repeating stories that have been told ad nauseum. Miller adds little that is fresh, insightful or new here and very little in the way of objectivity as Miller focuses on their individual personalities, relationships and temperaments more than actual achievements and failures. Even Harry Truman picked out most of these Presidents as duds in his autobiography and they're regularly on most everyone's list. Miller saves his worst invective for the very end when he lists his two picks for the most overrated Presidents, John F. Kennedy and Thomas Jefferson, which seem gratuitous, especially in Jefferson's case in light of the wonderful "American Sphinx" by Joseph Ellis.
   
   There's little here that reflects great creativity or ingenuity. I'd almost prefer to see someone write a counterpoint highlighting the accomplishments and achievements of these Chief Executives just to refute what was laid out here. In the end this book reads like something I've read before; a good gossipy read that doesn't break new ground. Miller is an excellent writer as demonstrated with his other books and his writing here is lively and engaging. I just find it hard to single out Coolidge and Carter when you have other ample targets like Madison, Fillmore, Tyler, Van Buren, and others.

1 comments about Presidency of John Adams (American Presidency Series).

1. All U.S. presidents must confront and solve problems, some more unique than others. There are a few whose difficulties are unprecedented and will never recur again. John Adams was such a president and his effectiveness as a chief executive is often underestimated. When he took the oath of office, the nation was still young and in many ways not yet a nation. Regional differences, which sixty years later would explode into civil war, were powerful and could have led to a similar event during his administration. The governmental structure was idealistic, novel and untested. There were many who felt that it was unworkable, and with minimal communication infrastructure, it was difficult for the central government to project its' power quickly and effectively.
   The framers of this government were highly talented, ambitious men, who were now faced with the task of governing. As history has shown us so many times, the talented revolutionary is often mediocre at governing. Political parties began to form and like all births, involved a great deal of fits and starts. George Washington commanded such respect that no one could reasonably hope to challenge his authority, and yet he was wore down by the political battles. Succeeding such a towering figure would have been difficult for anyone. Europe was also currently engaged in a general war as a consequence of the revolution in France, and there were strong forces driving the United States towards involvement.
   Into this horrendous mix of conflicting forces, John Adams became president. There is no question that the crises he faced rank in the top five of all presidents. Forced to face and solve these problems, he performed admirably. There is no more telling measures of his success in that he angered many in both parties and one of his strongest enemies, Thomas Jefferson, continued his policies when he succeeded Adams.
   Brown does an outstanding job of describing these circumstances, for without this knowledge it is impossible to understand how successful Adams was. He also describes many of the details of John Adams' relationship with his wife Abigail. Although the times dictated that women play secondary roles in society, it is clear that many women wielded substantial power behind the scenes, if only to provide the strength for her husband to do what was right. After reading this book, you cannot help but be impressed with the power and intelligence of Abigail Adams, one of the most talented first spouses that this country has ever had.
   This book serves a necessary and overdue purpose. It shows John Adams as more than just an adequate successor to Washington, but as a president who stood firm and always placed the interests of the nation first. He was a great man, showing that many of the men who made the American revolution were also, and perhaps even more skilled, at making and executing a government. I will forever be in awe of their political genius.