5 comments about Woodrow Wilson (Penguin Lives).

1. In the annals of American history, few presidents have a more interesting story to tell than Woodrow Wilson. Despite this truth, Wilson's legacy has produced such a terrible collection of biographies. This book is a continuation of that standard of trampling the legacy of the greatest idealist to reside in the White House.
   
   While this book is intended to be a brief biography of Wilson, this characteristic would seem to cause more focus on landmarks in Wilson's life. This does not stop Louis Auchincloss from going off topic for pages at a time. The author repeatedly references Bill Clinton, whose most striking similarity is being a democrat. There also seems to be a lot of speculation on the part of the author, such as speculating that Wilson's childhood illnesses were psychosomatic (p. 7). Like the original source of this fact, he lacks tangible support for his agrument. It is nothing more than an educated guess. Just like the guess that Wilson suffered from dyslexia (p. 6). The chapters on World War I are clumsy because of the digressions. The better chapters focus on Wilson's first and second wives, as well as his years at Princeton.
   
   I initially thought the author loathed Woodrow Wilson, but softened in this stance as the book progressed. Still I wondered why one would write a book about a seemingly undesirable topic? Not that I expected much from this book, but I, like many readers of history, am still waiting for an outstanding biography on Woodrow Wilson.



2. Enjoyed the taped version of WOODROW WILSON by
   Louis Auchincloss . . . it is a brief account of our 28th President
   that gave me insight into how a professor and then college
   administrator could make the leap into politics . . . hearing it
   reminded me a bit the Classic Comics that I read when
   younger, in that much detail was left out . . . however, you
   got just enough information . . . I'd recommend this book
   by Auchincloss, especially for the fascinating tale it told
   of how when Wilson became sick, his wife practically ran the nation.



3. Of all the men who have tried to fill the shoes of Washington and Jefferson, who was the worst? Our current crop of "Hallmarxist" professors consider anyone who would assign Wilson and FDR to the lower depths as deserving a quick commitment with Ezra Pound into loony bin of St. Elizabeth's, and for anyone to hold Lincoln among the worst invites being regarded a simple crank. But Thomas DiLorenzo's _The Real Lincoln_ has finally exposed Old Abe as well worthy of infamy, and Jim Powell's _FDR's Folly_ has corrected the omission of Murray Rothbard's _America's Great Depression_ by exposing FDR as really nothing more than - pardon the pun - Hoover on wheels.
   
   This leaves only Wilson, the man whom Mencken denominated _Doctor Dulciferous_ for his cooing blovations. The lack of a good biography of Wilson that reveals him for what he was - our worst president - or at least a book as good as DiLorenzo's on Lincoln- is not remedied by Louis Auchincloss (hereafter LA).
   
   LA for the first 64 pages gets his facts roughly right and his conclusions quite wrong. For example:
   - LA calls Wilson's claims to being a Southerner "factitious". This is putting it mildly: Wilson in his heart was an utter New England barn burner and witch-hunter, oblivious to the positive achievements of Calvinism (Milton, Rembrandt, and the Jansenist Pascal) and a perfect specimen of non-conformism's worst faults: obstinacy, a cocksure belief in one's moral correctness, a deluded sense that he was the agent of the Almighty, and that his opponents were tools of the Devil.
   -- Wilson's view of blacks can only be called sheer racist, even in a time when "racist" has become a word of cultural socialist McCarthyism - yet LA offers the lame excuse that everyone else from his background thought the same.
   - LA faults Wilson for appointing an Anglophile to the Court of St. James, yet LA's own facts prove Wilson the most Anglophilic of all. He tried to remake Princeton into the image of Oxford and Cambridge. He wanted American government to resemble Westminster, knowing full well that in Britain today the Prime Minister is a dictator, free of any checks. Wilson wanted the same for the President in a manner that would make even a Gaullist blush. Indeed, one of Wilson's many bad legacies is a chief executive out of control. Mencken was right to observe that the US State Dept. was simply an antechamber to the Foreign Office in Whitehall.
   - LA mentions Wilson's stokes, one after another it seems, and tries to blame them, wrongly, for his manifold shortcomings. In fact, I have yet to see in print what seems quite possible: That Wilson - and for that matter Theodore Roosevelt - were really unhinged.
   
   Wilson's 2nd worst foreign policy blunder was his treatment of Latin Americas - a treatment inept when it wasn't contemptible. LA tries to make Bryan the fall guy for Wilson's folly, and considers the Villa fiasco as "necessitated". I pray the Mexicans now flooding into the country have short memories. When it comes to economics, LA really shows himself wanting. He considers the Federal Reserve Act a "great success", giving us an "elastic currency", when in fact the fiscal solvency of the US -- relatively sound after Hamilton's schemes were put down and prior to Wilson - has been a shambles ever since. Need proof? Check the inflation monitor at the Commerce Dept website and see what a dollar in 1950 is worth now. And thank Woodrow Wilson. Desperate for something good to say about Wilson's domestic turn at the helm, LA chooses his tariff reduction - only on the same page to state, rightly, that the taxpayer was now to be equally robbed by the new Federal Income Tax (also a Wilson deed), that tariff reform was aborted by the Great War, and that it was repealed in 1922.
   
   LA never mentions Wilson's lasting effect on domestic US politics: Completing the work of Lincoln in the destruction of the Jeffersonian party in the US (I'm grateful to Thomas Dilorenzo and Clyde Wilson for this insight). Prior to Wilson, we had such a party, the Democrat Party - with support for minimal government, subsidiarily, states' rights, low tariffs, originalist construction of the Constitution, Anglophobia, gold standard (at least until Bryan), staying out of European affairs, and a healthy suspicion of banks. Wilson turned this party into a socialist party. In fact, now we really only have the choice between two socialist parties: The Hamiltonian version of the Republicans, and the 100 proof offered by the Dimmycrats.
   
   After page 64, LA offers a complete whitewash. Wilson's utter disaster - still visited upon all of us, and re-uttered in the inaugural addresses of Kennedy I and Bush II - was, or course, his entry into World War I, with all the suffering that this decision caused. LA can only find sympathy for Wilson's views, and wastes a whole chapter of this short book demonizing Lodge. I am reminded by the estimable Clyde Wilson (no relation, certainly!) that Woodrow Wilson was our only Ph. D. president. LA offers nothing better than the socialist and PHuddy-Duddy camorra presiding in our Potemkin universities
   
   So, as we wait for a good biography, anyone who really wants to know the truth of the Old Fool should save his money and buy instead Jim Powell, _Wilson's War_, and Thomas Fleming, _The Illusion of Victory_.
   
   Two stars for being mercifully brief with readable prose.



4. This is a reasonable brief introduction to the career of Woodrow Wilson. His upbringing and early academic career are disposed of in short order in the first chapter. Then one chapter deals with his presidency of Princeton, one deals with (or covers the same time period as) his governorship of New Jersey, and the remaining seven cover his Presidency, all in an engaging and chatty style.

   The book's strongest point is describing what happened, although even here there are some strange omissions. It mentions his break with Hibben in Princeton without describing the circumstances, noting that Hibben went on to succeed Wilson as President of the university, or exploring the parallels with his later breaks with House and Tumulty. All of this could have been covered in a single paragraph. In addition, there is no mention of the country's Caribbean adventures in 1915; none of the Red Scare of 1919; and, probably worst of all, nothing about the Sedition Acts and the imprisonment of Eugene Debs, and no discussion of why America behaved worse towards its own citizens during and after the war than either Britain or France did. The first time the book mentions the League of Nations, it doesn't clearly describe what its purpose was (and it would have been nice if it had mentioned that it was actually the idea of the British Foreign Secretary, not Wilson). Still, as an overview of the events of Wilson's life it hits most of the main points.

   The book has less to offer on why things happened. In trying to explain why Colonel Harvey picked Wilson for Governor of New Jersey, it gives two pages on what Harvey got wrong about Wilson, but nothing on what he got right. It also takes at face value the idea that Wilson was offered the governorship "without ... even lifting a hand". It describes Wilson's feeling of betrayal by House when he returned to Paris in March 1919, but not what House had actually done!

   As noted by another reviewer, the book also fails to put Wilson's international achievements in a broader context. His aim of a just, lasing peace with Germany failed; his aim of encouraging self-determination among smaller nations succeeded, and he is still looked on as a hero in many smaller nations of Europe. Some more insight and context, and a more detailed assessment of his legacy, would have been welcome.

   Woodrow Wilson was a fascinating and controversial President. This book helps explain -- and to an extent shares -- the fascination, but it doesn't do enough to help the reader assess the controversies. Still, it's an reasonable starting point for people who know little about Wilson.

   One final comment: I'd also have been interested to know how the author is related to the Gordon Auchincloss who attended the Versailles conference -- it's not that common a name, after all.




5. If you don't know much more about Woodrow Wilson than an overview of the important events of his life, this book isn't going to help much. There's very little political analysis, almost no attempt to portray what diffiulties Wilson needed to overcome, and no passion at all in the writing. Actually this book feels a lot like a high school term paper that someone knew they had to write and just wanted to turn in for a passing grade. Auchincloss talks a bit about the two Wilsons (one good one bad) and hints at Wilson's dependance on women, but neither of these positions is fleshed out or used consistently. Maybe Woodrow Wilson's life is just too large for a book this small.

1 comments about The Abraham Lincoln Companion: A Companion, a Celebration of His Live And Times (Health Reference Series) (Health Reference Series).

1. Sooner or later most consumers will have foot problems, and to explain the latest research into podiatry health is Ivy L. Alexander, Editor's Podiatry Sourcebook, 2nd Edition, a revised sourcebook perfect for both health libraries and general-interest lending collections. The bones, joints, and muscles of the foot are surveyed in easily-accessed chapters which covering everything from conditions relating to growth to foot deformities, neuromuscular diseases, swelling of the joints, and more.

1 comments about George Washington, First in War (The George Washington Bookshelf).

1. This short volume (only 73 pages, including more than a dozen illustrations) is a good military biography of George Washington, the Soldier.
   
   Author David Palmer, a well known and respected Soldier and Historian, divides Washington's military career into four parts - Aspirant, Colonel, General, and Commander in Chief and concludes with a brief examination of Washington's legacy, which was considerable.
   
   Indeed, at the end of the Revolutionary War, Britain's King George himself stated that if Washington voluntary surrendered the immense power Congress had given him during the war, he would be the greatest man of the Eighteenth Century and one of the greatest men that had ever lived.
   
   Palmer, however, mythologizes Washington, giving him too much credit for the success of others. The reality is that the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army had to learn the business of war against the British the hard way and suffered defeat after defeat in the first two years of the war. Had it not been for the likes of brilliant general such as Benedict Arnold, Nathanael Greene, Ethan Allen and others - and the repeated bungling of battle after battle by a long line of less than competent British generals - the war might have well been lost.
   
   There is, however, no denying that Washington evolved into an extremely effective military strategist and field commander later in the war, maintaining an army in the field under almost impossible conditions and then defeating the British (with considerable help from his French, Spanish and Dutch allies) again and again.
   
   Still, those who know little about George Washington the Soldier and Commander and Chief will find this small and inexpensive volume a good read!

2 comments about Milosevic: A Biography.

1. The author's admission to the press that "I never met Slobodan Milosevic, although I wrote a biography of him" sums up the credibility of this book.
   
   LeBor misleads readers throughout his book. When describing Milosevic's ascent to power (pg. 79-84) he says that a crowd of unruly Serbs attacked a predominantly Albanian police force in Kosovo Polje in 1987. LeBor claims that Milosevic took the crowd's side and said, "No one should dare to beat you again!" LeBor relies heavily on his version of events to advance his thesis that Milosevic incited Serbian nationalism in order to attain power.
   
   The only problem is that LeBor's version of events is totally wrong. As the events unfolded in 1987 The New York Times reported that THE POLICE ATTACKED THE CROWD in a botched attempt to clear the area of demonstrators -- and that the crowd RETALIATED by throwing rocks at the police. LeBor's assertion that the police were attacked by the crowd is made even more laughable by the fact that the federal Yugoslav Interior Ministry scolded the policemen involved in the incident for their conduct. On top of getting the fact that the police attacked the crowd wrong, LeBor misquoted Milosevic whose actual words were "you will not be beaten" given in response to complaints from the crowd that the police were beating people.
   
   This is all easy enough to verify because there's a videotape of the event. It was broadcast on TV when it happened in 1987, and it's a publicly accessible exhibit from Milosevic's trial at The Hague. I personally suspect that LeBor's 180 degree inversion of established fact and his misquotation of Milosevic's words was a deliberate attempt to mislead his readers, but even if it wasn't malicious it's still proof that LeBor's research was sloppy.
   
   I'm not going to write a refutation of the entire book here; suffice it to say that the example I gave above is one of many that I could have used.



2. The disintegration of Yugoslavia into a horrible series of wars and battles that pitted formerly peaceful neighbors against each other is a very important part of modern European history. It tested the relationship between America and Europe on all levels. And it was where the strengths and weaknesses of the NATO alliance have been most clearly illustrated.

   Getting your head around this incredibly complex situation can only be done by examining the man who methodically tore a once-proud country and people to shreds: Slobodan Milosevic.

   How was this drab functionary able to completely destroy a prosperous nation? How was he able to create civil wars between villagers that had lived peacefully side by side for generations? Why was he supported and even admired by the Western politicians while simultaneously overseeing some of the worst atrocities against humans since WWII?

   Through interviews with all of the key figures that surrounded Milosevic - including his wife Mira Markovic! - Adam LeBor paints a vivid picture of the man at the center of this terrible tragedy.

   As a reporter in the Balkans during the wars, Mr. LeBor saw first hand the results of Milosevic's terrible reign. As a proven history writer, he has managed to take his first hand experiences and meld them with historical perspective, so we wind up with an incredibly sharp picture of the key events themselves, but framed within an understanding of the event in the overall historical narrative.

   This book is the only work I have seen that makes the Balkans understandable to the common Westerner, and is important for that very reason. However, it also resonates particularly clearly in the world we live in post 9/11, where we again are partnered with NATO and involved in wars in foreign lands with tribal people in a land and culture that are driven by a web of beliefs and interconnectedness that we do not understand.

   Read this book to understand what the world lost when Yugoslavia disintegrated, and how it happened. And read this book to gain an understanding and insight into our current conflicts. And finally, read this book for Mr. LeBor's skill at writing. You will not be disappointed.

3 comments about The Essential Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Library of Freedom).

1. The point of Franklin Roosevelt's brilliant fireside chats and other seminal speeches was that the listener could hear his voice and experience his charisma. This is impossible with this book which is merely lifeless words on the printed page. Of course some of FDR's speeches make interesting reading, but the entire thrust of his message is lost without the resonant voice and the indefinable "something" he brought to the microphone.

   Just yesterday I was listening on CD to FDR's incomparable Pearl Harbor speech from December 8, 1941. Even though this was long before I was born, I always get goosebumps listening to his intonations, the cheering from the Representatives and Senators and the feeling that you are actually witnessing history. There is none of this in this book, where reading speeches is a paltry substitute (at best) for listening to FDR, who was perhaps the most effective Presidential orator of the 20th century. Those who extol Reagan as an effective and charismatic communicator need to listen to Roosevelt.

   My advice is to buy a CD with the collected speeches of FDR and ignore this book. The idea is good but the premise flawed. You need to hear Roosevelt's voice, not merely read his words.




2. First - I hate political books that make it seem that you have to have an MBA to read it. But this book is intelligent, a reference guide, and a great book to which you will read great works of speeches. FDR, is a great idealist and essentially a great man. This is a great book, in which to read his thoughts.



3. The Essential Franklin Delano Roosevelt is by far the most comprehensive collection of that President's major works. Each and every piece presented in this book is historically relevant. Formatted in chronological order, Hunt takes his reader on a journey from Roosevelt's First Gubernatorial Inaugural Address to remarks Roosevelt gave to congress on the Yalta Conference days before his death. The Essential FDR is the perfect book for anyone from a Roosevelt scholar or research-paper-writing high school student. Almost 350 pages of anything quotable by one of history's greatest men. As an aside, John Gabriel Hunt's introduction is also quite informative and gives great background information. If you want FDR, you want this book!

1 comments about Grace Coolidge: The People's Lady in Silent Cal's White House (Modern First Ladies).

1. Robert Ferrell has given us a sweepingly short biography of First Lady Grace Coolidge, but without any real new information. He mentions Dr. Joel Boone's papers in his "bibliographic essay," but fails to show how he used them in any extensive way, except to continually mention that Grace confided her feelings privately to him....where are the examples?...and why are sources not cited?
   
   He makes many brief teasing references to Grace and Calvin's marital difficulties, but nothing in detail; omitting anything new and substantive about the President's relationship with his older son John. Ferrell's research on the death of Calvin, Jr. and its effect on the family is very thin.
   
   In touching on the Harding scandals during the Coolidge presidency, Ferrell attempts to, as in other books he has written, rehabilitate Harding's' reputation by refuting what is now fact: that Harding had affairs with Nan Britton and Carrie Phillips, even though these are but two of many, and are well documented.
   
   A charming book, but don't look for anything new here. His badly documented "bibliographic essay" takes pot-shots at other authors, and makes several statements that much of the material and papers available are "uninteresting." I could say the same for this book. One would hope that another historian who knows how to do serious research will step up to the plate and produce something with more substance and stop complaining about what is not available, as he does with every set of papers listed in his "bibliographic essay."

2 comments about George Washington: First in War, First in Peace (American Heroes).

1. The author reminds us of the greatness of our first leader. Here was a man who put country first, and himself second. When he fought in the Revolutionary War, he stayed away from home for over six years. When offered the kingship of this country, he was insulted and told his soldiers that he could not abide by becoming a leader such as this. His wisdom is still present in today's politics. He desired only two terms as President and told his ministers that was enough. Later, Congress adopted this as an amendment to the Constitution. He did not like foreign entanglements. His wisdom and non partisanship is sorely lacking today in our leaders.
   
   This is a nice beginners book about our first leader. It is short enough for those who are interested in our first President to learn about Washington's greatness.



2. The book gives a concise narrative of the life of George Washington, from birth until death. It makes every attempt to debunk popular myths about our nation's first president, and gives as much historical information as possible without making the book overly pedantic.
   
   All and all, the book was a pleasant read. Imagine my surprise upon finding a book that actually had historical subsistence and wasn't overly dense. The Flesch-Kincaid level, for the passage I randomly picked, pegged at 12.0, but I find that hard to believe. If I had read this book as a senior, heads would have rolled. Fine read, yes; reflective of grade level, no. The book, I would think, could be easily approachable for middle school, granted that it's not a "throw-me-into-the-deep-end" read, but even then, it may be achievable for some. I have few real complaints about the book. The biggest that I have is the lack of maps. Personally, I come from upstate New York and have resided in Pittsburgh (you'll see what I mean when they start hashing out Pittsburgh's three different rivers during the Fort Duquesne/Fort Pitt skirmish. Even I had to pay attention to remember which river was which), so I was quite familiar with the areas being discussed throughout the book. Someone, especially a middle schooler, from anywhere else would have a hard time keeping geographical track of things, and unless they're a devotee of history, reading about events that are 200+ years old while trying to keep track of then-General Washington's movements is not conducive to gaining someone's interest. Next, while the book tries to not put Washington on a pedestal, like most do, it still has the aura of it. There are a few attempts in the book to show Washington's "human" nature, but even then, these descriptions are quickly followed by "but then he got right up and persevered!"-ims. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, but come now. Other than that, like I said, the book was quite readable and not historically dense. I give the book a 7 because, frankly, I don't think I'd read it again, nor would I recommend it to anyone. If someone came up to me and specifically said: "I need a book that details all of Washington's life briefly, and details major events in an easy-to-read format," only then would I mention this book. This shouldn't deter you from considering it. If you have a budding interest in the Revolutionary War period, this book will give you solid footing in the names, events, treaties, and nuances of the time. If you already know a lot about the Revolutionary War, you could safely pass the book up for something more investigative. In brief: good beginner book, good book to get someone interested in the time period, good book to hack through together as a class, perhaps; but hardly fulfilling for someone that has Revolutionary War knowledge and a decent grasp of the diplomacy of that era.
   
   [...]

No comments about Abe Lincoln's Legacy of Laughter: Humorous Stories by and about Abraham Lincoln.

No comments about Leadership: Fifty Great Leaders and the Worlds They Made.

No comments about Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S.Truman (Give 'em Hell Harry Series).