5 comments about Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full.

1. This was a great read. I was thrilled to discover that Conrad wrote a fair and even-handed biography of the late President. (I enjoyed Nixon's memoirs, too, so lengthy tomes aren't a problem for me, as they might be for a few of the reviewers.) I liked the book's emphasis on Nixon's persistence and ability to remain on the political scene for so many years, despite media prejudice and pumped-up mobbings. Nixon had to perform on one of the most volatile stages of American history, and this book made it clear that he managed to stay on it, decade after decade.



2. Richard Nixon was one of the most influential man in the world, and also someone who was misunderstood



3. Conrad Black is not a typical historian or biographer. Indeed his approach and style are singular. Unlike "professional" historians and idelogues like Robert Dallek, Black does not have an ideological axe to grind. Although a professed conservative, Black's biography of FDR is the best I've read, utterly balanced in its approach to the man who so divided the nation before he saved the world from the darkness of fascism.
   
   At 1,059 pages, the book is too long. Yet, if I were editing it, I would be hard-pressed to figure out what to cut from the manuscript. Even so, only the dedicated student will make it all the way through or not skim in some places.
   
   Black does not flatter his subject. He sees Nixon as a man of some great strengths and some equally great weaknesses. Thirty-some years later, in fact, and reminded by Black's book, i56 is still mystifying that Nixon was so tone-deaf in his handling of the Watergate "scandal". Black makes a solid case that Watergate was a tempest in a teapot that, with the aid of left-wing journalists, venal Democrat politicians and intellectuals and pundits, was turned into a coup against a sitting President. Certainly nothing that Nixon did was any worse than what was done in the name of national security or just plain politics by Roosevet, Kennedy and Johnson. But Nixon had been hated by the left-wing for his anti-Communism since he first appeared on the political scene.
   
   Critical phrases such as "Nixon's duplicity acheived a new depth . . . " mark Black's narrative, leaving no doubt that Black sees all sides of Nixon.
   
   Nixon was a President of great historical significance. The fact that he was so endlessly attacked by the left-wing is proof, in a way, of his power. He also made mistakes, such as imposing price controls. He never gave up, though, successfully rehabilitating his image before his death.
   
   As he did with Roosevelt, Black has written a superb biography of another controversial, immensely talented, vastly misunderstood American President. Well worth reading, but the length of the book is daunting.
   
   Jerry



4. The moment I finished reading this book, the image of the late USA President came to me when he left office and waved to the crowd his last Good-bye. Nixon looked hesitant and undecided like a man relieved of an overwhelming burden. His Good-bye expressions were made indicating how far he had worn out of his Office; his eyes refused to meet the camera.
   Perhaps what is quite revealing is that Nixon policies and behaviors were formulated to keep pace with `Détente `. There has been a wave of publicity unparalleled in contemporary American foreign policies relating to the appointment of Henry Kissinger in September 1973. Never before has a President and a Secretary of State had such interest by Newsmen and Biographers alike. Both names were associated with secret channels notably in Vietnam, Arab/Israeli conflict, and of course - Detente. I can safely say that Nixon, in particular, was less a friend of the media until Watergate blew its hurdles in the face of the world and the legend `'impeachment" was then born. What followed invoked a cauldron of aggressive and sympathetic editorials. Hostile comments were destructive in character and reflected envy.
   I am convinced these 1000+ pages transpire feelings of persecution centered more upon the Office and less upon the Person whom many have loudly hated and secretly admired.
   Mr. Conrad Black could picture the late President of the United States of America at his best moments slouched back in his chair, his long legs stretched out above the table in the deceptively thoughtful pose caricaturists had made famous in their media.



5. I worked to help Richard Nixon get re-elected in 1972 because I thought he was a great president. I was a huge supporter of Nixon. Even up to the night he resigned, I thought he was getting railroaded. I was 23 at the time, but I'm a lot older now, and I see things more clearly, honestly, and objectively. That's one thing this book does not do--look at Nixon's life clearly, honestly, and objectively.
   
   I enjoyed the first half of the book, as I thought it was about time someone gave Richard Nixon a break and be truthful and fair to him. The writer seemed to be doing that, and although I was glad he was giving Nixon a lot of credit and understanding for the first half of his life, as the book continued I began questioning the author's use of personal comments and judgments as becoming less about history and more about punditry. By the time the book reached the frenetic beginnings of Nixon's second term, it had stopped being a historical narrative and became instead a very partisan editorial on Nixon's behalf. The author took on the role of a Nixon apologist. (One can understand why the conservative reviewers have praised it so much.) I am a student of Watergate; I've read dozens of books and articles, and watched countless interviews about it and its participants. I quickly came to realize that Black left out a lot of unflattering Nixon actions, glossed over others, minimized Nixon's criminal behavior, and routinely re-wrote historical facts. Black described those people who disagreed with and were willing to testify against Nixon, and those public servants who acted with honor and integrity, as "rats," "weasels," "turncoats," and "liars" over and over again. I can't imagine T.H. White, Edmund Morris, William Manchester, Dumas Malone, Stephen E. Ambrose, or David McCullough injecting such unprofessional personal indignities in one of their wonderful--and objective--biographies. As the book progressed, Black's writing style became more reminiscent of Kitty Kelly's gossipy tomes about Frank Sinatra and the Royal Family than of a professional historian writing what could have been the seminal book on Nixon.
   
   Black repeatedly stated some transgression of Nixon's only to point out that other presidents were worse in this particular violation of law or lapse of ethical behavior. Black sounds very much like a 21st century authoritarian when he routinely, even excessively stated "it's okay if Nixon did it because the other guys did it worse." Black regularly portrayed FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and even Nixon's mentor, Eisenhower as having less integrity than Nixon. It didn't work when Nixon tried to do that 35 years ago, and it didn't work in the book either.
   
   "Richard M. Nixon, a Life in Full" hardly qualifies as an objective or truly scholarly biography although it could have been. I could have overlooked the occasional glossing over of and bending of the truth as poor reporting, but Black was blatant in his omissions and measurably flawed in his translations of events. By the time the book came to an end, I realized that this was a Nixon I didn't know, and I know an lot about Richard Nixon--much of it good, and some of it not so good. I should have read about the author's credentials before I read the book instead of during the middle of the reading when I began to suspect that it was more than just a biography. Once I realized Conrad Black was connected to the Nixon Library, I understood that this book was just a re-writing of history: a deconstruction of the facts and an attempt to paint a different picture of an undoubtedly important but flawed life.)
   
   Black is a talented writer and a relatively thorough researcher. What he is not is a praiseworthy historian. I would not say don't read this book, but I would say be aware you are not getting an objective look at an interesting life and otherwise effective president. I did enjoy the book to some measure because it was exciting to relive that period in history, but I did get frustrated reading accounts of situations that I knew were just not true. I don't mean to sound crass, but reading this book is like reading a book about L. Ron Hubbard that was written by one of his followers, and then expecting it to be an objective look at Scientology. In spite of Black's efforts, "Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full" because of its overt lack of objectivity, will be soon relegated to the bottom shelf of dusty libraries rather than be viewed as an important addition to the Nixon canon of political thought.
   ---------------------
   LATE ADDITION: The following was taken from a conservative publication's Conrad Black bio page: "Conrad Black, an erstwhile media mogul, closely connected to rightist political factions in the United States, was convicted in July 2007 for defrauding shareholders of his Hollinger International newspaper empire out of millions of dollars. He was sentenced to 6.5 years in prison in December 2007 for his conviction on three counts of fraud and one count of obstruction of justice (Associated Press, December 10, 2007).
   ---------------------
   I guess that speaks to Mr. Black's objectivity better than I can. It's all the more reason to be suspicious of the content of the Nixon book. After all, with his conviction for obstruction of justice he has much in common with the Nixon White House.

1 comments about John Adams Movie Tie-In.

1. Don't get me wrong, this is a terrific book. David McCullough has written another winner. And Edward Herrmann is still my favorite narrator of audio books. But the engineers must have been on strike because all throughout this audio book you can hear Mr. Herrmann breathing through his nose, smacking his lips and exhaling.
   Still, I'm glad I purchased this audio book in spite of the strange recording. It's wonderful.

5 comments about I Love You, Ronnie: The Letters of Ronald Reagan to Nancy Reagan.

1. This book was truly touching to say the least!!!!! It blew my mind away. The simple fact is, in these times, it is a RARE commodity to see a truly LOVING and LONG LASTING relationship!!!
   
   This book truly inspired me! Nancy and Ronald both loved each other genuinely and God Bless her for sharing something so personal and private to the world!!



2. I loved reading this book! Afterwards I gave it to my mom to read. The love between Nancy and Ronald will leave you breathless. As their lives move on Ronald always still writes to his love Nancy. Maybe he knew he would leave her one day and wanted her to have a reminder of the man he was.....beautiful letters.....from a beautiful man!



3. What a great book to read. I knew there were some men out there that could be so open about their feelings. Lucky you Mrs. Regan.



4. The book was everything that I had hoped it would be. The warmth and intimacy of their relationship shone through in these wonderful, personal,
   heartwarming letters. In todays world, where expressions of love and tenderness are frowned upon by many, this book shines through like a
   beacon in the darkness. It exposes the beauty and tenderness of true love between these two exceptional human beings. It shows how a truly sincere marital relationship can endure and thrive even in these times. Thank you Mrs. Reagan for allowing us to enter into the beautiful world of yours and the Presidents. Your book can will certainly help all married couples who read it to strengthen their own relationships.



5. Regardless of your political ideologies this book will warm your heart. It is an easy read, but one you will cherish, and always keep near your bedside. At a time when the divorce rate is so high, and many families are so miserable it's wonderful to look at a President who cherished his wife, and a wife who truly felt cherished. In a society where everything is sexualized, it's nice to stop and read about something with so much depth, intensity and commitment. Beautiful...

No comments about Harry S. Truman: The American Presidents Series: The 33rd President, 1945-1953 (The American Presidents Series:).

3 comments about Pursuit: The Chase, Capture, Persecution, and Surprising Release of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

1. Another job well done Clint Johnson! As with all of your books you can tell immediately this one was well researched and well written. You are certainly on your way to becoming one of this generations premiere civil war historians. You write with a style that seems as though you have actually lived and experienced the very history you so ably put to type and that is what makes this book so enjoyable. Any student of American history needs this book in their collection.



2. There are different ways to write Civil War history. Some books that are designed for history professors are found filled with footnotes and trivial facts and esoteric comparisons which only another professor of history could enjoy wading through. Then there are others with no notes and no references to sources that tell a rousing good story but one that leaves the reader wondering if he has read a novel or a history book and no way to verify which. Clint Johnson has merged these two types of history into a book which, if you are interested in Jefferson Davis and his capture, is a must read. Johnson focuses on the details of Davis' flight and capture. For those who are looking for something new -- along with the fresh perspective that Johnson brings to the oft-told story of Davis' capture, he has unearthed interesting information, like providing newly discovered details concerning the story that Davis was wearing a dress when he was captured. Many are not aware the Lincoln actively sought to have Davis and his cabinet escape the US or that Davis was never tried for a crime because he never committed one [except in the eyes of the most radical Republicans] and Johnson lets you see the pickle the US government was in as the press and Reconstructors were screaming for Davis to be tried and hung. Johnson seems to have done his legwork. In Johnson's work I did not run across anything which seemed invented, contrived or went against modern Civil War research. Whenever I did want to check the source, I found the cited sources matched Johnson's version. The best part is that the book is well enough written that, once I started, I had to stay up till I finished it. A fascinating book about a fascinating figure in American history. If you are a Civil War history buff, or just want to read a well written account of a very interesting episode from the Civil War, then I recommend you read this book.



3. ...but that doesn't make him guilty of a crime.
   
   When the Confederacy collapsed in April, 1865, President Davis got Lee's message to leave while sitting in pew 63 at St. Paul's Episcopal Church...I have sat in that pew for Church services, and if you think that doesn't give a Southerner the shakes, think again. The civil government left town on a slow train that night..... Danville...Greensboro...Charlotte... One by one his cabinet faded away; Davis still wanted to make it to Texas, and continue the war. By then, that idea bordered on lunacy. Finally, after a month in which he ran, but not hard enough, the President was captured by Union Cavalry near Irwinville, Georgia [NOT IN VARINA'S DRESS--that story is a vile lie]. Davis was transported to Fortress Monroe, Virginia....then the real story started.
   
   Abe Lincoln has wanted a peaceful reunion of the country, and was inclined to let Davis, and the others, escape. Some of Lincoln's own people disagreed; we shall never know what would have happened had Lincoln lived. Abe was a strong leader...Andrew Johnson was not, and therin lay the problem. President Davis was locked up, even kept in chains for a week. The Union had several real difficulties...Democrat controlled newspapers came to Davis' support...good lawyers offered to defend him...the Justice Department couldn't come up with a crime to charge him with. Treason? Well...the Constitutional definition of that is very specific. Secession alone won't do it...secession had always been assumed to be legal. Overthrow of the government in Washington? We NEVER sought to do that, merely to form our own. The Yankees had treated us as a real country during prisoner exchanges; now, they were stuck. And then there was the matter of the Yankees' illegal admission of West Virginia. Does that mean I'm an unperson?
   
   Some Northerners tried to frame Davis for the Lincoln murder, but couldn't even get lying witnesses to tell a straight story. Davis would have NEVER traded Lincoln for Johnson, and Judah Benjamin would have never run such an operation without express orders from Davis. Mr. Johnson touched one interesting point, but did not elaborate: Secretary Stanton refused two different Union officers permission to accompany Lincoln to the theater. Both were strong men, who could have overpowered Booth...stories have circulated for years, hinting at Stanton's involvement, because he wanted a harsher Reconstruction than Lincoln would have allowed. The most that can be speculated is that knowing, somehow, about the plot, he withdrew protection.
   
   Finally, after two years [during which his treatment improved], President Davis was released on bail [paid by Northerners]. The Union had gotten itself in a legal mess by holding a man they dared not bring to trial, and were afraid to just let go. Mr. Chief Justice Chase came to the rescue with a novel approach to the Fourteenth Amendment, and the doctrine of double jeopardy. Davis never got his day in Court....
   
   I am a supporter of Jefferson Davis, but I will certainly not assert that he was without faults; pig-headed might be a nice way to put it. His inability to work with men he disliked led to the underuse of Generals PGT Beauregard and Joe Johnston, and hurt the South. Once he decided on a policy, he would simply not listen to reason. Still, his strength of character helped keep the South going. He gave the South someone to rally around during Reconstruction; to the day he died in 1889, he never backed down. He also committed no crime during the war...Mr. Johnson has written a superb book, part adventure story, part legal treatise, all great history.

5 comments about The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope.

1. The first 100 days of FDR's first administration are the focal point of this recently published work. Alter uses several chapters to re-introduce us to FDR the man, and also to provide background on the socio-economic situation in America at the time. Some of the more powerful insights show how Roosevelt's struggle with polio changed him from the sneering, privileged, upper class twit of his youth to the "man of the people" that he was to become. Especially interesting is the study of the 1932 Presidential Campaign and the compromises and sacrifices that had to be made just for the privilege of leading America through some of its darkest hours. After this drama, the actual 100 days seem almost anti-climatic. The ultimate picture we're left with is that of a pragmatist, a man who was willing to admit that he didn't have the answers and so was willing to try anything that might help. Alter admits that many of FDR's programs were failures, but is quick to point out how much Americans were heartened just by the fact that the government was actually doing something. Conversely Hoover's inaction, even when it was theoretically the wisest course, left Americans feeling abandoned when they were in need.
   
   Although not notoriously a great student of history, this reviewer enjoyed this book and its depiction of a period eerily similar to our own. It is also a fascinating study of FDR himself, a man whose story often gets overshadowed by the momentous events that he guided America through. WWII buffs please note: Alter leaves off after the first 100 days of FDR's first term, so don't expect an analysis of his entire presidency. Still an engrossing read.



2. Great introduction to FDR's efforts at responding to the Great Depression upon his entrance into the presidency. Sometimes a bit too much psychoanalyzing, but there should be no doubt that FDR was the great president of the 20th century, not necessarily for finding a domestic economic cure for the Great Depression, but for helping millions of suffering people and giving them hope. His leadership of WWII would take care of the rest, but that's for another book. Great description of FDR's pre-presidential career and his political talents, and Alter gives appropriate credit to Louis Howe for much of FDR's success.



3. This is a very well done, tightly focused biographical portrait of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the early days of his Presidency. Alter, a television political commentator, begins with the idea that Roosevelt found himself as a leader in the fight to overcome the problems of the Depression.
   
   It is a fair, balanced book, although I suspect close readers will pick up on the fact that Alter has far more respect for FDR than he does for President Bush. (And acutely close readers will realize he admires Reagan more than Bush.)
   
   Alter does make numerous comparisons to contemporary politics, and I think on balance these are often unnecessary distractions. I sometimes felt like I had an overbearing teacher explaining the meaning of the book to me. I did not feel while reading this that I was inhabiting the times, which was a feeling I had with No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II.
   
   The book is especially strong in its treatment of Roosevelt's speaking style and the confidence he instilled in the the nation at a very dangerous time in our history.



4. This book was apparently written with the goal of showing how Roosevelt attained success in his first 100 days, but it often comes off sounding more negative than positive. I grew up imagining Roosevelt was a genius and close to perfect president. The impression I got from this book was that his sense of hope, showmanship and tireless dedication to always try something trumped an average grasp of the subject, and some odd personality and character traits. Much of this book actually seems to suggest between the lines that Herbert Hoover was more competent with the issues, and should almost be given some credit for the initial New Deal successes. I would say that there are numerous places in the book where history is being interpreted through today's lens. There are footnotes that make comparisons to more contemporary presidents and events, and it's obvious the writer has the current climate of opinion in mind when writing. Overall, I found the book fascinating. I discovered many things I did not previously know. For example, the country was almost hoping for a dictator in 1932. Both parties favored balanced budgets and tax increases during the early part of the depression. Roosevelt perhaps delayed recovery by some of his actions. Hope and inspiration were almost as important as the actual policies, and the low point of the depression came the night before Roosevelt's inauguration. I would recommend this book to anyone who would like to make comparisons between the Depression and what the various players did with current times, and what we should consider doing.



5. This is a worthy read if you don't swallow it in the "whole cloth." Alter tells the history of the time within his own parameters and with his own prejudices, as any of us would do if writing this history. What we learn from this is that FDR was no social genius with all the plans worked out ahead of time. Instead he was a willing experimenter. He was willing to try something and if it didn't work he would move on to something else until he found what did work. But you have to read between the lines here and realize that FDR was willing to go to unconstitutional lengths to accomplish his agenda. Many of his programs were determined to be unconstitutional. So his strategy was to try to pack the Supreme Court with more judges so that his programs would be approved. He was also willing to built government bigger and bigger by creating new bureaucracies and new programs from which we have never recovered. All in all, I recommend this book as long as you view it from the prospective in which it was written and don't allow yourselves to be overwhelmed by the idea that Roosevelt was the knight on shining armor who saved civilization.

No comments about Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Politics of Our Greatest President.

5 comments about My Life: The Presidential Years Vol. II (Vintage).

1. As a long time follower of Bill Clinton, I have enjoyed his books. Clinton's time as President was overshadowed by his sexual encounters, which is disappointing. In my opinion, Clinton was an excellent President. Clinton gives insight in to his adminstration and the condition of the political world during his time in office. It's an unknown fact that we have only had two Presidents who did not have mistresses or affairs at some point in their lives. As Nixon had to face the music for Watergate, Clinton faced the music for his sexual indiscretions. Both became poster children for actions that neither were the first to participate in, nor the last, leaving their legacy's forever tarnished. Politics is a dirty business and for those who manage to endure the mud slinging and back stabbing, I take my hat off to them. Bill Clinton is a survivor who has managed to shake off past negativity, to reemerge as a strong and trust worthy leader. I highly recommend this book for any Clinton follower looking for insight in to the Clinton administration, as it is a very detailed, honest accounting of his life.



2. Most interesting of all is reader reception. For some reason, hundreds of readers commented upon the first volume of My Life. Yet, on the second volume, I am the fourth to make any remarks. So, why do people pay such great attention to the "developmental" volume and so little attention to the "consequences" volume? That is the question of prime importance, in grasping how Americans, in particular, have been overly receptive to issues of character and less attentive to more critical issues of policy formation, in the crucible of current circumstantial events. People would rather cling to some indefensible opinion of the man than explore the interleaved nuances of public necessity and private interest that we call politics. [Perhaps, volume III will draw our attention better to the stories we ought to read, of American public values processes!]



3. A homecoming of sorts, as much for Clinton as his readers---it's a weaving together of philosophy, religion, sex, and a deep love of country. Book was not what I expected, but in a word it was, compelling. Mr. Clinton explains the stress in those years in a manner that leaves the Clinton gang, I'm sure, wanting less compassion for those who tried their best to destroy him and his family. That's the difference between a politician, any politician, and a human being.
   
   I too felt stress in those years. It was impossible to find employees--everyone who wanted a job had one. Even more stressful was what to do with the huge surplus of money in our national treasury. Then there was that fulltime worry about Bill's sex life. That wouldn't have been an issue for me had I had a sex life. Then there was all that training and money we were spending on our armed forces who were not out there earning their keep invading oil rich countries so the likes of Exxon-Mobil and Halliburton could exploit their natural resources.
   
   Life has been worry free for me during the Bush years. It's the minorities and middle income whites who are doing the worrying now--about things like where to bury their war dead, employment and paying the bills. I confess, I'm not sure how these people are going to handle the national debt with me getting a tax cut and them without a job. But Mr. Bush said not to worry. What a relief! I'm Bob Miller, a registered Republican.



4. As someone who has written a lot about Bill Clinton over the years I was disappointed by his book. This was a chance for him to set the record straight on both the good and bad in his administration and he did neither. He talks about a lot of the issues but not how he approached them. He talks about what his administration looked at but not what he did and did not solve. He allows Yassir Arafat to get off completely free for his rejection of the Clinton plan the book is very well written and is still worth reading if nothing else to understand Clinton's perspective on what happened but overall it could have been far more enlightening.



5. As a Clinton Democrat, I grew up with issues like Social Security and welfare in my mind. I found out more about Clinton from this book then watching him for the last 14 years on TV. Clinton uses easy to understand words yet at some points he uses more complicated rhetoric. A fun book to read and will test what you know about Clinton's term in office.

5 comments about Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800 (Pivotal Moments in American History).

1. Overall Ferling gives a good read. The book is detailed in many areas and does provide a chronology of events very well. Through his establishment of the characters of the men involved, the reader does almost forget he is reading a historical evaluation and not an historical novel (this may be good or bad depending on the reader, but one can not feel a bit emotional while reading the epilogue and the eventual reestalished friendship between Adams and Jefferson).
   
   However like most books that deal with these subjects one can see the biases begin to seep through. Hamilton: Bad Guy. Adams: The Old Blowhard. Washington: Hamilton's puppet. Burr: The Secondary Character. Jefferon: The Hero. Ferling falls into the same traps which at times does hurt the book. He gives credit to Jefferson in many areas where he should have been questioning Jefferson's actions and words (the lack of any indepth evaluation of Jefferson and slavery is a bit daunting). Though Ferling does a good job at spelling out the changes brought about with the election of 1800 in the epilogue, he does in the end fail to address key points (Jefferson's Barbary War, a mere mention of the LA Purchase, no mention at all of Jefferson's embargo, and most importantly the slavery issue...which is virtually ignored, except a pretty interesting discussion of Sally Hemming)and maybe more depth with the chapter could have spelled out and defended Ferling's thesis a bit clearer.
   
   Other areas of criticism for this book have to come from the 10 chapters devoted to events pre-1800, and only, what can be considered an overview, of the election and the subsequent House battle. It is here where depth is needed and at times does not seem to be provided. Another issue is his paragraph devoted to the 3/5's Clause, something I felt he should have expanded on (maybe even devoting a short chapter to it). And, like most reviews, I agree with the poor editing of the book. Long paragraphs with 3-4 different issues being explained, when they should have been broken down to lone paragraph.
   
   Overall it is a good book and topic worth reading about. It's easy to read and it does flow very well.



2. Among the fifty-plus presidential elections in the United States, there have been four that stand out as particularly controversial. We're all familiar (and have our opinions about) the 2000 election. The 1876 election also involved disputed votes, and while the winner (Hayes) did not have the popular vote, he won in a deal that also ended Reconstruction. In 1824, John Quincy Adams had neither the popular nor electoral majority but won through a seeming corrupt bargain in the House of Representatives; the consequences of this bargain would tarnish Adams's presidency and help Andrew Jackson (who had the plurality of popular and electoral votes in 1824) win in 1828. These three may have had their impacts, but perhaps none were as important as the first controversial election in 1800.
   
   John Ferling discusses this election in his book Adams vs. Jefferson (subtitled The Tumultuous Election of 1800). Kind of like the movie Titanic, the big event doesn't really happen until 2/3 of the way into the book. Unlike Titanic, however, this story is filled with enough interesting characters that you don't need to wait for the climax. The two leads in this book are the title characters. Adams is the unappreciated one and he knows it; while Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Hamilton get the lion's share of acknowledgement for their roles, Adams would be pushed aside. While the others would appear on coins and cash, Adams would be relatively unmemorialized (although that has changed in recent years).
   
   Jefferson, on the other hand, is the high-minded but often duplicitous friend of Adams and a founder of the Republican party (which would eventually evolve into the modern Democratic Party). Adams was a Federalist, albeit a moderate one, but even that was too much for Jefferson and their relationship would get antagonistic especially after 1796, when Adams was elected president and Jefferson vice-president. For Adams, it would be a rough term in office, besieged by Jefferson on one side and Hamilton on the other.
   
   1800 would be a rematch between the two, but the real fireworks would actually occur later. Due to the electoral process at the time, Jefferson and fellow Republican Aaron Burr tied in the electoral college, with Adams a close third. If not for the three-fifths rule in the Constitution at the time (designed to count slaves as three-fifths of a person when determining representation and electoral votes), Adams - the only non-slave holder among the four major candidates (Charles Pinckney being the fourth) - would have won.
   
   With a tie, the election would be decided in the House of Representatives, where views were decidedly mixed as to who should win (although it spoils nothing to give away that Jefferson would be the winner). The results of this election? Among other things, it led to a new Constitutional amendment to avoid these sorts of ties in the future. It also represented the beginning of the end for the Federalists, who would never have much of a shot at the presidency again. What is most significant, however, is the end result: the peaceful transition in leadership from one party to its rival.
   
   This is the second book I've read by Ferling. The first, a biography of John Adams, was wonderful. This one is good but not great; although only 200 pages long, it is an occasionally slow read. There is also the occasional bit of anachronistic language, such as when Ferling refers to Federalist bloggers. Adams vs. Jefferson offers little to those already familiar with the era, but if you haven't really read up on this period, it is a worthwhile book to pick up.



3. This is a splendid book that not only covers the personalities and the election, it breathes enough life into it to make it all fun. This is a breeze to read yet very informative.
   
   I will be reading more books by Ferling.



4. I simply did not enjoy this book. That's not to say I got nothing out of it, because the information is there. But halfway through the book, I briefly considered putting it down and moving on to something else. It's just not written in a way that is reader friendly. It reads like something written by a historian, not a writer. The best books are written by those who wear both hats.



5. I picked this up at a discount book store to brush up on my early American history. As I read it, I was surprised I had never heard of Ferling before now. He is concise and well written. His insight into the election illustrates the complexities of our electoral process showing it not to be perfect, but better than most in the world. I have a new sense of respect for Adams now, before I was not too fond of him. I am a big fan of Hamilton, who is portrayed in a negative manner at times. In retrospect it was accurate as Hamilton, like all other politicians then and now were/are opportunists. I look forward to more Ferling works and am glad I found this piece.

3 comments about The Alexiad (Penguin Classics).

1. The Alexiad is a fascinating view of a critical time both in Byzantine and Western history. Anna Comnena tells the story how her father Alexius I seized the helm of an Empire in complete chaos and how he steered it for almost forty years through very troubled waters. The Byzantine Empire was threatened by Norman Sicily the Patinaks, Cumans and the Turks. Alexus had limited resources to deal with these great threats and had to use his cunning and courage to defeat them. This is a fascinating book and Anna wrote in flowing and intelligent prose. I only found one flaw which made the book hard at times to read, Anna Comnena's hatred for all things and persons not Byzantine or "Roman". She hated the nomadic Turkic peoples of Asia Minor and the Balkan peninsula but her scorn is most evident in her writing about western Catholics or "Latin's". The is no crime she will not accuse them of, even eating babies! It is sad to read how much hatred this woman had for fellow Christians. However I do recommend the book as long as it read with caution and in light of information from other writers both contemporary to Anna Comnena and modern.



2. An excellent translation of Comnena's work, remains true to the original Greek while providing good equivalents for the more difficult idiomatic expressions. Also includes a couple of very helpful maps and appendices. A wonderful read for anyone interested in Byzantine history.



3. In this history the Emperor Alexius comes across as a sort of medievil Lee Iacoca or Carlos Gohsn, who through very delicate wheeling and dealing manages to bring back a floundering empire from the brink. Since Anna was the emperor's daughter, we could expect a hagliography from her, but that would discredit her intensely perceptive analysis of the political situation as well as her own personal experiences with many of the major players or others who knew them. It would also ignore the fact that this book is in many ways a treatise by Anna on what it means to be a good ruler, as exemplified through the person of Alexius.
   
   Excellent book for history buffs and people looking for examples of great leadership.