5 comments about John Adams: The American Presidents Series.

1. Excellent read. A new appreciation for John Adams' contribution to the founding. Once again, Jefferson comes out as the original "conniving politician."



2. John Adams (1735 --1826) was rescued from relative obsurity by David McCullough's popular and accessible biography. Engaging as it is, McCullough's work has little on the thought and writings of John Adams and on the impact of his thinking on American government and on Adams's own presidency. John Patrick Diggins's short biography, written as part of the American Presidents series, helps remedy this lack. It provides a deeper picture of an American political philosopher and president. Diggins is a distinguished professor of American history at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He has written widely on American intellectual history, including books on Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, pragmatism, and the American left.
   
   Adams was born to a family of modest means in Massachusetts. Following graduation from Harvard, he became a lawyer and married Abigail Smith. Adams early became involved in the Revolutionary movement and served in the Continental Congress. During the Revolutionary War, Adams was abroad where he made vital contributions to the war effort in France and Holland. He helped draft the treaty by which the United States secured its independence. Adams served restlessly as Washington's vice-president and then became the second president in a close election against Thomas Jefferson, who became vice-president. After his narrow defeat by Jefferson for reelection in 1800, Adams retired to his home in Quincy.
   
   More important than these external events, Adams was a writer and a thinker who wrote works in support of American independence in the 1770s and books expounding his political philosophy and his understanding of American constitutionalism in the late 1780s and continuing early into his tenure as vice-president. Adams continued his writings in his long retirement, particularly in a wonderful series of letters he exchanged with his former rival, Jefferson.
   
   Diggins gives a good overview of a complex body of thought. Adams was opposed to the French Revolution and to writers such as Thomas Paine whose works helped to spearhead the American Revolution. Adams developed a philosophy based upon the unreliable and depraved nature of the human heart and its ambitions for power, wealth and success. He argued that a diverse government structured to allow for the wealthy classes and the common people, headed by a strong executive, would be the best way to restrain human greed and folly and to channel these traits for the common good. He objected to the French Revolution for its levelling tendencies -- for its attempt to obliterate distinctions, which Adams thought, were ingrained in the human desire to compete and excel, and which could not be artifically supressed. Adams also objected to the French Revolution because it was not properly succeeded with a solid institutional form of government. The American Revolution, which unlike the French revolution, was not based upon classes within the United States, and the American Constitution, with its separation of powers and strong executive were, for Adams, the antithesis of the French Revolution.
   
   During his presidency, Adams was excoriated by his fellow-Federalist Alexander Hamilton, who found Adams too weak and vacillating and by Thomas Jefferson, who attacked what he claimed were aristocratic and monarchical tendencies in Adams. Yet Adams worked carefully and delicately to avoid a war with France, the most significant accomplishment of his presidency. He established a tax system and pardoned a group of protesters who had been found guilty of treason by opposing it. Adams strengthened the military and left the budget with a surplus at the conclusion of his presidency. During his presidency, Congress enacted, and Adams enforced, the Alien and Sedition Acts, which Diggins somewhat downplays in his account.
   
   In 1800, under attack from both Hamilton and Jefferson, Adams came in a close third to Jefferson and Burr in the presidential race. Jefferson prevailed in the House of Representatives when Hamilton lent his influence and support. This hotly contested and little-known election marked a watershed in American politics as it marked a peaceful transition from Adams to a leader and a party with a far different stated political agenda. The American era of party politics, based upon images, perceptions, and the pursuit of power, had begun.
   
   Diggins is not afraid to state his own positions, and he shows a marked sympathy for John Adams over his rival, Jefferson. He sees Adams as a unique example of a president who tried to govern based upon principle rather than party or power. Together with Lincoln, Jefferson, Madison, and perhaps Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson, Diggins places Adams in a small group of American presidents who demonstrated intellectual leadership and accomplishment prior to and in the Executive Office.
   
   For Diggins, Adams's strengths as a thinker, together with his curmudgeonly disposition, led to the weaknesses of his presidency. He writes (p. 174) "At times the sin of pride cursed the Adams presidency. He often preferred to work alone, rarely sharing his thoughts or seeking the input of others as we was making up his mind. ... Adams was one of America's most solitary presidents, and the isolation of the mind, while healthy for poetry or phiosophy, is fatal in the sphere of politics.... politics dwells in the present, in bargains and distortions, naneuvers and manipulations, and other strategies of exigency that had no appeal to a thinker better at analyzing power than dealing with people."
   
   Diggins has written a thoughtful introduction to a thinker and president who remains incompletely understood. This short book should inspire reflection on Adams and on the nature of the political system which he helped bequeath to us.
   
   Robin Friedman



3. This isn't much of a biography. It gives just a quick history of Mr. Adams early life. It mainly focuses on his political and philosophical career and his feuds with Jefferson and Hamilton. It does a good job of reviewing his term as second president and the policies and precedents he initiated. This book may be a stepping stone to a more comprehensive analysis of Mr. Adams's personal and political life.



4. It hasn't been hard to notice that John Adams's reputation has been undergoing a serious rehabilitation in recent years. Joseph Ellis in particular has been dedicated to revising our understandings of both Adams and his nemesis/friend Thomas Jefferson. In his PASSIONATE SAGE: THE CHARACTER AND LEGACY OF JOHN ADAMS, FOUNDING BROTHERS: THE REVOLUTIONARY GENERATION, and AMERICAN SPHINX: THE CHARACTER OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, Ellis has been challenging a long established scenario in which the arch conservative John Adams was pitted against the populist liberal Thomas Jefferson for the political destiny of America, and the hero Jefferson triumphed over the mildly villainous Adams. Ellis has been questioning whether any part of this scenario makes any sense, whether Adams is at all a villain, and whether Jefferson is nearly as heroic. He has done this not by asserting the virtues of conservativism, but whether Adams has been correctly understood at all, both by his contemporaries and by subsequent generations. This reevaluation of Adams was continued by the spectacular and unanticipated mega-bestseller by David McCullough of 2001. This process of reassessment is clearly carried forward by John Patrick Diggins. For the record, I find the rehabilitation of Adams by these and other writers to be both welcome and highly convincing.
   
   For two hundred years, our view of Adams came very much through the lenses of his critics and opponents. The truism that history is written from the standpoint of the victors is perhaps truer of Adams than any other major political figure in United States history. Adams was said to be a closet monarchist, a favorer of aristocracy. In the face of this criticism, Adams explicitly challenged Jefferson to point to a single passage in any of his writings that endorses monarchy or aristocracy. In fact, if one reads extensively in Adams works, as argued by Ellis, Diggins, and McCullough, one finds instead a powerful and subtle critique of the dangers of the development and influence of an economic elite, placing him at the opposite extreme of Alexander Hamilton, whose ideal of government came very close to the espousal of plutocracy. Adams did hope for the emergence of natural elites, but this was based on ability and character, not on wealth. Contained in the reassessment of Adams is implied a questioning of whether Adams is the arch conservative he is often portrayed as being. The case for Adams's conservativism is based largely on his belief in monarchism, his favoring aristocracy, his support for a bicameral Congress, his looking to the past for guidance, and his opposition to the French Revolution. As these authors have shown, Adams transparently did not favor monarchy or the growth of an aristocratic class and a bicameral legislature in the United States has not resulted in the Senate being a sort of House of Lords. Today many leftist historians have found grounds for critiquing the French Revolution, and a host of leftist political figures have found inspiration for their beliefs in the past (not least Karl Marx, who was a student of the Greeks and Romans). Furthermore, Adams was hardly a passionate capitalist, and was suspicious of a life devoted to the acquisition of wealth. In fact, if you compare Adams and Jefferson to that modern conservative icon Ronald Reagan, it is hard to find many issues that Adams would not differ sharply on from Reagan, while one can see a number of points of contact between Adams and Reagan. Diggins, in fact, finds numerous points of contact between Adams's political writings and many French radical writers of the late 20th century. I will say that as a leftist myself, I find much to love in Adams's thought. I share his fear of the negative effects that economic elites have on the democratic process, his belief in the need for a strong central government to protect citizens from the pernicious influence of greed (Adams would understand my fear of deregulation), and his instincts that government rather than less or no government is a better safeguard of individual liberty. Diggins rightly states that the American president who would most closely incarnate Adams's principles would be Teddy Roosevelt, who envisioned government as the means of breaking trusts and promoting economic justice.
   
   Of all the books in the Schlesinger series on the American presidents, this is probably the one that I found most provocative intellectually. It is a dense, rich book, in large part because Diggins focuses more on the thought of Adams than his life. Diggins is more intent on explaining Adams ideas than the various events in his life. In one sense this is a weakness as a biography, but because his discussion of Adams's ideas is so clear and interesting, it more than makes up for the lack of biographical detail. I do regret some of the sketchiness of the biographical narrative. For instance, he doesn't' deal in any detail on how Adams became either vice president or president. This contrasts sharply with the rather deep discussion of Adams's ideas. This is in line with Diggins's role as apologist for Adams. On the purely historical side, most of Diggins's effort is put into dispelling the myth that the election of 1800 represented the defeat of Federalism by Republicanism (that's Jeffersonian Republicanism, not what we associate today with the GOP). I personally found this section less interesting that the sections dealing with Adams's thought.
   
   I would strongly encourage anyone reading this volume to consider picking up the new volume THE PORTABLE JOHN ADAMS, edited by Diggins. I completely agree with Diggins that Adams's writings are more interesting than his presidency, and that he may be the most unjustly neglected political writer in American history. This new volume contains a wide ranging collection of his writings, not merely from his theoretical writings, but his diaries and letters as well.



5. To start with and to avoid disappointment for those looking for something other than what this is, some of the trade reviews are just plain wrong: this is not a biography focusing on Adams childhood and youth. In fact, it isn't really a biography at all. What it is is a short, to the point but nevertheless fairly deep analysis of Adams' political thought with a particular emphasis on the politics of his presidential administration. It is written from a very positive view point (one shared by David McCullough) and from a view point that is quite hostile to Thomas Jefferson. As such it is an invaluable read for anyone interested in the development of presidential politics in America as well as anyone seeking the "rest of the story" regarding Adams, Jefferson, and their relationship.

5 comments about Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President.

1. I hate George Bush almost as much as I hate my ex wife, venereal disease, child rapists, Nazis, litterers, termites, cancer, real estate agents, collection agents, rich people, stupid people, dishonest people, and graffiti "artists". I always have since the first moment I ever saw him. I could tell this was a spoilt, rich brat that would never be asked to do anything at all difficult, yet would have all. My god, I cannot believe he became president. But of course, he had more than just a little bit of help. (thanks to Choicepoint, Diebold, and the US Surpremely stupid court - "but, if they have the recount and it shows more voters preferred Gore, it will be difficult for Bush to retain the presidency" - Scalia)
   
   Anyway, I love to read anything that confirms my biases, just as everyone else who is a lazy reader/thinker (I am not always lazy, but I am sometimes). I did not find that to be the case for this book. I found that I was starting to like "W" as I read it. I was very surprised. He is a human, after all. This is not a book for the bush haters.
   
   I would love to see a movie, or maybe a made for TV mini-series about the Bushes. People need to know in a way that will make them care and understand how we let this guy get away with everything, short of murder (that is if you exclude murder-by-proxy of millions of the poor and dark skinned, here and abroad). The financial stuff is really compelling. How did he invest $200K in the Texas Rangers, and take out $130M? Was that not really just a bribe? Just how stupid do you think we all are? How about his double insider trading with Harkin Oil? He scooped all the insiders by knowing that daddie was going to start his war and that the oil leases would be valuless, out he sold, not even any of the other insiders knew about. Man, you and I would be in prison still if we pulled those things off. Raiding the University of Texas trust for $400M. That is classic. A great crook to have working for you. To bad, he is not nor did he ever work for anyone except his own trifling self and his elite circle. America? Hah! Well, it is all clear to everyone now. Let's not make this mistake again.
   
   Enough of that, this book will improve your opinion of Bush, no matter what you think. You will be surprised. Well written, we researched, well balanced. Now, where did I put my Molly Ivins book?



2. I was impressed with the fact that this book reported positives as well as negatives. Although the forward was over the top, the actual book is pretty balanced and believable. A documentary about the author (who later committed suicide)quoted him as saying that Karl Rove was his major source. The fact that they managed to get this book not just taken off the market, but burned (!) shows the power of the machine that originally got Bush elected. Long may they stew.



3. This book caused a big controversey when it was released. Neo-cons said it was a smear job, but strangely enough mainstream type liberals didn't over do it with their enthusiasm and Bush bashing when this came out. The original publisher ended up balking at releasing it. The author was smeared, attacked and after a while turned up dead under very shady circumstances. Knowing what I know about the Bush families history I expected a lot more because after reading this I was shocked at how LITTLE dirt there was on Bush in this. You really get nothing more than Bush was a mediocre student, he had a drinking problem for several years, he MIGHT have went awol from the National Guard and he MIGHT have done a lot coke. There was so much that was left out of this that I don't even know where to begin.
   
   Overall this book is worth checking out from the library and reading but I wouldn't buy it. Webster Tarpleys book about Poppy Bush and American Dynasty by Kevin Phillips would be better choices if your researching the Bush crime family.



4. This Book is great, I am very much into politics and I find that this book kept me on the edge of my seat. The Amount of coruption that this family has is astonishing. To think that someone of George W. Bush's stature can be our leader leaves hope to just about anyone. In the book it explains that President Bush's Grandfather had connections to Nazi camps and I find that to be awful. The book is well written and contains some valuable information about President Bush. Read it for yourself You won't be disappointed.



5. To my great surprise, this was not at all the "Bush bashing book" I expected and had been forewarned it would be. Hatfield is (was) a very mature professional, who carefully backed up all of his facts, and appeared to have no personal animus towards GW (as say a Molly Ivins does). He lets the facts fall where they may, and when they fell, we see a rather unflattering picture of our 43rd President.
   
   I for one do not care whether the President used cocaine or abused alcohol at some point in his life. Nor do I care that Mr. Hatfield was an ex-con and drug addict. I do care whether the law treats him and the President the same as anyone else who commits a crime, and whether or not he (or the President) is a solid respectable human being willing to carry his weight as a private citizen and as a patriot.
   
   As best we can tell, the evidence is that the jury is still out on this question about our President. There is a consensus among writers that the young Bush was headed down a path to self-destruction, one that would have undoubtedly consumed a less "fortunate son" -- especially if he had been one of color.
   
   Now, it seems that GW is trying to "live down" his past, as we all have to do to some extent. But he squandered so much of his own personal and intellectual development during his hell raising years, that he has no resources left to draw on as President and thus has had to fall back heavily on his staff to rescue him. So now, he is "winging it," and it is excruciatingly painful to watch; and our nation is paying a heavy price for his "youthful indiscretions."
   
   Hatfield's rendition of Bush's lacksidasical approach to life as a young man, foretold what he would be like as a president. In my view, this is one of the most important benefits and the greatest value of the book. And if one thinks about it, its prescience is in fact the best evidence of its solidity and honesty.
   
   The subtexts of this book are many. One is that taking the shortcut down the path of privilege is no panacea even if you are white and privileged in racist America. For sure, privilege has many advantages, but it has some very distinct disadvantages too. As is the case in nations with monarchies, if you walk down the path of royalty, then you carry the responsibilities and expectations that go with being a royal.
   
   Unlike his father, GW's flaws are all on display for everyone to see. He has nowhere to hide and Hatfield called his life just as it is being played out. Sorry Hatfield had to be "committed to suicide" for being honest in democratic America.
   
   Five stars.

5 comments about Cigars, Whiskey and Winning: Leadership Lessons from General Ulysses S. Grant.

1. This book is a quick read. I particularly enjoyed the author's focus on Grant's ability to react, adjust and adapt. Staying away from Grant's presidency was a good idea until the end. Even then, the author contrasts Grant's leadership style as a General to President and why he failed (at least historically) as a politician. What I didn't like about the book was the lack of reference to God. I understand that not everyone is firmly rooted in "the Word", but its absence leads to more questions...at least for me. Overall, thought provoking, mildly insightful and interesting. I heartily recommend Lee's Leadership Lessons. It is the best book of this style I have ever read.



2. I've never been a fan of "lessons" books and here is yet another. There are some interesting and informative quotes of/from Grant, but the lessons are, at best, better than average for such a book. -- Louis J Sheehan



3. Grant may have been a poor President, but he was a great General. This book expounds the leadership principles of his war years. Grant was not only decisive, but he could also admit to mistakes. His treatment of his fellow officers shows he was a born leader. In three years, he rose from being a store clerk to a four star general. He did this using his courage, common sense, and good decision making. Lincoln may have saved the Union through his political leadership, but U.S. Grant saved it militarily with his good leadership.
   
   This is a easy to read book. The book is in excess of three hundred pages, but most of the pages are not full. Some two hundred and fifty principles are detailed in the leadership of U.S. Grant. Too bad Grant did not use some of these principles in his Presidency.



4. Kaltman has done the research for you and put it all in a great lesson by lesson format. Any leader can refer to this book for day to day operations.



5. Very good read for anyone in management.
   Uses the Civil War memoires of U.S. Grant to illustrate management skills and practices.
   Very interesting. Excellent gift for men.

2 comments about The Portable John Adams (Penguin Classics).

1. This was so hard to read I didn't finish it. Was expecting more of a biography than a collection of letters.



2. Adams was in my American childhood a neglected founding father. Washington was the father of the nation, and Jefferson the great author of the 'Declaration of Independence'maker of the Louisiana Purchase, Madison the great author of the Federalist, Monroe the enunciator of the doctrine which determined US attitudes to the whole of the Americas. But in recent years there has been a great interest in the work of Adams including the outstanding award-winning biography of David MacCullough.
   I have read only bits of Adams, and sense a great intelligence, organization of mind, firm conviction of democratic principle. There is a sense with him as with almost all the founding fathers of their having been somehow on a higher level than our present political leaders.
   I do not know how much time non- scholarly readers will wish to an Adams volume but there is outstanding political writing here, and a selection of his remarkable correspondence.
   Just to give a taste of his language and democratic principles I quote a snippet of his Inaugural Address in 1797.
   
   "For it is the people only that are represented. It is their power and majesty that is reflected, and only for their good, in every legitimate government, under whatever form it may appear. The existence of such a government as ours for any length of time is a full proof of a general dissemination of knowledge and virtue throughout the whole body of the people. And what object or consideration more pleasing than this can be presented to the human mind? If national pride is ever justifiable or excusable it is when it springs, not from power or riches, grandeur or glory, but from conviction of national innocence, information, and benevolence."

5 comments about The Kennedys: An American Drama.

1. I was pretty disappointed. I have read a lot on individual Kennedys, and was looking for something to tie them all together. This book is very surface level, and practically ignores the women in the family. I know it is more interesting to cover the successful politicians (all male at the time of first publishing in 1984) and the drug abusers (apparently also all male, but still not sure), but a word or two about some of the other Kennedys would have been nice. For example, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who founded the special olympics, gets only passing mention. All in all an interesting read, but mostly because the family (faults and successes) is so compelling, not because of the writing.



2. Heard the taped version of THE KENNEDYS: AN AMERICAN
   DREAM by Peter Collier and David Horowitz.
   
   This was a controversial NEW YORK TIMES bestseller when
   it was published in 1984, and I can see why . . . it tells the
   story of a dysfunctional family over three generations, centering
   around the elder Joseph Kenney and his wife Rose Fitzgerald . . . it then
   moves on to tell how his sons Jack and Bobby moved into the
   limelight via their careers in elected politics . . . and the book
   concludes with an account of Teddy's troubles, as well as those
   of the younger Kennedy children.
   
   Along the way there was adultery, drug usage (particularly by
   Jack during his presidency), alcoholism, and a variety of characters
   who mostly come across as not very lovable . . . perhaps only Lem
   Billings, JFK's best friend and subsequent family advisor, comes
   across in any sort of favorable light.
   
   My main criticism of THE KENNEDYS had to do with the last
   part . . . many of the younger Kennedys were portrayed in a negative
   fashion and though they may have had their difficulties while in
   school, several settled down and went on to careers in public
   service . . . consequently, I could have done without some
   of the dirt that seems to have been found.
   
   Yet that is probably what gives this book its appeal, so I'd
   recommend it if you want both the good and the bad about the
   Kennedy family . . . in addition, the narration by Joseph
   Campanella was outstanding and added to my enjoyment
   of listening to this tale about a dynasty that had to face
   so much tragedy over the years.



3. I read this book in 1984 and found it quite relevant and enlightening at the time. I am glad that the third generation has gotten itself together and are doing good things.
   
   I have also notice that any books written after Jackie's death have a wealth of information! President Kennedy is a real person (not some far off statesman). Jackie's plus and minuses are explored and she becomes human too! The way she raised Caroline and John was amazing and they seemed to have avoided any of the pitfalls of their other cousins. Except the most devastating one of course and that was will always be a great tragedy of a young life unfinished.
   
   Another excellent book written at the same time is Doris Goodwin's: The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys: An American Saga. John B. Davis, Jackie's first cousin has written serveral books on Jackie, Kennedy's and the Mafia. You will not be disappointed.



4. Well written and engaging, the book surveys three generations of Kennedys over four sections, beginning with how Joseph Patrick Kennedy shaped his family and gave his sons a calling (Architect of Their Lives) then moves on to how his sons Jack and Bobby developed their public careers following Joe, Jr.'s death in WWII (The Stand In) then moving to the peak Kennedy years of Jack's Presidency and Bobby's campaign (Brothers Within). The drama ends as both a sad farce describing Teddy's troubles and as a tragedy invading the lives of the lost generation of Kennedy children (The Lost Boys).
   
   The book centers, as did the family, around the elder Joseph Kennedy and his wife, the queenly Rose Fitzgerald. JPK's generosity and his sincerity surprise the reader given his raw ambition, his selfishness, his manipulation of people, his womanizing, and his incompetence as a diplomat. All this was equaled only by his talent as a business man and in the end surpassed by his devotion as a father. On the other hand, Rose comes off rather dry and unappealing, which is a little difficult to believe given that she had nine children.
   
   A disturbing revelation of the book was how high on drugs (usually prescribed) Jack was during his presidency. His awful health mandated pain killers and other drug therapies to allow him to function, but at the same time must have affected his judgment and his ability to work. Given the confrontational character of the Kennedys, one shudders to think of how badly the Cuban crisis could have turned out.
   
   I have two strong criticism of the book. First, not enough space is given to JPK's most important contribution to the United States: he created and established the Securities and Exchange Commission, which gave the USA for decades a virtual monopoly on fair and transparent financial markets. (President Roosevelt apparently responded to critics of this appointment that "it takes a crook to catch a crook".)
   
   Second, in the interest of protecting privacy, the material on the last Kennedy generation should have been left out. The book was published in 1984 when the lost Kennedys were still in their teens and twenties. The authors needlessly (though with sympathy) sensationalized sad stories, at too early a time in those lives to pass any sort of critical judgment.
   
   The most interesting discovery for me was Lem Billings. He basically followed all three generations: best friend to Jack Kennedy, reassuring JPK that his son had someone supporting him outside the family, and surrogate father to some of the young Kennedys after Bobby's assassination until his death in the early 80s. A short book on Billings would be welcome.



5. One of the first things you will see are family-trees at the beginning of every part, where you can see all the members of the family, their children and their birth- and deathdates. Unfortunately for the Kennedy family many died prematurely, as is well recognized.
   
   Most Kennedy books will be focused on John F and his brother Robert F who were both shot. But in this book they still play main parts, but not the only ones. The book starts when the Kennedy's, and Fitzgeralds, came to America and how they quickly rose in first Boston and later American society, even though they had one big disadvantage; they were Irish.
   
   JFK's grandfather Honey Fitz became mayor of Boston by using the Irish vote. Joe Kennedy Sr. started out selling newspapers but was soon a movie producer, even having an alleged affair with movie star Gloria Swanson, something his sons would later copy with Marylin Monroe of course.
   
   Then came the biggest move in Joe Kennedy's life; he became Ambassador in England under Roosevelt, with whom he had a somewhat strained relationship. He would ever since be referred to as the Ambassador, even in his own family.
   
   Collier and Horowitz make it clear that the Ambassador is the most important member of the Kennedy family and that every child's actions are in some way related to him. The story is sometimes a little TV-movie sentimental, but whould would you do if you lose 4 children when you are still alive. The oldest son Joe dies in a WWII plane crash, his oldest daughter marries but loses her noble husband soon and dies herself in a plane crash a few months later.
   
   And of course there are the deaths of JFK and RFK.
   
   It's certainly not a hagiography telling how great the Kennedy's were. Old Joe Kennedy is sometimes shown as a towering figure who completely dominated his family's life until his stroke. JFK got his last rites twice and was often very sick with pain in his back and Addisson's desease. His medication is mentioned in the book and also are his numorous flings with women in the White House, his own house, even Airforce One. RFK seems to have been the most moral person and I believe the authors feel that way too. They explain his religion, his fight against organized crime and Jimmy Hoffa and also his meetings with minorities all over the world. He seemed to have had the Kennedy promise even more than his brother Jack or later Ted.
   
   The last part of the book is devoted to the next generation who cannot seem to deal with their heritage and often get into trouble, it seems as if everyone in the family is doing drugs, the last Kennedy death in the old edition, even loses his life because of it.
   
   It's a gripping story that sometimes reads like a novel. I think it gave a balanced story of the family with the good but also the bad, which made them even more human. It's a lot clearer now why the family was so loved and hated at the same time.
   
   A must-read for Kennedy-admirer and Kennedy-hater alike.

2 comments about Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam.

1. This is an important and timely book. In order to understand the roots of modern Middle Eastern anti-semitism and the rise of radical Islamic violence it is essential to know this almost forgotten part of history. It should come as no surprise to find that it has its roots in the connection between the early 20th Century mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler himself.
   
   This book is a must-read for a better grasp on this history and also to appreciate the surprising political naivete by members of the British civil administration of Palestine. By choosing a a thoroughly unsuitable and unqualified leader for Jerusalem's Muslims, the British set the scene for much of today's Middle-Eastern turmoil.



2. On Tuesday, June 24th, we met Rabbi David Dalin at the Temple Judea in Coral Gables, Florida, where he was introducing his new book: Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam.
   
   His presentation was excellent, detailing how in 1921, Haj Amin al-Husseini became the mufti of Jerusalem. After some research we learned that the word "mufti" means: (a) a Muslim jurist expert in the religious law, or (b) in the Ottoman Empire, a deputy of the chief Muslim legal adviser to the Sultan.
   
   Mr. Husseini, a most eminent and influential Islamic leader in the Middle East helped foment enmity against Jews in the region and in 1937 joined Nazi Germany because they shared a common enemy, the Jews. Mr. Husseini was seen by Hitler as an honorary Aryan.
   
   While Hitler had written racial inferiority remarks about the Muslims in his book "Mein Kampf," Hitler liked Mr. Husseini's looks, his "blond hair, red beard, and blue eyes, appeared to have been an exception." The cover of the book surfaces a photo that the author explained was hard to obtain, it is of a photograph taken of the mufti with the fuehrer himself, Adolf Hitler.
   
   The book details how Al-Husseini recruits thousands of Muslims in Europe to fight for the Waffen-SS, his protests about allowing Jews to move into Palestine, prevent the escape of Jewish children from Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Slovakia, who accompanied by 400 adults were to enter Palestine in exchange for the release of twenty thousand German prisoners of war.
   
   At some point, Al-Husseini "organized the dispatch of five parachuters to Palestine with ten containers of a toxin to poison Tel Aviv's water system. Fortunately, they were caught near Jericho before they could carry out their mission."
   
   One of the most horrific details provided by the author is that al-Husseini was instrumental in the implementation of the "Final-Solution" used by Germans to eliminate millions of Jewish lives. "In a radio broadcast from Berlin on September 21, 1944, al-Husseini spoke of the 11 million Jews" of the world, a fact that he could have only known because of his participation in their elimination. As far as the world knew, the figure was closer to 17 million.
   
   At the end of World War II, he left to live in France and later moved to Egypt, where he received a hero's welcome, developing relationships with the likes of Saddam Hussein's uncle, General Khairallah Talfah, Yasser Arafat, and his writings served to inspire terrorist groups, such as the Hamas, Hezbollah and others, hard at work to destroy the United States and Israel.
   
   A statement that has immense value to us is that we must learn from history if we are to prevent it from repeating in the future. At the end of the session, the audience asked many questions, but in particular I was rather interested on the mention of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion because I had heard of these before, but was not sure of what they meant, so we asked:
   
   1. What are "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?" His answer:
   
   a. A czarist forgery, a fraudulent anti-Semitic write up, widely distributed throughout Palestine that alleges without proof that the Jewish people conspired on a plot to take hold of power, of a desire of world domination.
   
   Well, I got home and read the book, simply excellent. It was a pleasure to meet the author, to have the opportunity to get my book autographed and to learn more about how the seeds planted by Hitler have produced so much evil, for he is also responsible for inspiring the likes of Castro... and many other dictators.
   
   Don't miss this book!

5 comments about The History of Alexander (Penguin Classics).

1. Another book written on Alexander the Great,but different from the others. So many have written books about Alexander and yet in this book so many things I read for the first time.The book is very easy to read, ofcourse it is about the wars,conquers,of Alexander.The details that are not written in Arrian for example and Plutarch are several.I will give a few examples.
   One of Alexander's speeches,outstandingly written to pursue the killer of Darius.
   The Amazon queen meeting Alexander and what she demands of him.The Caspian discovered by the soldiers, what they see and feel about the salted water.The speech of Coenus on behalf of the soldiers, and Alexander's speech.The fight of the Indus river.
   The Gedrosian desert,and the judgement of Philotas. All is strongly suggest that if you are an Alexander lover you should add this book to your reading. Enjoy.



2. Alexander the Great, was born on or around July 20, 356 B.C.E., and is my favorite personality to read about in history. To me he is the whole package general, statesman, conqueror, and philosopher. The smartest man who ever lived, Aristotle, tutored him. Alexander conquered more of the known world than any other figure in history, accomplishing all this before he dies at the ripe old age of 33. Some people called him conqueror and violent overlord. Some other called him civilizer and even God! All of them yet, called him "The Great". He was the first man in modern history that took this name, "The Great"! Even as a young boy, he shows great promise.
   Curtius' work is the oldest extant work available and based on eyewitness accounts. He does a better job than most in explaining the battle scenes, and seems to be more balanced in his admiration and criticism of Alexander then any of the other early biographers. I love his Bucephalus Story, and I recount it here so you get a flavor of the promise this young Alexander shows.
   
   The legend begins with Philoneicus, a Thessalian, bringing a wild horse to Philip for him to buy. None of the hands was able to handle it, and Philip grew upset at Philoneicus for bringing such an unstable horse to him. Alexander, however, publicly defied his father and claimed that he could handle the horse. The bet between Philip and Alexander was that if Alexander could ride the horse, Philip would buy it, if not, Alexander would have to pay the price of the horse, which was 13 talents, an enormous sum for a boy of Alexander's age to have.
   
   Alexander apparently noticed that the horse had been shying away from its own shadow, and so he led it gently into the sun, so that its shadow was behind it, all the while stroking it gently and whispering into its ear, (Alexander seems to be the original horse whisperer). Eventually the horse let Alexander mount him, and Alexander was able to show his equestrian skill to his father and all who were watching. The incident so impressed Alexander's father, King Philip that he told the boy "Look thee out a kingdom equal to and worthy of you, for Macedonia is too little for thee". He named the horse Bucephalus, which means Ox head, and rode it across Asia, founding a city in its honor in India after its death. This story gives you an inkling about the man.
   
   This book is a must read for students of Alexander, I also recommend Plutarch's and Arrian's work. Contemporary writers, J.F. C. Fuller and Tarn. Most of Alexander's greatest military traits are in the area of military logistics and to understand his genius in this area I highly recommend reading, "Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army," by Donald W. Engels.
   
   As a retired U. S. Army Major, I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in ancient warfare, and history.



3. I recently read a slew of books about Alexander the Great in anticipation of the movie. I have to admit that hile this academic text might be required reading of many college and high school history classes, I found Alexander the Great's Art of Strategy much more engaging, insightful, and fun to read. The battle descriptions in the this book are phenomenal. One feels like one is right in the middle of a battle. Rufus doesn't do such a great job.



4. Though not the definitive work on Alexander, Curtius provides detail not included by other sources. Sometimes hypocritical and biased, Curtius details the campaigns of Alexander with heavy focus on Alexander the person. To read this book is a must for anyone interested in Alexander. It is one of the primary sources and the fact that he is not as nice about Alexander (such as Plutarch or Arrian) may indeed do justice to the reader. This book can best be understood with the addition of Fuller's "The Generalship of Alexander The Great".



5. The most interesting and controversial, but not necessarily the most accurate, ancient biography of Alexander the Great. In addition to Arrian and Plutarch, you can't say you know all about Alexander until you read this book. Full of information not found in the other two biographies. Though it is often touted as not reliable, contemporary scholarship owes much of their increasingly negative opinion of Alexander the Great to this book.

5 comments about Calvin Coolidge.

1. The auther is functionally illiterate in economics or at least so blinded by his contemporary liberalism that he ignores the plain reading of US history. While the author considers the prosperity of the 20's the effect of preceeding Wilsonian "investment" (ie deficit spending) he ignores the effect of tax cuts under Harding and Coolidge. Is it just coincident that the economy prospers after the Harding/Coolidge, the Kennedy, the Reagan, and the Bush tax cuts? He also ignores the general productivity enhancements of the automobile, radio, and electricity, all products of private enterprise rather than government intervention
   
   The author is also inconsistent in that he repeatedly notes the broadly rising prosperity of an expanding middle class during the 20's then claims the Great Depression was caused, in part, by income inequalities. Nothing about the huge tax increases of Herbert "Wonder Boy" Hoover and FDR as well as the erroneous policies of the Fed that collapsed the money supply. While the relative stagnation of the farming sector is noted, the author doesn't correlate that with increased yields from tractors, rural electrification, and fertilizer. We just didn't need as many farmers in 1929 as we did in 1919 to feed a growing population.
   
   The stock market bubble is discussed repeatedly too and Coolidge critized for not taking the steps of Federal market intervention that would have surpressed the speculation. Yet the author notes the general opinion that the stock market crash had little to do with the general depression.
   
   The author is on firmer ground covering Coolidge's relationship with and use of mass media, especially radio and photography. Given the author's professorship in media studies at Rutgers, this should not surprise. Unfortunately, he also claims to be a professor of history. If true, woe be our college students!
   
   What saves the book from being a total waste of money is the character sketches of Coolidge and his wife. He does seem a genuinely admirable person. Even the author likes him.
   
   In summary, the book is prime example of the decadence of American academia. So immersed in their own liberal claptrap, how they can cash their taxpayer-funded paychecks is beyond my moral comprehension.



2. My understanding of Calvin Coolidge was based on the conventional wisdom, and thus not that positive. David Greenberg presents a balanced view of Coolidge. Most importantly, he expains the environment and prevailing political philosophy and the personal values that combined to shape many of Coolidge's decisions and actions. That perspective paints a bit more sympathetic picture of a man who appears to have been judged based on a future, post-depression perspective.



3. Usually, when I think of the obscure Presidents, I think of the one-term (or less) wonders of the 1800s: folks like Van Buren, Tyler, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Garfield, Arthur and both Harrisons. These were men who are rarely remembered for any great acts, if they are even recognized at all. Perhaps because it was more recent, or maybe because the Presidency was a more powerful institution in the Twentieth Century, but there are fewer forgettable Presidents in that era. Harding, maybe Ford, and maybe Calvin Coolidge.
   
   Coolidge, known as "Silent Cal", often seemed like a man from a different era, which both worked for him and against him. To many people, his blandness had an appeal; it seemed to promise normality. It also kept him from being very forward thinking. In David Greenberg's brief biography of Coolidge (part of the American Presidents series), we learn that there was actually some substance behind that stoic exterior; not a lot, but some.
   
   Coolidge rose to power quickly enough, eventually becoming governor of Massachusetts, where he made his mark with his tough handling of a policeman's strike. In 1920, when the Republicans met at their convention to choose a candidate (back when conventions had more of a purpose than merely partisan rah-rah sessions), Coolidge was mentioned but it was Harding who got the nod. Coolidge got the second spot, and would rise to the Presidency upon Harding's 1923 death.
   
   Coolidge's tenure in office was more notable for his lack of action than any real deeds. Besides being a man who liked to delegate many of his responsibilities, he also believed in a very limited role for both him and the federal government. Fortunately for Coolidge, his six years in office were essentially crisis-free. Not so lucky was his successor, the philosophically similar (but temperamentally different) Herbert Hoover. Had the market crash and subsequent Great Depression happened on Coolidge's watch, he would no doubt have been as vilified as Hoover often was.
   
   Though Greenberg tries to make the argument that Coolidge wasn't that bad of a President, he only partially succeeds. Certainly, at best, Coolidge is merely average, not worthy of the respect paid to him by later admirers such as Ronald Reagan. Yes, things were prosperous during Coolidge's term, but his role in this was rather small (and he did nothing to avert the impending financial crisis). Greenberg's book is engaging and informative and relatively balanced; if you want to learn about Silent Cal, this is a good introduction to him.



4. As many small "r" republicans and libertarians have noted, Coolidge is truly underrated. Unfortunately this biography will not do overly much to boost his image or reputation.
   
   Mr. Greenberg's political beliefs get in the way of a non-partisan review of Calvin Coolidge. He does not much like his hands off philosophy nor very obviously, his small government/non intereference beliefs. This gets in the way of real examination of the man and his accomplishments. Though he admits to admiring aspects of the man's personal life, he cannot extend that admiration to Coolidge's lack of ambition or vision as president.
   
   From the begining of his national notice as governor of Taxachusetts, Coolidge is portrayed as a man who dithers from indecision rather than a man who refuses to overstep his potical boundaries (police strike of 1919). Greenberg labels Coolidege's propensity to delegate rather than do things himself as weakness rather than sound executive ability.
   
   He does note Coolidge's accomplishments in the use of radio (the new media then)to actually contact the people in lareg numbers. His ability to use the medium let him avoid the Congress and go direct to the people, something few presidents have forgotten since. With this use of radio and regularly scheduled presss conferences, he was the first 'modern' president.
   
   Greenberg's personal political philosophy gets in the way too many times of the process of looking into Coolidge. From the falsehood of tax cuts "costing the Treasury money better spent on infrastructure" (how about what taxpayers would have done with it?) to his deploring of Coolidge's decision to let the ICC languish rather than up its choking of the American railroads (FDR reversed that quickly enough, look at that result),Greenberg fails to keep his personal views from is often a pleasurable read. He does note very astutely that Coolidge was no true laissez faire man but rather on tariffs at least, a traditional Republican out for big protective tariffs.
   
   He does grudgingly though note that Coolidge was a true believer in the limits of political power. It would be this belief that would cause him to declare that he would not run for reelection. As Coolidge himself said, "the office has lost its attraction for me..."
   
   Perhaps its Coolidge's style, concern for the taxpayer, and overall simplicity that many Americans long for. For sure, many of us would love to see someone in office who did not have to pronounce on every event in the nation like our last few decades of leaders have gotten into the habit of doing...



5. The author does a good job of explaining a little known president. I am always intrigued by the story behind the story and the author of this book does it well.

5 comments about Partners in Command: George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower in War and Peace.

1. This book does a good job of giving us WWII and the Cold War at a high-level view, through the eyes of our two best military leaders. Mentored by Marshall, Eisenhower was the glue that held the Allies together during WWII. Buffeted by the incredibly large egos of such as Churchill, Patton, and Monty, Ike kept his cool, and with good counsel kept the Alliance together.
   
   I had no idea that Ike had such a hard job. Surprisingly (to me at least), the Brits were very hesitant to get behind Overlord, while the Russians were screaming for a second front as they were being pounded by the Axis during Barbarosa. Also, there was competition for resources from MacArthur in the Pacific War, which was given second-class status via the `Germany First' policy. Then there was the competition among the countries as well as among the different branches of the armed forces.
   
   Ike had some good things behind him. He had Marshall as an almost-father-figure and a very cool and wise military and political head. He had Roosevelt, who was the most powerful person in the world. Finally, he had great self-command; he was not one to fly off the handle when things got tough.
   
   I have no idea how he did it, or how they did it (Marshall and especially Ike). The motto of his presidential campaign works for me: I Like Ike!



2. This isn't actually a military book. This is about the politics of the military and the intellectual formation of Eisenhower (more so than Marshall). It is exemplary in terms of helping to understand the differences between the American and the British ways of war, the political motivations behind the North Africa campaign, Italy, and Normandy, and the relationship between personality and the level of command that one can attain.
   
   There are some passages in this book that bear deep study. I recommend it highly.



3. I was a small child during WWII and don't remember much about it. What I know I've read. This is an excellent book. I didn't know anything about George Marshall really except for the Marshall Plan. I'd like to do some more research on him.



4. 'Partners in Command' by Mark Perry
   
   Mr. Perry's book does a wonderful job of defining the relationship between Ike and General of the Army, George C. Marshall. Gain insight into the talents, and conversely, the weaknesses of these two tremendously important historic leaders. As much, if not more importantly, you'll recognize their conscious (or subconscious) self-realization of these internal characteristics and how they melded their personalities into an unshakable leadership duo.
   
   This book takes you into the White House as well as the battlefield command centers of WWII for an up close view of the highest levels of the machinations of warfare command. Experience the stress, exhilaration, support, comradeship and undying patriotism these two commanders had for each other. The jaw drops when considering the sacrifices these men, and millions others, made for their country and the effort they deemed paramount to the freedom of mankind.
   
   Mr. Perry provides us a detail-rich and very well written book, which is easily read yet difficult to put down. There are sections that will leave you wishing were expanded upon, however, on balance this is a one of a kind work that should be read my military historians and those just looking for a taste of WWII history and leadership. A very good book, indeed. I greatly look forward to Mr. Perry's next project.



5. Surprisingly, a great book on career development and problems in management, set in the context of the most trying of times. In the case of Eisenhower, it is an excellent case study on how to manage a coalition of varying team players and personalities and how to report up to your boss. In the case of Marshall, it is an excellent case study on how to be a boss, both by identifying and promoting talent, managing subordinates (by giving them real responsibility and the trust and support to make their own decisions, even when they make mistakes) and ultimately keeping the organization focused on the broad strategic objectives that will win the war. Plus history to boot. Revealing insofar as the extent to which Eisenhower deferred to Marshall and how Marshall managed Eisenhower and encouraged him. Also interesting how Marshall pulled Eisenhower from obscurity to put him in a position to become supreme commander of Europe, solely by dint of his talent and hard work. Great book for understanding the dynamics of successful leadership and delegation of duties, as well as the keys to personal career success, in the guise of a history book and biography. Touches on the key command issues and battlefield developments to give the story clear historical context. Enlightening in many ways.

5 comments about The Life of Andrew Jackson (Perennial Classics).

1. The Life of Andrew Jackson
   
   Remini is best known for his all-inclusive three volumes of the life of Andrew Jackson, and this book is a valuable comprehensive version. Jackson is portrayed with both his strengths and his poor leadership qualities. Overall, however, it is possible to conclude that the author asserts a sympathic version of the man whose era bears his name--Andrew Jackson. This book is an historical narrative at its best.



2. Over the years, President Andrew Jackson's standing among historians has gone up and down. In this biography, Robert Remini presents a well-balanced account of this controversial President. For instance, Professor Remini explains President Jackson's Indian policy through the prism of a 19th century nation-builder, while, at the same time, not letting Jackson off the hook for his often heavy-handed treatment of the Indians. Moreover, Professor Remini presents Jackson as someone who cared deeply for the nation, and would not tolerate what he saw as abuse of the public good. As examples of this, Professor Remini provides 2 important events: the Tariff/Nullification Crisis of 1832 and the Bank War. In both incidents, President Jackson acted in what he perceived to be the nation's best interest (and here, Professor Remini is rather sympathetic toward Jackson) calling the offending party to task in some form. While I am not a huge fan of President Jackson's politics in general, reading this book did lead me to have a higher opinion of Jackson's abilities to govern the nation.



3. This is an excellent book, as are all of Professor Remini's books. They are thorough and very easy to read which lends to the excitement of learning history. Recently I purchased a letter from 1834 which refers to the censure of Andrew Jackson. I'm not sure how to contact Professor Remini, but I think he would be very much interested in reading this letter. It was written on April 18, 1834, by Rufus McIntire (1784-1866), City of Washington, and sent to William A. Hayes, South Berwick, Maine, about 21 days after the censure was passed by the Senate. I'll quote sections from this letter, hoping to inspire students of history to read Professor Remini's books.
   
   "You will probably see the Presidents message of protest &c to the Senate which has put that dignified body on the defence & in a passion. They evidently see that the issue is against them unless they can turn it on some collateral issue or some deduced assumption of principles abstractedly from some part of the message. Mr. Leigh has spoken today in which he has shown very clearly that he has not the experience & tact of a politician. He has lived too long in Virginia ever to extend his views beyond the limits & local circumstances of his State except what he gets from books generally of European history & politics. He labored hard today to explain the resolution against which the President protests & says it means no such censure on the President as he supposes. The opposition generally is the Senate manifested as much dissatisfaction with the speech as with the message. Benj Hardin of Ken. of the House - talented & coarse man of the opposition - remarked that of all great men he had ever seen Mr Leigh is the smallest. Mr Leighs defence is the opposite of that set up yesterday by Mr South and who with a harsh'hood & effrontery that shocked every body declared that the resolution was passed as the foundation & basis of legislation. This is in contradiction not only to its language & import but in flat contradiction to every avowal while under discussion. In answer to the objection to its passage as a naked censure without any legislative effect it was urged not that any other legislation was contemplated but upon the duty of the Secy of the Treasury to restore the deposits after this expression that their removal was not approved by both branches. If that alone had been the object - simple expression that they advised to a restorative or disapproved of this removal would have been sufficient."
   
   "Today being, one of those days for private business in the House, has been literally wasted in attempts to get up the appropriation bill & to introduce various resolutions & a call of the House in consequence. The House adjourned at rather an early hour there being so much excitement that there did not appear to be any prospect of business or any good done by continuing longer in Session. Mr Wise attempted to introduce a set of resolutions on the subject of the powers of Congress over the money in the Treasury intended to negative some supposed deduction [declaration?] of principle, contained in the Presidents message - and failing gave notice he should offer them every day during the Session or till recessed - Mr Peytre gave notice also that whenever they were received he should move a substitute by way of amendment of ???? declaring the late vote of the Senate, censuring the President in an impeachable matter alone belonging to the House as the impeaching power, an usurpation & assumption of the prerogatives of the House of Reps by the Senate. So you see the battle is but begun."
   
   "The opposition here speak confidently of carrying Maine at the next election. King is to be candidate f[or] Governor & he says the Jeffersonians will be out against the administration shortly & only delays at present for the sake of saving Mitchell. Is King correct in his avowal & his letters - (letter at least -) to one of his opposition in regard to the Jeffersonians & if so will Mr Seaver go with it? I am pleased with the present appearance of the Ags - It is what I expected - hoped at least but from the complexion of the Jeffersonians I feared would not be seen. A short time must disclose the views of our politicians. I regret to learn so many of our Portland friends are in favor of a national Bank - or rather at present think proper to express it. No other than the constitutional ground will enable us to defeat the ???? of the Bank - all the South who ???? constitutional objections if a bank is to be chartered prefer the old to a new one with like provisions - I can say no more at present but must close - "



4. Few Americans have won the mythical status enjoyed by Andrew Jackson. Often portrayed, in his day and since, as the champion of the common man, Jackson came to Washington as an outsider, the first President born outside the thirteen original states, indeed the first president born neither in Virginia nor Massachusetts. Throughout Jackson historiography, Jackson via his policy of `rotation' in office has been accused of instituting the spoils system in American politics. This criticism highlights how Whig myths have come to permeate the historical writing on this subject.
   
   Starting with James Parton in 1860, anti-Jackson historians have followed this criticism, blaming Jackson for replacing a supposed merit system with a partisanship that corrupted the civil service for generations. Despite further research since Jackson's time, many historians have uncritically repeated these accusations without examining the actual record of appointments during the presidency unhappily described by some as "The Reign of Andrew Jackson".
   
   There have been essentially four cycles of studies into the life and Presidency of Andrew Jackson. The first cycle began soon after the death of Jackson with the "liberal patrician" or "Whig" school, who were generally unfavourable towards the policy of rotation. Most familiar is James Parton's classic The "Life of Andrew Jackson". So critical of rotation was Parton that he stated "this single feature of his administration would suffice to render it deplorable rather than admirable." Other members of the "Whig" school include Sumner, Schouler and Von Holst, all very critical of Jackson's policy of rotation. Parton's biography was the standard source on the Jacksonian era, until the second cycle represented by the Progressive Historians, such as John Spencer Bassett's "The Life of Andrew Jackson (1911), which cast Jackson in somewhat of a different light. Bassett reduces the amount of blame put on Jackson for rotation by suggesting that his democratic views made him oblivious to unintentional dangers from partisan appointments. However, the Progressives shared with the Whigs the view that Jackson had brought a spoils system to national politics and that its effects were negative.
   
   Historians in the third cycle of Jacksonian studies, of which Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s "The Age of Jackson" (1945) served as a pivotal work, shifted attention away from Jackson himself towards larger forces in his era. Historians of the third cycle, such as Hofstadter and Hammond, debated the effects of class and culture in determining party differences while showing little interest in evaluating Jackson's rotation policy, though tending to criticise it briefly. No biographies of Jackson discussed the policy of rotation in depth during the next thirty years.
   
   The appearance of Robert V. Remini's three-volume biography of Jackson marked the start of the fourth cycle of interpretation. Based on modern scholarship, Remini covers all aspects of Jackson's life and career, demonstrating his contribution to the great developments of nineteenth century America, particularly empire, freedom and democracy. By returning to first hand sources, Remini shows that the policy of rotation in office has been exaggerated and misunderstood. However, having set himself the remarkable task of producing a thorough study of the life and Presidency of Jackson, Remini did not have the scope for a detailed re-interpretation and re-evaluation of rotation. Since Remini's work there have been many scholarly works on Jackson, but none offer an in-depth reassessment of rotation as touched upon by Remini.
   
   Remini states that Jackson has received a disproportionate share of the blame for the spoils system and that there is a need to disprove the Whig myths, which have come to permeate the historical writings of historians over the generations. Remini was not the first to stress the need for such a revision; in fact a similar plea was expressed by J.R. Poinsett in the "Oration on the life and character of Andrew Jackson, delivered July 4, 1845" when he stated about Jackson, "His instinctive love of justice... gave a high tone to his government and exalted the honor of his country. His hatred of corruption rendered his administration pure.... I will content myself with expressing my belief that in future time the impartial historian will justify both his motives and his conduct on this trying occasion.
   
   Remini offers the reader a great insight into the pioneering mind of one of America's greatest Presidents.
   
   
   [The above Review is taken in part from 'Andrew Jackson's policy of 'Rotation in Office' by Alexander Rayden. © Copyright 2005 Alexander Rayden, All Rights Reserved].



5. 
   This particular version of Professor Remini's "Life of Andrew Jackson" is a condensation of 3 previous volumes into one highly readable edition. It is just right for those desiring a concise and compact biography of our seventh President without an overload of information and detail. It prominently features the political battles and infighting of the 2 Jackson Administrations, (1828-1836). A prime example is AJ's monumental efforts to dismantle his primary bete noir, The Bank of the United States. Professor Remini also introduces his readers to other key political faces of the early 19th Century as Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams, and "The Magician", future President Martin van Buren. Congress elected Adams President when no candidate secured a majority of electoral votes in the election of 1824. That drove AJ to run for the White House in 1828. Many Americans, including this reviewer, first learned of AJ because of his military exploits. These include his drives against the Indian tribes in Alabama, his expulsion of Spain from Florida and his great victory over the Brits at the Battle of New Orleans in early 1815. That ended the War of 1812. One has to credit the author for accentuating the significance of that conflict, which pushed England off America's back once and for all. One also has to acknowledge Remini for decent maps of AJ's key military battles: Inadequate maps are a sore point with this reader! There are some weaknesses herein: The tone of LAJ is jointly pedantic and fawning. The maps of AJ's territorial additions to the United States are poor and the typesetting is amateurish. Someone forgot to use the space bar. Folks with bifocals will be challenged! Despite the foregoing carping, LAJ is recommended for earnest readers of American history. The author deserves honors for condensing the life of a very prominent 19th century American President and military hero. It's unlikely Remini hired the typesetter! (A closing note: This reviewer visited the Battle of New Orleans site as a tourist. Remini's account of the battle versus that of the Park Service guide are starkly divergent! This reviewer favors the Professor's version of events but it seems strange that the events of that day in 1815 remain in dispute).