1 comments about Around the World with LBJ: My Wild Ride as Air Force One Pilot, White House Aide, and Personal Confidant.

1. There are those who disliked LBJ. They probably would have felt differently if they had known the personal man. This book gives highly personal insights into a man often called "bigger than life." And, reading this well written and well-researched book (the author lived it), many would change those negative views.
   
   The writing is interesting, well done, and highly engaging. The author, retired Air Force General, Air Force One Plane Commander, and Presidential Military Aide James Cross said he wanted to show the unknown and deep humanity of President Johnson. He succeeds without pandering, but rather just by stating plain-spoken truths from an impressive man himself, General Cross.
   
   General Cross started as an Alabama country boy and became a close confidante of the President of the United States. He was not political; he was a highly respected and respectable officer in the U. S. Air Force who did his job and did it well. General Cross is the unsung hero here. The incidental glimpses we get of him in this book - definitely not given to build himself up - show a very decent man serving his president and his country well and with good, old-fashioned patriotism and honor.
   
   I would personally estimate that almost anyone who reads this book will enjoy it, be impressed by it, and come away from it with a much more positive image of President Johnson...plus meeting a genuinely nice guy who our country is fortunate to have had that close to the top: General James U. Cross
   Review by:
   Dick Stanford
   The Azusa Gazette
   Book Reviews
   May 2008

1 comments about Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant.

1. Grant finished this lengthy memoir on the eve of his death from throat cancer. Impoverished at the time, the ex-President made his wife rich from the proceeds. Simple, straightforward, earnest narrative, sometimes ironic, sometimes colorful, always unpretentious. Inevitably self-justifying, but candid nonetheless.
   
   The most memorable anecdote describes his first action in the 1861-65 war. Although he was a combat veteran of the Mexican War fourteen years earlier, he was scared, almost frozen, as he led his men against the enemy position. When he arrived, the enemy had evacuated. "The reb commander was as scared as I was. It was a lesson that served me well for the next four years."
   
   Excellent general's-eye descriptions of the battles for Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, Cold Harbor. His proudest contribution to the Union victory seems to be his strategy of "coordinated attack". He believed the early rebel success was due to the fragmentation of the National fources, which allowed the outmanned rebels to concentrate on one fragment at a time.
   
   Grant is full of forthright and fascinating judgments: he revered Lincoln and Sherman, detested Hallek, disliked Stanton but respected him.
   
   Civil war buff? Don't neglect this.

4 comments about The Long, Bitter Trail: Andrew Jackson and the Indians (Critical Issue).

1. I cannot say enough about the value of this book to me. I just finished it today and wish it had been MY first book in the subject. My topic of interest is 1832 and the settlement of West Tennessee. I have had scant real knowledge of the era or the place, but long harbored a yearning to know the actual facts as well as sentiment, national and local, of the early days of my home in Alabama and my adult home in West Tennessee. I have skirted the topic of the "Old Southwest," land grants, what effect statehood in Tennessee (1796)--the sixteenth state--had on anything, how were roads built and mail transferred. Now I'm getting closer to the subject and am very glad to know that time better...and be justly grateful.
   
   I kinda sorta knew some of this story of settlement, so selected the topic of West Tennessee settlement for a creative writing project. And was it a winning subject!
   
   Wallace is an accomplished writer with scores of books. It seems he has dedicated himself to the Indian topic; he is also an anthropologist. His short book portrays the essential characteristics of the colonial presidents and the Indians, then brings us up through Jackson's two administrations and the Indian Removal Act of Congress, 1830. The final chapter dips into all the other eastern tribal history and includes briefly 20th century changes with the Indians.
   
   Other fine books of research have more recently been brought forward, specifically my other favorite, Waselkov, Gregory A., "A Conquering Spirit: Fort Mims and the Redstick War of 1813-1814." But Wallace's book, had I read it first, would have plugged me into the era from the start of my research and oriented my knowledge of history, inadequate though it has been. His mastery of style allowed me to read fluently and fast, and touched my heart, too, even to Old Hickory, whom we see by his actions as a compassionate man (sometimes) who had some really tough assignments, to say the least.
   
   I look forward to reading other of Mr. Wallace's volumes. I also wholeheartedly recommend the book to good juvenile readers.
   
   Robin S. Davis
   Memphis, Tennessee



2. Few events in American history are as shameful as the removal of the Indians from the American Southeast in the 1830s. Despite prior treaties and remarkable success in assimilating American culture, the tribes in the region - Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws, and Seminoles - were driven west by the voracious demand of Americans for land. In this book, Anthony Wallace provides a survey of the development of federal policy towards the tribes in the early 19th century and its impact upon them.
   
   For much of the early 19th century, Indian policy was mired in a conflict between people advocating Indian "reform" (who saw Indians as capable of being taught the ways of white civilization) and proponents of a policy of removing Indians from land slated for settlement. The election of Andrew Jackson to the presidency in 1828 decided this conflict. A westerner with a reputation as an Indian fighter, Jackson sided with removal advocates, endorsing a bill that made removal to lands west of the Mississippi River federal policy.
   
   Though supporters of removal argued that the policy was necessary given the unredeemable savagery of the Indians, as Wallace points out, the success of the tribes in the region undermined this justification. More dependent on agriculture than other tribes, the Indians of the Southeast had an easier time adapting to American cultural standards than their counterparts in other regions, with some tribal members even owning slaves. This didn't save them from removal however, and the Cherokees discovered just how hollow the promise of assimilation was when Jackson ignored a Supreme Court ruling that rejected Georgia's claim of state sovereignty over the Indians, thus depriving the tribes of the only hope of protection from expulsion. The result was the "Trail of Tears," the forced migration to Indian Territory that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Indians.
   
   Wallace provides a summary of Jackson's Indian policy that is both balanced and readable. His coverage of white attitudes, which runs across the spectrum from the hostility of settlers to the sympathy of white missionaries, is refreshingly nuanced. His coverage of the Indians is equally good, and he pulls no punches in demonstrating the extent to which the tribal leadership was complicit in removal. Readers seeking to learn more about the "Trail of Tears" and the policies that brought it about would do well to start with this book.



3. Simply the best work available on Indian Removal, in my opinion. It is highly regarded among academic historians. Wallace did a tremendous job of writing clearly and making the plight of the Indians understandable to anyone. It is short, it is lucid, it is interesting reading. Plus, it is balanced. This is not a work that treats Indians as childlike, passive victims, but it does convey the injustice and unnecessary hardships to which they were subjected. It also does not portray the government and non-Indian Americans simply as aggressors. It's an important work for understanding what happened to the tribes. It won't take a lot of your time, so do yourself a favor and read it.



4. An Indian activist or just an amature historian, everyone should read this book. Though short, it gives an excellent narrative of the removal of Indians and their trama from the East by the American government. This book is amazingly well written and is for both students (like myself who read it in a class) or for casual readers. Please concider this book to find out more about the emerging stories of what really happened to Native Americans.

5 comments about Jefferson Davis, American.

1. Like many of the reviewers, I think this is very good. I came to this biography because I wanted to understand The Civil War better from the perspective of the South. This book covers that well in that it does provide a good overview of how Davis viewed equality as being about equality and balance between the states in the union and not equality between people. For Davis, the Constitution was primarily about the interactions between states.
   
   On the reviews that say that the book glosses over Davis's owning of slaves, I saw these sections differently. It appears that Cooper did not have any evidence that Davis had abused his slaves in the cruel sense. So, he can't write that. However, just the simple description of how many slaves Davis owned, how old they were (adult, old, and children), and how Davis's slave "assets" grew from the birth of children was disgusting to me. There did not need to be cruelty for the idea that a child born into slavery could not decide on their own future. While it is hard for me to fathom how Davis could speak of liberty while owning slaves, Cooper did a good job of framing how Davis probably thought about slavery. In the end, the overview made me more thankful to have not lived in those times, just as living in even more ancient times would have been even worse.
   
   The other sections that I found interesting were the descriptions of Davis' participation in the Mexican War. Having recently read a biography of James Polk and now this, I think I will have to look for a good history of the Mexican War.
   
   Lastly, I agree with the reviewer that the book needed an epilogue that spoke to Varina Davis's last years. Throughout the book, she is a large part of the story and to stop the book with Jefferson's death just didn't work.



2. It is rare that a biographer can capture both the essence of his/her subject and the historical context of that particular subject's time. Cooper not only does so, he does so brilliantly, like no other biographer of Davis has done to date. Cooper focuses less on Davis's role as leader of a doomed Confederate Nation and more on his accomplishments as a Mississippi politician. That is not to say that Cooper ignores Davis's role in the Confederate war effort and national politics. He writes extenisvely on the friction between Davis and two of his leading Generals, explaining how Davis went from being a luke-warm secessionist to the most ardent Confederate Nationalist in the South. Cooper also focuses on Davis's role in the Mexican War and his youth at West Point, his managing of slaves, his friction with his wife, and his constant battles with weak health. Cooper also focuses rather extensively on Davis's time after the war and his travels abroad. In this excellent biography, Cooper captures Davis the man, not Davis the symbol of a lost cause, setteling ultimately on Davis as a patriot and American.



3. Alone among historical events from which the participants are all dead, our Civil War continues to ignite passions. Many treat the issues as current, and see the personages as a still-living presence. Trust me; I live in a suburb of Richmond, and see it all the time. Up front, let me say that I respect President Davis; I visit his house and grave, and contribute to the maintenance of both.
   
   Was Davis the right man for the job? He was probably the best man available. Bob Toombs? He would have been perfect if he could have been depended on to be sober. Breckinridge? Sure, but he was Vice President of the United States when the Confederacy was formed, and he also knew which end the bottle poured out of. Louis Wigfall? Brilliant, loyal, but an alcoholic hot-head. Alex Stephens? Please. A brilliant man; a good and decent man, but not a true leader.
   
   This is an absolutely outstanding biography of a very difficult man to study. Sure, it's a long book, but Davis' life was long, and complicated. Reading it, one doesn't notice the length; Cooper is such a superb writer that this is a "page turner". Davis gets full cradle to grave coverage. The tough issues are in no wise avoided. His early education, West Point training, and U.S. Army career are all well documented. The stories of Davis' all too brief marriage to Sarah Knox Taylor, and the subsequent seven years of isolation are particularly poignant. Marriage to Varina gave him a second start, and he made the most of it. To my mind, Varina Davis is the absolute definition of "First Lady".
   
   Jeff Davis was a man of his time and place. Before anyone would criticize him, it is well to reflect on the danger of applying the standards of our day to a man from another; Thomas Jefferson, Ty Cobb, even FDR, all came from a different age; so did Jeff. In his day, the right [NOT wisdom] of secession was assumed; the White man's right to own, and obligation to care for, the Black were instilled from birth. On the record, Davis was probably as humane a slave owner as existed anywhere. Only once did he ever break up a family, and that was after much begging by the slave. Davis DID NOT want secession; he followed reluctantly.
   
   The tragedy of Jefferson Davis is that he was called to lead a country founded on State's Rights, which was then done-in by State's Rights. Vain, obstinate, and difficult, he was loyal and devoted. His mistakes are not glossed over. His loyalty to a fool like Lucius Northrop, and his tragic inability to get the most out of Joe Johnston and Beauregard are both part and parcel of the man. One of Jeff's flaws was the inability to work with people he didn't like, which FDR, for example, did quite well. One of his very worst errors was in thinking that Braxton Bragg was a field commander; placed behind a desk in Richmond, Bragg could have done for Davis what Marshall did for Roosevelt. By the time Bragg got his desk, it was too late. Davis could also be unwaveringly supportive of great men, like Robert E. Lee, and Judah Benjamin. Was his overall strategic vision the correct one? Who knows? A case can certainly be made either way. Jeff tried his best; I doubt anyone could have done better. Though some may call him obstinate, his strength and refusal to quit kept the country going long after others would have given up.
   
   If I have to criticize something about a great book, it's this: Jeff had a lot of health problems [which may well have affected his job performance], and they are documented as if writing for physicians. No problem here, but...while Plasmodium falciparum and herpetic keratoiritis may be perfectly understandable to me, others may need explanation. You may know a lot about the Civil War, but your knowledge is incomplete unless you know something about the political leaders behind the Generals. Reading this book will be time well spent.



4. I thought this was a good book. William Davis' "Davis" was better in that it gave a more honest personal portrayal. However, and editors do listen up, most of us in the real world don't have time to read an immense book. Keep succinct; keep around 300-350 pages. Thank you.



5. With so many reviews already, it is hard to add much so I'll keep this short and sweet. This is a great book and the seminal biography of Davis. Historians will be hard pressed to top Cooper's work. The book on the years preceding the Civil War were, at times, not overly inspiring, but the chapters on the war years and Davis' post-war life more than made up for it. Page turning reading and solid research to boot. This book is the best kind of history--readable, entertaining, yet solidly researched and educational as well. Having read other books that discussed Davis in varying capacities, I feel like I have a much better grasp on Davis the man than ever before. Highly recommended for any and all history buffs.

No comments about Lula of Brazil: The Story So Far.

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.

2 comments about Big Enough to Be Inconsistent: Abraham Lincoln Confronts Slavery and Race (The W. E. B. Du Bois Lectures).

1. Big Enough to Be Inconsistent: Abraham Lincoln Confronts Slavery and Race (The W. E. B. Du Bois Lectures) This is a well written book looking at the aspects that influenced Lincoln in his life and how they affected his stand on slavery and race. You get a look at not only how he felt personally but also how his love of the U.S. Constitution led to how he made many of his decisions regarding slavery.



2. Of the writing of books on Lincoln, there is, apparently, no end. Americans' fascination for the man seems to increase rather than diminish. But this fascination is rarely uninterested. Authors (and readers) on Lincoln tend to be hagiographers or debunkers, intent either on canonizing or damning him. As a consequence, it's frequently difficult to discover the real man underneath the legend.
   
   In his Big Enough to Be Inconsistent, veteran Civil War scholar George Frederickson defends an interpretation of Lincoln's views on slavery and race that seeks a "middle ground" between the hagiographers who see the president as a proto-civil liberties advocate and the debunkers who see him as a hypocritical racist. Frederickson argues that Lincoln's views on both the institution of slavery and racial inequality changed over time, and that their fluidity suggests a position that's much more complex and ambiguous than hagiographers and debunkers allow. Like most of us, Lincoln's position on race wasn't entirely consistent. Moreover, Lincoln's ambivalence is complicated by the fact that he was a politician, and sometimes said things for public consumption that were more expedient than genuinely believed.
   
   One thing is certain. Lincoln was never ambivalent in his moral opposition to slavery. But the racist assumptions he absorbed from his virulently Negrophobic home state of Illinois clustered to form views in the pre-war Lincoln that Frederickson doesn't hesitate to characterize as white supremicist, albeit a "relatively passive or reactive" sort (p. 84). Lincoln advocated a minimalist bestowal of free trade rights on blacks, but balked at defending full civil and moral equality. Moreover, his deep-seated Constitutional conservatism and his near-religious veneration of the Union made him a staunch advocate of gradual emancipation (a model defended by Henry Clay, one of Lincoln's heroes) and an equally staunch critic of abolitionists. Again like Clay, Lincoln was also a firm supporter of expatriation and colonization of freed blacks.
   
   But the war experience began to change Lincoln's views. Gradually recognizing the value of using enslaved blacks against the Confederacy, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation primarily as a war effort. This reversed his position at war's beginning that "the Negro" shouldn't be "dragged" into the conflict (p. 90). Even after the Emancipation, Lincoln was reluctant to use blacks as soldiers, believing that they were fit only as laborers. But by August 1863, after witnessing the bravery and skill of "colored troops," Lincoln had changed his mind. This reversal also seems to have reconciled Lincoln to the possibility that free blacks had a legitimate place in American society, because he also dropped his insistence on colonization (much to the relief of his secretary John Hay, who always considered the strategy "a hideous and barbarous humbug" - p. 113). But Lincoln didn't reverse the conviction, born of his Constitutional conservatism, that civil liberties for blacks had to be determined by the states, not the federal government. Right up to the end of his life, then, the tension between his moral convictions and his political principles endured.
   
   As Frederickson himself concedes, "none of this should be surprising to good historians" (p. xi). But the skill with which Frederickson makes his case for a "middle ground" between Lincoln-veneration and Lincoln-hatred, as well as the compact elegance of this little book, make it well worth reading. It would've been good had Frederickson reflected more on the curious tension between Lincoln's fidelity to the Constitution and his moral aversion to slavery. Is it appropriate, for example, that constitutionalism trumps immediate response to glaring moral wrongs? But Frederickson's reminder that inconsistency and ambiguity are almost always embedded in our ethical positions is a refreshing response to true believers of any stripe who insist that anything less than lockstep consistency is morally condemnable.

No comments about Roosevelt and the Holocaust: A Rooseveltian Examines the Policies and Remembers the Times.

5 comments about James Buchanan (The American Presidents).

1. James Buchanan possibly was one of the best qualified men to assume the office of President. Qualifications don't mean anything if you don't have backbone and belief in principles. Buchanan bent over backward to try to please his Southern friends and it didn't get him anywhere. He tried to be rigid on forcing the North to bend to the South's ways. This didn't help him in the North. He defied the will of the people of Kansas and made more enemies. Finally everybody was fed up with this man. The South suceeded and the North elected the Republicans. The Democrats became a wilderness party for the next twenty eight odd years. James Buchanan played an instrumental role in the downfall of the Democratic Party and the United States.
   
   This is a short quick read. However Baker makes it plain that leadership does not develop from experience. A better leader may have found a way to change and compromise so that the United States didn't not go through a horrible war. Poor leadership by James Buchanan.



2. James Buchanan came to the presidency with a wonderful resume. And he failed dismally. This brief biography, part of the well done "The American Presidents" series, tries to explain that disconnect. In the recurring introduction to each volume in the series that he edited, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. remarked that (Page xvii) "To succeed, presidents must not only have a port to seek but they must convince Congress and the electorate that it is a port worth seeking." And "there's the rub" for Buchanan.
   
   His background was impeccable: Pennsylvania state legislature, U. S. House of Representatives and Senate, Secretary of State, Ambassador to Russia and England. As Jean Baker, the author of this slim volume says (Page 7): "Critical times often summon forth our best presidents, and it is worth taking the measure of those presidents who, given the opportunity, failed to rise to greatness. James Buchanan was one of those."
   
   The Democratic nomination for president culminated at the Convention. Franklin Pierce (incumbent president), Stephen Douglas, Lewis Cass, and Buchanan. After some maneuvering, Buchanan's supporters helped get him the nomination.
   
   After his election, though, he ran into a buzz saw: a panic (depression), violence in Kansas, and the horrific "Dred Scott" Supreme Court decision. Buchanan selected a Cabinet that was very much pro-Southern, some of his closest allies were from the South, and he alienated Democrats such as Stephen Douglas. He did not recognize the danger of the slavery issue and watched as his pro-Southern stance split the Democratic Party, enabling the one thing anathema to him to occur--the election of a Republican in 1860, Abraham Lincoln.
   
   Why did he fail so miserably? Unreflective prosouthernism is one part of the explanation, according to Baker. Other factors--his arrogant and uncompromising use of power.
   
   So, an interesting essay on a failed president. I think that personality quirks might be overemphasized in this book. Overall, though, a useful volume for those who want a quick introduction to the presidents.



3. There are 72 reviews of this brief and simply-written biography of a President who came to office with superb qualifications and who bungled the job that perhaps no one could have done. I found the book quite adequate as an introduction to the decade of the 1850s. Causes have to precede effects; anyone interested in the causes of the Civil War ought to have a good look at the events that led to Buchanan's election, and the dismal decision Buchanan made in reaction to those events. Honestly, however, you needn't buy the book. Just read the 72 reviews herewith. It will take some patience, and some tolerance for bad syntax, but it will reveal just exactly how polarizing the Civil War was, and still is.
   
   This "American Presidents" series is surprisingly top notch. I also recommend the biography of US Grant, the most underrated and slandered chief exec of American history.



4. So Jean Baker judges James Buchanan. (5 points if you can name the other two members of the triumvirate.) For her, his presidency was a miserable failure. This was surprising because, at least on paper, no man was more qualified to be chief executive. Buchanan had personal contact with every president since James Madison. He'd served as a congressman, senator, cabinet officer, leader of his party (Democrats), and minister to England. Moreover, in a post-Jacksoninan period when the presidency was viewed as a primarily administrative (rather than executive) office (perhaps this goes some way toward accounting for the "feckless triumvirate"), Buchanan saw himself as a wielder of power and an initiator of policy.
   
   But Baker argues that Buchanan, for all his apparent qualifications, was too dogmatically pro-Southern in his views, and too unpragmatic in dealing with sectional crises, to be an effective president. He stacked his cabinet with pro-slavery yes men (a cabinet, by the way, which was notoriously corrupt). He pulled strings behind the scenes to persuade a fellow-Pennsylvanian on the Supreme Court to vote with Taney on Dred Scott. He totally fumbled the Kansas crisis, doggedly defending the Lecomptian slave constitution even when it became clear that the vast majority in Kansas were free-staters. And in the long lame duck period before Lincoln took office, when the states in the lower South pulled out of the Union, Buchanan completely lost his head and became paralyzed with indecision and panic, sometimes unable to get out of bed.
   
   Baker, unlike other more sympathetic biographers, doesn't see Buchanan as a peacemaker caught in a tide of unstoppable sectional conflict so much as a man largely unqualified by temperament (gloomy, pessimistic, fatalistic) and dogmatic partisanship to handle the crisis. Perhaps. I don't claim to know enough about Buchanan to evaluate her conclusion. But I do know two things. First, she's presented a convincing case for Buchanan's incompetence and downright shadiness when it comes to the Kansas crisis, and there's good reason to think that this example is representative of his entire presidency. Second, I'd have liked to have learned more about Buchanan the man in order to be satisfied that Baker's characterization of his temperament was accurate. I know that her volume is in a series that focuses on presidential administrations, and so a full-fledged biography would've been inappropriate. But nonetheless, I didn't actually get a feel for Buchanan the person in reading her book.



5. Over the years the occupier of the cellar of American presidents has changed. When I was growing up, Warren G. Harding held the title as "Worst President Ever", then Ulysses S. Grant seemed to vie for a tie. In more recent years and given a more thorough look, James Buchanan now resides there and Jean H. Baker's excellent short biography of President Buchanan goes into some reasons why that has happened.
   
   Far from being the domestic American Neville Chamberlain of his day, Baker argues that vacillation wasn't Buchanan's worst trait (although it was a pretty bad one) but his pro-Southern views were. As a seasoned politician and diplomat, our fifteenth president was arguably one of the best prepared to take over the presidency in 1857. But, as suggested, things began to heat up fast and Buchanan's support of the Dred Scott Decision, perhaps the worst Supreme Court decision in U.S. history, got the ball rolling. Buchanan seemed to be feckless at every turn, managing to alienate his own party politicians with decisions that pleased no one in the end. But her chapter on the lame-duck months of Buchanan's presidency is the best of the book, as it should be. This four-month transition is one of the most important in presidential turnovers and has been heavily scrutinized for decades with the author coming down hard on Buchanan. What might have been done to save the country had Buchanan actually moved swiftly and successfully to reinforce Fort Sumter, for instance? We'll never know, but Baker gives the reader some things about which to think.
   
   On the personal side, the author delves lightly into Buchanan's possible homosexuality and concludes, like everyone else, we'll never know. But she does make an interesting point toward the end of the book when she contemplates the reasons for Buchanan's pro-Southern tilt by suggesting that the president preferred the more genteel southern ways to the edginess of his northern counterparts.
   
   The American Presidents series is terrific and I've read several of the presidential mini-biographies. This is one of the best and I highly recommend it.

5 comments about Rutherford B. Hayes.

1. The Bush-Gore election 0f 2000 is one of four disputed presidential elections in United States history, together with the 1800 contest among Jefferson, Burr and John Adams and the 1824 election which featured four candidates, John Quincy Adams, Jackson, Clay, and Crawford. But the most controversial of America's disputed presidential elections remains that of 1876 in which the Republican Rutherford B. Hayes was determined to be the winner over the Democrat Samuel Tilden even though Tilden won the popular vote.
   
   Hans Trefousse, Distinguished Professor of History at Brooklyn College and a specialist in the Reconstruction Era, has written an informative short biography of Rutherford B. Hayes, the victor of 1876, as part of the American Presidents series. For readers interested in acquiring basic knowledge of one of our lesser known presidents,this biography is a good source.
   
   Rutherford B. Hayes (1822 -- 1893) attended Kenyon College and Harvard Law School. He enlisted in the Army at the outset of the Civil War and served with great distinction, rising to the rank of Major General. Hayes was elected twice to the House of Representatives and served three terms as the Governor of Ohio. In 1876, Hayes became a dark horse nominee for the presidency as a compromise candidate of a Republican Party torn by factionalism.
   
   The disputed presidential contest of 1876 came to dominate Hayes's career and his presidency. The electoral votes of three Southern states, Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana were sharply contested. Ultimately, a Commission appointed by Congress voted 8-7 along party lines to award the election to Hayes. The dispute over the election involved, among other issues, the votes of African Americans during Recounstuction. The votes of many counties that allegedly had supported Tilden were discounted because African Americans had been denied their right to vote by fraud and violence. The Hayes-Tilden election remains the most controversial election in our history, and scholars still are divided about whether the decision in favor of Hayes was proper.
   
   Hayes was placed in an extraordinarily difficult position as president with the Democrats calling for his impeachment and referring to Hayes as "his fraudulency" and the divided Republican Party offering tepid support to him at best. The immediate result of Hayes's election was the end of Reconstruction as the Army was removed from the South. Trefousse points out that this result would have likely happened in any event. Ironically, Hayes also withdrew support from Republican governors in South Carolina and Louisiana -- two states that were critical to his election. The end of Reconstruction which followed the disputed election and the segregation, Jim Crow, and discrimination which were to follow is the most remembered and unfortunate aspect of Hayes's presidency.
   
   Hayes himself was an honest, educated person with an excellent ability to get along with people, including those whose views differed from his own, and a good compromiser. He also had considerable independence and a progressive tendencies. He worked towards reform of the Civil Service System to base hiring decisions for lower-level positions on merit, supported education, and tried to protect African American voting rights. In the last two years of his presidency, he repeatedly vetoed attempts by the Democratically -controlled Congress to remove Federal officials and military personnel from polling places in the South -- on grounds that this removal would violate the voting rights of African Americans. Hayes pursued a moderate policy towards the American Indians and, in one of his finest acts, issued an apology to the Ponca Tribe for injusticies it had suffered during his Administration.
   
   While the 1876 election clouded his entire presidency, Hayes kept his promise to serve only one term. His presidency conciliated the nation which had been deeply divided by his election, and he governed in an honest scandal-free manner in contrast to the administration of his predecessor. Probably as a result of Hayes's substantial efforts in unifying the country, Tilden was denied the Democratic presidential nomination in 1880, and the election again went to the Republican candidate, James Garfield.
   
   Trefousse sees Hayes as a healer and a compromiser following his disputed election. Trefousee concludes: "aware of the tenuous nature of his election, he knew how to bridge over various disputes and thus heal the serious differences between factions, sections, and parties. ... His significance, then, lies in his ability to overcome factionalism and exercise power in such a way that the dubious nature of his election could eventually be forgotten." (p. 150) These were valuable accomplishments for his time. Hayes is not among the greatest of American presidents, but the manner in which he handled his disputed presidency remains worth remembering.
   
   Robin Friedman



2. Rutherford B. Hayes has always ended up in the middle of presidential ratings, and Hans L. Trefousse's taut biography of our nineteenth president would not move him up or down that list. Trefousse does a good job in assessing President Hayes as a man and as an administrator, though "comprehensive" is not a word used to describe the biographies in this American Presidents' series.
   
   The remarkable ascendency of Hayes to the presidency after the disputed election of 1876 has parallels to the election of 2000, but Trefousse (with an apparent dig at George W. Bush) elevates Hayes by suggesting that Hayes tried to bring together various warring factions while Bush did not. It's a good reflection. Hayes's stellar service during the Civil War, in which the future president was wounded more than once, is covered in great detail by the author. (Because of the quiet nature of the four years Hayes spent in the White House, this book needed some "fleshing out"). We know that Hayes was honest and his administration was largely beneficial to the country. I view his term as something akin to Gerald Ford's...a transitional time where the country needed healing. In fact Hayes's biggest accomplishment was the removal of Federal troops from the South, meaning an end to Reconstruction. That is the chief legacy of the Hayes administration. The president was also big on civil service reform, taken to higher limits by Chester Arthur a few years later. It's a fascinating reminder that Indian affairs still took up some of the President's time, but what is one of the more notable aspects of this book is how often and how much President Hayes traveled while in office and in retirement. He was the first president to visit the West Coast, for example.
   
   Rutherford B. Hayes served adequately and he should be remembered for a solid four years in office, if not much more. There certainly have been worse presidents but Trefousse justifiably gives Hayes credit for some accomplishments and I recommend this book as a good introduction to our nineteenth president.



3. I am currently reading a biography of every President. This is the first time I have selected one of the short biographies from the American President series. These biographies are very short, this particular one being 150 pages of text, made even shorter by the relatively small amount of text on each page - I would estimate roughly 2/3 the length of text compared to an "average" book. It is certainly more than manageable to read this book in one sitting.
   
   I was somewhat disappointed by the brevity of the book, which was even more pronounced than I expected. I will, however, review the book based upon its intention, and it was certainly not intended to be a comprehensive biography. The book does manage to present a full biographical sketch of Hayes with an acceptable overview of the issues in his Presidency. Trefousse's writing is straightforward although quite dry and he is overly concerned with comparing the 1876 and 2000 elections in an unsuccessful attempt to give the book a modern connection. Trefousse seems to approach his subject with about the same enthusiasm as a high school history student writing a term paper. The biggest shortcoming of the book however is not the lack of information but its inability to give the reader a true sense of Rutherford B. Hayes, the man.
   
   Ultimately, this book is barely satisfactory and I believe many readers will desire the more in depth biographies of either Ari Higenboom or Harry Barnard - I know I will probably go back and read one of these at some point. This book does, however, fill a need for a modern short biography of our 19th President and is recommendable in that capacity.



4. Despite what some have said of old Rutherford, he probably wasn't our worst president. In fact, if he had been elected in 2000, his compromising approach would have went a long way in meeting the opposition. As it was, his contested election was in 1876, and it polarized the country again between North and South. However, his compromising attitute healed the wounds of the Civil War and Reconstruction. This was at the expense of black civil rights.
   
   I thought the author Trefousse did a good job of detailing Hayes life. Some of the previous reviewers might not be able to distinguish the subject from the author, but I believe Trefousse did a good job of summarizing his subject. The author comes to the same conclusion I have come to. The 1876 election was a flawed election where Democrats disenfranchised the black population in the South and then screamed bloody cheating to those contesting the South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida ballots. Rutherford was not Rutherfraud, but an honest politician trying to make a difference.
   
   An OK read on our 19th President.



5. This book does a good job of outlining President Hayes life but it falls short in other areas. It does not give a sense of the country and how Hayes affected it. It suffers from being far too brief and does not even hit all of the highlights in his life. For those who want to get a sense of the president that is about all this can be used for. If you are looking for something that gives you information on the corrupt bargain or the start of the Gilded Age this book falls short.