5 comments about The Kennedy Curse: Why Tragedy Has Haunted America's First Family for 150 Years.

1. This story is very interesting. It details the lives of some of the famous Kennedys/Fitzgeralds and tells how "the Kennedy Curse" affected them in their life. The author even has a timeline of major things that have happened to the extended familie for 150 years.
   
   The first to be aflicted with the Kennedy Curse was Patrick Kennedy in the 1850's. He was an Irishman who immigrated to the United States, married and had children, but 9 years after arriving died leaving a widow with an infant son.
   
   The next to be cronicaled is Rose Kennedy's father John "HoneyFitz" Fitzgerald. He was a polition in Boston and Massachutes before being forced to give it up when the competion found out about an affair he had with a woman the same age as his daughter.
   
   The next person cronicaled is Joe Kennedy himself. He wanted to be President of the United States of America and shortly after leaving his post as Ambassador to the Court of Saint James during World War Two he gave an interview that ended his career and his dreams.
   
   The next two people cronicaled are Joe Kennedy's children Kathleen and John. Kathleen fell in love with two Protestants during her life. The first she married but he died during the war. The second was married, but wanted a divorce. They were on there way to meet Joe in Paris when the plain that they were on crashed killing all on board. John of course was President of the United States and partily due to his lacks rules about his safty he was assassinated on November 22, 1963.
   
   The next people are JFK Jr who like his father was taken too soon and William Kennedy Smith who was on trial for rape.



2. Edward Klein covered John F. Kennedy's 1960 Presidential campaign and later served as foreign editor of Newsweek and editor-in-chief of The New York Times Magazine. He has authored countless articles and several books, including two others on Kennedy family members. He's a good writer and meticulous researcher. However, despite his resume and, sadly, in concert with virtually every other biographer and historian, he reverses cause and effect.
   
   As discussed in by books, How to Spot Hidden Alcoholics: Using Behavioral Clues to Recognize Addiction in Its Early Stagesand Alcoholism Myths and Realities: Removing the Stigma of Society's most Destructive Diseasealcoholism mimics virtually all the Personality Disorders, particularly Narcissism. A diagnosis of this Disorder requires any five attributes out of a menu of nine, including "a grandiose sense of self-importance," "a belief he is `special,'" "a sense of entitlement" and an "arrogant and haughty attitude." These, as well as the other five attributes, are all classic symptoms of alcoholism or severe codependency, especially in children of alcoholics.
   
   According to studies cited in my first book, Drunks, Drugs & Debits: How to Recognize Addicts and Avoid Financial Abuse70-80% of recovering addicts with two or three months of sobriety who were diagnosed with a Personality Disorder when drinking are found to have been misdiagnosed. While most Disorders clear up or become far less of a concern after two to three years of sobriety, experience shows that what most consider normal behaviors usually don't return for five to ten years.
   
   Klein includes vignettes on a potpourri of Kennedy clan members, some alcoholics and several children of alcoholics. The manifestation of narcissism in apparent non-alcoholic members of the family, including Joe Kennedy's favorite daughter Kathleen, suggests the power of familial alcoholism. Extraordinary tolerance to alcohol makes the disease all but invisible in many, including Joseph P. Kennedy, even while numerous behavioral indications of the disease are evident (I counted two dozen such clues in the 45-page chapter on Joe, from attempts at blackmail to hyperbole and a public display in which he flouted long tradition). The fact that narcissism can be so obvious in non-alcoholics, as well as in those who defy the diagnosis, may account for the fact that alcoholism is overlooked as the most common root of the Disorder. However, the likely underlying cause becomes more apparent when we realize that a confluence of narcissists is found in families in which alcoholism is epidemic.
   
   The Kennedy Curse is billed as a "detective story". Unfortunately, Edward Klein helps to perpetuate the myth that most character flaws are inherent, when they are instead usually rooted in alcoholism. While including some interesting and telling depictions in the lives of alcoholics and their codependents in what may be America's most famous family, Klein's book fails in its most fundamental goal.



3. In Edward Klein's The Kennedy Curse: Why America's First Family Has Been Haunted by Tragedy for 150 Years, there isn't much new here except for pure gossip, rumor and innuendo.
   
   Klein starts off to make this a pseudo-scientific study of facts contributing to the Kennedy curse including lots of psycho-babble, genetic factors, etc. He claims his book is a detective story. He tries to show how "the Irish immigrant experience of poverty and humiliation developed into an obsessive lust for power and dominance over others at the expense of all ethical behavior." Throw in domineering fathers, cold mothers, alcohol, drugs, sex, thrill-seeking behavior, ADHD, restlessness, boredom and impatience, and you get a prescription for tragedy. Many people believe a black cloud has followed the Kennedy family for many generations. It actually appears that the Kennedy's followed the black cloud on their own.
   
   In trying to prove his curse theory, Klein spotlights seven family members including immigrant Patrick Kennedy, Joe Kennedy, Sr., Kathleen (Kick) Kennedy, JFK, William Kennedy Smith, JFK, Jr., and JFK's maternal grandfather, John Honey Fitz Fitzgerald. He barely mentions other Kennedy's that have suffered tragedies including Bobby Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, and Joe Kennedy, Jr. It was interesting to read about the immigrant experience of the Irish, as well as some of the lesser known family members including Kathleen Kennedy and Honey Fitz. But overall, there isn't much new here, and what is new seems mostly rumor and innuendo. For instance, Klein accuses JFK of having "chronic venereal disease" and claims it is possible that this caused the death of his pre-mature son, Patrick. This is a pretty serious allegation to make without proof. He also tells how Carolyn Bessette Kennedy's friends destroyed her drug stash after that fateful plane crash. I don't believe the Kennedy's are saints and I know they've done some atrocious things, but give us hard facts.
   
   Overall, my recommendation is to skip The Kennedy Curse. If you want to read more about this fated family, there are much better and more comprehensive books to be had. It is hard to believe this book was written by a Pulitzer Prize-winning author.



4. This book is not boring... easy to read...good insight to the Kennedys... would recommend for anyone who likes real life..



5. While there is some merit to Edward Klein's books, they read like tabloid journalism. More importantly, there are passages which raise eyebrows, such as his alleged interview with Dave Powers. Read with a skeptical eye.
   Vince Palamara-JFK/ Secret Service expert (History Channel, author of two books, in over 30 other author's books, etc.)
   Pittsburgh, PA
   
   BEST JFK ASSASSINATION BOOK: ULTIMATE SACRIFICE
   BEST JFK SECRET SERVICE BOOK: SURVIVOR'S GUILT BY YOURS TRULY :)

5 comments about James A. Garfield (The American Presidents).

1. James A. Garfield is one of those forgotten 18th century U.S. presidents--along with Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Hays, two Harrisons, and a few others. Garfield is forgotten because he served only six months as President, and more than two of them were with a bullet in his back. Ira Rutkow does a credible job of reviewing Garfield's life. He shows Garfield to have been an intelligent, ambitious, talented, brave man(he served as a general in the Civil War)who was just a little full of himself. We'll never really know whether he would have done more to deserve being remembered.
   The great strength of this book are two chapters-- one, a detailed narration of Garfield's wounding and its immediate aftermath. The second chapter is on medicine in the 1880s. It shows clearly how doctors who examined Garfield's wound, probing it with unclean fingers and instruments, gave Garfield an infection. And it was the infection that actually killed him. The idea of sterilization was fairly new, and many "old school" doctors did not subscribe to it. Unfortunately, it was the "old school" doctors who handled Garfield's case.
   This book will give you a sense of who James Garfield was. But nothing can give Garfield memorable status. His brief presidency simply does not merit it.



2. I suppose by some measure, James Garfield was one of the best presidents ever. After all, he didn't really mess things up. Conversely, he may be one of the worst, as he had no real accomplishments either. That's what happens when you occupy the office for around six months, much of which were with an eventually fatal bullet wound. In truth, even if Garfield had not been assassinated, he would probably would never have been one of more significant Chief Executives, just another in a line of minor figures to occupy the White House after the Civil War. Wedged in a group that includes Hayes, Arthur, Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison, Garfield would be similarly obscure had he not died in office.
   
   Ira Rutkow's brief biography of Garfield (part of the American Presidents Series) does not have much to say about Garfield's brief tenure as President. Instead, the focus is on two things: Garfield's rise to that office and the medical bungling that did more to bring about his death than the bullet had.
   
   After an uneventful childhood, Garfield eventually started taking education seriously and, after finishing college, briefly taught and practiced law before becoming involved in politics. This was on the local level until the Civil War, where he served as an officer and eventually rose to the rank of general (though his military career left little impact on the war's outcome). Even before the Civil War ended, he had moved on to Congress where he served for nearly twenty years.
   
   Garfield was one of the more "radical" Republicans and parlayed his growing influence in the party to become a dark horse candidate in the 1880 Presidential election. He would win, but a disgruntled (and somewhat crazed) Charles Guiteau would shoot Garfield just four months into his Presidency. Unfortunately, the doctors who oversaw his care were essentially incompetent, ignoring basic rules of cleanliness that were well-known by that time, and they wound up causing far more damage than the original bullet.
   
   Rutkow, whose background is in medicine, spends a lot of the book discussing late 19th Century medical practices and goes into great detail about the shortcomings of those who treated Garfield. He does a decent job, and given Garfield's limited historical significance, it is probably more appropriate for a medical educator to write this book than a regular historian who would probably be hard pressed to fill 150 pages with Garfield's accomplishments. If you're really interested in the life of Garfield, I know there are bigger, more detailed biographies out there, but this book is at least a good introduction, and for most people will provide all the information on the twentieth president that they would ever need.



3. Once again I found myself enjoying the strange politics of America's Gilded Age as I was introduced to a man who, up to this point, had remained a dim figure in my mind: someone who was famous only for his very short term as one of this nation's Chief Executives. It turns out that James A. Garfield did exist, and he was more than a footnote in history. He was a leading Republican (always a party man) who stood for a brief moment as the chosen voice of "the people" (or at least the voice of a very splintered Republican party).
   
   Party politics was the defining, big-picture issue as Garfield came into the Presidency. Following U.S. Grant's term, which was tarnished by scandals, the men who held the highest office were by necessity forced to discuss (if not actually devote themselves to) civil service reform. Of course this only led to further deal-making and intrigue as both parties (a demoralized Democratic party that hadn't had a president in the White House since Andrew Johnson, and a Republican party at odds with itself over which faction should be in control) tried to vie for offices of importance. Enter James A. Garfield, a man who would, by his assassination, become a martyr to civil service reform.
   
   All this is easily found in most grade school history books though. What the author, Ira Rutkow, does in this fine biography is outline not only the political forces at work behind the rise and fall of the Garfield presidency, but the conditions of American medicine at the time...conditions that directly impacted the death of America's 20th President. The chapters that immediately follow the attempt made on Garfield's life examine the care he was given by his doctors and the unsanitary methods used (methods that, as a reader, I found both interesting and grueling). One wonders how Garfield would have faired had he lived in a later century.
   
   Mr. Rutkow has done a very good job of bringing this unknown, little-remembered president back to life, if only for awhile. "For who was Garfield," Thomas Wolfe asked, "and who had seen him in the streets of life?" Here, finally, we have an answer.



4. In the grade school litany of the names of our nation's leaders, James Garfield does not even merit a pause. Amidst Washington, Adams, Jackson and Lincoln, then Roosevelt and Eisenhower later, the twentieth President gets little more in even High School U.S. History than does Pierce or Fillmore. Yet he was a complex and accomplished individual, a General in the Army and a most skilled politician.
   
   Rutkow is a physician, and an accomplished author. He brings the eye of the surgeon to the treatment of the President after the assassination attempt while concisely reviewing his early life and run to the presidency with aplomb. At a time when the subject of errors in medicine is much with us, it is sobering to read of the "treatment" of the highest elected official. Rutkow validly makes the point that President Garfield was not simply maltreated: he was killed by the physicians watching over him, primarily one eclectic and ego-driven surgeon. Had Garfield suffered the same bullet wound in 2006 he might have been discharged from the emergency room and lived to a ripe old age.
   
   Beyond this tome, the entire "American Presidents" series edited by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. now numbers 33 volumes and is a collective treasure providing brief but well written biographies of the men who have led our country.



5. A great job of bringing James Garfield into the limelight. The author's insight (medically)was very helpful.

5 comments about The Clinton Crack-Up: The Boy President's Life After the White House.

1. Perhaps it is because Mr. Tyrrell is, in my opinion, an intelligent and well researched writer, which gives him the factual perspective enabling clear-headed criticism. For many years, there has been embarrassment, humiliation, and utter disbelief surrounding the actions and inactions of this former president, his apologists and enablers. Almost en masse, the media has dutifully carried his water, parroted his lame excuses, giggled at his "bad boy" philanderings, made us all a little smaller for it, and helped to make the highest and most respected office of our land a playground for this sad man. It is thanks to people like Mr. Tyrrell who take on the burden of supplying documented background, so the rest of us can have the proof that unfortunately, many people do not seem to want. Additionally, he maintains a level of humor about darkly disturbing human behavior, which allows an element of pity to be conjured for this former president.



2. Tyrell has made his living pandering to the neocons who consider sex between a man and a woman to be more important than national security, foreign relations, and domestic policy matters. If you want to get a sense of why the neocons have become the laughing stock of the free world just read this book and then do your own research to find all the fictional statements Tyrell makes on virtually every page. As is typical for neocons they continue their hatred rant about America when American is doing well, but claim to love America when we're being broken apart and the Constitution is thrown in the trash - as the neocons have been trying to do for decades. This is a great book for America-bashing neocons in order to get a false sense of vindication.



3. This is a must read for anyone considering putting another Clinton in the White House.



4. Moron Tyrell is yet another wingnut who can't accept that Clinton is gone. They must all have a secret yearning for Hillary in '08 to make their pathetic lives seem worthwhile. Maybe they're all in denial after seven years of G. W. Dumbass and the weekly scandals of his crooks and cronies.



5. While I hated to see Clinton move into the presidency, and, of course, hated his actions even more following Lewinsky, it's a wonder that we still have a country at all. I most certainly would not buy anything that might give him (or her, for that matter) any type of grace, and only scanned the pages at a local bookstore. That was quite enough for me, thank you very much. Now, unfortunately, it looks as though Miseries Clinton might be our next president. Hold onto your wallets, people!

5 comments about John Adams: The American Presidents Series.

1. While the book does have good info on Adams' personal life & early career as lawyer, it is more of a "political biography", and is therefore weighted heavily on his career as congressman, diplomat, Vice-President, and President.
   
   The chapter titles are as follows:
   
   Introduction: Plato's Wish
   
   1. From "Senseless Turpitude" to Stately Duty
   
   2. "The Most Insignificant Office That Ever Man Contrived"
   
   3. The Prescience of the Political Mind
   
   4. The Halo of Washington, the Shadow of Jefferson
   
   5. The French: Foe or Friend?
   
   6. War Measures, Free Speech, States' Rights
   
   7. The American Landscape
   
   8. War and Peace
   
   Conclusion: The Moralist in Politics
   
   The only part that I somewhat struggled through was Chapter 3, which delved into Adams' thoughts on politics and political philosophy. The difficulty, I suspect, was more due to my own unfamiliarity with thinking & reading about such topics (and perhaps the fact that I was reading late at night) than with the author's writing.
   
   Diggins has done a fine job of explaining Adams' thinking and those things that influenced his ideas about people and, by extension, about government. He examines the issues of the times, both domestic and foreign, as well as the struggles Adams had to deal with within himself and within his administration.
   
   The author writes from a pro-Federalist POV, but this is by no means a polemic or screed against the views of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican "interests". He explains where both (or all) sides are coming from and, IF he expresses an opinion, he calls it like he sees it. He also is not averse to pointing out where he thinks Adams was "weak"/wrong or when the arch-Federalists went too far (e.g., in re the Alien & Sedition Acts and subsequent prosecutions). Similarly, Diggins mentions instances where both the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans were inconsistent when it came to "practicing what they preached," so to speak. I very much appreciated this balanced approach.
   
   I only caught one or two typos, which is not bad, and one error of miscalculation (i.e., stating that Adams was 91 at his death, when he was "only" 90). There were also a couple places where the wording seemed awkward. Overall, not a bad record.
   
   The endnotes are in a style I did not care for, consisting of one block of text per chapter. There is a single-page "Milestones" chronology of Adams' life & career, which was helpful. And, of course, an index. There is no bibliography other than those works mentioned in the endnotes.
   
   Content: 4
   Style & Structure: 4
   Average: 4



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



3. 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



4. 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.



5. 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 comments about The Compleated Autobiography by Benjamin Franklin (1757-1790).

1. I had never read Volume 1 of Benjamin Franklin's autobiography, so I didn't know what to expect when I bought Volume 2, which was compiled from Dr. Franklin's diaries by one of his descendants, Dr. Mark Skousen. I really thought that because 200 years had gone by, it would be rather dry with way too many historical details and that I would never finish it. A good book to help me fall asleep at night. But I was wrong. I simply loved it.
   
   Dr. Franklin was quite a character and this book shows in his own words what he thought of his fellow 'founding fathers,' (especially his opinion of John Adams!!) how he managed to keep some of his English friends in the midst of the Revolutionary War, and the woman who got away (quite possibly the only one).
   
   This is not a book just for a history class. It is most, most entertaining and I finished it in record time. I wish Ben had lived to 100 instead of just 84.
   
   Highly recommended if you like history and even if you don't.
   
   Heidi Walter
   [...]



2. This is a review of the audio version of this work.
   
   I found this to be a great disappointment, bordering on annoying. The author was attempting to complete Franklin's autobiography which doesn't cover the second half of his life. I found two very difficult problems with the work.
   
   First, the opening of the audio book presents the author's background including why he wanted to do this. This introduction was distractingly self-serving and provided quite a bit more about the author than any reader would probably expect. He is a descendant of Franklin, which may spurn his motivation....but failed to make the experience any more enlightening.
   
   Second, the book is written "using Franklin's own words"...or so says the notes from the publisher. What it does is try to use the language of Franklin's day including quickly worn out expressions and lines. I tired very quickly of the authors attempt to turn every phrase like a Poor Richard quip. What he may have gained in accuracy, made the audio experience painful.
   
   I do not recommend the audio edition for those two reasons, nor would I recommend the book. One would be better served with Isaacson's (BF: An American Life) book for a look at the second half of Franklin's life....it's simply written better and it offers more insight.
   
   The idea of getting inside Franklin's head and finishing the autobiography is compelling....but this attempt failed in it's lofty goal.
   
   --Cudo



3. Let's just say I am a Franklin buff. If you really like Franklin or history this is a worth while read. If you want to learn more about Franklin you should start with the Autobiography and then move to one of the many Bios, the most recent of which is Walter Isaacson's "Benjamin Franklin." If you get through those, you may be well ready for this read. To be honest, in my opinion, the author stands in the way of this work a little but it is not bad.



4. Book received timely and in excellent condition. Am still in the process of reading it.



5. I gave this as a gift to my mother. My father read it cover to cover and enjoyed it and my mother is in the process of doing so. It is written in an older style and can be a bit dry, but history buffs (my parents) are really enjoying it.

5 comments about The Eloquent President: A Portrait of Lincoln Through His Words.

1. What a package: you see His picture, you know you will read His words (judged correctly "eloquent"), you review His chronology. . .and you can't not finish this book.(And the biggest prize is the end-matter, the over 100 pages of appendices and notes.)
   I'm thankful--to a good extent--for Mr. White's tour. Without him, I would know less of the background of the speeches, less of the Civil War, less of the politics of the time. And he lets Lincoln star.
   I tired only of Mr. White's repetition. It seemed he used the same putty to tie Lincoln's speeches together. But that might be too harsh: anything linking Lincoln to Lincoln will suffer. (But it seemed to suffer in the same ways: Yes, the divine meditation was for Lincoln's eyes only. . .for his eyes only. . .for his eyes only. Yes, Lincoln used parallel structures. . .parallel structures. . .parallel structures. Yes, the word count was minute with heavy use of one-syllable words. . .count. . .minute. . .syllables.)
   Thank you, overall, for presenting the greatness of this man, the wisdom of his words, the nobility of his leadership to today's world. May we be wise enough to understand and think and feel him presently.



2. I first read this book at a coffee house and found it not just a great piece of art, but, a large insight to a Great American and his love for his country and his faith. As a chaplain and a student of human communication, I believe Mr. Lincoln's words can help all of us remember what the United States is all about. If you are not moved by the speeches, then you cannot hear and feel the words. And if you cannot hear and feel what is being expressed in those words. Then you need to not only check your faith in this country. You need to see if you are truly in touch with God our Father through his son Jesus.



3. This was really well done, and certainly can be appreciated not just by admirers of Lincoln, but readers interested in the process of writing and speaking - especially for the purpose of winning an argument.
   
   Some earlier posts are correct in noting that the book is superior to some other efforts that focused on single speeches, such as Garry Willis' book on the Gettysburg Address and Lincoln at Cooper Union. I haven't read White's Lincoln's Greatest Speech.
   
   However, my feeling is the book could have taken an even longer view. That is pick up Lincoln as a speaker at a much earlier point in his life and follow him from his days as a country lawyer to the Second Inaugural Address. As it is, starting at a point in his life when Lincoln was already an accomplished speaker, we see him go from very good to great.
   
   Also, while I thought the Mr. White's argument that the Bible was a strong influence on Lincoln's speaking style has merit, it also often seemed forced. I would have taken Lincoln's comments that both sides were praying to the same God as the view of a religous skeptic, for example.



4. Wonderful analysis of this remarkable and sensitive wordsmith and President



5. In this book, White expands the focus from his previous work on Lincoln's Second Inaugural ("Lincoln's Greatest Speech" published in 2002). White looks at the progression of Lincoln's thought and the increasing greatness and eloquence of his speeches and public letters during his presidency that leads to that final and considered by many to be his greatest major speech.
   
   In the process of examining these speeches, White looks at them each individually, but also looks at their relationship to one another as "a string of pearls" (a term he uses more than once in the book). White uses this visual description of the speeches stating that while each pearl is beautiful in its own way and can be examined separately, they also come together and one pearl connects to others in the string that can best be understood by comparing them to each other and examining the ways they are connected. In many of the speeches, White demonstrates that Lincoln leaves the audience with thoughts and ideas that his mind is still wrestling with that are picked up again in a later speech and developed more fully as his thoughts on those subjects have matured over time.
   
   White has also done an excellent job in selecting the best and most memorable speeches and public letters from Lincoln's presidency. He begins with Lincoln's farewell remarks at Springfield on February, 11, 1861 and includes remarks from his journey to Washington. Also included are both of Lincoln's Inaugural Addresses, his reply to Horace Greeley's "Prayer of Twenty Millions," the 1862 Message to Congress, Conkling Letter, and Gettysburg Address. As I read each chapter on each of the speeches, I got a sense of the growth of Lincoln and the development of his thought until it reached its twin climaxes of the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural.

5 comments about George Washington and Benedict Arnold: A Tale of Two Patriots.

1. Excellent piece of history -- incredible detail -- easy reading. Dave Palmer is a retired general and past supervisor at West Point. He is also a terrific speaker and a very ethical person. (Obviously, I have heard him speak, after which I bought the book).



2. Reading Palmer's great book made me think about today's events in Iraq. Those who don't read history believe that most events that occur are happening for the first time. They believe things have never been worse. As Palmer so eloquently writes, Washington had major problems in his execution of the war and had not only enemies on both sides, but cabals of fellow military men working for his defeat and wanting his job. Some of these narratives were revelations about our first president. He lost more battles than he won, the war was going terribly and the morale of his troops was so low they were loathe to re-up when the terms of their duty had expired. More than once he had to intervene to keep from losing troops to desertion. He acted firmly in handling all these obstacles and persevered to win the war and save the fledgling nation. There may not have been a CNN, MSNBC or NY Times working to bring him down. But, as Palmer tells us, there were many who published the most vicious things about Washington, and sometimes, directly to him, and wished him ill throughout the war. So, some things never change. Things go wrong in wars. People, including the Congress, carp and think they can do better. Washington had the character to see the plan through to its satisfactory ending. This in spite of having a "friend" like Benedict Arnold working eventually to defeat him and the rest of the new nation. Palmer's book serves as a defining account of the Revolutionary War and why George Washington deserves a day in his honor. It should never have been diluted into a "President's Day." Read the book and learn more than you've ever known about Washington, Arnold and the Revolutionary War.



3. I enjoyed this book for the good narrative that it is. Most of my pleasure came from learning the rough details of Benedict Arnold's treason. I had only known him as a traitor prior to reading this book, but had no idea that he was "America's Hannibal" prior to becoming a turncoat, nor was I aware of the reasons for his treason or the way in which he tried to execute it.
   
   The book is a quick, enjoyable, and easy read, which I am also grateful for, because if it weren't, I probably would have put it down and tried to find something more comprehensive on the subject of Arnold to read instead. I have never read a book on a subject such as this that contains no bibliography. Palmer includes a few suggested readings at the end of the book, but it is only about 10 books altogether, and two of them are prior works of his own.
   
   Even within the text, Palmer several times says something like "as a prominent modern historian says 'George Washington was...'"
   
   Well, who is the historian?!
   
   This unwillingness to cite anyone else within the text or in a bibliography really bothered me the whole time I was reading the book. The whole thing reads like something a high school student would turn in to his history teacher. The only difference between this book and the student's essay is that the book is nearly 400 pages long.
   
   There may be some very good reason for not including a bibliography or giving a prominent modern historian credit for his words in the text. I am not accusing Palmer of anything, only saying that these things bothered me quite a bit.
   
   Now, I will find some more books on Benedict Arnold to get the full story.



4. Gen. Palmer came and spoke to the Betty Martin Chapter of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution to review his book. We found out that every penny of profit that would be his is sent to fund Mt. Vernon, Washington's home. The book is an interesting contrast of two men with eerily similar backgrounds. Gen. Palmer contends that the difference in the outcome of the two lives is CHARACTER. Gen. Palmer is an excellent speaker. In his book, he presents a clear picture of the lives of these two very different men - each of whom played a major role in the foundation of our country. The character of the man determined the content of that role. I gave copies of the book as gifts at Christmas.



5. This is a great book! It is extremely well researched and powerfully written.
   
   Composed by career soldier and historian David Palmer, "George Washington and Benedict Arnold" tells the story of two Revolutionary War patriots who left such diametrically opposed legacies, despite life trajectories that were at one time so parallel.
   
   George Washington and Benedict Arnold were both more than just patriots and American soldiers, they were the heart of the American military movement against the British.
   
   Washington was the brains, soul and conscience of the Continental Army, while Benedict Arnold was the sword of the Revolution. A soldier of tremendous courage, talent and energy, he managed, time after time, to turn defeat into victory on almost every major battlefield and changed the course of the war.
   
   Indeed, Arnold's victories eventually convinced the French to enter the war on the side of the Americans. Shortly afterward, Spain and the Netherlands followed, turning a rebellion into a world war and all but ensuring a British defeat.
   
   But as the war progressed and Arnold failed to recieve the recognition and rewards he desperately craved, the thoughts of America's premier soldier turned to treason. Had he succeeded in his betrayal, Washington would surely have lost the war and America her independence.
   
   How is it that two men with lives that paralleled and intertwined so closely have legacies so vastly different?
   
   George Washington is remembered as America's greatest soldier and the father of his country, while Benedict Arnold is still considered the greatest traitor in the history of the United States.
   
   To quote the author:
   
   "Your thoughts become your words.
   Your words become your actions.
   Your actions become your habits.
   Your habits become your character.
   Your character becomes your destiny."
   
   "George Washington and Benedict Arnold" is a tremendously good read, recommended for those interested in America's war for independence and the impact of character on destiny.

No comments about A. Lincoln: A Biography.

3 comments about Woodrow Wilson and World Politics: America's Response to War and Revolution (Galaxy Books).

1. Woodrow Wilson believed that American foreign policy should aim to spread democratic capitalism to every corner of the world. He thought that democratic capitalist countries would eschew war, uplift their populations, accept American leadership, and open their markets to American trade and investment. The upshot would be a peaceful capitalist world order regulated by morality and international law, where American firms could sell their surpluses and make productive investments. The main threats to his vision were reactionary imperialism on the right (as exemplified by Imperial Germany) and communist revolution on the left (as exemplified by Lenin and the Bolsheviks).
   
   "Woodrow Wilson and World Politics" shows how Wilson's worldview played out in Germany, Russia and the Far East in the aftermath of World War I. It is based on solid archival work and is alive to the nuances and ambiguities of real-world foreign policy. I knocked off on star only because the book's lack of biographical detail or other "color" makes it a fairly dry read. Readers should know, moreover, that the book is mainly a treatment of Wilsonian ideology and its application in specific cases. It is not a detailed reconstruction of Woodrow Wilson's entire foreign policy.
   
   It is impossible to read "Woodrow Wilson and World Politics" in 2008 without drawing comparisons to the foreign policy of George Bush. Bush shares with Wilson a moralistic approach to world affairs that grates on foreigners and gives rise to charges of hypocrisy. He also shares the belief that long-term American well-being requires that all states (at least in the Islamic world) adopt American-style political and economic systems. But whereas Wilson put his faith in international law and the League of Nations, Bush has opted for unilateralism and aggressive war. His goals and rhetoric may be Wilsonian but his methods come straight from the playbook of Big Power diplomacy.



2. I am going to write an unfair review. This book is probably useful for scholars or fans of Woodrow Wilson. However, I did not find it very interesting. Woodrow Wilson was not one of my favorite presidents. The book did not change my mind about him. It was not a good "read" and it was not sufficiently informative to me to justify reading through the pedestrian prose. In addition, I am told that Wilson scholarship is now more advanced and perhaps kinder to Wilson in this particular area. If you are deeply interested in this subject, do not let me put you off reading this book. If you have a more general interest in Wilson, I would suggest reading a different book.



3. This is a fundamental book on U.S. foreign policy in the 20th century, its premises and contradictions. It is also an acute account of Wilsonian "idealism." It has general as well as specific value and is not in the least dated.

   It is one of a handful of basic books on the making of American foreign policy.

5 comments about Rutherford B. Hayes.

1. President Rutherford (called "Rud" by friends) is best known, probably, for being a (as his opponents put it) fraudulent president." Of course, this refers to (a) his becoming president while being whipped in the national popular vote and (b) the process by which a couple contested southern states (perhaps ironic given the 2000 contested presidential election, Florida) had their electoral votes assigned to Hayes.
   
   But what else do most people know about Hayes? Probably not much. And this slender volume, another in the series "The American Presidents" (edited by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.), can remedy that ignorance.
   
   Hayes was born in Vermont and ended up moving to Ohio while still young. He went to college at Kenyon and then studies law at Harvard. Politically, he became a Whig until the party began imploding, whereupon he joined the new Republican Party. When the Civil War began, he volunteered for service and had a career of which he was justly proud. He rose through the ranks and fought ably in West Virginia and with the Army of the Potomac. As the war closed, his political career began with a vengeance. He was elected to the United States House of Representatives.
   
   The book continues with his political ascent, from Congressman to Governor of Ohio and to the Republican nomination for President in 1876 (with a handful of defeats, by the way, scattered in between). There were a whole series of contenders for the nomination, and Hayes' eventual nomination occurred because none of the major players could get enough delegates to be nominated, and Hayes was settled upon as the party's choice. Then, of course, his contested victory. The book does an excellent job dissecting what actually happened, and the interpretation is different from the standard view.
   
   As President, one of his first actions was beginning to remove federal troops from the South while trying to assure that recently freed slaves would retain their rights. It appears that he naively thought that southern leaders would actually live up to their promises to maintain the rights of freed slaves. The book does a good job outlining his accomplishments (adequate but not earth shaking) as well as his travails (intraparty disputes, gridlock with Congress, and so on). Apparently, he was perceived as honest and just, even by many opponents. Assessment? The author notes (Page 129): "What did Hayes contribute to the presidency? His biographers have generally credited him with unifying the country, though faulting him for not succeeding in safeguarding blacks' rights."
   
   Then, his post-presidential career is outlined.
   
   This is another in a fine series of books. The thought dawns on me as I am reading books in this series that very few 19th century presidents really stood out and were transformational. I knew that intellectually, but reading these biographies emphasizes the point. Anyway, a good addition to the series and well worth reading if you wish to learn more about American presidents.



2. 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



3. 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.



4. 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.



5. 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.