5 comments about In Pursuit of Reason: The Life of Thomas Jefferson.

1. A very balanced biography. Cunningham's treatment of Thomas Jefferson is brief, yet peppered with the interesting caveats that give a personal feel to the President. Very readable, maybe to the point only wetting your taste for biographies of Jefferson. Recommended to all ages, reading levels, and interests. The very best, bar none, one volume biography of Thomas Jefferson.



2. ....one biography of Thomas Jefferson, and this would not be a bad choice. This is not Dumas Malone or Merrill Peterson, and doesn't claim to be. What it is is a concise, well written, account of the life of the man who "invented" America, who gave us a way to build on our hard-won freedom, and govern ourselves. Dr. Cunningham hits ALL the significant points, and, more important, makes no errors of fact [at least that I could find]. In several places, the author is not afraid to say that further exploration of a topic is beyond his intended scope. Honesty, indeed.
   
   My decision to give five stars rests on pages 114-116, where the Tom and Sally story is looked at, and dismissed as belonging in a work of fiction, especially the Paris part. Amen. Speaking of Paris, Maria Cosway is not dismissed [she can't be], but there is no excessive hand wringing, either.
   
   I admit I did things backwards, reading this after Malone and Peterson. This is a basic work...in the number of pages that Dr. Cunningham takes to get Jefferson to his grave, Malone has him in the midst of tribulation as Governor of Virginia, and Peterson has him in temporary bliss with Maria Cosway. This is a fine choice for 99.999%+ of readers to read one biography...so is Joseph Ellis' "American Sphinx". Likewise Willard Sterne Randall's book, though it's kind of long. The books on various side topics of Jefferson's life are virtually infinite in number, and are for poor souls like me. Forget them, especially since many tell lies that the average reader won't catch. You can order a used copy of this for a dime; it's a LOT better book than that price would indicate.



3. While those who revel in the ponderous, intimate-portrait biographies that have become fashion recently may be disappointed, this work provides a well-rounded portrayal of one of America's most interesting historical figures. Jefferson's public life is well represented throughout this work (though there are aspects which receive insufficient treatment, such as the Lewis & Clark Expedition). Nonetheless, Jefferson's experiences in Paris during the French Revolution and as governor of Virginia during the Revolutionary War provide insights as to who he was and how he came to be a successful two-term President.
   
   As for his private life, Cunningham provides ample coverage. There are references to Jefferson's many letters to his daughters, providing a "warts and all" depiction of the demanding father he was; references to his letters to Madison and Adams, giving some insights into their relationships; and, for those interested in the minutia of historical trivia, even references to the number of cartons of books lost during the fire that claimed his home at Shadwell. (Cunningham's one failing in this biography was the failure to investigate more seriously the relationship between Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, though the historical significance of this relationship remains debatable).
   
   Nonetheless, eminently accessible to casual reader, and providing insights to the more interested observer, Cunningham's will more than whet the appetite of any Jefferson enthusiast.



4. In this book Noble Cunningham has managed to make one of the most fascinating figures in American history pedestrian. He provides a dutiful recounting of the facts of Jefferson's life, but never makes him come alive. His thesis--that Jefferson saw the use of reason as the highest human undertaking--is certainly valid, but Jefferson was a man of enormous contradictions, none of which are truly explored here. This book makes the man who said "Democracy ought to be periodically washed in blood" seem like a hardworking civil servant.



5. I've been reading biographies of the presidents in the order they served, and I have to agree with Andrew Wagner's review: I don't really feel like I know Jefferson after reading this biography. Unlike McCullough's "John Adams" or Ketcham's "James Madison: A Biography," this book deals predominantly (just shy of exclusively) with Jefferson's public life. The author seems to begrudgingly deal with Jefferson's personal life only because some exposition of it is expected at certain points (e.g., formative years, Sally Hemings). He barely mentions Jefferson's friendships with Adams, Madison, and others. You'll know more about Jefferson's personal life from reading McCullough's book on Adams than reading this biography. That said, if you're, in fact, looking for a good synopsis of Jefferson's public life only, this book does a good job.

4 comments about Gentleman Boss: The Life of Chester Alan Arthur ([Signature series book]).

1. The Gentleman Boss covers the turbulent times of the gilded Age through Chester Arthur's eyes. While being very sympathetic to its subject it nonetheless does a phenomenal job of showing how the political system at the time worked. The book tracks the turmoil's and tribulations of the Gilded Age political system. It looks at the formation of the Republican Party and the various factions that threatened to tear it apart. The reform of the system was conducted by its most ardent and staunch defender. Arthur's presidency was defined by trying to prove he was healthy and competent enough for the highest office in the land and although he did not receive the party nomination to continue he was successful in his term of office. While the usual Gilded Age scandals occurred overall it was a move towards the modern political spectrum and a hint of the reforms to come in the progressive era.
   
   Overall the book was very well written an enjoyable for those who enjoy a good discussion of Gilded Age politics and intrigue.



2. Over the last several years, I've read more than 30 presidential biographies. I would rate Reeves' biography of Chester Arthur in the top ten. Given the subject matter, this is especially noteworthy. It's one thing to write an interesting biography of Teddy Roosevelt. It is something more to write a great book about Chester Arthur. Gentleman Boss is highly readable, well researched, and presents the corruption of the times in detail and in context.
   
   Certainly the post-Civil Wars years were the low point in US politics in terms of the quality of our presidents, the corruption of the elections, and politicians' contemptible disregard for actually addressing any of the problems of the day.
   
   Chester Arthur was probably the most corrupted politician to become President (but most biographies minimize this part of the story - so its often hard to tell). The first two-thirds of Gentleman Boss details Arthur's years prior to his becoming President. He was a spoils man in the New York machine, controlled assessments of public employees, and managed patronage for the Stalwart branch of the Republican Party for more than 20 years. The investigations of the New York customs house and stolen election of 1876 are presented in fascinating detail. As the spoils system got more and more unfavorable press, and various investigations began, Arthur lied again and again. He participated in large vote buying schemes and bragged of this in a famous speech at Delmonico's Restaurant following his election as Vice President. His nomination to be Vice President was an affront to anyone who was interested in cleaning up politics. Even after he was elected Vice President, he worked hard to undermine President Garfield by trying to fix more jobs (and overthrow Garfield appointees in New York).
   
   Arthur was very intelligent and a brilliant organizer. In these regards but almost no other he was well-qualified to be president. The last third of Reeves' book describes Arthur's presidency and his effort to rise above his past and not dishonor the office. This portion of the book seems anti-climatic, but the first 250 pages are not to be missed.



3. He is certainly one of the most obscure Presidents in American history. I enjoy reading about people who achieve high office, fame or fortune, probably because I want to find a link among them that predated their successes. In reading this excellent and very balanced biography, I came away with at least 3 lessons: 1) That blind luck can be the key ingredient in a man's success, for the early life and times of Chester Arthur no more predicted greatness than did those of Harry Truman (Truman, at least, was essentially honorable), 2) that is indeed possible for the Office to make the man, for once he became President, Arthur overcame many of his moral inadequacies, and 3) that for all we complain about American politics today, the state of the State in the late 19th century was more corrupt than most 21st century Americans would ever imagine possible. For these three lessons alone, the book is certainly a worthwhile read.



4. High school history books tell you Chester "Chet" Arthur was a "dandy," a machine politician and an accidental president, but little more. This highly readable, very informative and interesting biography adds much historical flesh to the bare-bones treatment Arthur gets in text books. A man who is all but a caricature to generations of students is made fully human, with all the positives and negatives that entails. And while chronicling the president's life the author also chronicles a fascinating era in American political history, the day when the party bosses ruled and presidential candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms and not in state primaries; primaries may be more democratic, but they sure are a lot less interesting to read about. If you enjoy presidential history, add this book to your library.

3 comments about The Presidency of Franklin Pierce (American Presidency Series).

1. The years before 1860 were a period of increasing cold war in the United States. From the perspective of over a century after the conclusion of the internal war, we tend to lose the knowledge that there was more to the separatism than the disagreement concerning slavery. While the North/South dispute over slavery was paramount, other regional differences such as the role of the frontier led to a political fragmentation that prevented any faction from being able to govern and solve the growing problems. Several new parties arose while the formerly powerful Whig party was dying. This fragmentation is the main theme of this book and Gara states it very well. With the modern emphasis on the slavery question, the other divisive forces in the nation are often overlooked, which leads to historical inaccuracy.
   Gara explains in great detail how the political fragmentation prevented any real attempt to resolve the issues. One point in particular that is often ignored is the three-fifths representation. For census purposes a slave was considered to be three-fifths of a person, even though they were also property. This absurdity caused a great deal of resentment in free states, as it concentrated more political power in the slave states than the size of the free population should have allowed. This caused more representatives to be elected from the southern states, which altered the outcome of some of the votes in favor of the south. Deeply resented by many in the north, it points out the inherent absurdities of slavery and is well documented and explained.
   The federal government was still largely a weak institution with most of the power held by the states. With all of these problems, it would have taken an extraordinary president to alter the course of history. Franklin Pierce was no such man, and the best that can be said is that he muddled through without any great catastrophes. More than anything else, it was his handsome, presidential appearance that earned him the white house. His rise to the presidency was largely an accident, as he was a compromise candidate after the better candidates were somehow disqualified. His administration also began on a tragic note, when one of the Pierce children was killed before the eyes of his father and mother. Being largely untested on the national political arena, Pierce also wore a colossal political tin ear, often making basic errors that made things worse.
   Given all of these problems, it is surprising that the Pierce administration did as well as it did. As the author points out, his presidency is ranked somewhere above a failure, but nowhere near a success. In reading about all of the problems of the country at that time, it is hard to see where a great deal of improvements could have been made. The country was expanding rapidly and the industrial revolution with associated social changes was just beginning. Slavery was a historical anachronism, clearly in the process of being eliminated and had it not become the symbol of the rights and tradition of the southern states, it would have naturally ceased to exist. Even the ardent proponents of slavery referred to is as the "peculiar institution."
   In retrospect, the forces that led to the regional split were so powerful that it is hard to envision any way that it could not have led to a civil war. Those forces were stronger than any man or political party and in this book you learn about the actions of a man who landed in a job beyond his talents and yet avoided being a total failure. Given the complexity of the circumstances, his time as president was close to the best that could have been done.



2. This is very dry reading. As well, there is almost no mention of Pierce! Instead, the author focuses on the issues/characters that shaped the times. These are crucial to understanding the political atmosphere surrounding Pierce's presidency, but a biography should focus on the individual. We learn next to nothing about Pierce.



3. THE AUTHOR, LARRY GARA, SETS THE STAGE FOR FRANKLIN PIERCE'S EMERGENCE TO THE PRESIDENCY BY DELVING INTO THE POLITICAL SURROUNDINGS OF THE 1840'S AND '50S. PIERCE WAS AN OBSCURE CONGRESSMAN WHO SAID NO TO BECOMING PRESIDENT. HIS WIFE SUFFERED FROM DEPRESSION.THE FAMILY EXPERIENCED THE TRAGIC DEATHS OF FAMILY MEMBERS AND PIERCE DRANK A LITTLE TOO MUCH. THE FAMILY PROBLEMS WERE ENOUGH, BUT BECAUSE CONGRESS' VIEW OF THE PRESIDENCY BEING THE PERSON WHO EXECUTED CONGRESS' WISHES, THE TRUE LEADERS OF THE TIMES COULD NOT GET ELECTED. FACTIONS ABOUND!! THE NEW YORK HARDS AND SOFTS, DEMOCRATS AND WHIGS, THE NEW REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT, FREE SOIL, THE NATIVISTS AND MANY MORE SPLINTERED GROUPS THAT CAUSED SETIONALISM. THERE WERE NO MAJORITIES. PIERCE WAS DOOMED TO FAILURE. IF YOU ENJOY AMERICAM POLITICS OF THE 19TH CENTURY THIS BOOK WILL PROVIDE GREAT INCITE.

4 comments about Zapata.

1. Zapata contains two versions of a screenplay which was nominated for an Academy Award in 1952. In both versions the main character is the Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, who fought for the rights of peasants against the wealthy Mexican aristocracy in the early 1900's. Steinbeck spent years conducting research on Zapata in Mexico, and the first version of his story is rich with historical detail. The second version is the actual screenplay, where the reality has been parsed and tweaked to make a better story. It was fascinating to see this process of creation, the art involved in making a simple, compelling movie script from a convoluted history. The first version was also fascinating to read, full as it was of small details about peasant life in Mexico. The overarching theme of both is the eternal fight of humanity against the powerful, always a worthwhile subject, and presented here in a historical and literary context that makes these screenplays worth reading.



2. This is the actual script Steinbeck wrote for the movie "Viva Zapata. " Actually, the book is broken up into two parts; part one is complete with John Steinbeck's observations of the Mexican Revolution, the culture and the existing system that allowed Zapata to rise and become a leader. This narrative of Steinbeck's is interspersed throughout the rough initial script.The foundation for the book is featured in part one whereas part two is the actual script. Steinbeck's personal narrative is very interesting and I found his recomendation on who to play the part of the legendary Zapata insightful and accurate in suggestion. He did not recommend Marlon Brando , who was Zapata in the classic movie, but rather wanted a Mexcian actor. He felt that none other than Pedro Armendariz should take the lead. He would have made a great Zapata. Anyway Steinbeck makes many astute observations and demonstrates his affinity for scholarship, as well as his understanding of the Mexican psyche during the turbulent times of the Porfirio Diaz regime. Steinbeck illustrates his scenes with an authentic cinematic brush reflected in his mastery of language. He details the nuances of individuals in the larger scope of an epic historical event, tying all the elements together as only a master story teller can do. Zapata, known as "El Tigre," is a man of immense stature in Mexcian history and Steinbeck understands this. Zapata comes to life, the illiterate peasant who marries a woman of a higher social status and testifies to his own human frailities.His mythical yet factual life is accentuated by stories of a currandera who "sees" his life unfolding. The relationship with his brother Eufemio also shows the respect Zapata has for family. Zapata the reluctant but sure leader feels a sense of purpose in destiny alongside other great men who shaped history. Zapata becomes bigger than life; rising to legendary status thoughout the book with anecdotal information based on research, Zapata the man and myth become one indistinguishable person. An excellent book for students to use for research, this book serves as a general guide to the life of Emiliano Zapata. For more in depth analysis for research, I would recommend the outstanding book by John Womack and the equally compelling, if not better work , by Enrique Krauze , which is available in Spanish, has well as English. If you ever wonder how do classic movies develop check out this book.



3. I found the extensive introductory material more informative than the script itself.



4. Zapata: Unsung Hero of the Mexican Revolution Another Steinbeckian Leader of the People by Robert F. Schambier, Ed.D.

   "Any previously unpublished work of John Steinbeck is a welcome gift to American letters." --Budd Schulberg, as cited in Zapata

   John Steinbeck's Zapata is a little known but well-crafted narrative about one of Mexico's legendary heroes of the Mexican Revolution. The story--which the author later turned into the critically acclaimed screenplay Viva Zapata! --tells of Emiliano Zapata's courageous efforts to halt political oppression. Known affectionately in his native southern state of Morelos as "the Little Tiger," Zapata took up the cause of downtrodden peasants when reform laws were totally flouted by the Establishment. The Diaz regime had virtually turned Mexico into a police state as the peasants grew hungrier and hungrier. Nearly single-handedly Zapata succeeded in empowering his fellow countrymen. At length he was able to instigate a formidable armed rebellion.

   As portrayed by Steinbeck, Emiliano Zapata was a young and promising leader. He could neither read nor write, but he possessed an intuitive sense of justice and fair play. Often misguided--even deceived by his own--and eventually betrayed, Zapata pushed relentlessly for social and agrarian reform. In the Camus tradition he was a true rebel fighting for human rights, never showing interest in acquiring power for its own sake.

   Initially Zapata joined forces with Venustiano Carranza and Pancho Villa to overthrow president/dictator Porfirio Diaz. But as soon as Carranza became president, he too turned into a power-hungry elitist.

   Carranza's administration under a new Constitution quickly became counterproductive. He abused his presidential powers and, in effect, confiscated yet more land under the pretense of "national ownership." When Villa and Zapata discovered that he was reneging on his promises, they continued their armed resistance against the fledgling regime. Then Zapata was assassinated in 1919. And the young leader of the people grew into legend.

   To give us a better portrait of Emiliano Zapata--man versus myth--Steinbeck goes to some length in his "Introduction" to reveal the Zeitgeist or general climate. Mexico at the time was plagued by outdated and disastrous land policies. By 1910, nearly 97% of the rural heads of families owned no real property. Violence and suppression were rampant everywhere. To fully understand the underlying causes, one must review Mexican history beginning with the Spanish conquistadors. Suffice it to say that, traditionally, land had been issued as payback to those who had fought for, or shown loyalty to, the state. At length, in a feudal system gone awry, haciendas (or estates) grew larger and larger at the expense of the peasantry. In spite of years of protests lasting into the 20th century, little could be achieved by way of effective agrarian reform.

   Enter such folk heroes as Zapata. Although Steinbeck's account is episodic at times--as chronicles tend to be--the author does succeed in capturing the essence of the young rebel. We see Emiliano Zapata as a husband, a family man, a lover, a faithful ally in war if not in love--even a machiavellian leader. "A man of individual conscience," Elia Kazan nevertheless labels him. Although some accounts may seem to conflict with history, together the vignettes (or film scenes) reveal a man quite capable of taking care of himself and his own. But no one is infallible.

   The ending is especially poignant, characteristic of Steinbeck's dramatic finales. Metaphor and symbolism prevail as Zapata's famous horse Blanco gallops riderless back into the mountains. The horse remains a free spirit--haughty and untamable--defying all attempts at capture. Its indomitable spirit emboldens the people, further cementing their patriotic zeal. They keep encountering one setback after another. But they persist, confident that sooner or later the voice of freedom will ring out. In the meantime, Zapata lives. "Viva Zapata!"

5 comments about James Monroe: The Quest for National Identity (Signature Series).

1. Lack of information? This is a good Biog. It does get a little wordy, especially concerning Monroe's foreign affairs work. Personally, I like to study the revolutionary mind, and read about the founding fathers' philosophy concerning politics and life. I just don't think there is as much information about Monroe as some of the others. He seems to have been a somewhat private person. Over all though this is pretty good work. Probably about as good as it gets for the amount of info available.



2. I read this book as part of my goal to read the established biography of every President. This was really an outstanding biography on what is clearly an underrated President.
   
   I would consider Monroe the Eisenhower of the 1800s. He did a lot and doesn't seem to get a lot of credit for it. I don't think credit was what Monroe was after.
   
   He played a key role in both the military and political history of the country and the author did a great job in depicting both. I especially liked the authors discussion of Monroe's role in reaching agreements with G.B., France, Spain, Russia, Portugal, etc.
   
   Obviously we all know about the Monroe Doctrine, but the author went into great detail in other key areas and detailed his relationships with other important men from his era.
   
   It may be longer than most would want to read, but if you want to read a really great book on a great President that is well constructed, flows well and is detailed enough to highlight the key and not so key aspects of a Presidency. This is the book on Monroe you should read.



3. I am presently reading a biography of every U.S. President in order. From browsing the reviews of Monroe biographies, Ammon became the obvious choice. I can gladly say that I was not disappointed. Ammon's biography of Monroe is comprehsive, well written, and superbly researched. Ammon's writing style is refreshingly easy to read and the information is very well organized. Monroe emerges as a very important President and, while not as brilliant intellectually as his two predecessors, certainly well suited to be chief executive and arguably the most important influence on American foreign policy until Theodore Roosevelt.
   
   My criticism of Mr. Ammon's volume is that, despite adeptly describing the political life of Monroe and its importance to American history, the biography never succeeds at leading the reader to understand Monroe on a personal level. Perhaps this task is not possible given the research available, but this is the first presidential biography that I have finished feeling that I did not have an adequate understanding of the personality traits behind the subject's actions.



4. This highly readable book focuses on the foreign policy elements of Monroe's career almost to the point that it is more of a book on diplomacy than a general biography. The portions that detail his partnership with his Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, especially the genesis of the Monroe Doctrine, are where it is at it's best. Unfortunately it gives short shrift to his relationship and feelings to his own slaves, even while giving a very good account of his activities around the Missouri Compromise.



5. James Monroe by Ammon
   Over the last several years, I've read biographies of the first 40 presidents. I've usually used Amazon readers to guide my selections. At the end of this review is a rating of these biographies.
   
   James Monroe was the last of the founding fathers to be president and he is one of most underrated statesmen and presidents. During the Revolutionary War he served with George Washington. Later he was minister to France and Secretary of State. Aside from Washington he is the only president to run for a second term without opposition. He was an excellent diplomat. His cabinet included John Quincy Adams and John C. Calhoun , and it can be argued this was the most effective cabinet and administration of the 19th century. Monroe is closely linked with fellow Virginians, Madison and Jefferson, and while he does not rank as a genius or philosopher with this pair, he was probably a better leader than either. Monroe's political style was to solve problems, be diplomatic, and develop consensus. Ammon's accounts of 12 hour cabinet meetings demonstrate this style of governance. Monroe also believed in a limited presidency . He consistently chose to respect the separation of powers, and at times limited his effectiveness out of respect for the Constitution.
   
   Ammon's biography is better than serviceable. It shines during Monroe's early years and his presidency. The book often drags during the middle third. My sense is this is because Monroe was more of a peripheral figure during these years, and this biography tends towards a tangential sense of history during this section.
   
   
   Bonus - You can see my reviews (SMR) for many of the following books, but here's a capsule summary
   The BEST
   Franklin Roosevelt - Conrad Black - captures so many facets of a great leader weaving his way through constant challenges, completely engaging writing; SEE MY REVIEW
   Teddy Roosevelt - Edmund Morris - the best writing hands down of a presidential biography - Teddy himself was so much fun that its hard to miss with this subject
   John Kennedy - Robert Dallek - detailed, balanced biography of a complex man, SMR
   Lyndon Johnson - Robert Dallek - volume one is as good as Morris' Teddy Roosevelt in terms of story- telling and describing the complexity of an absolutely driven man. Volume 2 deals with LBJ's presidential years and the morass of Viet Nam - its well written but like the war itself, it goes on and on from one disappointment to the next. SMR
   John Adams - David McCullough - great writing, perhaps a bit too favorable to Adams, but this is the book that got many readers to take a first or second look at our founding fathers
   Warren Harding - Francis Russell - absolutely the best biography of a unqualified president - captures Harding's sexual scandals as well as the smoked filled rooms and corruption of the times and Harding's administration, SMR
   Chester Arthur - Thomas Reeves - a great biography of an very corrupt politician and an incredible job of detailing the spoils system and New York politics, SMR
   The SECOND TIER
   Harry Truman - David McCullough - McCullough is always engaging, but it seems to me that he places Truman a little too high on the pedestal
   Abraham Lincoln - David Donald - the authoritative biography of Lincoln, I felt like crying at the end
   Jimmy Carter - Peter |Bourne - a good history of the time and an unflinching, thorough analysis of Carter Written by a Carter insider, but not afraid to criticize. SMR
   Franklin Pierce - Roy Nichols - a well written description of a man who was simply in over his head, SMR
   Martin Van Buren - John Niven - paints a pretty likeable picture of a man who many despised and distrusted, sifts through a great deal of detail about New York politics, and the Jackson and Van Buren administrations - subtly introduces the idea that most of Jackson's successful policies came from Van Buren
   Grover Cleveland - Alyn Brodsky - a better than average biography, very well organized and readable, soft pedals Cleveland's personal indiscretions SMR
   James Buchanan - Philip Klein - Buchanan schemed to become president for 30 years - Klein's biography gives a great overview of years of US politics and of Buchanan's scheming sort of politics, SMR
   James Monroe by Harry Ammon
   Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation - Merrill Peterson - a very thorough description of Jefferson and his times - much more emphasis on his politics and other works than his personal life, SMR
   Andrew Jackson - Robert Remini - this is perhaps unfairly low - I read the one volume abridgement, and would have preferred the detail of three volumes
   Gerald Ford - James Reeves - brisk writing and the best retelling of Watergate. A thorough description of Ford's developmental years and career prior to becoming president, but his presidential years are given less than 30 pages. SMR
   John Quincy Adams - Paul Nagel - uncovers Adams' personality and depression in a very sympathetic way but covers Adams' failed presidency with only a single chapter.
   Andrew Johnson by Hans Trefousse - a very good biography of a very complicated guy during the US`s darkest years - at times I had trouble keeping the many Reconstruction era politicians straight
   Rutherford Hayes - Ari Hoogenboom - a good biography including Hayes' war years, rise to the presidency, and his years in office. Although the election crisis of 1876 is presented in detail, Hoogenboom tries a bit too hard to give Hayes a free pass. SMR
   Ike Eisenhower - Geoffrey Perret - a workmanlike complete biography
   Ulysses S. Grant - Feeley - a great biography of Grant as a general, but it really falls down (as did Grant) during the presidential years
   Millard Fillmore - Robert Rayback - a good biography of a forgotten president who actually had some success in forestalling the Civil War
   Ronald Reagan - Edmund Morris - the weirdest "major" presidential biography - the fictional and real narrative are confusing. Although Morris captures Reagan, so much time is taken up with childhood, adolescence, and acting that important parts of the presidency are glossed over. SMR
   George Washington - Douglas Southall Freeman - I read the one volume abridgement of his seven volume monster. Freeman tells a great story, but he probably admires Washington too much.
   NOT QUITE GOOD ENOUGH
   Ulysses Grant - McFeely - This is a great biography of Grant's early life and Civil Wars years, but Feely seems about as disconnected from the eight years of Grant's presidency as Grant was.
   James Garfield - Allan Peskin - Garfield could be a caricature of a post Civil War president - log cabins, Civil War general (not much of one), Ohio, Republican, and weak - Peskin writes too much about Ohio politics and not enough about the corruption of the times
   Herbert Hoover - David Burner - A pretty boring read about a fascinating character during a fascinating time
   Woodrow Wilson - August Heckscher - Wilson was a very complex guy. This book captures Wilson and his times but it is a pretty dry read
   James Madison - Ralph Ketchum - just too dry - SMR
   Calvin Coolidge - Robert Sobel - this never really grabbed me but it is written in an engaging style
   William Henry Harrison - Freeman Cleeves - This biography is more than 50 years old. The narrative is engaging and Harrison had an interesting life; BUT, Harrison gets pretty much a free pass for his relationship with the many tribes who he evicted from the Northwest Territories. See the recent biography of William Clark for an more revealing telling of this aspect of Harrison's life.
   VYING FOR THE WORST
   Zachary Taylor - Jack Bauer - Taylor was an egotistical, quarrelsome, and paranoid guy who became president after winning several important battles during the Mexican War. Bauer does a workmanlike job detailing Taylor's life but he avoids a lot of the controversy by not making some pretty basic judgments into Taylor's character.
   Richard Nixon - Tom Wicker - An odd book. Wicker writes with great insight into Nixon, but he seems to get tired of writing the book. Watergate is almost completely left out as is much of the last years of Nixon's presidency. SMR
   James Polk Eugene McCormac - This two volume set was one of the most disappointing biographies I read, but there is little available as far as a complete biography of Polk. A political biography, that completely ignores Polk's personal life (slave-owner, ambitious wife, father). SMR
   John Tyler - Oliver Chitwood - A poorly organized and overly apologetic biography of one of the leading candidates for worst president. Written in the thirties, this book is stylistically dated. SMR.
   William Taft - Judith Icke Anderson The author is a disciple of the Fawn Brodie - psychoanalytic school of biography. Taft is actually a pretty easy guy to figure out, and he was quite open and honest about his feelings about his life and career. He didn't need this sort of biography.
   Benjamin Harrison - Harry Sievers - This is dreck! Three volumes of hero worship. Harrison had an interesting life and was an ineffective president, but this set does little to engage the reader. SMR
   William McKinley - Kevin Phillips - This is more of a long essay than a biography. Way too many aspects of his life are brushed over. I was left with far too many questions about McKinley, and definitely feel a need to find another McKinley biography. SMR

No comments about The Nazi Hydra in America: Suppressed History of a Century.

5 comments about Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why.

1. This is a well written and welcome addition to the seemingly Himalayan pile of works on the world's biggest unsolved murder case and a subject that still haunts America to this day. It is fair to say that the FBI never closed the case and it is no surprise then that works such as this continue to appear. So many however are poorly written, cover the same old ground and present largely unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. Whilst I disagree personally with the authors stance that Oswald could not have been the lone assassin on the assumption that the single bullet theory must be incorrect, I found much of the text on the on the Commission's work generally to be of high value. Of the many recent ie, post 2000 publications on the subject, I would recommend this book as a good example of a well written pro conspiracy text. It is frustrating though to find yet another author who fails to analyze the magic bullet theory in an open minded fashion - ignoring the ground breaking work of the Discovery Channels documentary "Unsolved History: JFK - Beyond the Magic Bullet DVD" including the work undertaken by a team of Australian medics and wound ballistics experts who reconstructed the shot meticulously to show that it was indeed possible and highly probable that all the non fatal wounds of Kennedy and Governor Connally were caused by the same bullet.
   An interesting exercise would be to compare this to Earl Warren's chapter on the JFK assassination in his 1977 memoirs. One would find a resolute assurance that the Commission acted honorably in all aspects from Warren himself, this book however contests that whilst the Commission acted benignly in its path to the conclusion that there was no conspiracy, it failed to investigate properly some key aspects of the case and that had they done so we would have been left with a much less murky past and a rather less suspecting general public.



2. Groupthink is defined as `a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' striving for unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.' If one reads McKnight's exhaustive book about the Warren Commission, this definition would fit precisely to this group of men. In a recent survey, it was revealed that over a third believe that 9/11 was the efforts of a government conspiracy. Be that as it may, it is not a stretch then to assume that more Americans believe that the Kennedy assassination was a result of a conspiracy. However, the harm that that belief can cause now is minimal at best, because it is more then 40 years after the event, and our citizenry has become predisposed to ignore history. McKnight's large book presents very persuasive arguments that the Commission itself was flawed at the outset, by bureaucratic infighting and persistent groupthink. Early on in the investigation, McKnight argues, the FBI and the White House knew that the answer to the murder must be Oswald acted alone. This is justifiably the way that the new administration should have acted, since we must remember that November 1963 was very near the mid-point of the Cold War, and any thought of a Soviet plot would have stirred a massive amount of unrest.
   
   When the Warren Commission was formed, the Commission at the very least should not have assumed anything when it came to ballistics, suspects, witnesses or foreign connections. Instead, it became merely a rubber stamp for the Hoover-Johnson `official' story that began taking shape even before Kennedy was buried. The very disturbing aspect of the whole investigation is that early on, the FBI and other agencies knew that there were more then 3 shots. How this was swept aside immediately has led some people to believe that a government conspiracy was in effect to hide a previous conspiracy. McKnight contends that dissatisfied elements of the CIA who were incensed with Kennedy's Cuba policy executed the killings as sort of a bureaucratic grudge match. The point, McKnight contends, is that the CIA was trying to force the new administration's hand in dealing with Cuba from a more hard-line perspective. McKnight writes that they were disappointed, because Johnson merely continued the Kennedy policy of politely ignoring Cuba. Not the most well thought out plan! While I find this theory interesting, it does not account for the fact that Central Intelligence, throughout several administrations, has had long standing grudge matches with the executive branch. Yes, the CIA operated with impunity in Iraq, Nicaragua and the Congo, but it should not be assumed that just because the CIA executed these missions that they would have showed the same kind of impunity against an American president on American soil. When McKnight sticks to the leads and the information that the Warren Commission choose to ignore, the book can be very good, but the careless postulating later on becomes a drag on the books' central topic.



3. McKnight's book contains little that is "news" those familiar with this case. This is not a book of new disclosures, or examinations of trails gone cold, but perhaps something that will be valued more for it's refusal to move outside it's narrow focus: the conduct of the Warren Commission, and it's relationship with the various investigatory agencies and the handling (and mis-handling) of those who testified and their information. This is a "safe" book, in that there is no speculation (or even examination) of the motives of the WC or possible explanations for the many gaffs pointed out in the committee operations. This is a well documented examination of the flaws in the structure and function of the WC , and ultimately an interesting book for those students of history or government who may be less interested in the results than in the process. This is Meagher or Weisberg without the passion, but very well documented, and of use to those seeking a more recent view of WC activities and participants based on current information.



4. Everything you read in this book has been published or aired before. However, the writer has a certain flair and is a tremendous story-teller. It is ten times the book that Joan Mellen wrote about Jim Garrison -- which was an embarrassment to thinking people.



5. By now, any and all people who view the work of the Warren Commission have come to the conclusion that their product was rushed and baised. Unfortunately, that is all past history--or I thought it was. This book merely rehashes the very old (1967) arguments into a 2005 package. Who really wants to argue the single bullet theory again, based on the holes in JFK's shirt and coat? The autopsy pictures are availible now.
   Someone stated that this merely carries on the work of Harold Weisberg. I beg to differ. Harold Weisberg accused the Commission of a deliberate cover-up as opposed to a benign one. If you wish to read the old arguments, read Whitewash and Whitewash 2. If you like old stuff in a new package, get this book.

5 comments about Fulgencio Batista: Volume 1, From Revolutionary to Strongman.

1. I do not know if this review will ever be published by Amazon. In my opinion this book is very good. Fulgencio Batista was one of the best presidents of the republic of free Cuba. During his regime backwardness, poverty, and ignorance was not prevalent. Law and order was enforced to the max, and that was to control the malcontents who were out to destroy democracy in a booming Island with a bright future. Batista made only one mistake, and that was that he became complacent, and the left wing immediately took advantage of the situation to lie and deprive the Cuban people of their freedom, by installing a senile ideology that has turned around the country approximately 200 years back in time, making it one of the most impoverished countries in the world. It's humiliating to see how a country so rich in everything has been destroyed by a communist system that never worked any were else! We need more Batistas to bring back Cuba to reality, democracy and normality in the Island again. I'm sorry to disappoint all the left wing sympathizers out there. But, we Cubans had it made before the current sorry government took over in January 01, 1959. With the current Government, Cuba has nothing to offer to the world, except ignorance, pestilence, famine, and backwardness, what a shame. And who needs that! Buy the book, I highly recommend it! I'm looking forward to the second part.



2. What is a fascinating story of the rise of a poor sugar cane cutter to the presidency of Cuba at age 39 is diluted buy the continuous repetition of the same events over and over again. The book should had been told in one half of the pages used and it should had included volume two.



3. Frank Argote-Freyre has set himself above other experts on Cuba with the publication of his first volume on Fulgencio Batista. I have never before read an account of any person, or any era, that was better. Talk about disciplined and documented academic research, or talk about lively, easily-read prose, or talk about honest, unbiased analysis, and you have to put Argote-Freyre in the top tier of biographers. As for analysts of Cuba's sad experience, Argote-Freyre has no peer.



4. This two part biography of Batista attempts to paint the dictator in a new light. The author is very proBatista but does raise some interesting and new perspectives on the man. This first book is about Batista's early years up through the point where he is elected president. It does an excellent job of showing US influences on internal Cuban politics. The various presidents that were Batista's puppets show the level of corruption that runs not only through Cuba but throughout all of Latin America. The narrative account does a great job of shedding light on how Cuba looked in the precastro years and in this case shows how transformative the years before Batista really were. It was a time where Cuba was finding its national image and forming itself as a nation. The book is very well written and provides an interesting account on Cuba during this time period. In short highly recommend.



5. EXCELLENT BOOK ,VERY WELL DOCUMENTED BOOK ON A VERY INTERESTING YEARS OF CUBAN HISTORY, THAT SOMETIMES IS DIFFICULT TO FIND.MANY INTERESTING FACTS
   ABOUT BATISTA'S CHILDHOOD AND RISE TO POWER, I BELIEVE THE CONFLICTS OF THOSE TIMES CREATED THE CONDITIONS FOR CASTRO'S FUTURE RAISE TO POWER IN 1959, GUITERAS PERSONALITY RESEMBLES VERY MUCH CASTRO PERSONALITY AS WELL, AN EXCELLENT BOOK BY ALL MEANS.I WILL RATED A VERY WELL DESERVED 5 STARS

1 comments about Hoover The Fishing President: Portrait of the Private Man and His Life Outdoors.

1. Wert has uncovered the complex , intriguing life of Herbert Hoover. Hoover's energy, verve, and even joie de vivre is revealed in anecdote after anecdote. While the book is a great fishing adventure, following Hoover from youth to old age on nearly every fishing outing he undertook, in the background is subtle political history and commentary that tells an enormous amount about Hoover's character and political savvy . Most interesting is the way we are shown the behind-the-scenes shenanigans of powerful political figures.
   
   The book is superbly researched and well annotated and illustrated. A great read.

5 comments about Caesar: Politician and Statesman.

1. I've read every biography of Caesar I can find, but Gelzer's is by far the best. Gelzer is careful in his scholarship and restrained in his writing style, but the book is nevertheless an utterly fascinating account of a multi-faceted genius of inexhaustable energy, who was clearly one of the most formidible men of all time.



2. I read this book for a graduate course in Roman history.
   
   Pompey's apex of power and glory was in 61 BCE, when he returned to Rome to receive his third triumph after his victories in the Middle East, brought new territory and treasure to Rome. With his sterling military reputation and great personal wealth, one would have thought that Pompey could dictate terms to the senate. However, Marcus Porcius Cato 95-46 BCE and his optimate party associates in the Senate, fearful of Pompey's power and ambition and wanting to protect their own political oligarchy, were successful in keeping political power out of his hands. Not only did Cato force Pompey to disband his legions as a condition of his receiving his triumph in Rome, he also embarrassed Pompey by insuring that the Senate did not make any land grants to Pompey's veterans. These actions weakened Pompey's political strength. It kept him from giving out positions of patronage to his supporters and it also lost him favor in the eyes of his veterans. As a result, it also had the effect of making him look like a political weakling when he would later try to stop the ambitious Julius Caesar. Once again, Plutarch observed that although Pompey may have been a great military general, he was no match for others as a political leader. "And well had it been for him had he terminated his life at this date, while he still enjoyed Alexander's fortune, since all his aftertime served only either to bring him prosperity that made him odious, or calamities too great to be retrieved."
   
   While Cato and the Senate were going out of their way to quench Pompey's fiery ambitions, Julius Caesar started to make his grab for power over Rome. Matthias Gelzer's biography of Julius Caesar is an excellent in-depth analysis of Caesar's life. Caesar hailed from one of the minor and less politically active patrician families. Although a senator's son, Caesar's standing in society was first improved by the fact that Marius became his uncle by marriage. Secondly, to further his own political career he married Cornelia, the daughter of the Roman consul Cinna. In 80 BCE Julius Caesar embarked on a military career and made his mark quickly as an able military commander. Gelzer observed that early in Caesar's life he already mastered "how to exploit his talents to the full...he was already a respected orator and, a dashing officer that had shown bravery." Gelzer pointed out that there were two dominant political parties in Rome at the time. The optimates were dominated by the conservatives who worked to protect the prestige of the senate, the rich, and the status quo of Rome. The populares party that Caesar belonged to, played to the lower class multitudes of Rome in deed and word.
   
   By 59 BCE Caesar had made several moves in his life which furthered his political career and gained him his first consulship of Rome. Caesar worked hard at getting the two most powerful men in Rome, Pompey and Marcus Licinius Crassus 115-53 BCE, to reconcile their differences. Crassus was a businessman and the richest man in Rome. Caesar further allied himself politically with Pompey by giving his daughter, Julia, some thirty years Pompey's junior, in marriage to him. All three men banded together in a triumvirate to wrest power from the optimates in the senate. Their vehicle for doing this was to bring about a new agrarian law over the strenuous opposition of the optimate senators. The agrarian law that Caesar introduced as counsel served several purposes. It was helpful in relieving the overcrowded conditions in Rome by allowing landless people the ability to settle on uncultivated land in Italy. In addition, some of this land would also be used to finally reward Pompey's veterans that had been loyal to him. Of course, it would be extremely popular with the multitude of Roman citizens who owned little if any property. In order to insure the passage of the bill, Pompey put the word out to his veterans to come to Rome where they made their presence known by running off the opposition senators out of the forum while Caesar was advocating for the passage of the bill in a speech to the people. Gelzer astutely points out "Caesar's...agrarian laws show him as a politician with an outstanding talent for dealing with social problems." The nasty political fight between Caesar and the optimates earned him some serious political enemies. However, with the help in the Senate from his political allies the populares and from Pompey, Caesar was appointed a proconsul of the province of Cisalpine Gaul. This province was a part of northern Italy, which he was to rule for five years. Soon there after, the governor of Gaul, a territory beyond the Alps, died and this territory was added to Caesar's territory. Though the future looked bright for Rome in 59 BCE, the greed and distrust between the two strongest military leaders of the triumvirate would eventually cause Pompey and Caesar to become enemies and turn on each other in their quest for ultimate power in Rome.
   
   Most historians observed that Caesar's new appointments gave him command of four legions, the ability to win prestige in battle, and to acquire much booty during his conquest of Gaul. Few in Rome, most importantly Pompey, could have imagined that "by the brilliance of his generalship, and the swiftness and totality of his conquests...this loquacious and unprincipled politician could achieve so much." Caesar spent nine years in Gaul, and by 50 BCE, his army grew in number to twelve legions. Caesar's army was made up of many battle hardened professionals. In addition, Caesar's successes made it easy for him to gain new volunteers to swell his ranks. Caesar's soldiers and many of his officers were undoubtedly motivated by money and pride, which kept them loyal to Caesar. These accomplishments served to secure Caesar's unrivaled political standing. It was Caesar's loyalty from the army coupled with the treasure necessary to buy favor of the Roman citizenry that gave him the political power necessary to conquer Rome. One can also see from Caesar's actions that he learned well from his uncle Marius on how to raise an army and keep its loyalty. These lessons were also learned by his successor Octavian. However, Caesar's success in conquering Rome would not happen without fighting a bitter Civil War against the optimates in the Senate who were allied with Pompey.
   
   Gelzer meticulously wrote about the events which led to the ensuing Civil War. In 51 BCE, the optimates now allied with Pompey in the Senate, tried to have Caesar recalled to Rome so that they could put him on trial for misconduct. Caesar knew that he needed to hold onto his position in Gaul and run in abstentia for consul in 49 BCE, so that he could have a political office to protect him from prosecution by his enemies. Though much political bargaining went on between Caesar, Pompey and the Senate, by 49 BCE the Senate voted to deliver Caesar an ultimatum. "Caesar was to dismiss his army by a fixed date on pain of being regarded a public enemy." If Caesar followed the dictates of the Senate, he would have been a private citizen for six months and open to his enemies for reprisal. Thus on January 10, 49 BCE, Caesar and his army crossed the Rubicon River, even though it was against ancient Roman law. This action automatically made Julius Caesar an enemy of the state and precipitated a bloody Civil War that changed the course of Roman history. Upon hearing the news of Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon, Pompey ordered all senators and citizens who considered themselves patriots of Rome to flee the city. Pompey was overconfident that Caesar would not enter Rome and told his followers he would easily raise the legions necessary to stop Caesar. Pompey was wrong on both counts. Caesar felt he had no choice in his actions, and throughout the Civil War he went out of his way to protect both the property and the honor of all the people who he captured. In addition, Caesar pled his case, explaining the untenable circumstances in which Pompey and the Senate placed him, and implored all of his former enemies to join his side in the Civil War. Caesar was quite successful in this endeavor. While Caesar was chasing Pompey to Brundisium, he spent over a week in Rome setting up a government and instituting legislation that restored economic security to the country. In the mean time, Pompey took his army to Brundisium and narrowly escaped Caesar's advancing army by ship to the Greek peninsula. By 48 BCE, the deciding battle was fought in Pharsalus, with Pompey's army outnumbering Caesar's by two to one. However, Pompey's mainly inexperienced soldiers were no match for Caesar's battle tested soldiers. Pompey lost the battle and fled by sea to Egypt where he was later murdered, much to Caesar's chagrin. Caesar went on to conquer Egypt and installed Cleopatra as his regent on the throne, and then returned to Rome in triumph. The Senate showered Caesar with all manner of honors heretofore never bestowed on any other man of Rome. In addition, the Senate made him Dictator for ten years. He accepted the honors and new powers while repeatedly remarking that he would work towards reconciliation with his former enemies and would not become a despot. "He had only fought the Civil War to save himself from dishonour. His victorious army had done battle to protect its rights and Caesar's dignity."
   
   Gelzer wrote admiringly on how quickly Caesar went to work instituting new reforms in order to fix the decades of social and political problems of the Roman Empire that the Republic could not cope with while under the Senate. In addition, Caesar traveled to all of the provinces in the Empire, which showed the people that he cared about their welfare, and made them more loyal to him. Militarily Caesar discharged all of his veteran legions except one, making sure that each of the soldiers received land in Italy and southern France. This insured that they would stay loyal to Caesar personally. From his very able military staff, Caesar picked men to fill ministerial positions throughout the empire, which also strengthened his hand politically. It is a pity that Caesar had only two years to institute a Pax Romana before he was brutally assassinated. However, what social, political, and military reforms Caesar started would come to fruition under Caesar Augustus, his heir and Rome's ruler for forty-five years.
   
   Recommended reading for those interested in Roman history, military history.



3. If Gelzer fails, it is in his unchecked adoration for Caesar - he will bring the issues to light but fail to pass judgment on them. Nevertheless, there is a reason why Gelzer's work has continued to amaze: his analysis, style and brevity make him a true delight for the interested student. The book follows a good outline, spending most of the book concerning his consulship, the proconsulship and the civil war. Gelzer tries to keep things as objective as possible, but cannot help from pronouncing judgments on Caesar's actions, in particular his command decisions and how he plays the senators in Rome. I have always been in awe of Caesar and the book doesn't fail to show his ugly side, following his victories over the rebels and his continual stockpiling of powers and privileges leading up to his death in 44. A well-reasoned, comprehensive and concise book on one of history's great politicians and generals. A must-read.



4. If you're looking for an unbiased, brilliant account of Gaius Julius Caesar's life then look no further; you've found it!
   
   However, I do have a warning. This book is of the "old-school" variety. It is a mass of facts and is pretty dry reading for the most part. Its not like the more recent historybooks I'm used to reading (I'm 21). However, one can't help be sucked in to the saga of Caesar and the fall of the republic.
   
   This is not only a dry book; it is a wise book as well. It is a book that should be read for the sake of the knowledge it contains even if it is not as polished as Rubicon or The Assassination of Julius Caesar.



5. If you are interested in the final years of the Roman Republic
   or Julius Caesar, this book is for you. I first read Anthony
   Everitt's Cicero (which I liked) and it's brief discussions of
   Caesar were enough to pique my interest in further study of Caesar.
   After researching a bit, Gelzer's biography seemed to be the most
   lauded- and having read it- rightly so.
   
   The level of detail in this book is incredible. There are
   hundreds of footnotes indicating sources and often containing
   quotes in their original language which is as often Greek as it
   is Latin. Gelzer really shows us the genius and abilities of
   this most fascinating man- perhaps the boldest, most brilliant
   military commander in history- not to mention an equally talented
   politician! Caesar deserves our attention.
   
   If you can handle great detail and really want to know Caesar and his times, you will like this book.