1 comments about Thomas Jefferson: A Brief Biography.

1. .....than the man who wrote the encyclopaedia? This little [48 page] book had its genesis back in the 1930s when Dumas Malone got stuck with the job of editor of the "Dictionary of American Biography". Then, 50 years later, he revised it to to be published in the form we see here. Normally, such a thing would not rate mention, much less five stars, BUT, Dumas Malone was the greatest Jefferson scholar that ever lived, and the forward was written by Merrill Peterson, the second greatest. Now, I could write a very good 50 page article on Mr. Jefferson, but I barely belong on the same planet as these guys.
   
   What we have here is the most basic life of Jefferson, touching all the high [and some of the low] points of his public life. From cradle to grave, it's ALL here, but in the merest outline. The name "Maria Cosway" is not mentioned, so we lose the "head and heart". Citizen Genet, Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, and Aaron Burr all get appropriate notation. John Adams gets a bit more, which is proper. Betsey Walker gets named, and apologized for; Sally Hemings and James Callendar are noted, and dismissed with due scorn. The debt problems, sadly, have to be here, and they are. And the books, books, books......
   
   In the fifty years between the first and second appearances of this article, Dr. Malone wrote the six volume "Jefferson and His Time", one of the two greatest works of biography in the English language [the other being Dr. Freeman's "RE Lee"]. And, Dr. Peterson wrote the 1000+ page "Thomas Jefferson & the new nation", MAYBE the greatest one volume bio of anybody ever written. The present edition is published by the TJMF, to sell in the gift shop at Monticello. [GREAT gift shops, by the way]. For a lot of folks, it's enough. If you want more, try the works of Noble Cunningham, or Joe Ellis. {FORGET Fawn Brodie}!! Why do I bother with a long review of an article?....Dumas Malone. [I even have a small bio of him that I wrote published on the 'net]. Of course, Malone and Peterson's long works are definitive, but their length will deter most readers.

5 comments about The Boys on the Tracks: Death, Denial, and a Mother's Crusade to Bring Her Son's Killers to Justice.

1. This is a great book that proves the value of a determined citizen. Had Mrs. Ives just backed off and believed what she was told much of this information may have remained buried. Although this book speaks about "long ago" events it is still relevent today. Pick it up and read through, I bet you find more than one recongnizable political figure within the story.



2. This report of a mother's quest to solve the mystery of her son's death takes us into a sewage pit of corruption in 1980s Arkansas -- corruption not really resulting from any sort of organized conspiracy, but corruption resulting from dishonesty, incompetence and/or both at various levels of state government operations. Thanks to drug money, the police were corrupt. Thanks to politics, state agents (such as medical examiners and prosecutors) were incompetent, and the elected leadership was both incompetent and highly corrupt. Thank goodness this pustule of government/administrative cancer was confined to Arkansas -- it would have been complete disaster for these shabby people ever to have obtained the reins of national-level power, either in the White House or the Senate.



3. A mother's determination to learn the truth about the deaths of her teenage son and his friend, who were hit by a train late at night in Arkansas after being laid side-by-side on the tracks. Local authorities offer absurd explanations and try to brush it off as an accident, but in time it becomes clear that a cover-up is in the works, and that the deaths were possibly related to a large-scale, international drug-smuggling operation of the 1980's, which was condoned and covered up by authorities because of its links to Iran-Contra. Don't let this sound too confusing or far-fetched. Mara Leveritt is a respected reporter with the Arkansas Times, and the entire story is carefully explained and well-documented. This is a must read for anyone interested in American government policies in relation to the drug war, Iran-Contra, and covert activities, or Arkansas state politics in the Clinton era.



4. This is an investigative report that reads like a thriller, though it is frustrating in that the corruption it exposes is never cleaned up. Any parent's worst nightmare is the loss of a child; in this case, the child was murdered and the killers were never asked to take responsibility for the crime. The courageous mother who pursues justice is continually stonewalled and dismissed. It is infuriating to read about what she went through.

   Arkansas, where all this took place, was then under the leadership of a governor who has been shown to be as crooked as a country road--his involvement, and the involvement of his familial/political clique--is sickening.

   I have yet to find anything that convincingly refutes the facts gathered by Leveritt. This is not a crackpot-conspiracy-theory book; it isn't a propogandist smear. I tend to think that, in the not-so-distant future, a LOT of interesting information regarding some of these high-ranking individuals will come to light. At this point, nothing will surprise me.




5. The death of the boys serves as a focal point. We need a focal point, for this story eventually leads us to what is undoubtedly the greatest challenge to our democratic system of government most of us will know in this century. The essence of Ms. Leveritt's story is the solvency of our system of justice, rule by the people vs. rule by a central government. In a democracy where justice is withheld by abusive political elities and the perversion of our national organizations of justice and law ... we have to suspect democracy has withered on the vine. This should be a call to action for our national media who have behaved scandalously in shunning and obstructing the details of this sordid tale of the decline of American Justice.

   My hat is off to Linda Ives and Jean Duffey who have thus far proven that brave women are more effective crusaders than men.

   Jim

No comments about Lincoln And His World: Prairie Politician, 1834-1842.

5 comments about Faith and the Presidency: From George Washington to George W. Bush.

1. Even though tomes have been written on the American presidents, Dr. Smith manages to bring fresh insight as a result of painstaking research. ( It could serve as a model for any student looking to document his research) The book is not "light" reading....but the author writes with clarity and with as much impartiality as humanly possible. I found his distinction between the ways that these presidents' faith shaped their policies to be thought-provoking. This book provides a strong framework from which to examine the coming election season.



2. I encourage you to set aside a block of time each day as you loose yourself in the history and faith of each of these men. It is full of interesting faith facts that just a history of these presidents would never touch. I must confess it took me time to read and digest this book, but well worth the time. I look forward to reareading this book in order to grasp new facts that I did not glean from the first read. I would love to see it used in school class rooms everywhere. The research, notes and excellent writing of this work is outstanding!



3. A first-rate work in which eleven presidents are analyzed in terms of their religious beliefs and their actions. Solid framework of analysis. The work brims with new details, broad understandings, and sound and judicious conclusions. Impressive, varied bibliography. The copious notes, alone, are worth a close read. Sparkling writing and sound organization make this a page-turner.



4. If you are looking for fresh information about the role of faith and religion in the lives of some of America's greatest presidents then I highly recommend purchasing Faith and the Presidency.
   The author, Gary Smith has done his homework. His research is very thorough and his style of writing is clear and free of technical jargon.
   I thought the book presented a balanced view of democrat and republican presidents; and the author covers each president's religious affiliation without bias. After reading this book I finally understand why religion is such a hot topic during every presidential election.
   Reading about Abraham Lincoln and how his faith helped him address the crises of the civil war is the best I have read to date.
   Students, teachers of history, religious leaders and those with a love of presidential history need this book to complete their library. A must read for 2007!



5. Gary Scott Smith's Faith and the Presidency is fascinating to read and weighty in substance. Full of personal details drawn from the lives of various presidents as well as important observations about public policy and religious impulses, Smith hits the sweet spot between bold, exciting claims and strong supporting evidence.
   
   I was particularly persuaded by the book's observation that the foreign policy of presidents more readily reveals their philosophical commitments because the U.S. presidency has greater latitude abroad than at home.
   
   This is a book worth reading from cover to cover. Smith hits a home run with this exceptional book. A tour de force!

2 comments about Grant and Twain: The Story of an American Friendship.

1. This book explores the personal and business relationship between US Grant and Mark Twain, and attempts to advance the thesis that these two men, who were such towering figures of the mid to late 19th century, were profoundly influenced by each other. As a narrative this book succeeds--especially in Perry's description of the dying Grant. His portrait of the ex-president and savior of the Union is touching, and definitely makes the book worth reading on that merit alone. Perry's recounting of the relationship Twain and Grant shared is also interesting, demonstrated mainly from Twain's point of view.
   
   The thesis which is central to this book, unfortunately, was not confirmed for me in Perry's argument. The central argument seems to be that Twain was a deciding factor in Grant's resolution to write his memoirs, and that somehow it may not have happened had Twain not intervened. Perry points out that Twain brought the subject up to Grant several years before the project was actually started, but that alone was not enough to convince me. In fact, Grant was writing a series of articles for the Century magazine, and was already in process of making a deal for the book. Twain's publishing company more or less stole the deal away from Century. And while Twain was able to secure a much better financial compensation plan for Grant than he otherwise would have gotten, this, too, can hardly be attributed purely to the friendship the two shared. The memoirs made both men a lot of money.
   
   There is little doubt that Twain revered Grant and that Grant, in turn, appreciated and was fond of Twain. I just couldn't see, however, the link Perry seemed to want to build between Twain's Huckleberry Finn and Grant's memoirs, and for me that left the premise of the book flawed. Certain elements of the argument also break down under closer scrutiny, for example Perry's claim that the 'GG' appearing at the beginning of Huck Finn stands for 'General Grant,' and that the book was somehow dedicated to his friend.
   
   Perry also attempts to draw parallels between Huck and Grant, which to me seem very far-fetched. He claims that "Grant's journey [South down the Mississippi after he captured Vicksburg] was intended to free the slaves" and that "capturing Vicksburg, Grant had transformed the war for the Union into a war to free the slaves." This is much more than I can swallow. The Emancipation Proclamation had gone into effect 7 months before this event, and had been declared almost a year before. If there was a battle that changed the course of the war it was Antietam, not Vicksburg.
   
   In short, Huck Finn was not General Grant, nor vice-versa. I just can't wrap my mind around that one, and that makes the whole of Perry's argument seem fairly weak. That having been said, the book is very well written, the narrative is excellent, and only the historical analysis/interpretation seems to break down under scrutiny. I bought this book before reading it (something I don't often do), but I can honestly say I don't regret it. Though I'm not convinced by Perry's argument, this book was worth reading.



2. Despite the author's best efforts, I thought the premise of the book -- that Grant and Twain's friendship was of great importance in both men's lives -- was not well proven in the book. However, the intimate portrayal of Grant in this short book was very interesting to me, and earned the book 4 stars in my mind.

5 comments about Chester Alan Arthur (The American Presidents).

1. Chester Alan Arthur was a surprise president. He was selected to run for VEEP from pure political reasons. However, he fell into the presidency and, against many fears, did not mess up in that office. As the author states (Page 143): ". . .some men are neither born great, nor achieve greatness, nor have it thrust upon them. Some people just do the best they can in a difficult situation, and sometimes that turns out just fine."
   
   Chester Arthur was one of the United States' "accidental presidents," thrust into office because of the assassination of James Garfield. This book, as others in the series, provides a thumbnail sketch of Arthur (text is 143 pages long). Born in Vermont, his family moved to New York when he was ten years old. He began his political work as a bureaucrat and patronage administrator. While he was enmeshed in the "spoils system," he was not corrupt and was generally pretty well liked. In 1871, he received a coveted position--collector of the New York customhouse. He earned plenty in that role.
   
   Comes the 1880 presidential race. Garfield, a "dark horse," won the nomination and Arthur was selected as his V-P partner, as a result of torturous Republican politics. And he had never been elected to any office prior to that!
   
   The Republicans won, Garfield was assassinated, and Arthur became president. One comment says a great deal, when someone said (Page 61): "Chet Arthur? President of the United States? Good God!" Against the expectations of many, he served without any great errors, and with some positive contributions. (1) While he did not take an active role, he did sign the Pendleton Law, providing Civil Service reform. (2) He did take steps to modernize the embarrassing United States Navy. (3) He was involved with reducing the tariff. (4) Etc. Perhaps more important, he made no major blunders (as many had expected).
   
   He was diagnosed with a dreadful disease, Bright's Disease, which made the last part of his stint as President miserable. While he would have liked another term, such was not to be. He left the presidency with dignity, but with a disease that doomed him.
   
   All in all, a nice biography of a little known and not very great president--but one who did not make things worse than when he entered office.



2. Not all presidents are created equal. While there are plenty of big name presidents - Washington, Lincoln, FDR, etc. - there are also plenty of obscure ones who are mere footnotes in American history. Chester Arthur definitely fits in this latter category. As Zachary Karabell's brief biography relates, this obscurity is well-deserved. Arthur was neither good nor bad and served in a time that had no real crises.
   
   Arthur spent most of his career in appointed positions, not seeking election until asked to be Garfield's running mate as an attempt to balance the two wings of the Republican party. Arthur was, to be blunt, a party hack, a loyal Republican who may have been honest but was no activist. Instead, Arthur was a realist who rarely let his ideals overwhelm his pragmatism. Accepting the vice presidency only out of party loyalty and with no ambition for the top office; when Garfield was assassinated, Arthur wound up being one of the most reluctant presidents ever.
   
   Arthur did have some redeeming values and occasionally took risks, such as when he vetoed a clearly racist immigration bill. For the most part, however, he rarely pushed his ideas very hard. The most significant legislation to arise during his presidency dealt with civil service reform, but he didn't provide much leadership on the issue. When he did become president, he put the office above party loyalty, which would cost him any chance at the nomination in the next election.
   
   As part of the American Presidents series, this biography is very brief (less that 150 pages) and focuses primarily on Arthur's tenure in office. With these editorial limitations, Karabell is restricted in giving much real details on Arthur, who winds us being a remote character who it's hard to get a feel for. Nonetheless, this is a well-written book and Karabell is able to put Arthur in the context of his times. As an introduction to this minor Chief Executive, this book works well.



3. As a cursory look at the shelves of any bookstore would show, figures such as Lincoln, Churchill, or the Roosevelts are often frequented by biographers to various levels of success. This is possible given both the amount of writings and speeches left behind from these types of figures, and their enduring influence in today's government and society.
   
   Harder to write are biographies on historical figures who seemed to have only passed through the night, important as links in a chain, but without personal significance in their own right. In the American Presidents series, John Dean was successful in resuscitating life into the otherwise dead legend of Warren Harding. Less successful was Kevin Phillips' book on William McKinley.
   
   Alas, this short bio on Chester Arthur by Zachary Carabell falls closer to the latter than the former in trying to find interest in a long forgotten president. Carabell acknowledges the difficulty with his subject since Arthur was the accidental president (took office after Garfield's assassination) and a person who was satisfied in acting as the unseen executive in the political machine.
   
   Arthur left no historical papers of interest. The most interesting anecdote was his venture into the 1850's Kansas-Missouri civil war. But even this ended without drama with his running back on almost the next train to New York.
   
   The author seeks to find importance to the Arthur administration, but his efforts are in vain. The author's best effort was discussing Arthur's efforts to redecorate the White House. That Louis Tiffany was contracted by Arthur to be the decorator showed exceedingly good taste for the widower president.
   
   As for policy, however, Carabell could only be said to have convinced himself that Arthur achieved any importance. Aside from some minor naval buildup, he initiated no legislation. Arthur vetoed a blatantly bigoted anti-immigration bill, but immediately signed a slightly revised version. He signed a civil service reform bill, but played no part in its passage and only after its passage by a lame-duck Congress that was soundly defeated in the just completed elections. The author concludes that Arthur could not be blamed for his party's resounding election defeats and later loss of the presidency, but that only magnifies his lack of influence within his own party and the electorate. Most odd was the author's stated surprise at the lack of biographies written about Arthur. After completing this work, one could only wonder why anyone would want to write anything more about him.



4. Back in the post Civil War days when many plum governmental jobs were gotten from political bosses, Chester A. Arthur had one of the best patronage jobs of all, collector at the US Customhouse in New York. Prior to the federal income tax, this was the country's principal source of income. The collector, under the perfectly legal rules of that time, got a commission on what he collected as well as a comfortable salary. If you paid an assessment to the party, you might be able to secure a patronage job. From this system arose the career of Arthur.
   
   The Republican party was divided into factions. The stalwarts (who had been Ulysses S. Grant supporters) were led by Senator Roscoe Conkling of New York. There was a reform wing of the party and then there was a faction, led by James Blaine of Maine (hmmmm that rhymes) called the half breeds. Arthur was aligned with the stalwarts and the patronage system. As a stylish New York lawyer who was in to the local social scene, he was happy being part of the bureaucracy. At times, he would lose his spoils system position in the bureaucracy due to politics but, he always had his law practice to fall back on. In 1880, his life changed as he ended up as a sort of unoffending compromise candidate for vice president on the ticket led by James Garfield. They were elected and shorly thereafter, Garfield was assasinated. Arthur, who had no aspirations ended up as president. He was as reluctant to assume the presidency as the rest of the nation was to have him take that office.
   
   There were low expectations for Arthur, after all, he was never elected to office other than as Grafield's running mate. However, although he may not have been a great leader, there were significant accomplishments during his term. Most notable was the Pendleton Civil Service Act which began the breakup of the spoils system from which Arthur had arisen. Arthur took moral stands opposing an anti Chinese immigrant piece of legislation and a pork barrel Rivers and Harbors bill. His opposition to both led to their being significantly modified but, he didn't have the political clout to ultimately prevent either from being enacted. All he really did was cut his stalwart ties without creating any real new alliance with the reformers.
   
   Arthur was ill. He had a kidney disease. Also, he really didn't want to be president. However, pride made him seek the nomination in 1884. He had cut himself off from his stalwart base and was not renominated. The Republican nominee, Blaine, lost a close election to Grover Cleveland. All in all, Arthur wasn't a bad president and perhaps deserves to be remembered in history. However, he was not a great president either. The picture that author Zachary Karabell paints is of a president whose legacy may be that he did a decent job of presiding over a period of peace and prosperity.



5. The wonderful thing about reading books concerning the US Presidents is that these men represent a finite group.....forty-two men and forty-three presidencies. Writing for "The American Presidents" series, Zachary Karabell has offered up a slightly expanded thumbnail sketch of our twenty-first president, Chester Alan Arthur.
   
   Since Arthur held the office of president, someone has to write about him. The problem with President Arthur is that not much about him survives. Most of his papers were destroyed after his death, so Karabell must rely largely on newspaper accounts of the day mixed in with a few anecdotes regarding the president, which, as the author mentions, may or may not be true.
   
   We know that Arthur was a bon vivant, never aspired to the presidency and was passable at being the chief executive during his tenure from 1881-1885. Indeed, most presidential ratings place Arthur squarely in the middle or slightly below. Even the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883, the most important piece of legislation passed during Arthur's presidency, was not a direct act of Arthur's leadership. (I think one more lasting thing to come out of the Arthur years, which Karabell doesn't touch on, is the adoption of Standard Time)
   
   The author does his best to be fair. The few parts of this book with any real drama are Arthur's dealings with Senators Roscoe Conkling and James G. Blaine. The president certainly had a balancing act to do with these two bitter adversaries.
   
   Chester Alan Arthur undoubtedly brought style and grace to the presidency and presided over a few relatively quiet and prosperous years in the United States. We should at least give him credit for that.

3 comments about The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic.

1. Lance Banning passed away on Jan. 31 of this year. When I learned this I decided to change the focus of my review a little.
   First, what do I mean by the hermeneutics of generosity? By hermeneutics I mean a scheme or method of interpretation. An intellectual biographer who uses a hermeneutics of generosity starts off with certain assumptions. Everything people do they do for reasons. From the point of view of the biographical subject they are always good reasons.
   If you believe your subject to be a person of exacting moral standards and exceptional intelligence, then you assume that everything they have done can be back up by compelling arguments that have been long considered.
   This style of hermeneutics is obvious in two ways in Banning's work. Obviously, in the way he approaches Madison. But the first thing I want to talk about is the way Banning reacts to other scholars. His notes are extraordinary. Banning read everyone who had written on Madison and located his interpretations in relation to that of others. He not only carefully explains the differences between his interpretations and those of others (e.g., Martin Diamond, Gordon Woods, Paul Rahe and Jennifer Nedelsky among others) but he also points out the strengths of their alternatives. This was a man who knew how to listen to his sources and not just to one up them.
   But it is really in regard to James Madison that Banning's approach shines through in all its humanity. Banning believes that there is a standard version of Madion's intellectual biography that is largely wrong. That standard version is based on the biographies of Irving Brant and Ralph Ketcham and the intellectual histories of Gordon Woods and Martin Diamond. In the standard version, James Madison (JM) started off as a strong nationalist in the early 1780s. He was part of the movement at that time to modify the Articles or to change them completely. JM's method of constitutional interpretation at that time is usually considered to have been expansive or willing to loosely construe the document so as to justify non-explicit central government powers (e.g., Morris' national bank).
   JM's nationalistic period continued all the way through his work at the Constitutional Convention, the writing of The Federalist and his first year in the new Congress. However, when Hamilton's economic programs began to unfold during the second and third terms of Congress, JM began to backpedal on his nationalism and his expansive constructionism. By the mid-1790s, JM is usually seen as a strict constructionist and a states rights theorist who would remain so all his life. Thus the standard version gives us two Madisons, who can only be connected by various versions of the Madison as practical or conniving politician who changed his stripes due to the political winds of the moment.
   Banning will have none of this. He believes the standard version misrepresents all aspects of JM's career. Banning believes that if we take JM's writings throughout his life seriously, then he clearly see a very consistent thinker whose whole career is centered around the dynamic problem of how to ground government on the people without being exposed to the inconveniences or "excesses" of democratic rule. I will limit my discussion of Banning's revisionism (his term) to his interpretation of two aspects of JM's career that are essential to his argument.
   The first is JM's career in the Continental Congress of the early 1780s. The democratic excesses were showing up in the Confederation period in the behavior of the states.
   Banning shows that in the early 1780s that JM was indeed a nationalist but a qualified one. JM read the national scene from the point of view of Virginia and from his understanding of revolutionary politics. Any national measure that wasn't good for Virginia was unlikely to be favored by JM. As for the Conferderation, the problem was the weakness of the federal Union. If the structural flaws of the Articles could be amended, the misbehavior of the states could be controlled. Thus, at this point in his career, Madison was not part of the movement that wanted to jettison the Articles. He merely wanted to amend them to make implicit powers explicit. That point is very important. Banning argues forcefully from JM's writings that even at this point, JM was a strict constructionist. So the standard version is wrong in two ways about the early Madison.
   The other central moment in Banning's revision is the aftermath of the Constitutional Convention, especially, the writing of The Federalist. This is usually seen as one of the strongest arguments for the standard view. It is well known that Madison expressed dismay after the Convention about the prospects for the longevity of the new government should it be ratified. He was upset that his suggestion for a national veto of the laws of the individual states had not been written into the finished document. He also was dismayed that the representation in the Senate was equal for each state. He thought this repeated a fundamental flaw in the Articles.
   And yet, within two months, JM was well into writing The Federalist where he explicitly agreed with both of these decisions by the Convention. Most readers, including myself, find this to be a little disingenuous on Madison's part. But for Banning, this was indicative of JM having changed his mind. According to Banning, during the course of reflecting on the work of the Convention and of writing The Federalist, JM must have realized that his opponents in the Convention had compelling reasons for doing what they did and he therefore changed his mind. Banning states that anyone who has written out a long argument is familiar with changing their mind during the course of the writing. Fair enough.
   But this brings me to the two main issues that I had with Banning's whole thesis.
   As proof that JM accepted the counterarguments against his idea of a national government veto, Banning claims that JM never tried to push that idea again after his writing of The Federalist. In this, I think he can be shown to be, at least, partially wrong. When JM first introduced his Bill of Rights proposal to the first Congress, his fifth Amendment stated "No state shall violate the equal rights of conscious, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." It seems to me to be arguable that JM was trying to get through as much of a national veto as he thought possible. The theoretician was trimming his sails to the political winds. This is not a bad thing. Most any reasonable reformer will take what they can get.
   But it speaks to one of the central tensions in JM's thought and Banning's revisionism. JM obviously believed that any government, to be legitimate, had to be founded on the people. But he did not trust the people to behave, to not become a "factious" majority willing to strip the rights
   of some minority. As far as I can read, JM or Banning's version thereof never gives us a definition of what sets off a "factious" majority from a majority pursuing the true interests of the country. This is where Madison the politician enters. I often feel that JM, like Jefferson, was willing to take advantage of political changes and that they were more than willing to alter or bend their philosophies to do so. When they were out of power, it was easy to be consistent theorists. Once in power, it turned out that there were more things to deal with than dreamed of in their philosophies. Unlike Prof. Banning, I am okay with that. I do not feel that Banning succeeds in explaining away this tendency of JM's. I suggest that when you read this book that you keep a copy of the Library of America's edition of Madison's Writings near to hand. It contains most of the papers that JM wrote which Banning uses. Read each one before you read the corresponding section of Banning and see if you always agree with what Banning makes of that particular writing. I did not.
   Have I learned from the reading of this book? Yes, yes, O my yes. This is an extraordinarily learned book written with a generous and respectful scholastic spirit. Banning has changed much of how I read Madison if not as much as he might have wished. But the real pleasures of this book have to do as much with spending time with Lance Banning's intellect and spirit as those of JM.
   In fact, perhaps the highest compliment I can pay the author is that I think that James Madison would have found him a kindred spirit.
   One final note: the Liberty Fund is publishing a volume this summer edited by David Womersley entitled Liberty and American Experience in the Eighteenth Century. It will contain what is probably Banning's last publication- an article entitle, "Federalism, Constitutionalism, and Republican Liberty: The First Constructions of the Constitution". I plan to be among the first to read it. Do I have my geek on or what?



2. Lance Bannings book is excellent, and long ovedue. History has left us a view of Madison that suggested he was Jefferson's lieutenant, an apostate to his nationilistic views in the 1790's, one view even diminished him to a 'trimmer' of ideas. The average person knows little of the Father of the Constituion, and as Jack Rakove stated at Princeton this February passed, we are learning what Madison always knew. Most views of Madison are not the result of individual study and research, many opinions of Madison arise from previous treatments. Banning began with the exchanges of Madison and found the consistency Madison always claimed. The actual history of Madison reveals an enormously capacious, hard working force behind the Constituion, Bill of Rights,The Federalist Papers, 41 years of public service, and the workings and definition of goverment. Viewed by friend and political foes as, brilliant and ' one adept at committee work and reasoned argument, one who could be depended on to speak and write with precision and force what others could express but vauely and in part.' Banning has surpassed those before him in Madisonian scholarship, by ardously discovering The Real Madison. The attention to detail is excellent, and the scholarship is not self defending just revealing. As Madison's true nature unfolds the consistency is revealed, from lieutenant to an independent thinker, and finally to the proper position of one the key thinkers behind American government. Being one dependent on scholars for my view of history, and granting then occaisonally the keepers of arcanum a merit they do not deserve, it is refreshing to have Lance Bannings contribution not only to Madisonian scholarship, but also to American History. The ongoing efforts by Dave Mattern and the Papers of James Madison have brought enormous information to light in the last few years, and it appears the work of Banning may be the beginning of Madison taking his deserved place in our history and common parlance, a parlance altered by the independent and ardous study this book represents.



3. Banning's book is a repetative, prolonged and far too lengthy an essay. He imaginatively and masterfully reinteprets Madison's ideas and actions as a member of several deliberative bodies that preceeded and followed the writing and ratification of the Constitution, finding him to be consistent throughout in his views on a central government and the powers of the states. The reading can be somewhat tedious for its redundancies, but worth the effort. Bannings scholarship is impecable, yet the book ought to be only an article in a scholarly journal.

5 comments about Honor's Voice: The Transformation of Abraham Lincoln.

1. This book is an exemplary view of Abraham Lincoln's young adulthood in New Salem and Springfield between 1831 and 1842. The book begins with an introduction, than an explanation about the evidence that the historian of Lincoln's early life must sift through, and then it examines such important and interesting elements of Lincoln's early adulthood life as his numerous failed experiences with women, the tension between his honorable and ambitious external life and his tendency to mock religion and insult political enemies in his private life, as well as his professional successes and failures as he began his political life. This book is an excellent resource to any fan of Lincoln and any history student curious about the early life and formative years of Lincoln's political education. The book is easy to read and provides many fascinating quotations of personal letters that provide an aid to the authenticity of the author's occasionally startling claims.



2. Honor's Voice is terrific in two respects: both for its insights into Lincoln and for its insights into effective communication. I recommend it to anyone who uses words for a living, and for anyone who wants a fascinating, insightful look into how Lincoln crafted some of the most important speeches in our nation's history.



3. This book staggered me. Its careful research is combined with acute observations by author Wilson, on topics ranging from a fateful wrestling match that made Lincoln's reputation in a frontier village to Lincoln's bewilderment when courting Mary Todd. Wilson here produced one of the finest volumes ever to appear in the crowded field of Lincoln books. For anyone interested in how Lincoln's pre-presidential years shaped his conduct in the White House, Honor's Voice will be rewarding. It is one of the most significant Lincoln biographies I have ever read.



4. This is one of the most astonishing books I have ever read. I love history and yet this portrait of Abraham Lincoln is so much more. Had he been a Blacksmith, he would have been a hero. This was a man, a real man - no the greatest of men...who could not dissemble, lie, cheat, even when it came to marrying a woman that he knew (after they became engaged) would risk ruining his very life. He entered into a promise...and he would not go back on it. Of course, in those times, Breach of Promise (please read Anne Perry's book on this), was a serious offense against a woman's honor. But Lincoln carried this same integrity into everything he did no matter how difficult or huge - like the Civil War. I would hope that any student of American history would not miss out on this very important Masterpiece. As the cliche goes, if we do not learn from our own history, we are doomed (you know the rest....).



5. The reason this shouldn't be the first Lincoln book you read is that the author presupposes that the reader already has a basic command of Lincoln's life story. This book really speaks to those who are familiar with the various bits of Lincoln lore that permeate our culture: his wrestling match with Jack Armstrong, his courtship of Ann Rutledge, his off-and-on-again relationship with Mary Todd, and various accounts of his bookishness, his depression, and his early flirtations with agonisticism, among others.
   
   Having said that, I like this book more than any of the standard Lincoln biographies I own (I have the Thomas, Donald, and Sandburg bios.) The very best thing to read, of course, is Lincoln himself (his collected speeches and writings), but of the biographies written by others, this may be my favorite.
   
   The author dissects several of Lincoln's often-told formative experiences. In one example, he will explore the story of the wrestling match with Jack Armstrong, and ask:
   
   -- When is the earliest surviving account of the story, and what is the source?
   -- How has the story evolved over the years?
   -- How true is it? What does the evidence show?
   -- What is the significance of the story?
   
   For those who don't know the Jack Armstrong story, it is basically as follows: Lincoln was getting harassed by a gang of toughs in his town, and to deal with it, he challenged their leader, Jack Armstrong, to a wrestling match. The match was widely anticipated and witnessed, and Lincoln had the better of Armstrong. Afterwards, Armstrong restrained his allies, saying that Lincoln had won fair and square, and afterwards, he was a loyal friend to Lincoln, as were his associates.
   
   Like so many stories in the Lincoln canon, it's become a parable. It is a lesson about courage and forthrightness and insisting on fair play. In Lincoln's case, it also fills out the legend about his own physical strength, and how he became popular in his home town.
   
   Wilson's book analyzes many such stories. The anecdotes have varying degrees of truth, though on balance, most of the standard Lincoln tales do appear to be based in fact, even if they have become embellished over the years.
   
   You will like this book if you already enjoy the history of Lincoln, and if you like a little skeptical scientific inquiry thrown into your reading material. The reader is asked to travel along with the author as he gets to the bottom of the various issues surrounding Lincoln, and it's an enjoyable journey.
   
   I personally feel that this book is much more pleasant than as a mere exercise in critical history. I found that the dissection of these stories brought Lincoln much more fully to life for me. You get a much more multi-faceted view of the man because you aren't really relying on one author's perspective, as tends to be the case in other Lincoln biographies.
   
   It's an unusual work of history, and not the first Lincoln book to read, but it truly is outstanding. Highly recommended.

5 comments about George W. Bush: Portrait of a Leader.

1. It amazes me that even one person can like this president. He has done nothing but bury this country into the ground in which it will take years to recover from. This is what a customer wrote in the positive reviews on this book. I am trying really hard not to laugh and cry at the same time.
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------
   "I applaud the great leadership abilities of our President and I am sure many Americans will join me. Among the achievements that are behind him (and I am sure that there is time left during the presidency for many more):
   - Has made healthcare affordable for all Americans
   - Has created millions of jobs with joblessnes at record lows
   - Has won the war on terrorism
   - Has brokered lasting peace in the Middle East and Far East
   - Has made all countries in Middle East embrace democracy, with
   some of them already prosperous democracies in a short span
   - Has secured the trust of both the aisles of the Congress to
   legislate policies beneficial to all Americans into law
   - Has made cheap sources of energy available to Americans
   that we can all use into the foreseeable future
   - Has made American economy strong at least for the rest of this
   century
   - Has made budget and trade deficits a thing of the past
   - Has made America the leader of the free world after a period
   when we were thought as a pushover by terrorists
   - Has restored America to play its destined role as the leader of
   the free world
   I am sure there are many more that can be added to this list. Let us all wish our President continued success."
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
   WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!? Are you kidding me? Every single one of these so called achievements are so obviously false. It makes me wonder if these supporters of his actually have any common sense at all. What is it that they see in this guy? Makes me sick to think that half of America voted for this guy(twice). Thankfully, we only have a few more months of this garbage to take.



2. I don't believe George Bush is a good leader. I think he'd be hard pressed to achieve mediocre. But having said that, reading this book touched me...Bush supporters, for whatever reason, try very hard to create a decent person out of the pieces of George Bush. The authors' use of soundbites, and quotes taken from speeches created by slick PR men. They spiced it with a bunch of staged photo ops and dished out a Potemkin Bush to pin their respect and hopes upon. This is truly touching in its naivete. Who can't sympathize with the authors and their desire to make the President a better man than he is. They want so much for him to be the kind of leader they hoped he would become, that they imagine hints of this in the most trivial and staged of incidents. And I wholeheartedly agree, in a way. I would much rather have a President of whom I could speak proudly, a man I respected for his intelligence and ability to see through the political pettiness and indeed take the course best for America. That's the president I want, that's the president they want. Neither of us have him...but the authors are trying to build one out of sticks and straws. For a long time, I prayed that George Bush would grow with the office. It never happened...but that's not something for those on the left to smirk and joke about. It's a shame for all Americans. And from this book, we can see how deeply those on the right have been wounded by the President's lack of integrity, leadership and ability, to the point where they will hallucinate a leader where none exists. It's sad, on all sides.



3. People who hate Bush will hate the book. People who like Bush will like the book. 'Nuff said.



4. This book was a wonderful read. I am just glad the left-wing cowardly traitors that are reviewing this book, that they certainly did not read or for most of them - did not have someone read it to them, are not leading this country. These liberal cowards would have invited our enemies to attack our country; as long as they did not kill any innocent unborn babies - that right belongs to the pro-choicers. Anyway, real Americans with faith will enjoy this book. Thank God for a President with convictions, morals and values. Oh yeah, I keep hearing about how stupid, unintelligent, or ignorant our President is. I wonder how many of these traitors are Yale and Harvard graduates. Thank you President Bush for not allowing these cowardly Americans to destroy our country.



5. Portrait of a leader? The name of the author of this nonsense should be enough to set off a very loud alarm. Karen Hughes is not by any stretch of the imagination an objective journalist. She was, in fact, instrumental in getting this moron elected in 2000. If I could have rated this book "negative five stars" I would have done so. Knowing what we now know, "Portrait of a Leader" will be remembered as a curiosity and nothing more. It does have value, though. Anything that tries to portray our half-witted president (the "First Fool" as I call him) as a capable, intelligent commander-in-chief, is going to be chock full of unintentional humor - and this book is no exception. Truth be told, it's an absolute scream. For a more realistic look into the career of this disgusting president, please read, SHRUB: The Short, Happy Political life of George W. Bush by Molly Ivins and Lou DuBois. It's alot funnier - but for all the right reasons.
   
   Tom Degan
   Goshen, NY

5 comments about A Woman of Egypt.

1. Jehan Sadat is an extraordinary and courageous woman. I was amazed to read about all of the wonderful programs she created for her country, including cooperatives for women, educational facilities, communities for the disabled, and home communities for orphans. She served tirelessly on local political committees and charitable committees, including Egypt's version of the Red Cross. The fight for women's right to divorce and vote in elections was so important to her that she risked her own family relationships but constantly asking her husband (to his annoyance) to support her agenda until he gave in. Sadat accomplished all these things and much more while raising three children, pursuing a graduate degree in Arabic literature, and supporting her husband, president of Egypt. _A Woman of Egypt_ is not just about Sadat, however; the book discusses Egyptian politics, especially Egypt's relationship to Israel and the US. After reading Sadat's book, I've come to understand the complexities between US-Israel and Arab relations. Sadat is even-handed and fair in assessment of the political situations--she does not condemn her enemies just because they are her enemies. I found her to be an admirable woman and her husband to be an incredible man--the first Muslim leader to actively seek peace with Israel. My favorite line from the book is (paraphrased): They say my husband was ahead of his time, but how can a man who lived only for peace be ahead of his time?



2. I was living in Saudi Arabia with my husband for several years. Last summer, a German friend of mine gave me this book translated into German. I was completely captivated by the contents of which I knew very little and the interesting way Ms. Sadat wrote about her life. It was definitely a revelation to me how deeply rooted the problems in the Middle East between Egypt and Isreal were already at the time. Whether this my suggestion belongs into this review or not: I wished the book was made more public - I could not find it this past summer anywhere in a bookstore. (Competitive store)only showed the German title. Every American should read the book in order understand the unsurmountable problems between Jews and Arabs in the region to this day.
   As to Madame Sadat: What a courageous, dedicated women she was in a Muslim country, combining her deep faith with her progressive ideas.



3. I've never wrote a review before but I thought A Woman of Egypt was so interesting that I couldn't resist. This book gives you an inside look at a lady who was constantly in the public eye in Egypt and wanted to see change. I thought it very courageous some of the things she did and tried to do in Egypt as the first lady. I believe Jehan Sadat spoke from her heart. You will find it hard to put this book down, I know I did! I have resided in Cairo for some years now and I can see what Jehan Sada was trying to do from a different light. Well done Mrs. Sadat!



4. may be it's too late to read this book (out of print or unavailable edition) but I think it is a excellent book written by a courageous woman. In fact, it's not easy to be a woman and specially a president's husband in some arabic countries. However, I just want to remark that the Tunisian president never refugiated in Egypt, as written in the book.



5. When I bought this bough I had no real idea about the life of a woman in the Moslem world; this book gave me an interesting insight. Furthermore, I think it is a fascinating book by a fascinating woman