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

5 comments about Sworn on the Altar of God: A Religious Biography of Thomas Jefferson (Library of Religious Biography Series).

1. Gaustad, Edwin S. Sworn on the Altar of God: A Religious Biography of Thomas Jefferson. Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, United Kingdom: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996. 246 pages. Notes on the Sources, index.
   
   Sworn on the Altar of God, is a religious biography (as the subtitle implies) by Edwin S. Gaustad, the critically acclaimed professor of history at the University of California, Riverside. He has written other historical books (also with good reviews I may add) such Documentary History of Religion of America, and in this book he scores again, only if it were a biography of Thomas Jefferson rather than a religious biography.
   
   Gaustad uses many of Jefferson writings and includes it in this biography with citations and context of when it is being said. He does this in a way that makes this book appealing. Right from the start though I noticed a flaw, he states his opinion as fact which is also known as the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. He states "Thomas Jefferson was the most self consciously theological of all America's presidents" [Gaustad, preface XIII]. This is contested by many people today who argue that Abraham Lincoln (a well known deist who spoke on God often) and / or George W. Bush (though I don't agree nor do I wish to resort to argumentum ad populum fallacy) is / are the most self consciously theological of all presidents. While this book isn't supposed to be arguing for ones view, I can forgive this. I liked how in the beginning he pointed out the misconception that everyone has today about Separation of Church and State, in the fact that it is not in our constitution but rather it was just a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists [preface IX]. So he expected to catch the viewer's attention by pointing out that misconception (though I already knew that fact) and worked. The books title is based on the quote from Thomas Jefferson "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny of the mind of man" [189]. He goes on to explain Jefferson's life from child hood to death and how he was very Anglican in his birth but went astray from his roots when he got older during The Enlightenment. He explains that he did this because he read many of Joseph Priestley's and Thomas Paine's works and wrote back to them (in secrecy) with open theological discussions. He does a good job doing this due to his extensive work he put into going out and getting all of Jefferson's writings.
   
   What my main quarrel is with this book, is the fact that only a portion of this book actually is actually a religious biography of Thomas Jefferson. The only chapters I found interesting and valuable (that actually pertained to the title) were chapters: 1, 2, 5, and 8. The other 4 chapters were a complete bore and filled with clutter that has nothing to do with religion and never built up to anything associated with religion. Let me give you a fine example, in chapter 6 "The Educator", all Gaustad talks about is James Madison and Thomas Jefferson building the University of Virginia and what his rules were, and to be more specific, one page is even devoted to his architecture from Monticello and how he applied it to the University of Virginia [174]. I noticed what he tried to do in this chapter, he opened up with a quote from Thomas Priestly about creation and man, then he stuck a bunch of clutter about the establishment of University of Virginia then at the end he puts "What sounded like freedom to Jefferson could sound like Unitarianism to others" [180] even though he hardly touched on that aspect in the chapter itself.
   
   What I like about the 4 chapters that actually related to the title of the book was that it delves deep into his feelings and his theological thinking. Chapter 2 "Student of the Enlightenment", explains his reasoning behind accepting reasoning over scripture, for instance "But those facts in the Bible which contradict laws of nature which must be examined with more care" [33]. Chapter 5 "The Religious Reformer", completely goes through Thomas Jefferson's work The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth with a fine tooth comb explaining what verses he cut out and what he kept. His book is a rehash of the 4 gospels that cuts out all miracles and supernatural and leaves the morals for him to study on his own. This work has now been put together and published as The Jefferson Bible. Chapter 8 "A Religion for the People" focuses on Jefferson's feelings against other religions and explains how he ended up intensely disliking the Anglicans because of their doctrine and charging him as a heathen around election time. It also explains how he liked the Quakers because they possessed no doctrine (thus accepting reason over scripture) but were mainly peaceful.
   Overall, this work by Gaustad does a good job portraying Jefferson's deism and his thoughts on prayer, but the few chapters that actually were related to the title could have been made into a pamphlet or an online article rather than a $14.00 book. It is very mainstream friendly, but I would recommend anyone JUST interested in Jefferson's religion to read the book The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson by Charles B. Sanford instead.



2. Sworn on the Altar of God is an extremely informative look at Thomas Jefferson's faith. As one of the Founding Fathers, politicians and people of faith have so often tried to understand Jefferson's faith. In truth, he was a deist and a rationalist. Understanding the implications of this faith have great ramifications in our current times, especially in relation to a government which seems so intent on glorifying evangelical fundamentalism at the expense of reason. I feel that Jefferson would have been appalled!



3. This book is an excellent compliement to Charles Sanford's "The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson." Whereas Sanford does a scholarly review of the content of Jefferson's religious ideas, Gaustad in this book gives the narrative and context for how Jefferson applied his ideas concerning religion and religious freedom. Most interesting to me in the Gaustad book were the accounts of the political fights Jefferson and Madison waged for religious freedom during the early years of the Republic. Gaustad filled in the historical gaps and gave me context for understanding how momentous the struggle truly was. Also brought to life by Gaustad are the correspondences between the aged ex-presidents Jefferson and Adams about God and religion. I highly recommend this book to those interested in the history of ideas and freedom of thought.



4. Thomas Jefferson's thinking hovers over many of today's debates regarding separation of church and state, school prayer, the place of public education, and the place of faith in our own lives.

   This is an excellent exploration of the complexities of Jefferson's beliefs and the even more complex world of how his writings and thoughts continue to impact America today.




5. Excellent book As a school board member this book is important to show the importance of saving public education to perserve the American EXperiment. Jefferson was always in favor of a public educational system as a means to perserve the wall of separation between church and state. I would recommend this book for anyone who is oppossed to vouchers and charters schools

5 comments about We Are Lincoln Men: Abraham Lincoln and His Friends.

1. This was an interesting book. Every historian has a favorite story about one of the greatest American presidents-Abraham Lincoln. He talked plain, told funny stories, and acted like a relative of the family. However, Lincoln had few friends in his life. You can actually count the number on a pair of hands. The reason was Lincoln's upbringing in very isolated areas of Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky. The death of his mother at an early age also stunted his development. Except for two individuals (Speed and Herndon), Lincoln had few long term friends.
   
   Professor Donald goes into all the close friends Lincoln had. He examines the relationship with Speed, and lays the fact that Lincoln had a really close relationship with Speed.
   He also examines his relationship with Browning, Herndon, Seward, his two presidential aides, and a bodyguard. Many others may have known Lincoln, but few knew him in a personal way. Lincoln was a very lonely man with plenty of burdens on him. It is a wonder he managed to guide the country through the Civil War without many personal relationships.
   
   Donald examines all of Lincoln's close personal relationships. He disputes the present accusations that Lincoln was gay with good historical facts. This is a good read for those interested in the Civil War.



2. Donald's book "Lincoln" is incredible. So maybe I was unfairly expecting too much.
   
   But I didn't learn much from this book. He makes the point that Lincoln did not have any very close friends and therefore there was no one that could truly speak of what Lincoln was thinking.
   
   Much of this book discusses the relationship Lincoln had with each of the people involved. And it then talks some (not a lot) about that those people wrote or said.
   
   But to me, Lincoln did not come out of what was said. I didn't find myself seeing anything new.
   
   Get his book "Lincoln" instead.



3. David's confusion about Lincoln's sexuality is shown by his going back and forth on the question of whether Abe was in love with Anne Rutledge. At present he seems to deny the legend, which he endorsed a few years ago when Douglas Wilson revived it, having previously followed his mentor J. G. Randall in denying it. Talk about Senator Kerry-like flip-flopping. David, to all appearance a Kinsey "O," is obviously even more at sea about homosexuality. He quoted the obnoxious remark made by Charles B. Strozier (a type who would have fascinated Cesare Lombroso) that a homosexual (or bisexual, in the case of Lincoln) couldn't have led the war or even gone into politics. Have they forgotten Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar? Did they never hear about their bisexuality? But Donald did for a time acknowledge a homoerotic bond between Abe and Joshua; though he has made the outrageous claim to me that no single American president ever had sex with another male.
   When I put C.A. Tripp in contact with David Donald, whom I described to Tripp as the leading Lincoln scholar, I warned him that however much he might learn from David, he could not even hope that David would accept the thesis that Abe had homosexual experiences, and I predicted that David would write a preemptive strike. It duly appeared: We Are Lincoln Men: Abraham Lincoln and His Friends.
   John Lauritsen, an aesthete of unrivaled sensitivity, tells me that in We Are Lincoln Men David writes on two levels: one for the public ("the great unwashed"), who couldn't bear to learn that some presidents were gay; and on another for the initiates, when he describes the banter between Abe and his hardened male secretaries, which borders on camp. At any rate, David certainly notes the electric homoeroticism.



4. David Herbert Donald has produced an interesting portrait of Abraham Lincoln through the eyes of those who can claim to have known him best. By taking a "friend's eye" view of our sixteenth President, Donald peels back some of the mystery surrounding this very private and guarded man. Some, but not all. As Donald demonstrates, Lincoln was unusually adept of shielding much of his inner self even from most of his close associates. Whether by insecurity at his humble origins and self-taught manner or, (as I am more prone to think), by the design of a very focused ambition which was early on and constantly navigating his life's journey, Lincoln only let those he knew intimately get so close.
   
   The friends (some early life companions, young adulthood companion Joshua Speed, law partner William Herndon, some-time political ally Orville Browning, rival and then acolyte Secretary of State William Seward, and private secretaries John Hay and John Nicolay), give portrayal of Lincoln at every stage of his life. Most give testimony to Lincoln's ultimate reserve, but all have insights, shared thoughts and anecdotes that provide a great depth of understanding at what formed the man and to some extent what made him tick.
   
   Although Donald has a minor psychological theme of motherless-children (Lincoln's mother died at an early age; he benefited from a loving step-mother who he gave great credit to), and the nature of friendships running through the book, most of this is good, solid history. I personally thought the psychological stream could have been left out of this book, but it only occasionally intrudes and never surfaces enough to dominate any chapter of Lincoln's life.
   
   It is instructive to view Lincoln through the lens of those who know Lincoln best, particularly those who knew Lincoln before he was great. Donald has added another valuable work on this most significant and interesting of Americans.



5. Luckily, I was able to find the Large Print edition at the public library. Written in the modern history style, forming opinions instead of using factual information, he even changes his mind from his earlier writings, LINCOLN'S HERNDON (his law partner), saying he has grown "skeptical" about what he had passed on as facts. Feelings don't matter in factual history.
   
   He intimates that Abraham Lincolnn had "questionable" relationships with Joshua Speed with whom he boarded and shared a room and Ann Rutledge, though Lincoln seemed to have avoided becoming involved with women. He quotes Stephen Ambrose whose opinion was that presidents need a confidant "who can be trusted absolutely never to divulge a secret."
   
   These six spotlighted as "intimate friends" to Lincoln all divulged the letters and confidences they were trusted to keep secure! They profited from the assassination by writing books. His personal secretaries, the two Johns: Hay and Nicolay were no exceptions.
   
   For a private, "close-mouthed," self-educated, diversive president, he had no real friends as a youth, nor as President. He enjoyed his sons, playing on the White House lawn with goats and other farm animals. You can take the boy out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy. Did Mark Twain say that?
   
   Since his orations were considered on a par with Shakespeare, I am wondering if they had speech writers for the presidents back in the 1800s. Are those really his words and beliefs? Did JFK really come up with the "Ask not what your country can do for you" or was that also phrased by some speechwriter? Lincoln was a good actor, sought public influence with his Civil War addresses.
   
   Mr. Donald has won two Pulitzer prizes for his earlier books about Lincoln and many concerning aspects of the Civil War. But I would not call him an expert like Geoffrey C. Ward or William Davis. He is a good researcher.

5 comments about Andrew Jackson: Symbol for an Age (Galaxy Books).

1. American democratic politics, as can be easily seen in this year's presidential nominating processes, has always been encumbered with symbols. That fact is hardly new or news. What is news is that today's seemingly modern notion of proper electoral technique has a fairly ancient pedigree. Although Parson Weems did more than his share to establish the iconic figure of George Washington, arguably the subject of this work, Andrew Jackson, really was the first president to get the full public relations `spin' treatment that we take as a matter of course in today's politics.
   
   The present volume builds the case for Jackson symbolic virtues at a time when America, after a series of nasty encounters with the British, notably the War of 1812, developed an inward look westward and away from the `degeneracy' of the seaboard. If Jackson did not fit the bill to a tee then his agents, paid or otherwise, filled in the blanks. First place in those efforts goes to highlighting his military prowess and soldierly concerns in defeating (to what real purpose no one knows since the war was over by this time) against the British at the tail end of the War of 1812 at the Battle of New Orleans.
   
   From there it was fairly simple to make him a man of the' people'. In this case the people being empathically not the residents of the eastern seaboard but the `fresh' yeomanry of the Westward trek. You know- the ones who exhibited all the plebian virtues as solid tillers of the soil, holders of folk wisdom against the effete nabobs of the cities and the true patriots of rising American agricultural capitalism. The author builds his case by using a series of fairly common references beginning his work with an analysis of a Jackson poetic tribute `The Hunters of Kentucky' and dissects that bit of work to see how it fit into the scheme of making Jackson the first "people's" president. All the other tributes and, at the end eulogies, then fall into place.
   
   If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then his Whig opponents do that by learning from his handlers by the time of the `Tippecanoe' Harrison campaign of 1840. And from there we are off to the races. Note this- as if to reinforce the argument presented by the book- can anyone today deny that that myth built so long ago still, with the exception of a dent caused by his savagery against the Native Americans, stands as the way he is thought of in the American pantheon? The Democrats continue their traditional Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinners without blushing.



2. This quite readable book (if you read scholarly books) is possibly more relevant today than when it was written (in 1953). The author demonstrates how the concepts of Nature, God, and Will combined in the American imagination to provide the basis for beliefs about ourselves as a nation and our place in the world. The author doesn't explicitly draw a line from then-to-now (or even then-to-1953), but you will be able to draw that line yourself if you are an observer of American culture. If you are interested in current politics or the state of the nation today, read this book; you will understand more about how we got to where we are. It is not a biography of Andrew Jackson, but rather a carefully drawn picture of his times, using him, as the titles says, as a "symbol" for his era.



3. Reading this I am reminded of people you meet that talk just to hear themselves speak this book reminded me of those people. From the start you are engulfed in babble about Andrew Jackson. Even though this is considered a scholarly book, I feel that the writer just typed and typed and used words and sentences that were difficult to understand just to make himself sound important and intelligent. After reading this book I did not have a grasp on who Andrew Jackson was, but I did however know that I did not like the author.



4. My first impression of this book was that it was nothing more than rampant ramblings of senseless quibble. Once the reader understands that this is a psychoanalytical, socio-political, cultural and philosophical study of Andrew Jackson the man, versus the times he endured, it is truly an insightful work.
   Touted as a man of iron-will, determination and unbound democratic principles, Jackson was a man for the ages which he represented.
   Praised for his efforts in the Florida Indian battles and the Battle of New Orleans against the British (and denounced by some for his disregard for orders), he nonetheless came out on top of the situation for the people and his country.
   He exhibited qualities of the self-made man and this is what swayed his popularity. Jackson started from humble beginnings, and with his resolve and perceptiveness, became not only President of the United States for two terms, but was also looked up to as a hero with no self-limitations.



5. As one generation describes slices of history to another, the events and personalities are altered in the process. Ward shows how Jackson's persona emerged in the transfer of historical knowledge from one generation to the next.
   In earning a national reputation as a war hero in the Battle of New Orleans, Jackson credited God with the victory and saw himself as a chosen instrument in His hands.
   A city-wide religious ceremony was held in the aftermath of that victory. All New Orleans acknowledged humble thanksgiving to God for the successful defense of the city.
   Riding the crest of this military popularity Jackson was elected president and the masses who turned out for his inaugural events were unlike any other before him. His administration was a shift from the elite to a populous approach to government. Ward includes helpful anecdotes to keep the readers abreast of some of the details of the time and places covered.

4 comments about FDR and Lucy: Lovers and Friends.

1. Unlike many other traditional biographies, "FDR and Lucy" is a fast read that gives its readers a true overview of FDR's long-term relationship with Mrs. Lucy Rutherfurd. "FDR and Lucy" is a very focused account of someone who was clearly close to Franklin's heart and does not lead the reader astray with too much coverage of the historical events happening at the time.



2. When I first started graduate school in history, I used to speculate as to how there could be another biography of Lincoln or Washington, or who ever without some newly discovered source of information. I came to learn that historians reevalute existing sources in light of new events and/or place their own unique perspecitve on the materials.
   
   In the case of Resa Willis' FDR AND LUCY, Willis did none of the above. When a new book comes out on a subject in which one has interest, there is always hope that there is some new sources or new perspective. While doing a fine job of research and writing, Willis adds nothing new to a story that came to light in the 1960's after the death of Eleanor.
   
   Willis quotes children and friends of FDR and Lucy Mercer but as another reviewer said - there's nothing new. The story is stretched a bit with the inclusion of lots of basic facts about American history. There is a decent amount of information about the geneology of some of the characters, but other than showing the Mercer and FDR lived in a relatively close circle of friends and relatives, its old hat. She offers some speculation. Did FDR have an hand in arranging the marriage of Lucy and her husband Wintrop Rutherfurd. But she offers no anwers. She talks about FDR's circle of women friends but the author draws no conclusions about these relationships or how they reflected on FDR's personality.
   
   One of the amazing things about the relationship between FDR and Lucy is that the servants never talked. In the 21st century, all of the servants and secret service agents would have published tell all books. As an African American, whose family lived in Aiken, I always found it amazing that no one in the African American community, who clearly would have served as servants, ever mentioned a visit from the President. I've looked for the railroad siding that was suppose to have been built to accomodate the President but have never figure out where it was.
   
   Willis takes no sides in relating her story. She relates the story of two people who had an affair and the came to be great friends. She provides an insight in to life at the White House during the War years but there is little character development.
   
   If you know nothing about FDR and Lucy Mercer, read the book. If you know the least little bit from previous readings, don't bother.



3. Resa Willis tells the story of a time in American history as skillfully, objectively, personally, accurately and compassionately as humanely possible in 152 pages. How refreshing!
   
   You are privileged to hear about all the FDR doings and Eleanor Roosevelt doings along with all the important players.
   
   And, you come to learn how a great man so deeply loved by so many women could be fundamentally lonely.
   
   Some would call it Eleanor's sweet revenge.



4. I was expecting a thorough examination of the love affair between FDR and Lucy Mercer. The affair has been common knowledge for forty years and it's always touched upon in Roosevelt biographies and documentaries. But this book is a rather crushing disappointment, padded with much unnecessary and repetitive information. Most of the book consists of boring material relating directly to Lucy's life as Mrs. Rutherford in the 20's and 30's. Personally, I was expecting more details on FDR's affair with her throughout WWI, Eleanor's discovery of her love letters in Franklin's suitcase, and then the hysterical control-monster, Sarah Delano Roosevelt, demanding Franklin dump Lucy or risk losing his inheritance. Now that is the stuff of legend!
   
   Instead we get a dreary narrative with no new information. The book picks up a bit when Lucy re-enters Roosevelt's life in the 30's and spends considerable time with his in the closing years of his life. Most of their meetings took place in Warm Springs, Georgia, and also in the White House. FDR's daughter, Anna, was the one who invited Lucy to the Executive Mansion while Eleanor was away on one of many tours during the war. It's mindful to recall a remark from Alive Roosevelt Longworth in this context: "Franklin deserves a good time. He was married to Eleanor!"
   
   If you know little about the mechanics of the Lucy-Franklin alliance, this is a well-written and entertaining book. But if you know more about the pair, it wouldn't be particularly revealing. The characterization of Eleanor is especially weak. While I'm not advocating adultery, let's face facts: Eleanor was frigid, disinterested in sex and in the 30's took up close "friendships" with people like Lorena Hickock (who makes Yogi Berra look gorgeous in comparison). I really can't blame a man as charming and handsome as Franklin Roosevelt pursuing sex outside of marriage. His choice may not have been the "moral" one (whatever that means), but it was the only logical thing to do under the circumstances.
   
   To sum up, if you're an FDR newbie, this would be nice. If you're not, forget it.

1 comments about Wall Street and FDR.

1. Courageous Author Sutton here lays bare one of the essential truths of American history: FDR was brought to power by corporate fascists. And these same Wall Street social engineers also brought the world the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of Hitler, as Sutton proves in the companion volumes to this essential work.
   
   Between the covers of this very important work, Sutton reveals many fascinating details. Among the most interesting are these:
   
   In the early 1930's, General Smedley Butler revealed a fascist plan to take over the government of the United States. The plan was derailed, mainly through the courage of the highly decorated war hero General.
   
   FDR was greatly under the control of Wall Street power players, such as Bernard Baruch. In this volume, Sutton records one of Baruch's most revealing phrases, the "elation and fervor of war". Notice how similar is Baruch's affection for the horror of war to that our current neoconservative mad men.
   
   The book is excellent. It is much better written than "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution". And the information contained herein is of the utmost importance to he who would understand this most pivotal of US Chief Executives.

1 comments about Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980's (Politics and Society in Twentieth Century America).

1. Ronald Reagan campaigned and then was elected on a promise to restore American virility. In the closing years of the cold war, we wanted to believe that America was a super power and that we ourselves were super.
   
   Who better suited for that type of positioning than a former Hollywood actor? I think the "1950's Doc Brown" from the 1985 blockbuster 'Back to the Future' spoke for many people when he just expressed shock that an actor ended up as President of the United States. Yet, it made perfect sense in the early years of the cable revolution when the 'best' public official was one who did manipulate the media for their message.
   
   The author examines how this manipulation provided a needed boost to America. We were still recovering from Vietnam and had difficulty realizing that we were perhaps not the center of the world. Reagan's campaign was genius because it essentially said 'don't' and encouraged swing voters to believe that everything would be solved if they elected Reagan.
   
   Reagan made critical inroads with 'blue-collar' democrats. These voters had supported the party on economic issues but had been increasingly at odds with the Democrats on social issues. Specifically because of his own Hollywood background, Reagan knew these voters could be won if he stressed 'morals' and 'tradition' regardless of how he (a twice divorced man who had signed off on the liberalization of abortion laws as California Governor) actually felt about those same issues. Appearance IS everything in politics.
   
   The author also makes clear that the Reagan years are not admirable. Troy explains how the feel good images of success and luxury were sharply contrasting with the reality being experienced by many people. The rapidly rising cost of living, spending cuts, and the AIDS epidemic prevented many other people from enjoying the prosperity.

No comments about 274 Things You Should Know About Churchill.

5 comments about Abe: A Novel of the Young Lincoln.

1. Brilliant! As a Lincolnphile I have read the good, the bad and the ugly about Lincoln, and Sandburg aside, this is the first book that, for me, ever brought Lincoln to life! Do not miss this opportunity to treat yourself to a literary masterpiece. Slotkin puts you inside Lincoln's skin, and carries you along with the raging passions, and incisive intellect of a great man in the making. More please. More.



2. At the end of this book the author provides remarks that help clarify the context in which the novel was written. First he tells us that this was a work of many decades of reading and research. That many of the chapters of Abe's young life were extracted from what was actually known. There was some co-mingling of people to compress dates and that Abe might not have actually met some of them face to face, but might have been within the vicinity of them during his travels.
   
   What then of this story, of the earliest years of the greatest American? One is struck by the terrible poverty that he was born into and lived through till full adulthood. We simply don't have an appreciation these days of how hard life was back in the early 1800's in the backwoods of America. We learn that Abe had a loving but illiterate mother and a grim, tense and hard father who was barely able to read. The Lincoln's were not a lazy family, just hard pressed by bad times and lack of good fortune. We learn little about his sister and more about how attached he was as a young man to his mother. After her death his father remarried and to a woman with her own children. The gift she had was a unique insight into what people need, which in most cases was space, understanding and time to process. Instead of talking down to the young, heart broken and tender Abe, she gave him time for him to come round to her; indeed, in time he learned to love and trust her very deeply. It was a mutual and powerful bond that far surpassed the remote and bitter father who always lurked over the young Abe as he grew both intellectually, physically and in confidence and life experience.
   
   The entire book is written in a clever amalgam comprised half in modern English and half in the language people would have used back then. What jars the reader today is the constant use of the devlish word "nigger". We tend to forget that in those days it was what all African American's were called and indeed what they called each other. Growing up among parents who found slavery distasteful and seeing first hand evidence of how horrible the treatment of slaves was, Lincoln started forming a strong philosophical rejection of slavery, which in turn manifested for the first time when he was elected to the state legislature and never left him.
   
   One cannot read a book like this, with it's intense details of how evil the treatment of slaves was and not find one grinding your teeth. There are hard sections to read and like Uncle Tom's Cabin and "March", which come to mind (like many such books) slavery makes the blood hot. The end of the book sees the canny and razor sharp mind of Lincoln as he turns the tables on those older white folks in his new adopted town who thought that they could pull a fast one on the tall guy, hoping to make a fool of him, test his measure and see if he had any spine in him. In a foreshadowing of his role as President, he found a way of restating his imposed debating position, destroying his opposition and supporting his own personal feeling, without having to give an inch in compromise. The opponents in the debate are left breathless, enraged and shocked at how this young buck had managed to seize control of the moment: a trait that was completely repeated when he entered his first term as president.
   
   This is a fantastic story that feels every bit as true and possible. If you admire Abraham Lincoln, this is a must read that will entertain and disturb. The shadow of the mythic Lincoln is given its proper foundation; a well deserved place in Americana, as the greatest President and perhaps the greatest American ever.



3. Having trouble getting your teen son to read? Put this book in his room and let his mind wonder about what the world was like before he was born. Does your daughter think that doing the dishes at night is a real drag? Let her think about life in the times of slavery! Historical fiction at its best! Thanks, Richard, I believe I will read the rest of the books you have written!



4. ABE starts well. Slotkin's portrayal of his early life rings true. The relationship Abe had with his parents and their place in the community sounds very realistic. At this point, I felt Slotkin had a real grasp of what Lincoln might have been like and I was really enjoying this speculative look at the young Abe Lincoln. The trip down the river changed that for me. Slotkin uses Lincoln's flatboat journey down the Mississippi as the basis of Lincoln's eventual political beliefs, but it just doesn't ring true. The journey is one event after another, with social and sexual overtones that intefere with the natural flow of the novel. Eventually, it doesn't even seem that the novel is about Abe Lincoln anymore, but some nameless boy's "journey into manhood along the Mississippi". The best historical fiction gives the reader insight into the characters; this book seems to be trying to make too strong a point, as if it were an actual historical document instead of a picaresque fiction. Like an earlier reviewer, I found this to be less than it could have been.



5. I will be quite honest, this is a bad book. The research Slotkin did about many of the often ignored events in Lincoln's formative years and the inclusion of some obscure celebrities of the 1830's is impressive, but attempts to connect the two are ridiculous. There is simply no reason to make up a fictional story about Lincoln's upbringing to make it interesting, unusual, and important to his political beliefs. It is thrown together haphazardly and Slotkin's attempts to occasionally use the vernacular (without rhyme or reason all of the characters and even the narrator go in and out of their unique dialects)do not help the story flow or add anything to the novel. Basically it seems that Slotkin is trying to take elements from Huck Finn, Uncle Tom's Cabin, and The Bible, stir them up and add a little sexual scandal to sell a book. It does not work and really makes for a disappointing read. I think historical novels about famous leaders are great, but there should be a thesis the author goes on to prove in it and the later part of that equation is sorely lacking here--Slotkin wants to show that Lincoln's trip down the Mississippi influenced Lincoln's future politics, but he never really demonstrates it even though he was free to make up any dialogue and events he liked in order to do it. Slotkin tried to do many things with this book, and I appreciate the effort, but it just does not work and going against the general feeling of most reviewers on Amazon, I cannot recommend this to anyone unless it all you have available to read.

5 comments about RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon.

1. I must first warn the reader that this book is 1000 page plus. Second, the 1000 plus pages are a great read. I won't write a very long review- 1) because I read this book over 2 years ago, and 2) I'll just go right to the main reasons why this book is great, 3) previous reviewers have good insight into the book for people who are considering reading this book and I've found their reviews well written.
   
   This book, unlike a few of the other presidential memoirs, begin with Nixon's birth to the end of his presidency. It spans his entire life before the Presidency, and his entire political career, not just his life in the White House. (Nixon begins the first chapter by saying "I was born in the house that my father built" or something to that effect). While Nixon wrote his first autobiography, Six Crisis, after losing his first bid for the White House to John F Kennedy- he repeats much of his explanations on the 6 crisis in this book as well.
   
   It is pretty fun following Nixon's career from Congress to the Vice Presidency to his bid for the White House, losing it, losing the California Gubnatorial (spelling?) race, his thoughts on the 1964 election and his life in the wilderness and then finally to the Presidency. I don't know if a ghost writer was used, but the book is very fluent and flows really well. It is not a tough read and reading it makes time pass well.
   
   Nixon doesnt spend too much time in great detail on unimportant aspects or policies, unlike some other presidential memoirs. His writing on the foreign policies that he took is great: the China trip is the highlight of this book. His discussions on the Vietnam War and the actions he took is extremely interesting. I am sure historians had great fun reading this book.
   
   Nixon goes on to describe very well why he started taping his own conversations on the phone and in the Oval Room. He begins by explaning how Lyndon Johnson showed him all the recording devices he kept.
   
   The book takes a downturn when Nixon begins to describe how he was completely innocent during and after the Watergate break-in. He goes onto extremely minute details to describe how he had absolutely no idea about the break-in and how he was in the dark for a long time after the fiasco. While Bill Clinton takes the blame full on to himself for the Monica Lewinsky scandal and admits guilt in his book, MY LIFE, Nixon uses various tactics and scenarios to indicate how he knew nothing. The descriptions go on and on, confusing the reader as to what the hell is happenning. But even when he goes on to begin describing the incident(s), it becomes obviously clear that he knew and was involved in the cover-up and the illegal actions that he took. He quickly skips over the part where the 23 minute (was it 23?I cant remember) is deleted and blames it on his secretary. Reading this book proved to me that Nixon was guilty.
   
   After I read the book, I was very fascinated by President Nixon. I watched Oliver Stone's movie 4 times in over 5 years. Nixon was definitely a complex character. He indeed was a man who could easily have been a great man. I do feel sorry for him; and am happy that by the time he passed away, he regained much of his stature - although as Nixon himself admitted, he will always be remembered for Watergate. As I mentioned above, after reading this book, I've become very interested in all things Nixon, like his movie, his other books, articles about him, his relationship to other Presidents, other world leaders and Henry Kissinger- and also on what they thought about him (Gerald Ford - "Sometimes I don't know why I pardoned the bastard"). For the political geek- this book is definitely a must read.



2. It was risky business for Nixon to write an autobiography for at least a couple of reasons. First, his many detractors would clearly be quick to jump on any discrepancies in the work. Second, as more and more classified information is released by the government, Nixon stood to become a well-documented liar, assuming that there were a few stretchers herein -- and Nixon would have known that such information would be forthcoming someday. Still, he had the brass to write it, and it's a darn fine book.
   
   This autobiography is somewhat unusual in that, not only did Nixon write the book, he also wrote IN to the book, even though he, himself, may not have realized this. In other words, we can tell a LOT about Nixon just by reading between the lines of this one. We can detect when he felt adversarial about someone (the media, for example), and we get a clear feel for some of his well-known (and often well-deserved) paranoia.
   
   Some will bluntly say that Nixon was a crook. Perhaps this is correct but he was an incredibly intelligent and complex man and many positive initiatives were achieved during his long tenure as U.S. President. Of course, he covers all these events in the book and we get a feeling of having the inside scoop for having read about them in this work. So, really, this volume is an excellent "history book" for the era that it covers (essentially, the period from Nixon's birth up through the Watergate affair).
   
   Probably the most profound facet of "R.N." that I picked up on was that Nixon was a huge patriot. He fostered incredibly strong beliefs in manifesting his visions for a great America -- of course, his facilitation of some of those ideas is what got him into trouble.
   
   Nixon remained necessarily vague in certain details of the Watergate scandal and a few cracks in his story have already emerged as a direct result of Privacy Act releases. No doubt, a few more will be forthcoming. But honestly, many of these "events" are simply a matter of perspective, Nixon's paradign versus that of his enemies. In these cases, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
   
   I most enjoyed reading about Nixon and his family as he grew up which is a large portion of the book. Nixon was a hard worker and, frankly, I admire his achievement of becoming President, since he was one of the few who made this life-leap, absent a silver spoon.
   
   I read MANY books (3 a week for years) and "R.N." is one of the top 20 books I've ever read and it's in the top 5 of my non-fiction list. Don't be put off by politics in this instance -- this tome of an autobiography is a real page-turner and well-done.



3. what this man did was wrong in terms of his involvement and his support of bullying in the whitehouse. This man was seen as one of the most liberal presidents and founded the Environmental Protection agengy as well as food stamps and strove to implement far reaching welfare reforms. He did many things we equivocate with democratic setbacks, and we have to wonder how much the nation suffered. He tried to protect himself under the presidency: Was he attacked? The FBI tried to sheild us from this man, and we have to wonder where the balance lies. Surely this man did great things perhaps as no president has done after him for social reform. Much to ponder. In later years, he confessed to wrongdoing and advised several presidents without want of attention or credit.I tend to like Mr. Nixon, but tend also to grieve his past actions against the war demonstrators in terms of actions he could not implement as he did not have the support of the FBI. The problem was the wire tapping of journalists, and the breaking into a psychiatrists office to try to get info on one of the journalists who oppose Nixon. Yes,much to think about. Am I bothered by racial remarks he's made on tape when he tried to institute the largest welfare program since FDR saved us from the depression? Save for perhaps Kennedy..No. I think his actions counterbalance the remarks he's made. The wiretapping and the break in are his shame, more so the wiretapping as I'm not sure about the extent of the involvement he had in that. I enjoy Mr. Nixon's attempt to guide the nation via advice of succeeding presidents and look forward to reading thE progressive social policy that's in his seven books.



4. I read it twenty-five years ago and just read it again. Fast paced until he gets bogged down in justifying his actions in Watergate. Nixon was an excellent writer, but his self-justification requires you to read other bios of the 37th President. From Jerry Vorhis to Alger Hiss to John Dean, a great take on postwar American history by someone who was there.



5. Nixon became president the month I was born and had left the scene before I became politically aware. Nobody spoke of him during the 70's, or of Johnson for that matter - they belonged to a past era which nobody much wanted to revisit, and so I knew very little about either of them as a kid or teen.
   
   By resigning Nixon had admitted at least some guilt in the vast number of things he was accused of and his abdication was a political cataclysm. Through my childhood years he lived out his old age as a pariah off in San Clemente, California, the personification of the period of enormous turbulence during the height of the Vietnam war. He was the living embodiment of the dark heart and excess of the GOP, and everyone, especially in Democratic Massachusetts, considered him a cancer on the body politic and was happy he was gone.
   
   But his resignation was sincere and he was mostly contrite. In retirement he was a sad old giant in exile and after a while the Press which had hounded him out of office allowed him some dignity as an elder statesman and left him alone.
   
   He's nothing like the caricature I expected. I have to say - I really like him. He's very thoughtful, well spoken, modest, with good intentions towards the country and had a warm, respectful dialogue with the major statesmen and characters of the day.
   
   It's a beautifully written book. It was easy to see how he had become a leader. He had the air of solid, calm composure and reasonableness which I admire. As for doublespeak tendencies, the clues are missing for someone who didn't live through that time period.
   
   The contrast with Bush could not be more clear. Maybe the candor came from Nixon's retirement, but I can't imagine Bush being this straight and honest with his audience. POTUS 43 isn't smart or eloquent enough to write this kind of book, and he's too secretive to make that leap of trust with the little people to allow them into his mind.
   
   Of course Nixon was at least as bad as Bush - he was famous for having a blind-spot as big as a barn, which one can see in his writing. Despite the resignation, he wasn't entirely remorseful - he saw himself as the victim of many media conspiracies and other antagonists, both real and imagined. But Nixon has the breadth of worldview and honesty with himself, and by extension the reader, to allow us into his world.
   
   His dark tendencies had other origins. In an era when 30 soldiers were being killed in Vietnam every single day - over ten times the volume of Iraq - and the world convulsing in protest and chaos around them, Nixon's lieutenants and were just brutalized by their environment and lost their sense of direction and fought back with every realpolotik' weapon and dirty trick they could imagine.
   
   Nixon himself is much too close to the action to see how complicit he was - and as the leader he was de-facto fully culpable. But he did take responsibility resign over it - so if it is noble to forgive, then he deserves some rest.
   
   My folks on the other hand strongly disliked Nixon because they thought the GOP machine had sabotaged all the moderate Democratic primary candidates, leaving only Muskie and worse, McGovern, who were far too weak and radical. So he had effectively dismantled the American democratic process - even aside from the Watergate bugging and coverup. Nixon's Southern Strategy of making the GOP a safe place for whites upset by the Civil Rights movement, is still the dominant fault-line in American politics.
   
   Now, after the cancer has been lanced and we have survived him, Nixon's transgressions feel like water long past under the bridge. I'm only sad and sorry that he passed away. He was a wise, complex man and this book shows that his shadow is still very large.