5 comments about The Roosevelt Presence: The Life and Legacy of FDR.

1. In The Roosevelt Presence, Maney does his best to justify and explain away issues relative to the New Deal, the Roosevelt administration, and various methods the Roosevelt administration created or implemented to solve various crises, chief among them economic difficulties in the `30s and war issues in the `40s. Maney clearly exposes his liberal, left-leaning stance by being critical of Roosevelt in certain areas but being supportive in other areas. As a historian, Maney should have presented the facts and let the reader decide. If Maney wanted to voice his opinion or other relevant personal position information, he should have included that in an introduction or in the endnotes. The fact that the University of California press published this book also speaks to the left-leaning position.



2. Other reviewers have accurately noted that Maney both praises and criticizes Roosevelt. I based my purchase on this expectation of a balanced portrait. What they didn't note is that both the criticism and the praise are done from an extreme left perspective.

   Unlike most books written about FDR from the left, Maney does address some of the low points in Roosevelt's presidency. However, when doing so he at times goes into bizarre explanations/justifications which left me scratching my head. For example:

   1) Roosevelt's plunging the recovering economy back into depression in 1937 by deliberately shrinking the money supply and reducing government spending. Explanation: He only meant to slow down the growth of the economy, he couldn't have expected this to slow down the economy.
   2) Roosevelt's decision to imprison Japanese Americans in WWII against the advice of J. Edgar Hoover (no softie on security!). Explanation: It wasn't his fault, he was given bad advice by the people he appointed.
   3) Roosevelt's postwar plan to create a soviet style economic model in the US where the government could dictate which job any person had ("labor draft"), and guaranteed food, shelter, clothing, and recreation to all in return. Explanation: The fact that he didn't advocate the abolition of corporations and the total redistribution of all wealth shows that Roosevelt was becoming a moderate.

   I wouldn't have believed these examples (and others), had I not read the book! The other thing that surprised me were some of the horrifying things Roosevelt did which clearly didn't bother the author at all. For example, neither Roosevelt's attempt to "purge" the Democratic party of those he deemed not ideologically pure, nor his breaking the back of the supreme court in the infamous "court packing" case troubled the author.

   With all this said, the worst part of the book by far was the concluding chapter "Reputation and Legacies". This last rambling chapter bemoans the fact that President Carter could not have predicted from FDR's experience that restricting the national oil supply would create a recession. He drones on for several pages on this theme of how FDR let the world down by not having the foresight to give advice to future Democratic presidents. The final paragraph concludes with "There is much to admire about Roosevelt... yet as the experience of his successors helped confirm, his greatness was much too deeply rooted in the circumstances of his own times... Among presidents, alas, [FDR] was not a man for all seasons." While I'm not opposed to criticizing Roosevelt, this is as unfair as it is disappointing. How can we blame FDR for addressing the key issues during his presidency? At the same time, important topics like the legacy of Social Security, FDR's decision to give Stalin N. Korea, the complicity of members from the Roosevelt administration in bringing Mao to power in China (to name a few) are left undiscussed.




3. Despite its lack of heft, Patrick Maney has produced a wonderfully balanced and nuanced portrait of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Indeed, Maney's book may be the finest jumping off point for those looking to get acquainted with FDR in full bloom, and not just with the nostalgic, sometimes mawkish, remembrances of politicians.

   When it comes to FDR, far too many readers, including a number of other reviewers here, only want to hear about positive aspects: the New Deal, winning World War II, etc. As a professional historian, Maney is not in the business of producing such hagiographies. As such, what we have here is the cool judgment and dispassionate analysis of a writer who is constructing a narrative of the historical record; not someone who is cheerleading for a particular political persuasion. Those who want a softer and friendlier treatment of Roosevelt should look elsewhere.

   In addition to Roosevelt's many triumphs, Maney provides great detail about some of FDR's more negative aspects, such the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, or his near pathological secrecy that kept him from grooming a successor. Maney also lays bare Roosevelt's personal peccadilloes, such as his long-term affair with Lucy Mercer.

   In the end, Maney has done a fine job of presenting Roosevelt, and he should be commended.




4. All ya'll been about misreviewing this book, but it was tight, yo! My man Maney gets scientific in his approach of talking about a cat nobody can touch, and he has the cojones to take a stand, and tell that s--t real. And none of you ever been to the Depression, so don't be even trying to talk about how he was wrong about it. Give Maney props, he gives an even-handed book telling of the many things, good and bad, or Franklin Roosevelt, our former president.



5. If you are seeking a hatchet job on the greatest President of the 20th century, this is your cup of tea. Maney attempts to paint FDR with a black brush, but makes so many factual mistakes in his narrative, that his attempt is weak and ultimately pathetic. His gross lack of understanding about the causes of the Depression and the impending European crisis are almost laughable.

   FDR made mistakes in judgment (attempting to pack the Supreme Court), but he was the quintessential and perfect leader for this country in the midst of its greatest crisis of the past 100 years. Imagine Tom Dewey or Wilkie leading this nation against the Axis powers. Contemplate that one... if you dare!

   There are many outstanding examinations of Franklin Roosevelt and this is certainly not one of them. It's a polemic and poorly written attempt to diminish FDR's influence and greatness. It fails on all levels. The only people who would embrace this treatment would be the die-hard Roosevelt haters.

4 comments about Lives of the Later Caesars: The First Part of the Augustan History, with Newly Compiled Lives of Nerva & Trajan.

1. The German scholar H. Dessau unmasked the six authors of the Historia Augusta (HA) as the brainchildren of one impostor, whom Sir Ronald Syme in his `Ammianus and the Historia Augusta' calls a master of historical romance.
   This book contains 17 lives of emperors from the HA, together with 2 small biographies of Nerva and Trajan compiled by the excellent translator Anthony Birley.
   The anonymous author of the HA mingled excerpts from other works, particularly by Cassius Dio and Herodian, with his own `fiction' to compile a parody of imperial hagiographies, exposing those who `belittle the defeated'.
   It is a work in super-Hollywood style with fake letters, bogey references and even an insult litany on Commodus. The latter `killed with his own hand many thousands of wild animals, even elephants.' During the reign of Antoninus Pius, `four lions became tame of their own accord and yielded to capture'.
   Hadrian was a Stakhanovist: `At one and the same time, he wrote, dictated, listened and conversed with his friends - if it can be believed.'
   Avidus Cassius had a schizophrenic character; he `seemed truculent and rough, but sometimes placid and mild; often he was devout, but at other times scornful of sacred things; avid of wine, and again abstinent; eager for food but able to endure starvation; a devotee of Venus and a lover of chastity.'
   Marcus Antoninus `made the bad good and the good very good.'
   Pescennius Niger insulted his soldiers: `You have the Nile and you ask for wine?'
   But the author is fundamentally a moralist: `Wretched is the republic which endures those men who are desirous of riches, and the rich.'
   Severus `killed many for allegedly consulting astrologers or seers about his health, especially each and every person suitable for the imperial office.... Yet the murderer of these men is regarded as a god.'
   Emperors don't need hagiographies: (Hadrian) `The lot of emperors is wretched, for they cannot be believed in cases of attempted usurpation - unless they have been killed.'
   
   This cleverly disguised author wrote a superb hoax, which is a must read for all lovers of classical literature.



2. If you are to read this enigmatic work, you are already a Roman History buff, so beware to sort the fiction from actual history. Historia Augusta, in its better moments, renders the same flavor as a well-accomplished Xena episode; one feels befuddled by the mix between History, sheer invention and tongue-in-cheek humour; eventually, one wants to read more (well, supposing you are a Roman history buff and a xenite...) Therefore I regret very much the absence of an integral version of the whole work, that is the second half - the histories of the emperors after Heliogabalus - where fiction predominates, and which is perhaps the most intersting part in historical terms, as it is pratically the only written source for the most troubled years of the Roman Empire. Reading the work puts a most intriguing question: why it was that Late Antiquity found it necessary to look at its own past this way? Not a entirely otiose question in our postmodern days, I daresay.



3. This book is meant to be a continuing off of the Suetonius book, ending with Elagabalus (Heliogalabalus). This book is written similarly to Suetonius and includes the cover and inside grittiness of each emperor. a must read for people interested in the personal lives of the emperors.



4. The Augustan History is probably one of the most enigmatic and controversial historical documents to reach the present. Birley gives an excellent introduction on the current state of knowledge - according to which the book was a fraud or joke of sorts - and his notes are careful to point out what is likely to be true or not. The ancient text itself can be quite irritating to read, though. Birley's own lives of Nerva and Trajan are rather more interesting.

5 comments about A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK's Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History.

1. Although this book is a credible continuation of Garrison's impressive work, unlike Garrison's three books, which are beautifully, coherently and convincingly written, the style of this one is self-destructively disjointed, gossipy, and just barely coherent. Sadly, it has adopted a style reminiscent of the very CIA disinformation tracts that have been used over the last 40 years to discredit Garrison and his impressive work. Despite its self-destructive style, this is still an important book --among only a handful that seem to have a secure handle on the events and people that led to JFK's assassination. It correctly ridicules the Warren Commission Report as an exercise in "exorcism," a fantasy that at least for a while, accomplished its task of "pinning the tail of the assassination donkey" on "everybody's favorite Commie," Lee Harvey Oswald.
   
   Importantly, it recognized (as did District Attorney Jim Garrison) that the epicenter of the plot that ended in JFK's death was probably hatched in Langley, but finalized in New Orleans and carried out by "hired mechanics" in Dallas. It was New Orleans and its environs where most of the dots could be connected that led up the chain to offices in Langley and inevitably on to Dallas. It was there that Clay Shaw, as the Managing Director of the "CIA front," the New Orleans International Trade Mart, was also the apparent "second line" manager of the JFK assassination plot. The New Orleans International Trade Mart was itself but one link in a longer and tighter chain connected directly to a similar "CIA front" in Rome called "Centro Mondiale Commerciale," which was a replacement for the more notorious "CIA Front" PERMINDEX, based in Switzerland. All three apparently were at Shaw's disposal for among others nefarious things, funneling untraceable money to fund CIA activities.
   
   Jim Garrison went to his death with the belief that the same team within the CIA that had carried out the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala, namely, Lawrence Houston, Richard Helms, James Jesus Angleton, E. Howard Hunt and David Atlee Phillips, also planned the JFK assassination. And although there is only scant circumstantial evidence presented here that this was in fact the case, it is powerful evidence nonetheless. This book demonstrates "guilty and conspiratorial connections" all along the chain of the plot: from the ground grunts, the actual shooters (probably rabid anti-Castro Cubans or hired foreign professional hitmen), to the third line managers and planners of the mechanics of the assassination (Guy Bannister and David Ferrie), to the second line manager, Clay Shaw (Bannister's handler), on up the chain to the first line managers in Langley mentioned above.
   
   It was New Orleans where the den of vipers, headed by ex-FBI SAC and CIA asset, Guy Bannister, at 544 Camp Street was engaged in all manner of nefarious activities designed to undermine and embarrass JFK and his Cuban policies: from directing Cuban exile attacks against Castro, to purchasing and storing weapons, to managing the activities that would advance the "legend" of Oswald as a patsy. New Orleans was where the mysterious but central player David Ferrie operated ubiquitously engaged in all manner of activities associated with assassination planning and execution. It was also New Orleans where mobster Carlos Marcello, lived. Recall that it was Marcello (as well as Santos Trafficani) who had accurately predicted that "JFK would be hit." It was Clinton, Louisiana, near New Orleans, where Shaw, Ferrie, Bannister and Oswald were spotted together during the summer of 1963, apparently in an effort by them to "darken" Oswald's record as a "Communist Pro-Castro malcontent." We also discover here (on page 43) that Lee Harvey Oswald at the age of 16, was recruited into the CIA via the Marine Corps by (CIA Asset) David Ferrie, who was at the time Oswald's Civil Air Patrol (CAP) Commander. Recently released document also reveal that Oswald also went on to become both a CIA, FBI, ONI, and a Customs undercover agent and asset.
   
   These are a few of the many isolated facts that are unnecessarily thrown together willy-nilly in this book. Undoubtedly one of the reasons it may have been done has been to protect anonymous sources, but it could have been done also as a way of "stretching tenuous facts." However, without the necessary connective tissue, without a context, without a convincing theory of the assassination, throwing facts together willy-nilly does not add up to a convincing case against those who are "probably guilty." This case, very much is presented like the O.J. Simpson case was presented: the evidence against "the guily" is overwhelming, but the case is so badly botched, that any sensible jury would have to give the accused (the CIA in this case) "a pass."
   
   There is no theory, no overarching theoretical framework, no hypothesis in which to place this mosaic. It gives hints and suggestions that mere hatred of the Kennedys was sufficient for CIA's clandestine services, to begin the wheels turning of a "vast right wing conspiracy" that ended in JFK's murder. How credible is that? It is simply left up to the reader to draw his own conclusions.
   
   Well, the fact is that most of us have drawn our own conclusions, what we needed but did not get here was an author who could put together a coherent and logically sound case that refuted the "cock-and-bull story" sold to us in the Warren Commission Report. This book came close, and gets "an A" for effort, but still gets no bananas.
   
   Five stars for the research, three for the writing, and four for the book as a whole.



2. The book could use some editing (the writing is ponderous and repetitious at times) but the research supporting Garrison's "trail of assassins" is edifying and compelling.



3. Joan Mellen takes on the Jim Garrison/Clay Show trial in New Orleans in this highly frustrating book on the JFK Assassination. While she presents much worthwhile information and makes a very strong case that Shaw was a CIA employee involved in the assassination, her conclusions are dragged down in a morass of poor writing. Much is out-of-order chronologically, years are not given to orient the reader, aliases are used interchangeably with real names, etc. The organization at times seems random. All in all, combined with the vast amount of information presented, this ends up being extremely difficult to read.
   
   Troublesome also is that Mellen includes well over 100 pages of end notes but many, many quotes and other salient points have no citation listed.
   
   Worthwhile, but be prepared to put in a lot of work.



4. While the information contained in this book is very interesting, it is presented so poorly, I could not finish it. There is virtually no structure to the book. Follow a timeline, or a character or anything, but pick something and give me linear story. This book made me dizzy.



5. For J. Mellen, it is an open secret that US intelligence services were directly involved in JFK's assassination. For their deadly feud with JFK, the latter himself gave the reasons: he wanted to `curb activities of spook outfits' and `splinter them in thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds.' He put all local intelligence offices under control of the US ambassadors.
   Beside intelligence (`the clandestine arm of warfare interests in the US government'), the war machine corporations wanted in no way to attach their fortunes to the Kennedys.
   
   The only legal action against the alleged perpetrators of the assassination came from a courageous district attorney, Jim Garrison. That he was very near (part of ) the truth is proven by the frontal vicious attacks launched against him and his investigation by intelligence itself. All legal and illegal means were good enough to destroy him.
   But he was only near a part of the truth: the ground staff, not near those who ordered the murder, the upper level of the plotters.
   Joan Mellen shows profusely how Oswald was continuously surrounded by intelligence agents and how the latter shared their beds with the Mafia. J. Garrison knew that he fought against `a secret state of its own' and `a major menace to the democracy we live in'.
   The author reveals also that there was an alternative scapegoat in the wings, if the framing of Oswald would not succeed, and, more controversially, that Bob Kennedy was against Garrison's investigation, because he thought he needed `to gain the presidency to deal with the facts of his brother's death.'
   
   This book throws a shrill light on the Pravda-like media (C. Johnson) who are creating a Kafkaesque world which has nothing to do with this world's political and economic realities. Another example in this book: the U2 Powers incident in 1956 was a provocation to kill détente between Eisenhower and Khrushchev.
   This book is a must read for all those who are interested in the most important coup d'état of the 20th century and who want to understand the world we live in.

5 comments about Commander in Chief: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, His Lieutenants, and Their War (Bluejacket Books).

1. This is one of the best written studies on Roosevelt's commanders in WWII. It is detailed and interesting without being wordy. Great read for any WWII buff.



2. I picked this book up not by choice in the beginning. I had to have it for a WWII class; I thought the book was going to put a strain on my already hectic schedule. Not the case at all.
   
   This book was outstanding and Larrabee did an excellent job showing the mental, physical, and emotional strain on our leaders. The book is written in profiles so the book started with FDR and worked its way to Lemay for the ending. The profiles do not have to be read consecutively. The profiles were great descriptions with the Vandergrift profile being my favorite. Larrabee did an excellent job describing the Marines battles through their leader General Vandergrift. The profile on FDR showed that he had more strengths than weaknesses. The only apparent weakness being his health. Larrabee does an excellent portrayal of all the leaders and seemed a bit put off by Macarthur. Macarthur's profile was definately the most damning one in the book.
   
   I agree with the one review that says this book should be read. This was a time when our country was united as one. Larrabee also does an excellent look at the Japanese command in the book. He has an in depth history of the Chinese Burma theatre. The book is a great starting point with WWII because the foundations are laid in leadership. Larrabee shows that the war was one with the competence of many great leaders during that time.
   
   He also lead me to ask myself one question. Could FDR run his type of war in present time. I mean he did intern and imprison thousands of Japanese on the West Coast that had done nothing at all. He attacked Germany who never attacked the U.S. It was Japan who struck us on Dec. 7, 1941 not Germany. FDR saw the impending danger of Hitler and struck his head before there was a chance for attack. Maybe History needs to be read more often so future mistakes are not based on lack of knowledge. Also Larrabee shows that FDR did have enemies and the Chicago Tribune leaked a war plan against the Japanese. Thank God the Japanese did not heed this plan.
   
   Larrabee shows there is always opposition against our leaders. FDR had the fortitude to stand up for what he believed and protect the world. I thoroughly recommend this book to anyone interested in leadership or WWII.



3. I purchased this book many years ago when it was first published, but only recently got around to reading much of it. I was extremely impressed at the author's critical analysis of the major players. In terms of detailed biographical sketches and rigorous organization, it lapses from time to time and often spends several pages in diversions about subordinates. What was particularly strong about Commander in Chief, however, was the perspectival discussions on the talents and importance of individual flag officers. I was particularly impressed with the discussion of Eisenhower which was the best I've seen. Larrabee actually gives him more praise and regard than his own son did in the recent Ike: the Soldier. For once, Eisenhower comes across as a powerful and commanding figure in his own right, rather than as a fortunate protege of General Marshall. Indeed, Larrabee explains in a perfectly plausible fashion why Eisenhower was a better choice for overall European command in 1944 and beyond. Although it does tend to wander at times, Commander in Chief is finely written and makes for enjoyable, informative reading. I recommend it highly.



4. Eric Larrabee not only gives the facts about these men and what made them tick, he backs it up with real OFFICIAL memoranda from the time, often from more than just 2 or 3 sources. His study of Douglas MacArthur is outstanding. What MacArthur apologists won't tell you is that this book is required reading at all US military academies. It should be required in all high schools as well. Well written, well done!



5. This is the best book written about the story of World War Two from the perspective of the American military commanders. It won an award from the Society of American Historians called the Francis Parkman Prize for historical excellence. This book is a World War Two classic. You will not find a better one-volume profile of the American commanders in WWII.
   
   Roosevelt was great at picking the right people for the right positions, such as George Marshall, five star general. In Washington D.C., he was the overall commander of the United States military during the war (and later Truman's Secretary of State). His work was superb and, no doubt, ranks him among the greatest American leaders ever. Read about him in the book.
   
   Many expected that Marshall would be given command of the D-Day invasion (and all it's glory), but when Roosevelt told Marshall that he was thinking of hand-picking Dwight Eisenhower and asked Marshall for his advice, leaving the door open for Marshall to lobby FDR, Marshall dutifully told Roosevelt that he should do only what he thought was best for the country. Roosevelt then moved immediately to appoint Eisenhower. It was a great moment of self-sacrifice for Marshall.
   
   The information in this book on Eisenhower is even better. Read about it in the book.
   
   Another great leader that FDR hand-picked was admiral Ernest King, a tough, demanding and resourceful leader. Roosevelt elevated him to commander of the United States Navy shortly after the Pearl Harbor attack, and King proved to be the ideal man at the right time. King was the first aviator to obtain command of the navy, and carrier warfare would emerge as the key to naval warfare during the conflict.
   
   But the best part of this book is how the American commanders led America to victory in World War II. This is great history. It looked very uncertain for years. All of them, including FDR, did a great job. Read the book.

1 comments about The Life of Alexander the Great (Modern Library Classics).

1. I was impressed with this translation of Plutarch's Life of Alexander the Great. The prose was very clear and readable, and I finished the book very quickly. You shouldn't expect a detailed treatment of military or historical topics; the book is less than 100 pages in length, and such was not Plutarch's object anyway. Plutarch's Lives are really discussions of morality and character as evidenced in the lives of great men, and the history surrounding these men is really only a backdrop against which these things are portrayed. Use this book to begin to get a picture of Alexander the man; use other books to flesh out your understanding of Alexander the soldier, the king, and the politician.

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

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



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



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



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

5 comments about Chasing Churchill: The Travels of Winston Churchill.

1. So much of what is written about WSC...even what was written by him...is rather academic and at times difficult to get through. On the other hand this book is a joy to read. Well researched and many first hand accounts that give us a glimpse of WSC's persona against the backdrop of his fame and notoriety. Dozens of instances where you can almost see the resolve in his jaw, hear his sober voice and many times the twinkle in his eye. When I finished the book I felt a sense of warmth lacking in so many other WSC works.



2. Churchill was a complex and enigmatic man, so it's not surprising that this book, written by his granddaughter, is itself enigmatic. It's hard to know what to make of many of the stories, because clearly the author had a prejudiced eye--she revered her grandfather. But there are stories and anecdotes and bon mots aplenty, many of them funny enough to make me burst out laughing. My particular favorite was an aging Churchill who, when upended by a large wave while bathing in the sea, made a V-for-victory sign with his legs. I think that anecdote brought home to me, maybe for the first time, just where the British sense of humor in something like Monty Python's Flying Circus came from. There's something deeply irreverent in the British psyche, and that irreverence positively glowed inside Churchill.
   
   The book is relatively short, and makes no great demands on the reader; you aren't required to bring extensive knowledge of British and world history from Churchill's history with you. (Of course, the more you know about history from 1895 or so through 1960, the better.) I did find a few spots where the author's shifts from Churchill and his world to her later travels were so abrupt that I was left confused. It took a few puzzled re-readings of some paragraphs to grasp this. A bit of editing would have been helpful in those spots.
   
   And a reader looking for historical insight is bound to be disappointed by this book. It doesn't offer any. It's more of an affectionate character portrait than a biography. So affectionate, in fact, that the harshest language the author can use to describe her grandfather (who, whatever his better qualities may have been, was far from sainthood) was to refer to him at one point as a "paternalistic Victorian."
   
   But I enjoyed the book all the same, and I'm sure I'll read it again.



3. If there were, in fact, such a thing as Churchillian beach reading, Chasing Churchill would be it. The book begins deliciously with an anecdote describing the author's trip with her grandfather on the world-famous Christina - a voyage that marked the beginning of the epic love affair between Maria Callas and Aristotle Onassis. Wow! From the clothes to the food to the conversation, every detail drips with elegance.

   From there, though, the book loses steam, for the Christina story is by far the most interesting and well written. Perhaps because it's the only story related from the author's own memories. Other content comes in three forms: rehashing of accounts of Churchill's travels throughout his public life (most has been published elsewhere with more detail), descriptions of the author's retracing of many of those travels (not well or thoroughly described) and quotes from people Churchill met or influenced along the way (or, in many cases, their children or grandchildren relating their own family lore of encounters with the great man). Only the last of these is really worthwhile and there is so little of it that it could have made an excellent magazine article but as a book it feels sparse.

   With regards to the accounts of both the author's and her grandfather's travels, there doesn't seem to have been enough of a mandate for a full length book. As stated, most of the detail regarding Churchill's travels is rehashed from other sources (many of which were also written by Churchill descendents - what would they do without their famous relative? Seems they write lots of books about him). As for the Sandys' travels, she adds little new detail other than to impress upon the reader her ability to gain access to a series of dignitaries (Fidel Castro among them).

   The books acknowledgements thank several of Sandys' relatives for allowing quotation from their books as well as a series of corporatations for their sponsorship. The effect reinforces the idea that writing the book was more of an ego or money exercise than an attempt at further illuminating one of the last century's greatest men. It's a shame that a book that started so well ends up on such a poor note. Clearly, Celia Sandys would do better to rely on her own memories of her grandfather than on attempting new "research".




4. Celia Sandys does a terrific job detailing and following in the wandering footsteps of her incredible grandad! Starting with a trip through the Mediterranean with Onassis, and the ever-complaining opera-singer Maria Callas, when the author was about 14, and witnessing luxury on an incredible scale, even for such a famous family (i.e the Churchills). Then she goes back to 1895 New York City, and Cuba. She tell of a cigar smoking contest in 1946 Cuba between her granddad and Hemingway, sponsored by the original "Old Man And the Sea", Mr. Fueuntes, who died in 2002 at the age of 104. As both a Churchill and Hemingway buff, this was a new story for me! And the travels continue through South Africe, World World 1 France, Egypt, and in all the other famous spots visited by her legendary granddad. Some new (to me anyway), black and white photes, plus some color photos of Winston's painting are included as a special bonus. All in all, a great ride, and thanks to Mrs. Sandys for this excellent effort!



5. Ah, for the travelling life of the famous! When you read this book by Churchill's granddaughter, you get an intimate portrait of what an entourage WSC had when he went anywhere. There were private planes or yachts, villas or really up-scale hotels provided to him gratis, and a tremendous retinue of extra people to care for him. This seemed to happen even before he became world famous, and continued until his death. I don't ever want to take away the tremendous contributions he made to the peace and security of the world, but he certainly travelled like an Oriental despot! The book details his travels all over the world, and his many trips to America, both before, during and after WWII. If only the rest of us mere mortals could live in this extravagant lifestyle! This is a side of the great man's life that one rarely comes across in the many biographies of him, but it does tend to round out the picture of his life. While there are no new and startling revelations in the book, it is written in a breezy, easy reading style, and was quite enjoyable. As a granddaughter, the author tends to overlook a lot of WSC's faults, but who can blame her? We would all do that for our own family members, given the chance.

5 comments about Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph Over Adversity, 1822-1865.

1. Simpson brings to life a man who should be recognized as one of the greatest men in American history, both in his accomplishments and in his character. As a side note, but Brooks Simpson is an excellent lecturing professor. Take a class from him, and you will be inspired.



2. U.S Grant's life and military career have been explored by any number of historians over the years. Brooks Simpson's well-written biography is noteworthy for providing a nicely synthesized account based on the existing sources and some nuanced insight into Grant's military career.
   
   Simpson passes lightly and quickly over Grant's formative years. The narrative picks up steam when Grant returns to military service at the start of the Civil War. Simpson traces Grant's growth as a military leader as he progresses in rank and responsibility from Belmont to Forts Henry and Donelson to Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, the Wilderness, Petersburg, and ultimately Appomattox
   
   If Simpson's narrative contains relatively few new facts, he deserves credit for not taking older accounts at face value. By careful analysis, he calls into question the longstanding tale of Grant's drunken binge during the Siege of Vicksburg. Simpson also devotes some useful attention to Grant's attitudes about slavery, which were undoubtedly complicated by his marriage and by evolving policy over the course of the Civil War.
   
   Simpson's account of Vicksburg brings out for the reader Grant's constant need to juggle his almost insurmountable military requirements with the daunting challenge of leading a volunteer army officered in part by well-connected politicians who were sometimes less than able commanders. For example, Grant was compelled to make accomodation for the ambitious Illinois politician John McClernand during the Vicksburg campaign and for the uncooperative Ben Butler of Massachusetts during the siege of Petersburg.
   
   Simpson does an especially good job in detailing Grant's struggle to command the whole of Union forces from a field headquarters traveling with the Army of the Potomac from 1864 to 1865. Desirous of staying away from politics in Washington, Grant strove to coordinate the movement of the Union's field forces by corresponding both directly with their commanders and through defacto Army chief of staff Henry Halleck in Washington. At the same time, Grant groped for the proper level of supervision over George Meade's long-suffering Army of the Potomac. The result is a painful but ultimately successful learning curve for Grant, who combined great persistence with great common sense and an often remarkably deft political touch in finally organizing the defeat of the Confederate armed forces.
   
   Simpson provides a useful insight into the last year of the war in describing the deadlock at Petersburg as a result of opportunities missed by an Army of the Potomac exhausted after five months of continuous combat.
   
   Simpson's final chapter attempts to make sense of Grant's stunning leap from store front clerk in 1861 to General of the Union armies and victor of the Civil War by 1865. Complete understanding of Grant as a person continues to elude historians; Grant's success as a leader Simpson puts down to his strengths as a person and to his character. Grant was possessed of an keenly analytical mind whose workings were often hidden by his considerable reserve. At the same time, he was keenly observant, listened well, and had the great gift of being able to simplify problems down to their essence. Grant consistently achieved success by applying practical logic, common sense and determination to his military challenges. Grant's lack of political ambition and willingness to take responsibility earned him the leeway from Lincoln to carry out his military plans.
   
   Simpson does not spare Grant his shortcomings as a leader. Grant was desperately ambitious to redeem his military career, sensitive to criticism, often unwilling to admit mistakes, and sometimes a poor judge of character. Grant seems also to have been emotionally dependent on his wife and family and to have had issues handling alcohol.
   
   This book is highly recommended to fans of the Civil War era looking for a fascinating and nuanced portrait of U.S. Grant.



3. This volume, the first of a planned two-volume biography of Grant, covers Grant's life from birth to the end of the Civil War. It is meticulously researched and well balanced. Prof. Simpson doesn't shirk from examining charges of Grant's drinking and he doesn't hesitate to show where such charges cannot be sustained and where they can be sustained. He also doesn't hesitate to criticize Grant's performance on the battlefield where necessary. This is a necessary antidote to the biased, though beautifully written, biography of Grant by William S. McFeely. Unlike McFeely, Simpson displays an understanding of the military aspects of Grant's life and dispells the myths surrounding Grant--some of them, notably Grant's views toward blacks and slavery, perpetuated by McFeely. Anyone seeking to understand Ulysses S. Grant the man and the general will find this book to be essential. One can only hope the second volume is as good as this one.



4. This is a terrific biography of Grant. It is thoroughly researched, and meticulously documented. Professor Simpson uses his sources with refreshing transparency, and debunks many myths surrounding Grant.



5. Having read numerous books on Grant, I agree with those numerous reviewers, that the author, [Simpson], idolizes Grant. Had Simpson titled the book a "Narrative", or a "Novel", it would rate 5 stars. Attempting to pass this off as FACTUAL, and THE ONLY TRUE SOURCE is disingenuous, to say the Least. Books on Grant by Catton, John Simon or McFeeley are the standard. This book may be a fun book to read, but It lacks credibility. Below is just one example of Simpsons Hyperbole on Grant:
   
   This is from the book, "Triumph Over Adversity". I've captioned the questionable (IMO) words/phrases in parenthesis. I explained those on the bottom. (IMHO), the author [Simpson] spins the history, to create an imaginary Grant. [the footnotes in the 'quote' are mine. I explain the flaws pertaining to this at the bottom]
   [Quote]
   
   -On the morning of June 6, he [Grant] boarded a steamer headed north along the Yazoo for Satartia. With him was Charles Dana.
   
   It was a sick man who left headquarters that morning, although it is unclear exactly what was the problem. Perhaps (1) it was a migraine brought on by stress (2). Others,( 3) looking to offer him some relief, had proffered a glass or two of liquor. It was bad enough that Sherman's doctor had proposed wine as a remedy, but Rawlins exploded when he encountered Grant on the evening of June 5, chatting with several staff officers who were sipping wine and asking him to join them. Rawlins retreated to his tent to prepare yet another temperance lecture in the form of a lengthy letter (4). "The great solicitude I feel for the safety of this army leads me to mention what I had hoped never again to do--the subject of your drinking," he began. Perhaps (5) his suspicions were "unfounded," but when the general, "because of the condition of your health if nothing else, have been in bed." chose instead to chat away while alcohol circulated, it was time to worry. Moreover, the chief of staff believed that "the lack of your usual promptness decision and clearness in expressing yourself in writing tended to confirm my suspicions." Rawlins admitted he might be wrong, but he wanted to make sure that Grant adhered to his March pledge of total abstinence. (6) According to one account, Rawlins gave Grant the letter the next morning, just before Grant's departure; although there is no record of Grant's response, Rawlins must have been reassured, for he did not accompany the general aboard the steamer.
   
   What happened next has become the source of great discussion and even greater mythmaking. In all probability, (7) Grant sought relief from his pain by downing a glass of liquor; when that, far from doing the trick, made him feel worse, even woozy, (8) he retreated to his cabin. As the steamer approached Satartia, two gunboats hailed it, reporting that Union forces had abandoned Satartia and it was no longer secure. Dana notified Grant of this still reeling from his headache, Grant left it up to Dana what to do next. (9) Dana decided to return Hayes' Bluff. The next morning, Grant arose, discovered where they were (10), and ordered a cavalry detachment to ride over to Mechanicsburg to see what was going on. Dana, satisfied that Grant was better, accompanied the detachment; Grant returned to Vicksburg.
   
   In years to come, this was not what people read and repeated. What emerged instead was a story charging that Grant got drunk on a joyride up the river. Dana himself gave credence to this story, writing in 1887 that Grant was merely on an "an excursion" on the Yazoo "during a dull period in the campaign," which allowed him to get "as stupidly drunk as the immortal nature of man would allow." Even richer was the story of newspaperman Sylvanus Cadwallader, who concocted an account featuring his heaving bottles out of the steamer's stateroom before locking the intoxicated general up--followed the next day by yet another Grant spree, capped by a wild horseback ride through the woods in which he was saved from certain disaster by a combination of luck, fate, and Cadwallader. That Dana, who surely would have heard the ruckus on the steamer described by the reporter, denied that Cadwallader was present (11) was only the most serious of several contradictions between the two accounts, which they and James H. Wilson tried to reconcile in 1890 by concluding that there must have been two trips. By that time, both Cadwallader and Wilson agreed that Grant was highly overrated (and their own contribution to his success, as well as that of Rawlins, was underrated); Dana had become disillusioned with the General.
   
   Key components of the tale woven by this trio unravel in the face of careful reading of the evidence; nevertheless, many fine scholars, always on the lookout for a colorful story or two to enliven their narratives, and desperate for a good account of Grant actually drinking, (12) have embraced it without batting an eyelash. They have even cited Rawlin's letter in confirmation of the story (13) although it was prepared before Grant left; they ignore the endorsement appended by Rawlins; "Its admonitions were heeded, and all went well." How could that Rawlins have said that if Cadwallader's report is accurate? (14) To accept this fable, one would have to believe that an ailing Grant, alarmed as he was about the security of his lines, nevertheless decided to board a steamer headed for the threatened area just to get away from Rawlins so he could drink in private (15)--and that he knowingly invited along for the ride a representative from the War Department whose assignment was to report on his private habits and fitness for command. (16) Tucked away in a draft of his biography of Rawlins was Wilson's admission of what really happened--Grant "fell sick, and thinking a drink of spirits would do him good, took one with the usual unhappy results. (17)
   
   Source-"Triumph Over Adversity"-Brooks D. Simpson-copyright-2000-p.206-8
   
   1.) "Perhaps it was a migraine"--(a) the word perhaps is an elusive word, used to create doubt.
   
   (b) Where is the source for this migraine? Since the author used no quotation marks, I assume the author used poetic license.
   
   2.) "Stress"-No quotations on the word "stress"--did Grant have a history of stress related migraines during the war?
   
   3.) "Others"-no quotations here either, where is the source? The author uses quotations for his sources, why none here?
   
   4.) Rawlins seen Grant around officers drinking and went to write a letter. (This point is mentioned in the last paragraph)
   
   5.) "Perhaps-another use of this word to create doubt
   
   6.)"make sure that Grant adhered to his March pledge of total abstinence. "--Grant drank throughout the war, according to several sources.
   
   7.) "In all probability, "--again, no quotations marks, and an elusive word to create doubt.
   
   8.) "made him feel worse, even woozy"-no quotation marks, where is the source for this? How does the author know? Does feeling `woozy' mean `drunk'?
   
   9.) "Grant left it up to Dana what to do next. "-This is what Dana wrote! Grant allowing a Dana to assume command and issue orders seems a bit of a stretch.
   
   10.) "...Grant arose, discovered where they were..."--Why did he just `discover' this? Dana told him immediately!
   
   11.) "denied that Cadwallader was present -Dana does not say this in his `Recollections'. (notice no quotation marks on this allegation by the author).
   
   12.) "desperate for a good account of Grant actually drinking"--Other sources mention Grant drinking at other times. Grant did in fact, `Drink'.
   
   13.) "They have even cited Rawlin's letter in confirmation of the story -See number four; Rawlins wrote `the subject of your drinking...", not the Yazoo trip. (it seems the author is spinning a story)
   
   14.) "How could Rawlins have said that if Cadwallader's report is accurate? "-Rawlins wrote about a different event, not the Yazoo trip.
   
   15.) "To accept this fable, ....so he could drink in private"-The author uses no source that is a fable, no quotation marks, his conclusion is questionable,
   
   16.) "he knowingly invited along for the ride a representative from the War Department whose assignment was to report on his private habits and fitness for command. "--That was Rawlins job. Rawlins was placed in the position for that very thing, by Sec. Of War, Edward M. Stanton. Rawlins was not asked to come along!!!
   
   17.) "Wilson's admission of what really happened--Grant "fell sick, and thinking a drink of spirits would do him good, took one with the usual unhappy results. "--'The usual results when Grant drank, was that he got drunk'.

4 comments about An Autobiography of George Washington.

1. Without a doubt one of the best books published. You will have no doubt this great nation was founded with God's guidance. Great read!



2. Yes, this book is channeled literature. However, if you have an open mind and can get past the messenger, you'll find the message is both entertaining and enlightening. Personally, I find the realistic detail of this book to be very refreshing. It seems we all too often look upon George Washington as a hero and leader without par and forget to actually get to know the man. In this book you'll get to know the man and Mason that was the father of our country.



3. This book was written several decades ago, but there was a small readership in those days for information channeled from the Other Side. Thanks to an ever-growing acceptance of this type of writing, we are able to gain access to valuable information.
   Here is the story of George Washington's life, told by the man himself from the Other Side. I was fascinated from start to finish. Perhaps there are those who would argue that this was not channeled, but that instead, Edith Ellis concocted the whole story. This seems implausible, given the wealth of detail and feeling that comes across. Of course, it is up to the reader to decide.
   I had Amazon send this book to my mother, and after she read it, she sent it to me. There was something strange in the ending of the book, and on closer inspection, I found that the last 2 chapters were missing, and the void was filled with a repeated section of pages from earlier in the book. I asked Amazon to replace it, and I also asked them to send me a copy as well.
   My copy had all the correct pages--but apparently Amazon sent my mother another defective copy; the important last 2 chapters are once again missing, thus cutting out Mr. Washington's presidency and his death.
   Of the three copies I requested, two were defective. I was surprised that Amazon did not take the trouble to see how many of these defective books they have in stock; they replaced a defective book with just another defective book. I wonder if they have notified the Hay House Publishing Company of this.
   Amazon's service is usually outstanding, but until they work this glitch out, save yourself a hassle and order it directly from Hay House Publishers.



4. I found this book to be really amazing and carefully researched. The authenticity is really incredible. It turned George Washington from a wooden stick figure, into the really amazing person he was. I know some people will question the authencity of the material. But, to me, the wealth of detail, emotions, make it an unquestionably good read.

5 comments about The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder.

1. This is a somewhat amusing outdated book that mainly quotes various statements to spew from the mouth of one G.W Bush during the first year of his presidency.
   
   It goes without saying for me that Bush has absolutely no input as to what decisions are made but the real question in my mind is if he has brain damage from the years of drug and alcohol abuse, is he drunk or high on acid while giving interviews and speeches, is he just that dumb or is he a great actor that is intentionally playing the role of inept moron in order to create a scapegoat to divert attention away from the real controllers?



2. Wonderful. A close, intimate reading of the complex tapestry that is George Bush. Recommended for evangelical Christians, Oil Company executives, and NASCAR mommies and daddies who STILL believe.



3. When you actually listen to the things George W. Bush says, you might just wince at the barbarisms, mispronunciations of words and the poor grammar. "Misunderestimate" is one of Bush's most infamous to date. My personal favorite "Bushism" was one he made in or about 2000 in re imports. Bush actually said that "more and more of our imports are coming in from overseas." Where did he think imports were coming from, Boston? Good grief!
   
   If nothing else, Bushisms do provide some comic relief during these times of strife and war. While I am no fan of this president and will be among the many who will call the emperor naked and his administration of the emperor's new clothing genre, I do get a kick out of some of his more outlandish comments. As for calling him an anti-intellectual, I beg to differ. I would have to say that instead of opposing intellectualism, Bush is out of the ballgame as he is certainly a far cry from an intellectual by anyone's reckoning. Gently put, he is not the brightest bulb in the lamp or the sharpest tool in the shed.
   
   Was Bush a child who got left behind? This book includes quite a list of Bush's verbal gaffes and poorly contructed sentences. It makes you wonder why on earth the media panders to him - the emperor is naked, for Pete's sake!
   
   This author claims Bush's verbal challenges are caused by dyslexia. His term "West Texas ebonics" actually made me laugh. Bush's barbarisms, while grimace-worthy is not necessarily a regional problem. Bush's handlers try to prep him for television and instead of focusing on issues, many times the media will throw in red herrings such as Al Gore's lack of spontaneity in his delivery and Perot's distinctive ears. For Pete's sake! What do those trivial matters have to do with pressing issues? Absolutely nothing!
   
   It is very sad that Bush (called Dumbya by the local democrat organizations in this state) is not able to name world leaders; thinks Mexico is South America (and yes, he did say that early in the game) and expressed surprise that imports to America came in from overseas. How in the blue hell did he get to be the apple of the media's eye? He is lobbed some soft ball questions; he does not appear to be able to catch hard ball issues or grasp complex issues and questions. As for "the soft bigotry of low expectations," Dumbya is the poster child for that claim and is also the poster child of who got left behind.
   
   In April of 2007, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada called Dumbya a naked emperor, which seems very spot on. This was in re Dumbya's kvetching about Nancy Pelosi taking time off from her job just as he was about to take some time off from "presidentin'," as his humorous alter-ego who plays him on "Saturday Night Live" says.
   
   Miller hits the bull in the eye when he chafes against the Right's concerted efforts to make Dumbya appear to be an ordinary man for everybody. Comparing him to previous presidents is an insult; Dumbya does not appear to be anywhere near their league of intellectual depth and comprehension of issues. Representative Watts' claim that one need not be smart to be president is a sad fact in today's world; one would think that intelligence would be a job requirement.
   
   Bush, unlike Carter, Clinton, LBJ, Lincoln, Senator John Edwards, Gerald Ford and others did not work his way up from humble beginnings. He had Affirmative Action for the Rich - in this case called "being a legacy." Having a dad who's well connected will certainly open many a door. It has been well documented that Bush was no scholar and was quite a regular attendee at campus parties. As another reviewer on the US boards notes, Dumbya wasted good opportunities at schools like Andover and Yale who most likely would never have accepted him without some string-pulling. He was spoonfed a sense of entitlement to a lavish lifestyle; constant protection and gaining admission to schools who otherwise would not have accepted him. Dumbya's comment about Buckley's having written a book and Dumbya having read one - sad comment given that during his administration, Dumbya said he didn't read and that included the news. How in the blue hell can a president dodge the news? That is a large part of the president's business!
   
   Miller's book is crisp, well written and his trenchant comments will stay with readers long after finishing the last page. This is not just a book for those who don't care for Bush and I admit that I am one - this is a book for everybody. It is a look behind the Presidential Curtain.



4. To understand and appreciate this work, you must be an American first and a party member second. It is then, and only then, that one can fully understand how George W. Bush, with a golden opportunity to become one of our most revered Presidents, will go down in history as one of the worst, and the second most hated man to live in the last hundred years. Freedom is not the right to do as you please, but the liberty to do as you should. I've read several articles that said this President was his father's puppet. Nothing could be farther from the truth. He's no one's puppet, he's uncontrollable. I've always referred to George W. as Caligula. Actions, good or bad, soon fall prey to habit. As a registered Republican, I offer my condolence and beg to be forgiven for the 2,250 Americans and the countless Arabs who have been needlessly murdered. My party is out of control. We are like a pack of wild dogs that kill not from hunger, but for pleasure.



5. The beginning and end of this book is pretty good, when he is not explaining Bush's quotes. It gets boring in the middle.