2 comments about Mr. Jefferson's Hammer: William Henry Harrison and the Origins of American Indian Policy.

1. Robert Owens gives a fair and comprehensive biography of Harrison's career and value system. Harrison experiments in anti-slavery idealism during his college years. like many scions of Virginia, he finds himself not inheriting as much wealth and property as his parents. he squanders what land he did inherit selling it to his brother and some others for Bonds that don't get paid. Fortunately there is a frontier of Northwest Territory larger than the 13 colonies. It is full of indians and British rabblerousers. Harrison uses the influence of his family to petition for a commission in the U.S. army. He does his job well, his early failures are only the failures of the entire army.
   
   The Northwest Territory is slow to develop. Part of the reason it is slow to develop is that settlers can claim so much land at once. There isn't a population density high enough to require greater efficiency in agriculture, or enough industry to float a population with greater demand agricultural products. The answer seems to have been acquiring land from the Indians in bigger swoops, which were generally unscrupulous. the semi-aristocracy of the territories favored importing slaves to develop the land. the smaller landholders and workers didn't want slavery to diminish the value of their own production, or big manor slave owners lording it over them.
   
   Once in the private sector, big land holders tried to make money producing vast amounts of alcohol. This abundance of alcohol ultimately produced the slow talking yokel dialect later encountered in the rural midwest and south.
   
   In the end Harrison is a relatively decent person, occasionally taking opportunities that obscured this decency.



2. The three best things about this book are the extensive primary research, the author's clarity, and his unrelenting fairness to all his subjects. Every time Owens describes any peculiar behavior--whether by William Henry Harrison, other American politicians or by Native Americans leaders--he explains it in its context and then goes on to point out if it fits with the circumstances or if the actors are being inconsistent or hypocritical. While most historians work to understand the nuances and characters of their subjects, Owens is unique in explicitly laying these out along with the logic of his assertions. This helps the reader to really understand the motivations of these frontier people instead of just having to accept an author's implicit assumptions. To paraphrase a line from The Razor's Edge, Owens gives the reason and the intent--most historians just give the reason.
   
   Besides the historical quality and the impressive research, Mr. Jefferson's Hammer is just a highly enjoyable read. Owens writes very vividly and uses lots of colorful language. The last two chapters, which describe Harrison wheeling and dealing for land and build up to the death of the Shawnee leader Tecumseh, have the pacing of a novel or at least a popular history. The author also has a snappy way of characterizing people and actions that make the book a lot of fun to read.
   
   One somewhat noteworthy omission is that the section entitled "Everyday Life in Early Indiana" hardly mentions farming (except a couple of lines in passing), which one would suspect would be the most sizeable component of everyday life. He discusses ideological and cultural issues that are more related to the narrative, but it just seems that he could have included more about farming in that part or renamed the section.
   
   That, however, is a small complaint about an issue that does nothing to detract from the author's intent to explore the rationale behind and the unfolding of U.S. and Indian relations on the frontier. I really love this book and think anyone interested in U.S. history would do much to clarify and add depth to their understanding of this period by reading it.

5 comments about Zachary Taylor : Soldier, Planter, Statesman of the Old Southwest.

1. Very Enjoyable. An easy read. President Taylor is a cousin of mine, and it was fun to learn a little bit about him.
   Fred Clark
   www.reverbnation.com/fredclark
   www.myspace.com/fredclarkmusic



2. Sadly, after one slogs through an exhautive accounting of Zachary Taylor's military career presented here, you are neither greatly informed nor satisfactorily influemced about the man himself. Beyond gauging that Taylor was a relatively witless minion bouyed by circumstance into the presidency, one is left empty of opinion as to the depth of his character and definition of his nature. One can know just as little about Taylor without reading this dry and bland text, and enjoy life just a bit more in the not reading.



3. This book is a tough one to get through, not through any fault of the Author but due to the dryness of the material. I am currently in the process of reading a book on every US President and this book seemed to be the best one out there on Zachary Taylor.
   
   I would recommend if you are trying to find out more about the subject, but if you are looking for a great historical page turner, you need to look elsewhere.



4. I am currently reading a biography of every President in order and Bauer's book seemed like the obvious choice for Zachary Taylor.
   
   This book is a bit difficult to rate fairly as I doubt any full biography of Zachary Taylor could be made into a great read. Indeed, Bauer's biography is excellently researched and organized. The writing, although a bit uninspired, is easy to read and well presented. At times, however, this book is very dull and in my opinion Bauer tends to error on the side of going into too much detail. Taylor's military career had few standout moments and most of the first part of the book focuses more on Taylor's transfer from fort to fort along the western frontier.
   
   If there is a President for which a short biography would suffice Taylor is it, and while at slightly over 300 pages of text Bauer's tome is by no means exceedingly long, at the end of the book I felt that it could certainly have been cut down by about 100 pages while still providing a comprehensive biography. Undoubtedly, however, this is the best one volume biography of Taylor available (why anyone would need to read Holman Hamilton's two volume work is beyond me) and certainly more than adequate for its task.



5. This was a terrible attempt at scholarship. The book is poorly written and gives an overview with no specifics except for military encounters. This author should have focused his efforts on a military account of Taylor's life because after reading I feel I know nothing about the man. Admittedly there are severe source deficiencies when dealing with this subject but a much wider study could have been undertaken. Sadly there is not much written on Taylor and this does a poor job of adding to the scholarship.

5 comments about Chiang Kai Shek: China's Generalissimo and the Nation He Lost.

1. While the author seems dispassionate and measured enough, there is the hard reality that the documentary base on which to make a judgement about Chiang's character and career is sparse. This means that there are times when the record seems so lurid that one has to wonder what was really happening. That said, this will give the general reader a feel for Chinese state that the Generalissimo tried to build, why he was undone by his personal limitations, and the perspective time has given us regarding his historic achievements.



2. For a nice rendition of all that was done in the United States inside and outside the State Department to undermine the Nationalist effort, try The China Story by Freda Utley.



3. Fenby is excellent in the early life of Chiang and the war years in Chungking--lots of anecdotes and tidbits. However a lot happened after 1950 when he installed himself in Taiwan and proceeded with a land reform that ultimately helped save his regime. He also steadfastly defended the island against communist threat-with US help- which under an alternative regime might not have survived. This post-war period is totally missing from Fenby's account, which does not mention that when he died there was a massive outpouring of sentiment from the people. The irony is that he is more revered today in the China he lost than in the Taiwan he helped save!



4. I started this book with minimal knowledge of China in the first half of the 20th century, beyond a knowledge of the key events. After reading Jonathan Fenby's magnus opus at 500 pages that gap in my knowledge has been very well filled. Using the life of Chiang Kai-Shek (CSK) up to his establishing of the National government in exile in Formosa (now Taiwanbthis book is an excellent coverage of the history of China to 1950, very well wrtitten and great command of many sources and consistent probing analysis of the issues and problems CSK and China faced.
   
   The sub title of the book "And the China he lost" is the key - Fenby uses the life of CSK from humble beginnings to show that while he may have had a major impact in uniting post Manchu China, he consistently by personal failings and lack of realism to see himself as other than the divine national leader of China whose word was law and to delegate power, left it open to the eventual communist takeover under Mao, a man who operated a similar autocratic approach but was pragmatic enough to create the rural revolution needed.
   
   The first half of Fenby's book is about CSK's success at overcoming the various regional warlords whose feudal approach to local power and unwillingness to accept central government reads like England in the Middle Ages. However while this may count as CSK's great success it
   also showed many of the issues to come. CSK's military prowess was based on a mix of foreign military advisers (first Russian then German) and the use of bribery rather than personal military skills to often win victories. While making certain initial military reforms, CSK was unable to accept the wider need to invest in a high quality army relying on size and loyalty rather than skill and focus.
   
   Having formed a loose regional federation, CSK then failed to seize the initiative to introduce much needed rural reform and instead aligned himself by marriage with corrupt urban wealthy families and launched a series of vicious attacks on the infant Communist party. His near success in eradicating the Communists was devastated by the Japanese invasion of China and the continual loss at great cost in lives of large and important areas of China to Japanese rule.
   
   Even when presented with the golden opportunity of USA support post Pearl Harbour the opportunities were spurned due largely to CSK's nationalist attitude and lack of pragmatism and reality as to what was happening in China plus endless arguing with his US advisers who he saw threatening his authority. His endless meddling in military matters by issuing numerous orders when he was far from the front or executing a sound strategy plus the increasing corruption of his close followers meant that the Japanese were not pushed back and the Communists were able to survive and prosper.
   
   With the end of WWII, CSK again took a gamble in the hope of playing off Russia and USA influences under the Cold War to survive but underestimated their lack of support based on his WWII performance - once his armies had to face down the communists his poor military skills became clear and the end was quick. Consistent to the end he ensured a retreat to exile in
   Formosa with troops and gold leaving Chian to its fate but only after wreaking his final vengeance in murdering Chinese allies whohe felt had betrayed him.
   
   One finishes the book clear that whill CSK may have had a major impact on China it came at a great cost and with little real chance of long term success given his inability to react correctly to changes in Chinese society and economy and foreign forces.



5. Short, Philip (1999) Mao: A Life (Holt: New York)
   
   Fenby, Jonathan (2003) Chiang Kai-Shek: China's Generalissimo and the Nation He Lost (Carroll & Graf: New York).
   
   On October 1, 1949 Chairman Mao Zedong stood at the Gate of Heavenly Peace and declared the founding of the People's Republic of China. He told the assembled crowd, "We, the 475 million Chinese people have stood up and our future is infinitely bright." He further continued "The Chinese people have stood up." Two months the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) achieved later final victory. The leader of the Kuomintang (KMT), Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek, fled with his party to the Chinese provincial island of Taiwan. That day was the endgame of a battle that began twenty-two years earlier during the 1927 Autumn Harvest Uprising in Hunan.
   Both Mao and Chiang are synonymous with the history of modern China. Both men came from similar backgrounds, had similar strategies and similar visions for China. Each man came from humble origins - Chiang the son of a salt merchant and Mao the son of a well off peasant. Mao and Chiang also sought to remake China as a modern nation within the world of nation-states. On more than one occasion each man was willing to use the other for their own struggle within their respective parties. To a degree, they were peas in a pod in modern China.
   The capturing of these complicated men in their pod has been a complicated process for most writers. Many writers are trapped in their internal politics to capture the true person behind the images. Mao and Chiang both have had devoted followers and devote detractors who were more than willing to take a blind eye to things both good and bad done by these men.
   Short and Fenby, however, do not. These two biographies are both extremely objective and sound. Mao is seen as the terrible dictator that he was. "His rule brought about the deaths of more of his own people than any other leader in history." Short admires Mao as being the man "who wrenched China from it medieval torpor and forced it into the contours of a modern nation."
   Fenby, meanwhile, is equally objective in his assessment of the Generalissimo. Chiang's regime, both on the Mainland and on Taiwan, was not the thriving democracy it is even though of in the west. But in fact, it was a authoritarian one "organized on Leninist lines with a repressive internal security apparatus." Yet in the wake of three decades of horrid revolution, "Chiang and his era become less of the nightmare painted after the Communist victory."
   Without Mao or Chiang China would probably still be the semi-colonial backwater it was when they were born in the late nineteenth century. Both men helped to unmake the old feudalist China ran for the betterment of Qing Dynasty and laid the groundwork for the extreme economic growth both on the Mainland and on Taiwan. Each Short and Fenby attempt to capture these two complicated men who will dominate the pages of history for centuries to come. Each is a fantastic read about the two men who would be king.

5 comments about The Age of Alexander: Nine Greek Lives (Penguin Classics, L286).

1. This is a wonderful book. The translations by Prof. Scott-Kilvert are lively and interesting, especially for undergraduates. But the book is a pain in the neck to use because the editors have not thought it necessary to include an index. I have had to do one myself on the life of Alexander for my students who are using the book in tandem with Arrian's Campaigns of Alexander and Quintus Curtius (both of which are your books, Penguin, and both of which have indexes!).
   
   Penguin, you have tarted up all your other books with new covers, and you have jacked up the prices accordingly, so when you get around to Alexander, who, after all, is the selling point of this eponymous tome, please include an index so that the book will become useful as well as entertaining.
   
   Thank you.



2. The biographies of nine Greek statesmen in this book are perfectly representative for the eternal battle between tyranny (oligarchy) and democracy, between oppression and freedom, between the few and the many, between the haves and the have-nots. The fighting took place within the Greek city States, but also among themselves and in foreign countries, because the oligarchs (tyrants) tried to export their political system. To make things worse, the tyrants fought among themselves, for `greed is the congenital disease of dynasties'.
   This relentless fighting was a disaster for Greece and its population: `Alas, for Greece, how many brave men have you killed with your own hands.'
   After all those suicidal wars, at the end of the book, Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, is confronted with a new and formidable imperial power, Rome.
   
   This book contains some astonishing historical corrections. E.g., not all Spartans were killing machines: `those who had shown cowardice in the battle ... had become so numerous that it was feared they might stir up a revolution.' (!)
   It shows us Plutarch as a severe critic of the few (`kings set an example of bad faith and treachery ... and believe that the man who shows the least regard for justice will always reap the greatest advantage'), on the side of the many (` (`it s wrong both in human and political terms to try to raise the standard in one section of society by demoralizing another') and as a `dove' (`expansion is superfluous to the well-being of a city').
   All in all, it was a period of extreme barbarism. `Dynasties are full of men who murdered their sons, their mothers and their wives, while the murder of brothers had come to be regarded as a recognized precaution to be taken by all rulers to ensure their safety.'
   The mother of Alexander the Great, Olympias, took revenge on another widow of his father by roasting her and her infant son.
   
   This book is a must read for all those interested in the history of mankind.



3. Although Plutarch saves his best energy for the Romans, as a Greek citizen of the empire he could not help but produce some very fine essays on the great men from his homeland's glory days. In this Penguin volume some of the best are collected together. These are all "lives" from the period of the "Diadochi," the military successors to Alexander's legacy. There is one special feature this volume has that others in this valuable series do not: a dramatis personae of the main players in the dynastic struggles surrounding the death of Alexander. While the life of Alexander is the centerpiece to the collection, the lives of his generals who carried on after him are just as compelling reading. Filled with obsevations on character and moral philosophy, as all Plutarch's biographical writings are, these are some of the most entertaining stories in classical Western literature. As an example, the "Life of Pyrrhus" is absolutely priceless as a portrait of the fierce but frustrated warmonger with his weird visage and his penchant for performing miracles by placing his foot on the spleen of sick people. Plutarch employs humor and a sense of irony as he describes this brilliant general's character and career, the meandering leader who took on the early Romans for control of Italy. He provided an enduring lesson in the rise of the great republic, a lesson we all can learn from, in his all-too-hollow victories. As a matter of cultural literacy, this volume is full of information that educated people should know, and so I strongly recommend it to history students and literature students as well as philosophy students.



4. Plutarch in his "Lives Of The Noble Grecians And Romans" written around 100 C.E., sheds new light on Greek and Roman history from their Bronze Age beginnings, shrouded in myth, down through Alexander and late Republican Rome. Plutarch is the lens that we use today to view the Greco-Roman past; his work has shaped our perceptions of that world for 2,000 years. Plutarch writes of the rise of Roman Empire while Gibbon uses his scholarship to advance the story to write about its decline. He was a proud Greek that was equally effected by Roman culture, a Delphic priest, a leading Platonist, a moralist, educator and philosopher with a deep commitment as a first rate writer. Being a Roman citizen, Plutarch was afforded the opportunity to become an intimate friend to prominent Roman citizens and a member of the literary elite in the court of Emperor Trajan.
   
   Plutarch's influence and enormous popularity during and after the Renaissance is legendary among classicist. Plutarch's "Lives", served as the sourcebook for Shakespeare's Roman Plays "Julius Caesar", "Antony and Cleopatra" and "Coriolanus". By the way Plutarch is even the only contemporary source of all the biographical information on Cleopatra, whom he writes about in his biographies of Julius Caesar, Mark Antony and Octavian. Thomas Jefferson wrote to his nephew that there were three books every gentleman had to have familiarity with; Plutarch's "Lives", Livy's "History of Rome" and Virgil's Aeneid. In fact all the founding fathers of note had read Plutarch and learned much from his fifty biographies of noble men of Greece and Rome. When Hamilton, Jay and Madison write "The Federalist Papers" they use many examples of good and bad leadership traits that they read in Plutarch's work. His biographies are a great study in human character and what motivates leaders to decide and act the way they do, this masterpiece has proven to be still prescient today.
   
   If you are truly interested in a classical education, put this book on the top of your list! I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in political philosophy, and history.



5. Plutarch was a Greek scholar living in the Roman Empire. He was not a historian, per se, but rather a biographer who used the lives of famous Greeks and Romans to illustrate strengths and weaknesses of character, how they impacted events, and how events impacted them. He wrote his biographies in pairs, matching a Greek and Roman whose lives, in his view, exemplified common traits or themes. His pairings being generally rather superficial, Penguin has chosen to publish the individual "Lives" in chronological groupings. The nine presented in "The Age Of Alexander" include Plutarch's biography of Alexander the Great along with those of eight famous Greeks from the same period.

   Writing during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian, Plutarch was already dealing with people from hundreds of years in his past. Fortunately for us, as his writing shows, he still had a lot of evidence to draw on. Frequently mentioned are contemporary accounts and, in the case of Alexander, letters written by Alexander himself, which apparently still existed in Plututarch's time. Sometimes he cites more than one source in cases where accounts disagree. The richness of Plutarch's sources is valuable because so much of that ancient source material is now lost.

   Plutarch is at his best in describing dramatic events and when commenting on the strengths and weaknesses of his subjects. As reading material, this book could hardly be called a "page-turner" in the contemporary sense of that term, but you don't have to be a student of history to appreciate the dramatic, and often violent, nature of the times and of the lives of the men covered in this collection. Only one of them died in bed. Life was often violent and short, and the violence was gratuitous. A man whose deeds were out of favor might well be treated to the sight of his family being executed before being dispatched himself.

   Personally, I'm more a fan of Roman history than the Greeks (although Alexander is certainly a fascinating character), and the Greeks covered in this book are generally much less familiar to me than those of the Romans contained in other volumes. Nevertheless, this is classic literature of a high order. Plutarch is a great storyteller, and his insightful and anecdotal style is never dull. Further, his work is one of those rare examples of ancient writing and scholarship that have survived, and in that sense alone his "Lives" are a treasure. "The Age Of Alexander" isn't the easiest reading you'll find, but it is both interesting and rewarding. It's probably not everyone's cup of tea, but give it a try. You may just find it as enjoyable as I do.

5 comments about After Fidel, Updated Edition: Raul Castro and the Future of Cuba's Revolution.

1. The author is very astute and informed. This book will open your eyes to the total affect Castro had on the world. Includes a partial biogaphy explaining the personal side of Castro that many aren't aware of. Worth the read.



2. As a college professor, if not as a high ranking CIA, one expects an author to investigate what he writes and not be sloppy in his research. In the first page of his first chapter, the author attributes to José Martí a well known poem by Puerto Rican poet Lola Rodríguez de Tió. In English the first verses would be: Cuba and Puerto Rico are the two wings of a bird that receives flowers and bullets in the same heart.
   The problem with that first impression is that one can not help but ask, how credible this book really is.



3. I bought this book because its title caught my attention.What's gonna happen after Fidel? Mr Latell's account is very well researched and documented.His insight and instincts really gives the book a good "taste".I guess after many years watching a person you get an edge over a reporter or historian.His depiction and study of Raul Castro and his relation with Fidel is very accurate since i have heard basically the same opinions from people that used to live in Cuba.Good book and good work by the author.



4. After Fidel: The Inside Story of Castro's Regime and Cuba's Next Leader.(Book review): An article from: Military Review
   
   After reading the Spanish version, I decided to read the English version for comparison. There were many translations into Spanish that were not familiar to me.
   
   The author provides insides into the Castros' way of thinking of which probably very few are aware. The information provided makes it easier to
   discuss Castro with Cuban-American friends that hate his guts.
   
   The book concentrates on behavior and time-wise jumps around. To get a
   better understanding of events in an orderly time sequence, other readings are necessary.
   
   I recommend this book to anybody that is interesting in learning the inner feelings that make Fidel and Raul 'tick.' I never realized what an egomaniac 'gachupin' he was until reading this book.



5. This book is mostly about Fidel. There are only two chapters that hone in on Raul. Even Latell, who surely knows more than he could reveal in his own book, didn't reveal too much. He avoided the Bay of Pigs. He didn't say much about Cuba's interference in other Central and South American countries.
   
   Still, it's a good read for laymen wanting to know the basics about Castro and Cuba. Who will take over the island once Fidel dies? Even Latell could only speculate, mentioning a few top ministers from the brothers' group (Raulistas).
   
   Although I didn't gain much insight about Raul, I did learn interesting tidbits about Fidel: the entire clan were illigitimate. Fidel himself has his girlfriend (and their children) set aside. That both Fidel and Raul have a deep hidden side should be no surprise. After Fidel gave the reigns over to Raul in August 2006 there were rumors that Raul would be a ruthless dictator worse than his brother. That hasn't occurred.

5 comments about Andrew Jackson: The Course of American Democracy, 1833-1845 (Andrew Jackson).

1. Few Americans have won the mythical status enjoyed by Andrew Jackson. Often portrayed, in his day and since, as the champion of the common man, Jackson came to Washington as an outsider, the first President born outside the thirteen original states, indeed the first president born neither in Virginia nor Massachusetts. Throughout Jackson historiography, Jackson via his policy of `rotation' in office has been accused of instituting the spoils system in American politics. This criticism highlights how Whig myths have come to permeate the historical writing on this subject.
   
   Starting with James Parton in 1860, anti-Jackson historians have followed this criticism, blaming Jackson for replacing a supposed merit system with a partisanship that corrupted the civil service for generations. Despite further research since Jackson's time, many historians have uncritically repeated these accusations without examining the actual record of appointments during the presidency unhappily described by some as "The Reign of Andrew Jackson".
   
   There have been essentially four cycles of studies into the life and Presidency of Andrew Jackson. The first cycle began soon after the death of Jackson with the "liberal patrician" or "Whig" school, who were generally unfavourable towards the policy of rotation. Most familiar is James Parton's classic The "Life of Andrew Jackson". So critical of rotation was Parton that he stated "this single feature of his administration would suffice to render it deplorable rather than admirable." Other members of the "Whig" school include Sumner, Schouler and Von Holst, all very critical of Jackson's policy of rotation. Parton's biography was the standard source on the Jacksonian era, until the second cycle represented by the Progressive Historians, such as John Spencer Bassett's "The Life of Andrew Jackson (1911), which cast Jackson in somewhat of a different light. Bassett reduces the amount of blame put on Jackson for rotation by suggesting that his democratic views made him oblivious to unintentional dangers from partisan appointments. However, the Progressives shared with the Whigs the view that Jackson had brought a spoils system to national politics and that its effects were negative.
   
   Historians in the third cycle of Jacksonian studies, of which Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s "The Age of Jackson" (1945) served as a pivotal work, shifted attention away from Jackson himself towards larger forces in his era. Historians of the third cycle, such as Hofstadter and Hammond, debated the effects of class and culture in determining party differences while showing little interest in evaluating Jackson's rotation policy, though tending to criticise it briefly. No biographies of Jackson discussed the policy of rotation in depth during the next thirty years.
   
   The appearance of Robert V. Remini's three-volume biography of Jackson marked the start of the fourth cycle of interpretation. Based on modern scholarship, Remini covers all aspects of Jackson's life and career, demonstrating his contribution to the great developments of nineteenth century America, particularly empire, freedom and democracy. By returning to first hand sources, Remini shows that the policy of rotation in office has been exaggerated and misunderstood. However, having set himself the remarkable task of producing a thorough study of the life and Presidency of Jackson, Remini did not have the scope for a detailed re-interpretation and re-evaluation of rotation. Since Remini's work there have been many scholarly works on Jackson, but none offer an in-depth reassessment of rotation as touched upon by Remini.
   
   Remini states that Jackson has received a disproportionate share of the blame for the spoils system and that there is a need to disprove the Whig myths, which have come to permeate the historical writings of historians over the generations. Remini was not the first to stress the need for such a revision; in fact a similar plea was expressed by J.R. Poinsett in the "Oration on the life and character of Andrew Jackson, delivered July 4, 1845" when he stated about Jackson, "His instinctive love of justice... gave a high tone to his government and exalted the honor of his country. His hatred of corruption rendered his administration pure.... I will content myself with expressing my belief that in future time the impartial historian will justify both his motives and his conduct on this trying occasion.
   
   Remini offers the reader a great insight into the pioneering mind of one of America's greatest Presidents.
   
   
   [The above Review is taken in part from 'Andrew Jackson's policy of 'Rotation in Office' by Alexander Rayden. © Copyright 2005 Alexander Rayden, All Rights Reserved].



2. The final volume in Robert Remini's definitive biography of Andrew Jackson follows the life of the seventh president from the beginning of his second term through the end of his life. In it, we see many of the things that made Jackson one of our most important presidents despite his significant flaws.

   Prior to Jackson's presidency, the executive office was much weaker. The designers of the Constitution, with their fears of strong central figures, had intended Congress to be the most powerful of the supposedly co-equal branches. Jackson, however, viewed himself as the sole representative of the people - the only person elected by a nation, not a region - and through various measures such as an expansion of the use of the veto, was able to shift the balance of power. Although the following presidents would be weaker, the presidency as an office had been redefined.

   As the book begins, Jackson's second term was beginning and he needed to deal with South Carolina and the Nullification Crisis. Essentially successful with this problem, he also dealt with other issues, including his war with the Bank of the United States and bad relations with France. By many measures, his presidency was a success, but there were a number of negatives as well, in particular his treatment of Indians and his disregard of slavery issues. His appointment of Taney to Chief Justice would eventually lead to the Dred Scott decision. Remini finds more positives than negatives with Jackson, but he doesn't disregard the black marks.

   Probably only Washington was as universally adored in his time as Jackson was, and unlike Washington, Jackson was a true man of the people, a populist who courteously met with rich and poor alike. Even after his retirement, his popularity guaranteed his continued political clout, and few Democrats defied his wishes while he was alive.

   The three volumes in this biography are around 1300 pages (plus notes and indexes), but Remini is such a good writer that this is far from a burdensome read. There may be shorter biographies of Jackson, but there aren't better. Remini knows this era well (he also has written excellent biographies of Clay and Webster) and he brings it to life.




3. If you have read my reviews of the first two volumes in this biography you already know my opinion of Remini and of his subject. Suffice it to say that if you are serious about learning about American history these volumes are for you. Not only are they an excellent introduction to many of the political and social issues of the era but they also allow the reader to wrestle with our national proclivity toward uncritical hero worship. Our past leaders were every bit as complex, as flawed and as human as our current crop .... What follows is a small portion of what I have learned from Remini's hard and honest labors.
   Jackson's accomplishments were extraordinary by any standards and some of them are quite ironic. He very much believed in states rights yet he probably did more to strengthen and expand the executive part of the federal government than any President until Franklin Roosevelt. Consider the following (all discussed in Remini's volume):
   1. He was the first President to use the pocket veto. He was the first to use the veto power for nonconstitutional reasons. We are so used to our Presidents using the veto because of policy disagreements with legislation that we forget how much of a shift this was in the balance of power as envisioned by the original generation.
   2. He reformed every department of the federal government and greatly expanded the bureaucracy as a result. He eliminated much of the graft that was rampant at the time and (at least, gave the impression of) greatly democratizing the civil service by making it more of a meritocracy. All this inevitably led to more people working for the government. A lot more people.
   3. Jackson changed the relationship of the various Cabinet members to the President. He was the first to fire a Cabinet member because of a disagreement over policy. Up until then Cabinet officers and ambassadors, because their appointments had to be approved by the Senate, were regarded as being accountable more to Congress than to the President.
   This is only a partial list of the ways that Jackson's Presidency changed the stature of the Executive branch of the government.
   Jackson's ideology (as I see it) comes from him trying to work out the tensions between his state's rights philosophy with his military experience, which taught him the necessity of a clear uncontested chain of command with his love of and trust in the people. I will comment on only one portion of that dynamic. Like so many of our leaders, the tensions in Jackson's ideology led him into conspiracy theories. He believed in and trusted the American people to always make the right decisions (the ones he would have made) and almost always credited any electoral reverses to cabals acting to befuddle and delude the populace.
   As a result, he became one of ablest early advocates of putting a good spin on the issues. Early on in his first term he helped to establish a newspaper that served as the official organ of the administration. Altogether, Jackson was a fascinating and maddening character.
   I find myself greatly in the debt of Remini. Jackson has always repulsed me by his blatant racism and his paternalism. Remini has humanized Jackson quite a bit for me. I am more appreciative of Jackson's great accomplishments and I have learned quite a bit of the politics of the time. I will be reading Remini's book on Van Buren next along with Seller's biography of Polk. One of the ways that I evaluate the work of a historian is by how much they increase my interest in further reading on their subject and on the period in question. By this standard, Remini belongs to my first rank of American historians.



4. Robert Remini completes his biography of Andrew Jackson in an excellent third volume. This biography is very well written and a pleasure to read. Remini is so well versed on his subject and really makes Jackson come to life as one of the major figures in U.S. History. This is as honest account of an individual that I have ever read and have come away with a new found respect for Andrew Jackson.
   Remini does not shy away from Jacksons many faults nor does he make excuses for them and he also shows how tender and loyal Jackson can be to those that were family and friends. Remini makes the case that Jackson was the most influential person in shaping the Presidency and government to the modern democracy it is today and I am inclined to agree with him. Jackson had certain convictions on government and policy and would not bow under pressure and reshaped the role of the Presidency despite pressure from Congress. I would definitely recommend this biography to everyone interested in Andrew Jackson as well as those interest in the evolution of our government.



5. Excellent finish to an excellent 3-volume biography; the first volume took us from Jackson's birth through his tenure as governor of Florida; the second took us from there through the end of his first term as president and his successful bid for re-election. This volume takes us from the beginning of his second term to his death.

   As with both previous volumes, the marvellous thing about this book is that Remini provides the reader with sufficient information that it is possible, with nothing more than the information he provides, to disagree with his evaluation of his subject. Clearly, on balance he is much more taken with Andrew Jackson than I am, although there are a few instances in which I actually think that he is too harsh in his judgement. But the marvellous thing is, he gives me sufficient information to make that judgement, an invaluable characteristic in a biographer.

   Anyone interested in reading a detailed, in-depth biography of the first truly populist president (whether one considers that a good or a bad thing to say about the man says a lot about one's personality) and the president who appointed Roger Taney, the chief justice responsible for the Dred Scott Decision, to his post as Justice of the Supreme Court, needs to read all three volumes of this set.

5 comments about William Pitt the Younger.

1. William Hague has a pleasant, straightforward and limpid style in which he can convey not only complex political situations, but a warmth of feeling towards his subject and a sensitive and empathic interpretation of behaviour and background.
   
   He begins with Pitt's extremely precocious childhood. He was tutored at home, in large part by his father (whose loving nature may also be something of a revelation to readers). From earliest childhood young Pitt breathed in politics. Hague speculates that he learnt not only from his father's successes (his oratory, his foreign policy), but also from his failures (going to the Lords in 1766, or leaving the post of First Lord of the Treasury to someone else).
   
   There are exciting accounts of several key episodes in his life: his rise to becoming Prime Minister at the age of 24; the Regency Crisis of 1788/9; his resignation over his disagreement with George III over Catholic Emancipation in 1801 (beautifully analyzed), and his promise, after the King's recovery from his recurring malady, never to raise the matter again; the drifting apart between Pitt and his old friend and nominee Addington during the latter's interregnum.
   
   No minister except Walpole has for so long and so completely dominated the House of Commons. Pitt was universally acclaimed as a great orator, though only a very few passages quoted in this book - foremost among them his speech in 1792 advocating the abolition of the slave trade - make for stirring reading these days. Part of the appeal of his speeches is said to have been the cogency of their logical structure and his mastery of detail, which is not so easily conveyed in a book. He was a brilliant manager of the nation's finances - but his own were often in a ruinous state. He could not be bothered to pay much attention to them, and refused to take sinecure offices (except, at the King's insistence, the Wardenship of the Cinque Ports) or a large donation offered by the merchants of the City of London. He was hugely in debt at the time of his resignation in 1801, but he refused all offers of help, from the King, from Parliament, from his successor Addington in the form of sinecure offices, or from the City. Only through help from a handful of his closest friends was the pressure of debt slightly eased.
   
   For Pitt rightly prided himself on his personal probity. He would accept nothing that might be construed as putting him under an obligation; but, though he was personally bored with appeals for his patronage, he did not scruple to allow his lieutenants to manage patronage and bribery on a massive scale, especially at critical moments of his rule. (Hague mentions only in passing his massive inflation of the peerage.)
   
   His finances and his speeches made him a great war leader, but he was less so in the actual conduct of the wars. He underestimated France in the early days and overestimated Britain's military (as distinct from naval) resources. He made miscalculations of the kind that Chatham probably would not have made (though Chatham, of course, had faced a far less dynamic France). He twice (1796, 1797) sought for peace with France because of the immense drain on Britain's financial resources, but, encouraged by a string of French setbacks in 1798 and 1799, turned down the peace overtures Napoleon made immediately after seizing power in France in 1799. In this latter refusal he was strongly backed by his cousin, the hawkish foreign minister William Grenville.
   
   Hague brings out the importance of Grenville throughout Pitt's career. A staunch ally until Pitt's resignation, he became so impatient with Pitt's early forbearance with regard to Addington that he joined Fox in opposition - which George III could not forgive. So when Pitt returned to office in 1804, he could not give a post to Grenville, who then practically became a Foxite Whig. As a result, Pitt no longer had the mastery of the Commons or even of the Cabinet that he had had before, and it added to the strain in those years of Ulm and Austerlitz. By that time Pitt was a shadow of his former self, increasingly exhausted and in dreadful health.
   
   It is on the human side that Hague excels, and there is not always scope for that in the story. Much of Pitt's work in government - finance, trade, administrative reform, the shuffling of seats around the cabinet table - gives little scope to more than the thoroughly workmanlike treatment it receives here. Even the account of the wars with France are no more than that. For me, the best parts of the book deal with Pitt's character. He has generally been considered cold; but he had many close friends in whose company he was witty and amusing. A fine chapter discusses this contrast and shows Pitt, when Prime Minister, as relaxed and warm with family and real friends. There is a long and moving letter he wrote to Wilberforce when the latter announced his religious conversion in 1785. There is an astonishing scene a couple of years before his death when at one moment he was larking around with his intimates whom he allowed to blacken his face with burnt cork, and a moment later, quickly cleaned up, stiffly received political visitors. Between Pitt and his mother there was great warmth and affection. In his letters to her he always made light of difficulties or his poor health, not just because he was by nature optimistic, but because he wanted to spare her worries.
   
   It is astonishing that Hague should have researched and written this book of 592 pages inside two years. The masterly ten-page summing up at the end is not only balanced in its judgments, but tells us a good deal about Hague himself. It is clear that he not only admires Pitt, but feels a great affection for him; and he will make many readers feel the same.



2. I'm trying to think what I knew about the politics of late 18th century Britain before I read William Hague's well written biography of William Pitt the Younger, imaginatively named just that. Not much. I knew about Edmund Burke and his opposition to the French Revolution. I knew a few military leaders from reading about the American Revolution. I've seen the brilliant film about King George the Third's madness, and I vaguely knew that there were two William Pitts, father and son, who dominated British Political life during that era, and that Pitt the younger was amazingly young when he got elected Prime Minister.
   
   Now I know quite a bit more. For one thing, Pitt was not technically "Prime Minister". Rather, he had been "First Lord of the Treasury" which was the most senior position in His Majesty's government. He had served for some twenty years, and has been a member of the House of Commons for most of his life. He has, indeed, been chosen to lead the British government at age 24.
   
   How does so young a man become first Minister to the British crown? The answer is, one is picked by the King. George the Third's alliance with William Pitt was one of convenience - he had loathed the other potential political leaders (Primarily Pitt's arch nemesis Charles James Fox). Pitt was the only member of the House of Commons who had credibility enough to form a government, and whom the King felt he could support.
   
   That is not to say that Pitt's talents had nothing to do with with his meteoric rise - far from it. Pitt, a great orator, became a leading presence in the House of Commons. With brilliant tactics (and shameless use of patronage), he formed his own party, and later split the opposition Whig party (with the help of the French Revolution) to rule the house with a huge majority. He had also been one of the first British politicians to care about the views of the majority of Britons not represented in Parliament.
   
   It has been Pitt's very success that made him vulnerable; by 1801, the opposition more or less ceased to exist, and the King felt much less reliant on Mr. Pitt. When the First Lord of the Chancellery clashed with the Monarch on the issue of Catholic Emancipation (giving Catholics the right to vote and be elected), the King felt confident enough to flatly refuse Pitt. Pitt resigned rather then serve without full powers.
   
   In 1804, as the Napoleonic Wars got worse, Pitt returned to office. This time his coalition was shakier, and he probably wouldn't have lasted long as Prime Minister had he not died in January 1806, at the age of 46.
   
   William Hague, a one time would be Tory PM, who had been compared to Pitt the younger by none other then Margaret Thatcher, offer a very readable and compelling biography. His book is not particularly analytical, but it is very well written and researched. I wish Hague would have put Pitt more in context, both of British and International Politics (we get no mention of America after the Revolution, no word of the remaining colonies, and very little about the internal politics of any other country save France), and the industrial revolution. Nonetheless, as someone who doesn't read many biographies, I thoroughly enjoyed this one. Whatever the merits of Hague as a politician, he has a future as a historian.
   
   (By the way, my copy of the book contains a recommendation by British Tory PM John Major "If you only buy one political biography this year, make it this one". Talk about damning with faint praise. I guess it could have been worse "If you only buy one biography of an 18th century British politician named Pitt in December...")
   
   Speaking of Merits, how should we assess the statesmanship of William Pitt the younger? Ultimately, I think Pitt was a very competent, but not great, Prime Minister. In his first decade as prime minister, Britain enjoyed Peace, and Pitt managed to survive as Prime Minister, expand his coalition somewhat, rationalize the tax system, and begin to balance the government's deficit. The reduction of the deficit, with view for its ultimate extinction, was Pitt's greatest achievement, albeit one that was aided greatly by the fast growing economy in the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and that all but disappeared when the wars of the French Revolution started.
   
   Other then economically, Pitt managed to achieve few if any of the reforms he had supported. He failed to reform the electorate, abolish the slave trade, or (later) achieve Catholic emancipation.
   
   As War leader, Pitt commanded over a mostly unsuccessful war effort, which saw the rise of three coalitions against the armies of the French Revolution, and later Napoleon. French forces defeated all in term, and Pitt died just days after receiving word of Napoleon's greatest Victory in the Battle of Austerlitz.
   
   This is not to say that Pitt was a failure. He had been a strong supporter of the navy, and British control of the Seas became an unalterable fact under his watch, and due to his effort and leadership. Pitt had secured the Unification of the British and Irish Parliament. Both achievements would last for over a century. Politically, Pitt planted the roots of the Tory party, and managed to survive various crises, including the insanity of his patron, George III. If nothing else, Pitt has led his nation through some of the most difficult transformations of its age, internal and external. And while there had still been a long road ahead, by the time Pitt passed away, Britain has surely reached, in Churchill's terms, "The End of the Beginning".



3. The younger William Pitt lived a life that is not widely known or appreciated in the USA and this well-written and entertaining biography should help to remedy that. It is so unusual for a super-genius to have the opportunity, interest and special aptitude for politics Pitt had that the example deserves much study. We are fortunate that William Hague, the author, did not become Prime Minister himself in 2001 so that he was free to stay in Yorkshire and complete this work.



4. William Pitt the Younger (or as he was described by some of his contemporaries Billy Pitt) is a book written by a politician about a politician (you may remember that William Hague was an ex-leader of the Tory party). He was indeed an extraordinary politician although a very limited man.
   
   The story is on a grand scale, prime ministers, kings, wars, revolution, disasters, and the central figure, a larger-than-life classic hero.
   
   He came from famous stock, his father, known as the Great Commoner, was an heroic figure who in his own time was the equivalent of the Prime Minister, then known as the First Lord of the Treasury although this particular position was held by the Duke of Newcastle who sat in the House Of Lords. William Pitt the Elder was the leader in the House of Commons. He took office at the age of 48 in 1756, some three years before William Pitt the Younger was born. He served as Secretary of State for the Southern Department, at that time there were two Secretaries of State, the Secretary of State for the Southern Department dealt with matters relating to southern European countries, including France and Spain, the Secretary of State for the Northern Department dealt with Northern European countries such as Russia.
   
   His father came to be regarded as the saviour of the nation and was instrumental in defeating the traditional enemy of the English, the French. He was regarded as the saviour of the nation and was a great orator.
   
   William Pitt the Younger was raised in an intensely political family and learned a great deal from his father's capacity to achieve high office without money or patronage from the King. His father was the more extraordinary because he was, by the standards of the times, incorruptible. Unfortunately this was associated with accumulation of enormous debts, a habit followed by his son. He suffered from a wide range of ailments including gout, bowel problems and similar disorders. He married at the age of 46 and proceeded to have five children of whom only his two eldest survived into their 30s. After leaving office he was eventually persuaded back into office by George III and to reduce the burden on him emotionally and physically he accepted a title and became Earl of Chatham. This eventually proved to be his downfall and damaged his reputation. William Pitt the Younger lived through all these events before he was 10 years old! Even by that age he must have been aware that he belonged to a father and a family that stood apart from and were treated differently from everyone else.
   
   He was educated at home and although uninhibited by peer pressure was required from the outset to meet adult standards. His tutor stated "William never seemed to learn but merely to recollect". His father took an active, usually daily, role in his education. As William Hague says "at no other time in British history has the head of one administration acted as a tutor of another".
   
   His father taught him to speak in a clear and melodious voice by making him recite each day passages from the best English poets, particularly Shakespeare and Milton. As William Pitt the Younger later said " Lord Chatham had bid him take up any book in some foreign language with which he was well acquainted, in Latin, Greek, or French, for example. Lord Chatham then enjoined him to read out of this work into English, stopping when he was not sure of the word to be used in English, until the right word came to mind, and then proceed. At first, he had often to stop for a while before he could recollect the proper word, but he found the difficulties gradually disappear, until what was a toll him at first became at last an easy and familiar task. " It is perhaps, not surprising that he developed early on a highly unusual ability to speak clearly, structure an argument, and think on his feet. He was aided in this by a formidable memory.
   
   He went to Cambridge University at the age of 14. He was a sickly adolescent and spent the summers in Cambridge and the winters with his family. He was intensely attached to his mother and his father and he idolised. There was intense political discussion between himself and his father. He made friends easily, despite his youth, and became part of a large social circle. He made many lifelong friendships. To insiders he was regarded as great fun but to the external world he showed a stern and aloof demeanour, even from an early age.
   
   His father was deeply opposed to the policy of the government which led to the American Revolution. There was great opposition to Roman Catholics leading to the Gordon riots in 1780. It was a dramatic and exciting time. Unfortunately, his father died in 1778 deeply in debt and the family finances were only saved by a grant from Parliament of 20,000 pounds. Pitt trained as a lawyer and indeed practised as such briefly. This was a time of rotten boroughs, large cities with no representation and some electorates with only two voters. Corruption was rampant. The largest seats cost each candidate the equivalent of 5,000,000 pounds in today's terms on electoral expenses.
   
   Over half the boroughs could be purchased in one way or another. However, hehad no money and depended on a patron. One was eventually found who fortunately was not very demanding and he entered Parliament in January 1781 at the age of 22. At that time one in six members were under the age of 30. He quickly established himself as a great orator. He entered a house containing some extraordinary characters including Fox, Sheridan, and William Wilberforce.
   
   The Whigs, including Fox, threw out Lord North because of his disastrous loss of the American colonies and took office. Unfortunately they were violently opposed by George III. The King acted in an unconstitutional way so as to indicate that he had no confidence in his government. This was, even by the standards of the day, outrageous but led to Pitt being offered the position of "Prime Minister" and taking office in December 1783 at the age of 24.
   
   He remained in office, apart from a break between December 1801 and April 1804 (having resigned office for complex reasons including the intransigent attitude of George III to the question of Catholic Emancipation) until his death at the age of 49 in January 1806.
   
   It is astonishing to recognise that throughout much of that time he was Prime Minister with virtually no staff, he was also the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House. The House of Commons was his arena of greatness. From a position of running a minority government he quickly gained the ascendancy to such a point that Fox did not attend parliament for some years.
   
   During this time he dealt with the madness of King George. He attempted and then abandoned attempts to bring about parliamentary reform. He revolutionised the running of the government including bringing in the first income-tax. He dealt with the French Revolution and all its consequences and was the first to attempt to put the finances of Great Britain in order using a sinking fund to pay off debt. It is salutary to realise that five future prime ministers served in his Cabinet.
   
   Throughout much of this time he retained his aloof demeanour, he had little contact and no obvious interest in women apart from on one occasion and, if anything, appeared to be an asexual ascetic, except that he enjoyed his booze. He routinely drank three bottles of port per night. William Hague makes the point that bottles of port in those days were about half the size of the standard bottle today. Nevertheless that is a considerable intake and is thought to have contributed to his early death.
   
   He had been made Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports which provided an income of 3000 pounds but his own finances were a terrible mess, in part because of his lack of interest, his lack of time, and because of his refusal to accept any sinecures.
   
   He was the dominating the political figure of his times but was not a popular figure in the House of Commons, he did not socialise with other members most of whom he treated with disdain. There is a telling story of him, in his 40s, playing with two old friends and his niece, who was living with him. They were attempting to blacken his face with burnt cork in a vigorous indoor wrestling match. Two grandees arrived to see Mr Pitt. One of the participants in the struggle saw him straighten himself, put on his public mask as the two grandees approached him bowing, hesitant, and concerned about his response. He treated them with some contempt, scarcely looking at them, dismissed them after answering a query and then quickly returned to the frolic.
   
   Although Sir Robert Walpole is recognised as the first Prime Minister and indeed was longer in office than Pitt nevertheless Pitt first articulated the concept of a prime minister. He also brought great efficiencies to the running of the country and for a number of years before the onslaught of the French revolutionary wars the country was running at a significant surplus. Whilst incorruptible himself he used patronage with great political sensitivity to achieve his aims.
   
   It is extraordinary that he accomplished so much and was dead by the age of 49.
   
   William Hague's biography is the best sort of biography, it is fascinating to read with telling stories about Pitt and his contemporaries and allows us to see Pitt in the context of his times. Hague repeatedly dwells on the sheer volume of work that Pitt was able to get through, his mastery of detail, especially financial detail. He was known for his extraordinary grasp of the classics and his capacity to produce the apt quote at the right time. He was known for giving speeches off-the-cuff lasting up to three hours which were models of clarity, reasoned argument leading to inexorable conclusions without any apparent preparation.
   
   Hague is also fascinated by his ability to manipulate the King, the Prince of Wales, and other influential figures. He made great enemies but had enduring and loyal friends. With the passage of time, Hague makes it clear that anyone in office for any length of time is gradually brought down by the burden of accumulated mistakes, problems, enemies, and the eventual boredom of the populace.
   
   By the way Hague quotes from a letter written by Pitt in which he uses the word " se'nnight". I leave it to you to work out what it means.
   
   This one volume biography provides a fascinating introduction both to politics but also to the history behind such events as the Battle of Trafalgar and the English view of the various phases of the French Revolution. It made me want to read more about Fox, Grenville, George III and other larger-than-life figures. I commend it to you.
   
   Michael Epstein



5. Pitt the younger led his nation through the Napoleonic wars, the first stages of the industrial revolution, and a transformation of Britian, yet all the book seems to talk about is his health, his speaches and where he traveled.
   
   I am sorry, but I selected this book while in Heathrow Airport waiting for a flight back to the US. I knew about Pitt the younger and the times in which he lived. I had hoped for a book that talked about a man in the center of his times. Instead I got an introspective work focused on the triangle between Pitt, Fox and George III. Based on Hague's work they were the only three people who mattered in the world.
   
   I guess I am not the anglophile I thought I was as I found this work admirably written, well researched and understandably proud of Britian's first modern Prime Minister and global leader.
   
   Unforuntaley it was not very interesting -- I am not sure if that is due to Hague's account (I kind of doubt) or Pitt's interior and financially centered life.
   
   It probably has more to do with me being an american and wanting to know more about the man -- the person. The US is after all pretty much a show and tell kind of culture without the reserve for status and class as the UK.
   
   Either way, if you are a strong Anglophile who knows much about the times -- then this is a well crafted detailed account. If you are a part time reader of biographies and history, then you may want to give this one a pass.
   
   No offense intended to our friends in Britian -- Pitt is surely one of the few men who have make the UK great.

1 comments about Time: Hugh Sidey's Portraits of the Presidents: Power and Personality in the Oval Office.

1. This is a photographic summary of the last several presidents up to Clinton. The selection of photos is good and includes several rare and unique pictures. Hugh Sidey, the author is the expert on presidential history at Time Inc (he writes a weekly column for the magazine) and thus the text is outstanding. Really the only downside to this book is the price - for the sheer size of the book its pricey. Still, if you are a presidential history buff, and particularly interested in photography you will want this book in your library.

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

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



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



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



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

3 comments about Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His Presidency.

1. This book is based on Peter Wallison's year in the White House when he served as a legal counsel.
   
   This book shares some of Ronald Reagan's wit,humor,and humility.
   
   Mr.Wallison offers an assessment of the media coverage regarding the Reagan administration. The media had a tendency to over-cover the sensational while ignoring subjects of substance,like policy(foreign or domestic).They trolled for scandals.
   
   This book shows what management style was used by the President.
   It also debuncts the myth that President Reagan was not intelligent.
   
   Another interesting topic in this book is the behind the scenes view of situations in the cabinet. Leaks to the media and how rampant they were from the White House and especially the Hill.
   
   There was a comparison of the Chiefs of Staff. Mr. Wallison wrote mostly about Donald Regan because he worked with him.
   
   The chapters dedicated to the Iran-Contra scandal were very good! I came away with a better understanding of exactly what happened and who was involved.
   
   This is the first book that I have read about President Reagan. I recommend it as a balanced book from an author who worked in the White House. I wish that he had been there longer!



2. I love this book as it contains what it means to be a true conservative and not a false one. As the great Conservative economist F.A. Hayek once stated "    . . . the whole conception of social or distributive justice is empty and meaningless; and there will therefore never exist agreement on what is just in this sense... I am certain, however, that nothing has done so much to destroy the juridical safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice."
   That is in a Capitalistic Socieity there will be more losers than winners and that is just the way it is. If you can not make ends meet it is not "societys fault" but your own. Don't expect your mommy "the state" to make it right!
   From here the author goes own to explain how all the scandals of the Reagan presidentcy where not the leaders fault but those of his underlings for they were to blaime not him. The buck stops there my friend!



3. This is an excellent "insider" perspective on Reagan's management style and the Iran-Contra scandal. Wallison debunks thoroughly the prevailing view of the liberal media that Reagan was intellectually limited, disengaged and manipulated by his advisors. Reagan's remarkable accomplishments are attributed to the clarity of and his unfailing focus on a few "big ideas" (e.g. a smaller and less intrusive government, freer trade, a strong defense, faith in the traditional American values of individualism and sense of personal responsibility) and his ability to inspire those within the administration to actively pursue his policy objectives. As legal counsel to the President, Wallison was the White House staffer most involved with Iran-Contra. He persuasively argues that the scandal was basically a foreign policy blunder made worse by a renegade NSC staff (particularly Oliver North) and a press corps more interested in scandal mongering than issues.