No comments about Thinking How to Live.

No comments about Richard M. Nixon: An American Enigma (Library of American Biography Series) (Library of American Biography).

3 comments about The General and Mrs. Washington.

1. As an American history buff, I wanted to learn more about the relationship between our first president and his wife. While Washington's faults are lightly covered (his conflicting views on slavery, his temper and exacting demands), the book is generally an ode to the Washingtons. Martha is mostly portrayed as a patient, gentle, selfless soul who supports Washington unfailingly who patiently endures tragedy upon tragedy. Washington is portrayed as an ever-vigilant hero selflessly sacrificing all for his men. As I read it, I felt the author wrote with a favorable bias of the Washingtons and a more balanced view might have been more accurate.
   
   The biggest drawback for me, however, was the poor editing. As an example of one of the many errors, one sentence reads, "Prior to the war, the couple received just over four hundred guests a year, but after his resignation from the army, that number increased to over four hundred a year." It mars an otherwise interesting book on our first president and his wife.



2. I think this is a very well developed history of a relationship and a nation. It is a great companion to George Washington: An Unexpected Life. I bought both together.



3. 
   Chadwick increases our admiration for George Washington, and gives us a glimpse into how exceptional Martha and his marriage to her were.
   
   Chadwick tells of their lives up to their meeting and what the marriage may have meant for each. For Martha it was a chance to enjoy family life with a man of her own generation. For George it seemed to be companionship, maybe a rebound and access to the upper reaches Virginia society.
   
   While I knew GW freed his slaves, I was unaware of his lifelong objection to slavery, and his attempts (however feeble) to do something about it. He did not really get a windfall fortune through his marriage as I thought, he got a challenge. It is not clear what he did to free Martha from her wastrel father-in-law's legal and debt burdens, but he did. I didn't know that Martha stayed with him in Valley Forge and Morristown when she could have luxuriated at Mount Vernon
   
   When the time came, GW's military, administrative and physical skills were exactly what the colonies needed. Once a new country was formed this first couple, started things right with honesty and dedication. The revolution could have turned sour, many of them do, and GW, with Martha at his side were a main component of starting out on the right foot.
   
   Chadwick assembles all this and more, with enlightening descriptions of life in colonial Virginia.

5 comments about Caesar: Politician and Statesman.

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



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



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



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



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

5 comments about John Fitzgerald Kennedy: A Life In Pictures.

1. This is not the best book about JFK I have ever read, but it is up there. I like the pictures on pages 16 (all) 20, 173, 192-199, 268-275, and 242-258. This book is recommended for any Kennedy fan of all ages.



2. This is a great picture book. I have almost every Kennedy family picture book available. I just happen to come across it in a bookstore near my home. I paid $19.99 for it, pretty good price. You can get here for about $16-17 but remember you have to pay shipping. So it comes out to more but it is soo worth it. When you are going through these pics its like being taken back in time. I'm pretty young my mom was born in 1957 so she was about Caroline's age when these pics were taken.



3. I highly recommend this book, primarily for the great picutures of JFK. This 40th anniversary volume succeeds in presenting many rare and never-before-seen photos. I especially like the ones depicting Secret Service agent Gerald Blaine on the rear of the limousine in Italy 7/63. Get this!
   [...]



4. "John Fitzgerald Kennedy:A Life in Pictures"is a great way to remember President Kennedy.I'm a young,strong admirer of President Kennedy,and not only are there great pictures of Kennedy,there is a biography of Kennedy with speeches he made,including the speech he was going to make on November 22,1963.The best pictures are of Kennedy with Herbert Hoover and a picture of Jack Kennedy with his daughter Caroline and his niece Maria Shriver.I have seen a bunch of great Kennedy photos,and if you ever want the best Kennedy photo,buy Robert Stack's autobiography "Straight Shooting"and see the picture of Stack and Kennedy. "John Fitzgerald Kennedy:A Life In Pictures"is a must read for all Kennedy fans and even all non-Kennedy fans.



5. This collection of over 300 pages of the usual suspected photographs, as well as many unseen or rare ones, was published to commemorate the passing of 40 years since our 35th President was vicously cut down in his prime.

   The layout of the photographs is great. You see JFK throughout his life, from childhood, to Presidencey and every passing moment between. The photos are powerful, moving, show glamour and fun, you see a politician throughout his political career, you see a loving father, son, brother and husband. I have had quite a few photo books on JFk, but this is by far the best and most desirable one I have seen.

   This photograph book would make a wonderful and truly appriciated gift for anyone who has any respect, love or interest in JFK. My sister is a huge JFK fan, she had a bust of him on our dresser growing up.

   The price on Amazon, is as always, unbeatable. I saw this at a bookstore tonight for the full price.

5 comments about The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson.

1. While this book is an excellent telling of the major events of Jefferson's presidency, it is not an intimate portrait of the man himself during those years. In the early couple chapters McDonald gives the reader what I would call a "Jefferson primer" for the unacquainted which is masterfully written, yet as he carefully and thoughtfully steps through the events of Jefferson's two terms, he does not delve into the mind of the man himself. There were several points where I thought to myself - 'gee, I would really like to hear more about what Jefferson was thinking as he made this decision'. A further inclusion of written sources from Jefferson would have alleviated this lacking.
   
   However, despite this major flaw (which may be intentional, leaving such thoughts for a biographist), it is a superb book. The narratives are interesting, well balanced, and complete. The book sticks to a well defined chronological organization. And, finally McDonald delves just enough into the characters surrounding Jefferson without overstepping his dues. A great read as a whole.



2. McDonald analyzes Jefferson's presidency, discussing the early successes in stopping Federalism, as well as the limitations to the changes that Jefferson and the Republicans could achieve. He discusses the failures of his presidency, notably the embargo of all trade, in a fair manner. Finally, he provides an interesting analysis of the motivations and sources of Republican policy and places Jeffersonianism in its historical context in a much clearer way than I have ever read before.
   
   The book is well-written, although perhaps on the short side. It also contains almost nothing about Jefferson's life before or after the presidency--it really is a history of his presidency.



3. McDonald is not only a great scholar, he is a storyteller without peer. He presents the Jeffersonian presidency in an objective and even-handed manner, highlighting both the successes and the tragic shortcomings of the Jefferson administration. Despite Jefferson's reputation today as a civil libertarian and a champion of liberty, McDonald shows how his heavy-handed tactics and his disregard for the Constitution led to disaster both at home and abroad. Despite ushering in the Republican Revolution of 1800, by 1808 Jefferson had lost control of the party he helped create and found himself at the mercy of John Randolph and his ilk in the House. McDonald never attacks Jefferson, however; he simply tells the rather sad story of a man consistently unable to meet the challenges with which he was faced. Another masterpiece from America's foremost historian.



4. Due to his primary authorship of the American Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson is widely viewed as a strong civil libertarian. The words of the Declaration and the American constitution speak so strongly about the limitations that government has when dealing with the citizens that they are just as valid over 200 years after they were written. He was also the primary individual around which the fledgling Republican party coalesced. In fact, McDonald commonly refers to the party as the Jeffersonian Republicans.
   Less well known is the manner whereby the Jefferson administration callously ignored those rights so clearly stated in those magnificent documents. People were arrested for their political persuasion and he attempted to have Federal judges removed simply because he was unhappy with their Federalist philosophy. This really was a sad time in history, as it was the first case where a president openly interpreted the law as it suited him. In my opinion, the clear statement of these actions of Jefferson while president is what makes this book. Since the Louisiana Purchase was the greatest event in the United States between independence and the war between the states, it tends to overshadow many of the other things that Jefferson did during his presidency.
   Jefferson's wholesale destruction of the American military left the country defenseless when it was being drawn into the wars between Napoleonic France and Great Britain. The consequences of these errors were monumental to the new country and his diplomatic mistakes contributed to a senseless conflict between the United States and Great Britain that served no useful purpose and could easily have destroyed the United States. Once again, McDonald is right on the mark in explaining what Jefferson did.
   Thomas Jefferson is often held up to mythic proportions as a champion of liberty and as an early statesman. In this volume, he is described as he truly was, a man who professed liberty for all, but practiced it only when it suited him. This is a superb account of what he did while president.



5. Forrest McDonald has produced a succinct, penetrating and fascinating history of Thomas Jefferson's Administration.

   This book is part of the Univ. of Kansas' history of the presidency series and the second effort from McDonald (he wrote a wonderful history of Washington's Administration). This book is about the policies, international relations, politics and style of America's third chief executive. Running at less than 200 pages, McDonald manages to be both thorough and interesting in his telling of this period.

   Jefferson and his Administration produced wonderful contradictions. His party espoused a "Republican" philosophy that basically wanted to liberate Americans from Hamilton's financial system and Adam's heavy handedness as witnessed by the Alien and Sedition Acts.

   Jefferson's early term saw him implement much of his program. As McDonald points out, few if any other Presidents have had their way so successfully with Congress. Jefferson also added greatly to the US through the Louisianna Purchase, despite his concerns with the Constitutionality of the aquisition.

   Jefferson and his Administration reached rough shoals in foreign affairs. Blinded by anti-British sentiment, the Administration prooved less than adroit at negotiating the position between Napolean and England. America was buffetted by this struggle and it reverberated back on our domestic situation. Suddenly, Jefferson's first term accomplishments became liabilities and were revealed as short sighted. The scheduled reduction of America's debt through the slashing of the Navy budget left us without the ability to challenge foreign powers. The abolition of Hamilton's system of internal revenues that left us entirely dependent upon tarriffs and thereby upon the grace of the British (who had the ability to determine how much trade our country could enjoy)for government revenue.

   In the most surprising irony, Jefferson -- who had decried Adams and his anti-liberal legislation (Alien and Sedition Acts) would go much farther than Adams in restricting liberties and in executive arrogance through his Embargo Acts and various executive orders designed to limit trade with the European powers.

   This is a fascinating story well told. Besides the policies, McDonald gives insight as to how Jefferson governed, his relations with Congress and the Judiciary as well as the toll of the office on the man himself. A good book.

4 comments about The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.

1. Who would think about reading a book about Calvin Coolidge? I'd like to report though that it was a wonderful experience to read about a humble, self-effacing man with a legendarily dry sense of humor,in marked contrast to some of today's self-serving politicians.
   
   Coolidge tells of his boyhood,his warm relationship with his mother, father,sister and stepmother,how he was sworn in by candlelight,about his political life,but most importantly the book is a true model of character and values which can serve as a fine example for anyone,particularly for those entering political life. It would also be an excellent resource for character and values courses for elementary and high school students.
   
   Coolidge isn't known as a great president, but his interpretation was that the role of making laws was the function of Congress,not requiring presidential initiation. Since FDR of course, the President has taken on a far more active role in setting policy. Coolidge's great contribtion to history was not his presidency, but his embodiment of character and values. He also helped restore the dignity of the office after the Harding scandals, much as Ford and Carter did after Nixon.
   
   His autobiography and his character motivated me to create a website about his life,quotes,humor and his truly charming, way ahead of her time wife Grace Coolidge: www.calvincoolidge.us. I also wrote a two hour one man show of his life and performed it twice. It all started with his humble book.
   
   A visit to his family homestead where he took the candlelight oath, and also where he and his wife and sons are buried,is in Plymouth Notch, Vermont,one of New England's prettiest spots in the Fall. But I digress, as they say. The book is excellent.



2. To the extent that most Americans remember Calvin Coolidge, it is for a series of amusing anecdotes concerning his economy with words. That characterization is only partly true. Few people know that Coolidge was one of the last presidents who wrote his own speeches and that he held regular press conferences without a press secretary running interference for him. Coolidge, the son of a general store owner in rural Vermont, was immensely popular and could have easily been renominated had he chosen to run in 1928. There was even a movement to draft Coolidge to accept the nomination in 1932. He declined and his successor, Herbert Hoover, was renominated and defeated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
   
   Coolidge had a syndicated newspaper column following his retirement from party politics and he produced a highly readable autobiography that is candid and simple in its approach. Coolidge possessed a sense of humor and he did not take himself too seriously. This brief book should not be dismissed by anyone interested in America during the Twenties. Coolidge's reputation suffered, somewhat unfairly, at the hands of the New Deal historians who sought to promote Roosevelt by denigrating his predecessors. Coolidge was neglected as a historical figure until Ronald Reagan sought to rehabilitate his boyhood hero.
   
   Coolidge is buried in Plymouth Notch, close to the same country cross roads store in which he was born and sworn into office by his own father following the sudden death of President Warren G. Harding.



3. "The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge" is a fabulous autobiography. Calvin Coolidge was a good man and a good writer, and in his autobiography, Cooidge talks about growing up, his career in law and politics, his family, and everything anybody would want to learn about President Coolidge. People who are interested in becoming President should read Calvin Coolidge's autobiography: Coolidge shared with his readers some duties of the President and what seeking a third term can do to you. How a President is elected has changed since Coolidge's time, but Coolidge became President because of the death of his sucessor, Warren G. Harding. Even though Coolidge shared his opinion, anybody in the White House because of the death of their sucessor should take Coolidge's opinion. Calvin Coolidge was a good man, and there are lessons everyone could benefit from by reading his autobiography.



4. President Calvin Coolidge was a good man and great President who deserves to remembered for more than his reticence. Read here the life story of the President who grew up learning that hard work and a thoughtful outlook are the keys to success. He cut taxes four times and vetoed agricultural subsidies twice. He was unusually tolerant of minorities for his time. The story of President Coolidge is one that deserves to be read. Conservatives and libertarians will find his story especially appropriate for their children.

No comments about Benjamin Harrison: Hoosier President: The White House and After 1889-1901 (Signature Ser.).

No comments about Lincoln and His Admirals.

5 comments about John Adams: Party of One.

1. James Grant provides a refreshing new analysis of John Adams that captures his role in the revolution accurately. Adams developed as his own party throughout the years following the revolution. This book can truly stand on its own and covers all the years of Adams life. From his law days in Boston, to the drafting of the Massachusetts constitution to his years as a diplomat in Europe the early years are well covered. The second half looks closer at his time in high political office from vice presidency to presidency to the retirement years. Overall it tracks closely the integral characters of his life. From Abigail to John Quincy to Alexander Hamilton the author develops each well and shows how they impacted John Adams. The one drawback is there are a lot of modern references which are not needed however they are not enough to knock a full star off. If you want a new perspective on John Adams this is a great way to go.



2. First and Foremost, Adams is a fascinating subject, and Grant is a highly qualified historian.
   
   However, it is disappointing that several of the reviews of Mr. Grant's book find it necessary to compare it to D.McCullough's effort. Certainly the latter did create a mania of sorts a few years back, which in turn led to a golden period for historians with a Revolutionary preference.
   
   But having read both, the one thing that seems clear is that Adams is difficult to contain.
   
   Grant's work is a nicely crafted, eminently readable depiction of John Adams, and one that features many interesting and unique observations regarding the revolutionary that Americans have only recently, it seems, elevated to an appropriate level amongst the founding deities.
   
   But too often, Grant's book begins to develop around a certain point about Adams' life or achievements, only to suddenly trail off, leaving the thought unfinished, and the reader wondering if perhaps they'd skipped a page. Yet,this is no brief inquiry. Grant covers the great expanse of Adam's adult life, but fails to acutely identify very many of the key productions of that life.
   
   It is as if there is too much about Adams to be treated adequately in this sort of Comprehensive Biography.
   
   McCullough's work in many ways suffered from the same affliction, but I would measure his prose a little more lyrical, if somewhat less inquiring.
   
   Both authors are absolutely convincing in terms of identifying Adams as a major force in the shaping of the nation, a bold and dynamic personality who left his large fingerprints clearly evident on so many chapters of that formation, and definitely deserving of Franklin's famous assessment of the man's virtue and insanity. Each one of the chapters of Adams' life are so worthy of their own in depth analysis that the soup to nuts biography only serves to (as George Clooney's character says in O Brother Where Art THou) arouse the appetite of the reader without taking him or her to bed.
   
   Grant would have done well to get his fingernails a little dirtier on issues like the Alien & Sedition debacle; the Paris years with Franklin; etc., instead of leaving them too soon. Too many unanswered questions. Too many superficial or unfinished portrayals. Adams deserves more.



3. I found a lot here not available in other recent books about John Adams, and I read one chapter in this book then a chapter in a longer book. Two examples on information covered only here are details of the loans he arranged in Europe after teaching himself the financial trade, and his role in the beginning of the Episcopal Church in the United States.
   
   This is not a shorter version of a more detailed book, but a complete biography by an author with expert knowledge of the financial world of John Adams. I recommend this book to anyone interested in John Adams.



4. Written with clarity and grace, supported by thorough research, and characterized throughout by scholarly care and respect for both primary and secondary sources, this is the large biography of John Adams to read. It is half the length of David McCullough's tome, but far more scrupulous in its treatment of Adams, especially in its engagement with the rich historical scholarship on the subject. Even an expert can learn from this admirable book, and I did.



5. John Adams: Party of One by James Grant is a different look at John Adams than the recent bestseller from historian David McCullough. Grant does often quote from primary sources, but not nearly to the extent that McCullough did. This should make the biography less challenging to readers that found the frequent shifts between McCullough's modern style and primary sources difficult. However, Grant makes the text less accessible by some use of vocabulary unfamiliar to the general audience.
   
   The book is worth reading because it gives a look at Adams using primary sources that have not been available previously just as the next Adams biography will do (the Massachusetts Historical Society has spent years compiling Adams' papers and has yet to complete the task). Grant goes out of his way to give a balanced look at John Adams. In some matters, he is highly supportive of Adams' efforts and methods, such as securing loans in The Netherlands. In others, Grant is highly critical of Adams such as his lack of tact as a diplomat. Granted, that particular opinion will not get much argument. One thing that is unusual for most recent biographies, Grant often discusses Adams' faith and religion, keeping its presense throughout the biography unlike, for example, Walter Stahr's biography of John Jay where his noted strong faith disappears for chapters at a time.
   
   As already mentioned, Grant's style does not lend itself to a general audience, at least one that does not wish to have a dictionary handy. Grant brings a highly analytical style, which makes this biography more than a simple narration of Adams' life. The danger with this is that the objectivity can be lost in favor of only citing sources that support a particular point of view. Grant slips into this commentary several times, which could be a distraction if one does not enjoys this style of biography. The stylistic issues raised in the preceding can be considered positives or negatives depending on the reader's own personal preference.
   
   In this reviewer's opinion, this biography of John Adams will not appeal to everyone. It will be heartily enjoyed by some for its analytical and direct style, but may be a disappointment to others who are looking for a milder approach. However, this reviewer endorses an attempt at reading this biography because of the quantity and perhaps quality of what it has to offer.