1 comments about Herbert Hoover: A Public Life (Signature).

1. Perhaps no other president has ascended to our highest office with such impressive credentials as Herbert Hoover. George HW Bush and Richard Nixon arguably were on a par with Hoover as far as experience before becoming Commander in Chief, but Hoover was incredibly well-thought of.
   
   He had served in the cabinet for Woodrow Wilson, and the Harding-Coolidge regime, was an international industrialist, and had collaborated with foreign governments to feed thousands of starving Europeans in Belgium during World War I.
   
   Perhaps had he won his parties nomination in 1920, and the presidency that year, we would now consider him a near great president. Had that happened, he would have presided over eight years of prosperity, built a cabinet for such prosperity, and shown his excellent managerial skills in leading this country.
   
   Fate was not kind to Hoover. He instead presided over an eroding economy, and his rugged individualism ideology was naive in moving the country through the issues faced in the poverty and despair of The Great Depression.
   
   This book traces Hoover's remarkable ascent into the upper echelons of the presidential trust, in advising Wilson, and then presiding over the Roaring 20's boom as Secretary of Commerce. He brought many credible ideas, and showed tremendous mental dexterity and moral rigor in helping steer our economy through one of its greatest decades. He was a wunderkind.
   
   It traces his rise in business, and his international success in China and Europe. His Quaker roots guided his conscientiousness, repaying debts in business, long after reasonable people would have written them off.
   
   He seemed to be taken by surprise by the financial downturn of the country, and although congress and senate seemed to continue to respect him, he was unable to connect with the general populace, and lost its confidence. He was no match for FDR's charisma, and lost the presidency in a landslide in 1932.
   
   Here the book goes sketchy on what might have been the most interesting part of Hoover's journey, his struggles upon leaving the White House.
   
   He lived thirty one years after his presidency, longer than any other president to date (Jimmy Carter will soon be knocking on that door, and the parallels between the two are apparent).
   
   Hoover was a forgotten and bitter man during the FDR presidency, but Harry Truman put him to work. There is a touching story told by Truman in the Biography by Merle Miller of the Missourian's deference to the former Commander, and Hoover's embarrassed emotion at this gesture. Hoover did some great public service from 1947 until the mid 1950's, and once again was a respected and venerated elder statesman.
   
   Hoover was clearly a great man, a brilliant engineer, and an individual of strong character. His story may be told as a Greek tragedy, but here it is not. It is told in a dry, if scholarly fashion.
   
   It is a solid chronicle of the man's life and presidency, but some day, perhaps it will be told in the more colorful manner that it deserves.

4 comments about Presidential Campaigns.

1. This is a readable and informative history of Presidential politics. Devoting one chapter to each election since 1789 (George Washington), author Paul Boller provides a crisp overview, followed by a host of trivial facts and tidbits. Readers get a good view of U.S. poltiical history, personalities like Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, William Jennings Bryan, etc., and key issues such as slavery, railroads, robber barons, war, peace, communism, etc. Some readers may be surprised to learn that half-truths and mud-slinging are nothing new - Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were both accused of being enemy spies, Grover Cleveland's illegitimate son was campaign fodder, and charges that the Pope would soon rule the USA came with candidacies of Catholics Al Smith (1928) and John F. Kennedy (1960).
   
   I gave just four stars due to a couple factual errors (e.g., Martin Luther King was killed April 4, not April 27 1968), and readers may prefer the updated version - this one finishes with 1984. Still, this is fun, informative reading.



2. Paul F. Boller Jr. turned in a milestone effort with "Presidential Campaigns," combining an excellently developed historian's eye along with an objective presentation.
   This informative work reads like an entertaining novel while providing all kinds of fascinating information about America's presidential campaigns from Washington to the present, from which we can learn so much about our nation's history, using famous elections as an evolutionary guide to understanding the peaks and valleys of the Ameican experience.

   In that some of the subject matter is about heavy topics such as war and peace, domestic political conflict, and America during economic panics and depressions, Boller's humor is needed to lighten the heaviness and he delivers superbly. This is understandable since much of his career as an author involves books of anecdotes regarding American and British history as well as Hollywood's film world.

   This is a book that crisply and entertainingly tells us so much about America, as revealed through its presidential compaigns.




3. This classic chronicle of Presidential campaigns, from the get-go to contemporary times, has the unusual virtue of being useful either as a collection of short readable chapters - each just the right size for a daily bus or train ride - or as a reference source. Reading this in the wake of Monicagate and the Florida Recount, it's instructive to read the history of Grover Cleveland, who seems to have features of BOTH past Democratic candidates. Like Clinton, he had his scandals - fathering an illegitimate child. Like Gore, his career was rudely interrupted by an election which he won on popular votes but lost, in a hotly contested, knife-edge electoral college tally.



4. This is a well organized book full of useful facts that show how our political history has evolved over the years. Full of antdotes and trivia, the book reveals quite a bit about America. Very well condenced stories of each election. Reports things as historical facts rather than a political leaning (except for the 1988 race maybe). Overall a very good read.

3 comments about That Man: An Insider's Portrait of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

1. Robert H. Jackson's insightful and previously unpublished observations of FDR in his presidency appear and are notated in Professor Barrett's THAT MAN in a very readable arrangement. Here is a true and objective account by one who was there and witnessed the inside of the FDR years in the White House. These Jackson writing's being posthumous adds rarity and validity to the work, making it a true find for serious Roosevelt and Roosevelt period historians.



2. This is a very interesting book which adds something of great value to the ever-growing mound of books on FDR. The fact that the manuscript was uncovered in a closet some 50 years after it was written is something for which students of FDR and presidential power can give thanks. It presents an entirely unique view and highly personal perspective on interacting with Roosevelt. Some of the most interesting discussion relates to interacting with FDR and his circle on an informal basis, such as on those fishing trips FDR savored. Also of great interest is the light the book throws on Jackson's own career--from the Treasury, to the SEC, then to Justice where successively Jackson was in the Tax Division, headed the Antitrust Division, became Solicitor General and Attorney General, and ultimately was elevated to the Supreme Court. Along the way we gain a fascinating perspective on such events as the Court Packing plan. The strongest chapter is on "That Man as Politician;" the most interesting "That Man as Companion and Sportsman." The editor has done an outstanding job in providing extensive notes, material from other sources to supplement the narrative, and in providing a biographical directory. But it is Jackson's own narrative skill that makes the book read so well. With a new major biography of Jackson himself on the horizon, this book becomes even more essential.



3. As a long-time admirer of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, I am always intrigued by new books that are published regarding his life or his Presidency. A book from a contemporary source that has such "insider" knowledge of how FDR operated as Robert Jackson is a marvelous addition to the existing literature.

   Jackson does not make any promises at the outset of the book except to be objective, and he certainly does meet this goal. Jackson describes FDR as President, Commander-in-Chief, and a human being, outlining his strengths as well as his weaknesses. Jackson makes no excuses for the President when his policies and knowledge did not seem to be best for the country (Jackson even criticizes FDR for his lack of economic knowledge and business sense).

   I enjoyed Jackson's writing style (he is considered by many to be one of the best authors to ever sit on the Supreme Court of the United States), and I found that the book was easy to read.

   I highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in President Franklin Roosevelt - the stories and anecdotes given in the text make it highly readable, and the examples Jackson provides to detail his points are always logical and related to the subject at hand.

No comments about The Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America, 1858-1919.

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

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

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



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



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



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



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

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

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



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

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

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



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



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

3 comments about Gerald Ford and the Challenges of the 1970s.

1. This is an excellent book not only for summarizing the presidency of Gerald Ford but also for understanding of how the 1970's changed America. For those who wish to understand 2008 and the problems facing the election and the country they only have to look back to this time in history where unbridled disgust of the government and economic woes were abound. As past reviewers have stated this book does an excellent job of looking at how the Ford presidency shaped the America and provides a necessary reevaluation of the times. While Truman got his mythical bounce during the Ford era it may be in the times of the 2008 election and George W Bush that Ford may see his redemption. Ford faced a challenge unlike many presidents and as the author states "Ford may have been elected at the most unlucky time in history" with a host of internal political strife, economic woes of inflation and soon to be rising unemployment, as well as falling world prestige. He approached these problems with honesty and common sense providing leadership that saved the Republican Party and possibly allowed the country to heal from the rifts. Despite not wining reelection Ford shaped the future by marshaling the economic forces of the time trying to give the Carter administration a policy to work with. As you read the energy policies in this book they smack of the very things being discussed in 2008 from CAFÉ standards to development of alternate energy standards. In all this is a fascinating book to read and I recommend it to all students of political history.



2. This is a very good book that looks back at the Ford presidency in an unbiased way and examines almost every aspect of Ford's term in office, including his foreign policy and leadership style. Ford actually understood economic policy better than any postwar president, having spent fourteen years on the House Appropriations Committee in Congress - his actual goal had been to be Speaker of the House. Facing unprecedented increases in inflation and the rate of unemployment, Ford insisted that controlling inflation would serve the country better in the long run than trying to reach full employment. Therefore, he fought hard to decrease government spending and deregulate industry rather than promoting jobs programs or accepting the price controls advocated by many in Congress, which his predecessor had attempted with disastrous results. Before he left office, inflation had been cut by more than one half and the number of Americans without jobs was declining. However, it was not enough to save him from defeat in the 1976 elections. Only after the disastrous Carter administration did the federal government and the nation actually have the political will to implement Ford's original suggestions more fully during the Reagan years - and they worked.
   
   The book does a good job of detailing how the energy problems and inflation that plagued Ford were not of his making, and would have caused problems for any president. Also detailed are the unparalleled expectations of the American public at that time, having just finished exiting the unprecedented 25 year-long post-war boom as well as the radical nature of the Congress that Ford had to work with that was ushered in during the 1974 elections almost immediately post-Watergate. The author makes a good case that if you had members of this Congress trying to introduce legislation that would outlaw the spanking of children by their own parents, it is unlikely that Ford would be able to get this bunch to compromise on Congressional spending. The author's analysis also points to the need to consider Ford's presidency in the context of other threads of conservative thought, such as the rise of the religious right and the later growth of the GOP. I would recommend this well-written book to anyone wanting to understand Ford's presidency in the context of the unique decade of the 1970's. Recognize, however, that this is not a biography of President Ford. It's entire focus is his presidency.



3. An entertaining and historically necessary re-evaluation of one of our most underrated Presidents. Largely remembered for falling down, Mieczkowski shows how Ford's personal honesty, lack of arrogance or secrecy and willingness to let Congress, despite their largely successful attempt to thwart Ford's policy initiatives to regain their sense of power after four terms of an "Imperial Presidency" was exactly what America needed after the trauma of Watergate and Vietnam.
   
   Ford never had any interest in seeking the Presidency. He was happy to stay in Congress, dreaming of being Speaker of the House. As Mieczkowski mentions, it takes a pretty big ego and a lot of ruthlessness to decide to run for President, make through the primaries and come out on top in November. As an "accidental" President who was never elected, Ford has perhaps the unique distinction of having smallest ego of any sitting President, an important bending of the stick after years of Nixon and Johnson.
   
   Ironically despite being one of the most open Presidents when it came to press, he was mercilessly ridiculed by them, leading to his klutzy reputation. After Watergate and the 60's rebellion, no one was willing to trust anyone in authority and Ford had the bad luck to come into office when he did. Many who did attack him (even Chevy Chase as the book recounts) would latter regret it.
   
   Mieczkowski also does a good job of reminding readers was a state of crisis America was in the mid- 1970's. Rampart inflation, out of control energy prices and a generalized lack of confidence in the future and our leaders were all problems Ford inherited and tried his best to confront. A combative Democratic controlled Congress, with a high percentage of "new Democrat" freshmen made sure that Ford spent more time in veto wars with the House and Senate instead signing his name to bills, so in terms of policy he accomplished little, but he did succeed in bringing back some sense of trust to the White House. In the end Ford was a man who never labored to sit in the White House, but when called upon to try to rebuild the broken trust America had in the Executive branch after the lies of Johnson and Nixon, Mieczkowski shows how Ford stepped into one of the more difficult positions any President has ever faced and left an important mark. His pardon of Nixon largely killed his chances to be re-elected, but Mieczkowski makes a well-argued defense of Ford's decision *whether you agree with it or not) and that Ford did it out of a need to move America onto issues beyond Watergate; not becuase of any "secret deal" with Nixon as some had rumoured. Even then, during his re-election campaign, he managed to cut Carter's intial dominating lead to mere points making the 76 election one of the closest in the 20th century. His openness, moderation and dialogue when dealing with opponents and scrupulous honesty are characteristics that I'm sure many of would like to see make a comeback in Washington.

5 comments about The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln.

1. I had a few problems with this book. I thought the author weakened his position on Lincoln's sexuality by being quite obviously anti-Mary Lincoln. Also, the author relies solely upon a boyhood friend of Lincoln's testimony (years after the fact), who remembers how tall and gangly Lincoln was at age 9, to prove his belief that Lincoln was sexually mature at that age (and thus, in the author's POV, more prone to same-sex experimentation). I didn't understand how the author arrived at the conclusion of Joshua Speed's supposed lifelong impotence with his wife. The fact that they had no children could just as soon be put down to a medical issue with his wife.
   
   In regards to the author's style, there's quite of bit of repeated word use (for example, if I saw the word "autodidact" one more time on one page!), which was annoying. But also, I realize that the author didn't have the opportunity to review his final draft or approve the editing, due to his premature death.
   
   But, these criticisms aside, this is an interesting and (on a whole) readable exploration of another (possible) side of Lincoln's admittedly complex character. The author reaches some conclusions about Lincoln's sexuality which I don't necessarily buy into, but he has enough experience and knowledge of human sexuality to make the question worth exploring. Not that we'll ever know with 100% certainty anyway, but the question of bisexuality does add another dimension to a study of Abraham Lincoln's life.



2. Let me state the obvious. Each of us is a product of our time - of all the people and events we encounter, and the values of the societies we live in. So was Lincoln. So was Tripp. Current Gay and Queer identities are 20th cent constructs and could not have been embraced by Lincoln, nor does Tripp claim this to have been the case. Nor does Tripp present a view that all Gay people will see as politically acceptable - his work helped build the current identity but he was, himself, a product of another era. However, as Robert Aldrich and others have demonstrated, homosexuality is as ancient as humanity and exists in many forms across societies. Tripp gives a good portrait of a remarkable man coping with homosexual urges in an emerging nation. Tenuous though some of his arguments may be, his critics are, in many cases subject to the academic biases of reliance on surviving documentation (often ignoring context and the nature of covert behaviour), lack understanding of the experience of being in a hidden minority and even, in a few cases, rely on arguments that make Tripp's weakest sound strong. The truth is that here is meticulously well researched book that presents a convincing arguement but shows evidence of the author not having survived to do the last few re-writes that would have bought it up to his usual high standard.



3. The world of Lincoln scholarship can be highly contentious, but controversy about this book relates to Tripp's use of evidence, not the topic he examines. My own specialty is Lincoln's pre-presidential life. Determining what happened in those years can involve surmise and supposition. I don't fault Tripp for lacking unobtainable proof. Even outright speculation can freshen thought.
   
   I am concerned, however, by Tripp seizing a kernel of evidence, extrapolating from it, and pronouncing the resultant structure to be proof of his contention. For example, he finds a unique statement from Bill Greene noting that Lincoln had well-developed thighs. Tripp then turns to the Duncan and Nichols biography of Mentor Graham, a source I consider so unreliable that I have never dared cite it as authority for anything. Relying on an undependable source and a single comment from Greene, Tripp claims to prove a homosexual relationship between Greene and Lincoln.
   
   Tripp extrapolates further and argues that because Greene became embarrassed when Lincoln introduced him to Secretary of State Seward as Lincoln's grammar teacher, that meant Greene was uneasy about his old homosexual relationship with Lincoln. Tripp considers and rejects the possibility that Greene said little during the meeting because he didn't want to reveal his poor grasp of grammar to Seward, thereby belying Lincoln's praise and humiliating himself. I find the possibility that Tripp rejects to be more plausible than the one he embraces.
   
   Another type of reasoning is illustrated by Tripp arguing for a homosexual relationship between Lincoln and Joshua Speed because (in part) when Lincoln moved into their sleeping quarters, Speed failed to say anything about his admiration of a Lincoln speech. Tripp here assumes that because Speed failed to mention this in his account of his conversation with Lincoln, that absence means no conversation about the speech occurred. Lincoln and Speed may have talked about many things that Speed didn't mention (weather, crops, politics). Tripp seems to think that if an account doesn't say something happened, then it didn't happen. That's invalid reasoning.
   
   Regarding Lincoln and Speed being bed mates, neither man was secretive about the arrangement, and some men Lincoln slept with had definite heterosexual orientation. Public comment about a politician's sex life was rare in that era, but I have seen examples in Illinois newspapers. If anyone had thought the Lincoln-Speed sleeping arrangement could be portrayed as homosexual, I think political opponents would have raised the issue regardless of whether they believed it.
   
   We can speculate all day about Lincoln's place on the sexual continuum between heterosexual and homosexual, and speculate reasonably, but speculation isn't proof. Still, the topic is worthy. For me, the big disappointment in Tripp's book was in finding him wrong again and again about things I know about. If it had been the other way around I would probably have found the book exciting rather than frustrating.



4. Most art, literature and history is studied from the straight, white, male perspective. If a famous man professed his undying devotion to a woman and slept with her for years, SWM academic theory would presume the couple was sexually involved and use that as proof of heterosexuality. C.A. Tripp simply looks at the facts of Lincoln's intimate life from the position of a queer theory scholar. Interpreting findings from a queer point of view takes this book beyond the genre of biography and helps us understand how all historical theory about any minority has been skewed to fit a mainstream mold, disregarding history as it most probably was.



5. What is it that propels peopel to reinterpret history? This book is so chock full of speculative flim flam. It is written by a person who is applying 21st century culture to 19th century culture. It was not uncommon for men to share quarters 200 years ago and ...GUESS WHAT? Not be gay.
   
   The irrational claim this author makes is based on this one single premise:
   
   "OOOH two men shared a room...they MUST have had gay sex!"
   In the military I slept in very close quarters to other men, and NOT ONCE did I have any inclination of homosexual conduct. What is wrong with leftists? Why must everything be centered around sex? Is there anything else to life for them, than fleshly gratification? Good grief.
   Lincoln had a close friend and shared a bedroom with him. AND? Does that AUTOMATICALLY mean he was gay? Cmon people!
   Can you not see the obvious fallacy? It is a false conclusion. It is a desperate attempt by the left to twist history into something that suits them. Its taking a *REPUBLICAN* president and trying to make him into a liberal!
   
   Hows this for the left? Lincoln advocated PRAYER in school. Next thing you know, the left will be trying to twist that around.