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

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



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



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



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



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

5 comments about Reagan In His Own Voice.

1. Rarely have American President's set aside a lengthy paper trail of their thoughts on national issues, apart from the day to day strains of office, before they become President. The public is usually left to discern their thoughts and world views from a variety of sources, often indirectly from the candidate himself. Ronald Reagan though, from 1975 to 1979, gave over 1,000 short radio commentaries, usually around three minutes in length on a variety of topics, that give as clear an indication to what he thought and what he valued as could be expected for someone not in office.
   
   This five CD set, of around a representative tenth of Reagan's more than 1,000 radio commentaries, represent a unique window onto what Reagan valued, and the situation, from his conservative point of view, of late 1970's America. Topics such as environmentalism, out of control government spending, onerous government regulation, religious oppression overseas and liberal thought in culture and faith are addressed with at times great seriousness, and even better genuine humor.
   
   These audio commentaries by Reagan are occasionally interrupted by former Reagan aides and scholars who give historical context to the subjects Reagan addresses. Former aide Michael Deaver is clear that these radio commentaries were a principle way that Reagan wanted to stay public and active after his eight years as California Governor ended in 1975.
   
   The overwhelming majority of these commentaries were written, researched and edited by Reagan himself. His previous experience with broadcasting and his ability with plain spoken English, that the American public saw on television throughout the 80's, comes over even more clear here. What is most remarkable is his sense of timing. There are a few commentaries that he obviously rushes through, usually when he is reading a letter; but most of them build up to a point and are succinct, even when he points to supporting material.
   
   Yes, Reagan stood against communism, and that is a frequent topic of these radio spots. What most stands out though is his enthusiastic love and and admiration for America, its ideals and its people, spread over a vast continent, yearning to be independent and creative, were it not for liberalism in government and surrounding culture.
   
   This CD set is a great primary resource to understanding Reagan, the late 1970's and what he wanted to accomplish in the 1980's, a time which was most definitely not inevitable from the years that Reagan speaks here. This CD set makes a great companion for car trips and other listening opportunities; and they would make especially great introductions to the time for those too young to remember today.



2. If you admire, respect, or just fondly remember Ronald Reagan you'll enjoy these CDs. Through the short radio commentaries you'll feel like you've gotten to know the real Reagan.



3. This product is simply amazing. Ronald Regan was one of the best Presidents this country has ever had. These recordings are amazing. Many of the issues that he addressed in his radio announcements are still relevant to today! Decades later!!!
   
   This should silence the "nay sayers" about Regan's abilities and opinions. All these announcements were written by Regan himself between his term of Governor of CA and President. He clearly laid out his plan of defeating communism. It is amazing to hear how a "true" conservative thinks.
   
   Each section is set up and reviewed so that you know the actual context in which Regan was speaking.
   
   It was a true pleasure to hear Regan's views on Government, Freedom of Speech, and faith in the American people.
   
   This series is a must for anyone who doesn't understand what it means to be a conservative. I just wish our current President (George W) would listen and practice Regan's example of what it means to be a conservative.
   
   Ronald Regan knew how the world works, and the role the US Government should play in the lives not only US Citizens, but to the entire world.



4. I doesn't really matter if you're a dem or a rep, this is a voice that can speak to you if you're an american.
   
   He was the greatest president of my lifetime.
   
   First rate audio. First rate documentary. First rate ideas.



5. No matter what your political affiliation is, there is no denying Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest speakers and leaders of our time. The collection of audio commentaries by the 40th president of the United States is an everlasting testimomy to the personality and opinions which reached out and captivated a nation. After listening to his warm voice and sharp wit,it soon becomes apparent how he could almost effortlessly attract and win most people over with his words. The collection of commentaries contained in this CD, were recorded from his radio days prior to becoming president and provide insight into some of the issues and concerns of the American public during the 1970's. Its such a great collection, that his voice, thoughts and charisma remain with you long after listening to the CD.

5 comments about The Psychic Life of Abraham Lincoln.

1. I'm the first to admit my two passionate interests are Abraham Lincoln and the paranormal so it shouldn't come as much of a shock that I found this book to be extremely interesting. I don't know that I buy the whole "Lincoln as psychic medium" slant but the book does shed a lot of light on a neglected aspect of Lincoln's personality, that is his interest in the paranormal, ghosts and the like. It discusses his interest in seances...in and out of the White House and makes the argument that Lincoln's interest was far deeper than has been admitted. Overall the evidence presented holds up.
   I did take exception to the author taking aim at Dr. Wayne Temple's research. I don't always agree with Dr. Temple but know him to be a fine researcher, the author here would disagree and uses Temple's book "From Skeptic to Prophet" against him repeatedly throughout.
   That aside, I really enjoyed this book and would argue that it's a fine addition to any Lincoln library, don't let the subject matter scare you away.



2. Dr. Martinez is to be applauded for the first time threading together all the anecdotal and documented yet neglected references to the Lincoln's attraction and participation in the budding Spiritualist religious movement. Mrs. Lincoln had sensitized herself to the possibility of afterdeath communication by the tragic loss of two young sons.
   
   This work draws connections to primary documents not incorporated into mainstream Lincoln studies. The only disconcerting note is the authors apparent belief in the 19th century alternative bible "Oahspe" channeled through the mediumship of John B. Newbrough. Oahspe is certainly a fringe document with few organized students devoted to its psuedo-old testament language and cosmic operating manual. Oahspe is a more quaint, Victorian "Urantia" type body of work. The one attempt at establishing an intentional community based on Oahspe's teachings was the failed Shalam colony in New Mexico. I understand that Newbrough's body is buried in the Las Cruces Masonic cemetary.
   
   Dr. Martinez's scattered quotes gleaned from Oahspe do not serve to strengthen the premise of her book. The Oahspe derived Lincoln quotes merely serve to embarass the reader for Dr. Martinez if she thinks this dated piece of spiritual literature supports any case for a stronger sympathy of spiritualism by the Lincoln's than may previously been accepted by mainstream historians. Nor are the Lincoln's dyed in the wool spiritualists, but rather inquisitive progressive minded 19th century Americans looking for more than exoteric answers to the questions surrounding life and death.
   
   In the author's biography in this book, it mentions a biography she has written on J.B. Newbrough, this is worth noting for a major study of his life is needed for students of 19th century alternative religious movements.



3. Impressive. The Psychic Life of Abraham Lincoln, while it is an apologia of Spiritualism past and present, is also a very intimate look at one of the most complex and iconic personalities short of Jesus of Nazareth. While the doubter will have much to criticize I suspect, if ones feelings with regard to the topic of Spiritualism itself can be set aside for the moment, a much clearer portrait of the man can be obtained by the exercise.
   
   The book is, however, very anecdotal and while it puts data into chapters with logical headings, the bulk of each is largely "loose association" and quotes from various sources, many of them having little to do with the Civil War president, and many having to do with the character of Spiritualism in the 19th Century. To the extent that this material places the man solidly within the venue of his own time, this is very helpful. Certainly anyone who has no clue as to the topic of Spiritualism and its history will find it illuminating and helpful to the understanding of the 19th century culture of which it was a part.
   
   Quantities of literature have been written about Lincoln (I Googled his name and came up with 8,510,000 entries), yet it still leaves the reader very confused about him. Perhaps more confused about him. Like the iceberg that sank the Titanic, much of the man's personality lay beneath the "water" line for most of his peers. Furthermore and for this very reason, every writer about the man had/has his own "Lincoln" version in mind.
   
   As Susan Martinez herself notes, more than Lincoln the man, one receives a distorted image filtered through the perspective of his biographers; through cultural lenses, personal biases, personal agendas, etc. Maybe it's unavoidable. Dr. Martinez quotes from a roughly contemporary source which stated that a mind of such genius as Lincoln's, viewed through the filter of lesser minds, always appears "unrecognizable (p. 133)." She also notes the addendum to this statement made by author Victor Searcher (1965) that this fact is the source of the "many different Lincolns (p. 133)." Certainly the man's contemporaries were every bit as confused about the Real Lincoln as modern day authors.
   
   I think that the ultimate cause of this is the fact that Lincoln, by dying as he did and at the time he did, assumed almost deified status for the average person of his time, not to mention for us. He left his work incomplete, he was not allowed to undergo the effects of time which often dims recollections of past deeds or buries them under later concerns and preoccupations. Instead he became an icon of martyrdom, righteousness, freedom, courage in the face of adversity to almost all of his contemporaries and even more so to those generations that followed.
   
   This larger than life iconic status was a very tempting thing to manipulate in the interests of individuals whose own agendas were not quite as altruistic. Furthermore, the attempt to cultivate and manipulate his persona for private interests began almost immediately as the power brokers of the time grappled with one another for control.
   
   Much of our confusion over the man is due to the fact that private family papers were destroyed by Lincoln's only surviving son Robert in an attempt to control what was written and believed about his esteemed father. Robert's efforts at what he obviously considered "damage control" even extended to having his mother committed for "insanity" some years later. Whether this was out of a misguided fear that his father's great reputation would be besmirched by his mother's behavior or that the value of his own reputation as a Lincoln might lose its value is anyone's guess.
   
   Some of our confusion over the person of Lincoln is based in Robert's activities and in the biases about women. Just the basis for the diagnosis of Mary Lincoln's "insanity" would put most modern women in an institution: spending too much money on clothing, having a political opinion, having an educated mind, expressing "excessive" grief (ie. over the loss of almost all of her children except the controlling Robert and of her husband who was assassinated in her presence while she was actually speaking with him; over the fact that while she had a northern husband and loyalty, her natal family was primarily located in the south; and over the fact that her outspokenness caused most people to dislike her because she was "unfeminine," leaving her lonely and isolated, etc.--for which see: Mary Todd Lincoln: A Biography .)
   
   In fact, if one looks at the material on Abraham and Mary Lincoln, one comes up with a very dichotomized view of the two of them, an almost Biblical duality of "good" and "evil." Abraham is everything good, noble, and male, while Mary is everything uncontrolled, selfish and female. They are for their contemporaries, from whose descriptions we gain our only view of them, the antithesis of one another. Part of this was due to the fact that Mary, despite her loyalty and support of her husband's position, was still viewed as Southern, ie "bad," while Abraham was viewed as Northern, ie "good." It should be noted, however, that this latter assessment accrued to the man by virtue of his conveniently dying almost on the eve of the end of the war. During the war, he was often vilified by the same people who paid lip service to his greatness after his death. Life was not easy for the Lincolns during the White House years (for which see: The Lincolns in the White House: Four Years That Shattered a Family .
   
   Because of this duality of persona between the Lincoln pair, much of what was considered "unacceptable" for the icon Lincoln is offloaded onto Mary, "the bad influence." Unfortunately some of this goes on in modern biographies of Lincoln and it paints a distorted portrait of the man. In short it supports the icon, not the man. This is a sad state of affairs. It robs the man of his humanness and denies the incredible burden that he undertook and which, at its end, took his life. It is my firm conviction that even had the man not been assassinated, he would not have lived out his second term. I think he would have died of the effects of the stress under which he lived for over four years, those same effects already visible in the succession of photos of the man over the time of his administration.
   
   So what new does this author actually present to us with her Spiritualistic view of Lincoln? A very good one, I think. For one thing, she reflects on the cover-ups and the manipulation of the Lincoln persona--both that of Abraham and of Mary--by others. She sees and presents Abraham, warts and all, and Mary Lincoln, strong points and all, and she refuses to commit the modern error of removing the two from their own 19th Century milieu.
   
   This is an important point. No person is outside of the influences of his or her own time. If Abraham was a spiritualist at heart and if he chose not to declare it, he was not alone, as Dr. Martinez makes plain. It could be political, professional, and social suicide to make beliefs of this kind known, and she provides examples of it.
   
   But if he and his wife chose to seek comfort in beliefs in an afterlife and a continued interest by the deceased in their living family, why would that be particularly strange? Why when almost every person living at the time had also sustained great family losses in a war that seemed to be without end and who probably also looked to their personal philosophy or religious beliefs for comfort, is the Lincolns' search for a balm for their grief unacceptable and unbelievable?
   
   Why, taken within the reference point of his time and place, would Lincoln's personal beliefs be something to leave out of the picture? Whatever they may have been, and despite the fear that superstition might have made important decisions--given the complexity of any urgent time, tossing a coin might be the only other option!--he obviously had the wherewithal to get through the stressful time and to make good decisions, and that despite his detractors' protests. Anyone who can make considered decisions, by whatever means, in the maelstrom of chaotic and stressful times is a treasure.
   
   Probably better than any of the Lincoln portraits I've read before, this one really, really, really illuminates the staggering stress and emotional burden that this presidency represented to its occupant, and more than any other biography, it shows the incredible good fortune that having this particular man in this particular place at this particular time really was for the destiny of the country. I doubt there were any others who could have withstood the pressure or undertaken the mission so successfully as Lincoln did. If he chose spiritual resources available to him at the time to support his own emotional well being, good for him!



4. Lincoln saw his death in dreams, consulted oracles, and knew at age 22 that he'd become President of the U.S.: despite the evidence historians have dismissed his psychic involvements. But his rose to power coincided with a rise in interest in spiritualism, and this chronicle of his psychic side, which includes precognitive dreams, trance-like states, and even White House seances, is enhanced by the deathbed memoir of his favorite medium and charts his many clairvoyant incidents and psychic interests. New age libraries will consider it a 'must have' acquisition.



5. Historians have not been able to agree as to President Lincoln's religious beliefs. He has been characterized as everything from a God-fearing Christian to an atheistic humanist. It seems clear that Lincoln did not often attend church services and took issue with some of the dogma, doctrine, and methods of orthodox Christianity. And, yet, he emerges as one of our most spiritual presidents.
   
   Dr. Susan Martinez, the author of this book, points out that more than 6,000 books have been written about Lincoln and that it has been said that "there are no important new facts to disclose." She takes issue with that comment as the stories about Lincoln's association with several credible mediums, especially one Nettie Colburn Maynard, while not new, have been pretty much ignored, forgotten, denied, or swept under the rug.
   
   Many of Lincoln's biographers have taken note of claims that the 16th President received guidance from spirits who communicated through mediums. However, the claims are usually derided as beneath the dignity of such a great man. Not long before reading this book, I read a very lengthy magazine article dealing with Lincoln's religious and spiritual views. It mentioned that Spiritualists had made claims to having influenced Lincoln's thinking, but the author seems to have smirked at this claim and did not elaborate.
   
   Martinez digs deeply into the documented records of Lincoln's involvement with mediums and sets forth a preponderance of evidence suggesting that he was indeed guided by benevolent spirits communicating through credible mediums in his most crucial decisions and creative works, including the Emancipation Proclamation and the Gettysburg Address.
   
   Lincoln was seen by many who knew him as a somber man with a gloomy disposition. Martinez examines his "peculiar melancholy" and the events in his life that shaped it, including his mother's death at age nine, a strict and distant father, the death of a sister at age 10, and the death of his beloved Ann Rutledge when he was 26. She examines Lincoln's inner turmoil and his attempts to reconcile all of his hardships and the vindictive God of the Old Testament with his evolving ideas of justice, mercy, and goodness, concluding that these experiences molded Lincoln's psyche in a way that made him more sensitive to the unseen principle.
   
   Martinez recounts the paranormal events of 1848 giving rise to belief in spirit communication, pointing out that many celebrated names, including Elizabeth Barrett Browning, William Cullen Bryant, Thomas Carlyle, James Fenimore Cooper, Emily Dickinson, Horace Greeley, Sir William Crookes, Edgar Allen Poe, Alfred Russel Wallace, Mark Twain, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Queen Victoria, and W. B. Yeats, became investigators and proponents of the new "Spiritual Science." And yet, the evidence was suppressed by the religious fundamentalists, who saw the phenomena as a threat to established dogma and doctrine, as well as by scientific fundamentalists, who viewed it with "intellectual" arrogance.
   
   The president's wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, began exploring "spiritualism," as it came to be called, by visiting mediums and sitting in circles after the death of their 11-year-old son, "Willie." The president took a passing interest in the phenomena and then joined in on a more regular basis. At one sitting, after Nettie Colburn went into a trance, it is said that the spirits speaking through her lectured the president about his duty to emancipate the slaves.
   
   A number of people who knew Lincoln or came in contact with him are quoted attesting to his association with "spiritualists" and the influence they had on him and his important decisions during the Civil War. Others who knew him denied such an association. Martinez dissects the testimony and leaves the reader with evidence strongly favoring spirit communication and influence. She says that Lincoln moved from being an agnostic to a believer. But a believer in what? "No earthly power, no organized religion, no man-made God," she concludes, "but faith - a new faith - in the outworkings of the Unseen world of intelligent design."

1 comments about The Meaning of Independence: John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson.

1. Easily read in an hour or two, this concise book is a nice little study of independence; what it meant to John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson; and, through them, what it means to us. These three essays are not strictly biographical; Morgan does not sketch out the nitty-gritty of these Founders' lives. Rather, he takes a thematic, character-based approach to the individuals, using events to exemplify their traits, and uses them to flesh out the different takes on independence.
   
   Of the three, Morgan views Adams most negatively, sometimes portraying him as a man of mediocre talents. Readers of McCullough's biography might disagree, but Morgan does acknowledge that Adams was a "great American" (in that he placed his country above all other considerations), who bucked party and popular opinion and refused to go to war with France. For the aloof Washington, independence was shaped by honor and interest (usually the economic variety); he aimed to give the young country self-sufficience and status on the world stage. Both Adams and Washington, Morgan credibly suggests, might have lived obscure lives had crisis not forced them to rise above the mundane. Not so with Jefferson, clearly Morgan's favorite. Here, Morgan focuses on Jefferson's idea of a continuing revolution: that is, each generation most free itself from its predecessors. Jefferson's independence meant freedom from the past.
   
   The book is an interesting, sometimes insightful look at independence and these three men. It's not groundbreaking work, but it's good work--and surely worth a couple of hours.

3 comments about Cnut: King of England 1016-1035.

1. This book is good. Unfortunately, it is the exact same book written by M.K. Lawson under a different title. If I had known that, I wouldn't have spent another $20 on a book I already have. M.K. Lawson has the SAME book on Cnut out by two different titles.
   
   Anyway, it is a good, thorough, scholarly work.



2. This book does a really good job of covering King Cnut's reign in detail. I didn't like the way it ended, though. We are told what a skillful king Cnut was, both politically and militarily, and then we are told that he has been all but forgotten. Kind of ruined the mood!



3. Lawson's coverage of the reign of Cnut and of the Danish conquest of England in the 11th century, is a thorough examination of a subject rarely covered in most histories of the island. About 50 years before the famous Norman Conquest of 1066, the Danish conquest was accomplished on the battle field by Cnut's father Svegn and cemented in Cnut's law codes. The England they conquered was one tired of wars and eager for a chance at peace. Lawson's study examines the ways in which Cnut engineered an aura of legitimacy to his reign, by using personal loyalty, legal codes, close relations with the church and, finally, by marrying the widowed queen of the Anglo-Saxon king, Aethelred the Unready. This is a very carefully researched work, shedding light on a compelling period in English history.

   This book is not for the historically uninitiated or for those who like their history on the light side. However, for those who enjoy an in-depth study of primary sources, this work fills an important gap in scholarship.

1 comments about Eminent Lives: The Presidents Collection CD Set: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Ulysses S. Grant (Eminent Lives).

1. This was a joy to listen, as I learned a great deal about Washington, Jefferson, and most of all, Grant, in this very entertaining and at times engrossing audio book.

2 comments about The Quotable Jefferson.

1. I have been reading about the founding fathers for some time and decided to get this book because Jefferson is an obsession of mine. The Quotes in this great book range from his thoughts on the governments of the U.S. and France, thoughts on family, contemporaries, food, books, morals and everything in between. The quotes are funny and inspiring. If you have an interest in Jefferson, then this book is for you.



2. Thomas Jefferson was a man of many facets. Among these were the power of words,
   chosen carefully from the English language. He loved and excelled in writing letters,
   and this book contains over 500 subjects that he chose to write about. Tho the book is small in size with over 500 pages, it gives one an insight into the enormity of this
   President's capacity.

5 comments about Mussolini.

1. It seems like I have been studying World War II all my life, but a glaring deficiency in my education is my lack of knowledge concerning the intricacies of Fascist Italy. This caused me to pick up a used copy of this book the other day and I wasn't disappointed. I will say though that I thought the font on the paperback edition was too small, and I share this here just in case anyone else is really annoyed by small print. Bosworth's accounting of Il Duce was complete and fascinating. His narration skills are strong although his contempt for Mussolini definitely comes across in these pages which is really the only criticism that I have. Clocking in at around 430 pages, this text packs a serious punch and provides a brimming overview of the man and his times. The panorama he gives on Italy and the Italian people also made it well worth the money. Mussolini was more than a brutal clown, and Bosworth's study of him allows us to realize this.



2. RJ Bosworth makes an interesting attempt at writing a positive biography of Mussolini. This book does a decent job of summarizing parts of the Duce's life but does jump around quite a bit. Many of the things that make this book useful are in relation to how it reacts to other biographies and accounts of Mussolini. Bosworth glazes over many of the foreign policy decisions which are where so many other biographies are highly critical of Mussolini. It is noteworthy to try and write a biography that puts Mussolini in a different light and when combined with Dennis Mack Smith's biography of Mussolini (which is pretty negative) the reader can get a great sense of Mussolini himself. Bosworth is one of the premiere Italian historians and his work is always insightful and well done. The only compliant I have with this book is the jumping around and skipping over areas. The Brenner Pass meeting is not covered in this book and that is one of the pivotal moments in Mussolini's life and Italian history. I still would recommend this book through as long as it is being read with other sources to get a more complete picture.



3. Richard Bosworth is an academic specialized in modern Italian history, who improbably teaches at the University of Western Australia. After reading his spin-off of this book, I decided to read this book.
   
   Bosworth doesn't disappoint with this exceptionally well-written biography of one of the more unpleasant individuals to rule Italy. Anyone who was expelled from school for knifing a fellow student, who accepted foreign money for influencing his country's politics towards bringing it into a disastrous war, who didn't shy from using violence and murder to advance his political ends, who openly and flagrantly dishonored his marital vows, who used racial and religious animosities for political ends, and under whose command poison gas was used against Ethiopians cannot be a statesman, and ought have no place in politics. In this book the strong impression arises that Bosworth went out of his way to be fair to the "duce" but that there just was little that was flattering to be said for him. However, when Bosworth describes Preston's biography of Franco as "authoritative," and compares him to the other unelected European leaders of his time, I am not persuaded that Bosworth was as meticulously fair-minded.
   
   Bosworth describes himself as a proud product of 1789, and writes that he is quite open to hearing criticisms that his politics color his historiography. I do believe this to be the case: Bosworth is quite willing to describe the pathology of the duce, but doesn't ponder why Italians were willing to tolerate such a loathsome individual as their leader. A possible explanation, whose omission is easily explained by Bosworth's unabashed identification with the fateful year of 1789, is that Italy was not so much a single country, as several countries which had uneasily been united during the Risorgimento. Milan and Turin were completely different from Sicily and Calabria, and the former Papal States between them were yet different again. Perhaps the Italians of his day were initially willing to let a demagogue and thug bind together "the Italies," to use Bosworth's words, because their country was far too heterogeneous to withstand the centrifugal forces democracy can unleash. I believe an approach more along the ideas of Edmund Burke would have far preferable to trying to force 1789 onto a rather fractured country. Better eight solid and slows steps forward than twelve rapid steps forwards and sixteen tortured steps backwards.
   
   Bosworth writes that any historian of Italy must take pains to ensure that he doesn't absorb preconceived notions about Italy, and it is clear that Bosworth does his utmost to avoid this trap. I suspect that it is precisely in this endeavor, that Bosworth comes to the conclusion that if Italy had only been more like other liberal European countries, none of this would have happened. In my opinion, Italy was Italy, because it was different, and it would have been preferable not to try to overcome, but rather to make use of, Italy's differences.
   
   I would strongly recommend this impressively-written and quite sobering look at Mussolini to anyone who can distinguish between Bosworth's laudable historiography and his less authoritative political views.



4. Unlike most biographies, Bosworth's book actually starts from late in Mussolin's life, specifically his last 2 years alive 1944-45 and later resumes with Mussolini's birth and childhood and moves on to his adulthood as a teacher and writer and traces his political beginnings which were actually as a socialist. Later on it describes how Mussolini turned to fascism, gained power, and the prewar years and World War II. I was a little surprised at how much damage Mussolini did to Libya and Ethiopia as well as the magnitude of the killings of the local populations in those areas carried out by the Italians. The book includes a section of photographs as well as maps, footnotes, and bibliography. The last chapter even gives an account of the travels of Mussolini's corpse after he was executed and put on diplay in Milan. As much as this was a biography of Mussolini, it also seemed to be an analysis of fascism as a whole and how much harm that ideology and Mussolini were for Italy and the Italian people, as well as the above mentioned areas of Africa, and Europe. All in all, it was an interesting read, however, one can only pity the Italian people for having to put up with such poor, damaging, and detrimental leadership for such a long time, during an especially critical part of their history. I believe the fact that Mussolini is mentioned in the same breath with such a harmful leader as Hitler is indeed fitting and appropriate.



5. This book should have been better edited (to 200 pages), with its numerous typographical errors, and it comes across as more an attempt by the author to show off his knowledge of "Liberal" (pre fascist) Italy (it boggles the novice's mind as to what political beliefs marked one as a Futurist, syndicalist, Giolottian etc) than his insights into Mussolini as a bombastic philanderer, gangster politician, habitual liar, hollow pedant, lifelong coward ( he was discharged from the Army, as a conscript, not war vlounteer, after being wounded in the arse by an accidental grenade explosion in the barracks) and depraved knave.
   
   Packed full of petty details and tedious to the extreme, whilst blissfully ignorant of the wider picture, we are bombarded with rubbish that Mussolini is cultivated in arts, music, philosophy, well versed in journalism, pedagogy,self taught and fluent in English, French and German (instead of being the typical village fool that he is) and that he has been vastly under estimated by contemporaries and historians alike.
   
   The last years of Mussolini are barely covered in the book, which then digresses to random, irrelevant rantings on post war Fascism, and De Felice's monumental rubbish that tries to restore and repair the bruised reputation of Mussolini, as if he ever had one that matteed.
   
   I recommend Denis Mack Smith penetrating and coincise biography on this ass of a man instead.

5 comments about What Lincoln Believed: The Values and Convictions of America's Greatest President.

1. avoid this book. bad information. author writes the book to
   fit his opinion. facts are distorted, unchecked. get it off
   the shelf and into the trash.



2. Lind, it should be noted, is a journalist and public policy writer, not a professional historian. Nevertheless, this is an interesting and well-researched look at Abraham Lincoln -- perhaps our most appreciated, and misunderstood, president.
   
   The focus of the book is on aspects of Lincoln's career and personality that you probably never learned about in school. His understanding of economics and capitalism, for instance, was surprisingly sophisticated for his age, but does not fit well into our modern pro- or anti-government framework. And Lincoln's attitude towards religion was ambiguous, to say the least -- he actually wrote a book attacking Christianity as a young man, and may have remained agnostic the rest of his life, but he sprinkled Biblical allusions into nearly all of his political speeches, and came to appreciate the power and influence of religious belief in Americans' everyday lives.
   
   All in all, while there's not much here for high-level history students, Lind's book is a great choice for general readers, especially anyone who doubts they really learned much about the Civil War back in high school.



3. Lincoln is an icon from our political past, but it seems that many groups want to claim him as exemplifying their beliefs: Democrats and Repubs, proponents of economic opportunity, civil rights advocates, etc. The author, by analyzing Lincoln's utterances and actions, demonstrates that none of them are entirely correct or wrong in their claims.
   
   It cannot be forgotten when examining his life, that Lincoln, as any, was a man of his times. He did originate from very humble beginnings, as did many of his era, but he seemed to have an inordinate desire to make something of himself. Lincoln occasionally represented railroad interests in court, but it is quite a stretch to suggest, as the author does, that Lincoln was essentially a well-to-do lawyer for the fat-cats. If anyone can lay claim to advancing beyond log-cabin origins, it would be Lincoln.
   
   Lincoln was first and foremost a Henry Clay Whig and adhered to his program of internal improvements, national banking, and the protection of industry by tariffs. He was not a free-trader as are the current Repubs. Furthermore, he constantly held that labor was more important than capital, hardly an idea held by modern Repubs or the slave-holding Southern oligarchs.
   
   Lincoln had a lifelong reverence for the Declaration of Independence, especially in its advocacy of universal rights of liberty. And that fundamentally impacted his view on slavery, the burning issue of the times, yet Lincoln was essentially a racial segregationist. He was a "Free-Soiler," who advocated for the exclusion of slavery in new territories and states, as well as already freed blacks. Lincoln mostly hoped that freed blacks could form free societies outside of the US. It is only by stages, including attempts to get Southerners to end the insurrection with slavery intact, that Lincoln arrived at the final draft of the 13th Amendment, eliminating slavery in the US. For his times, Lincoln was a liberal voice on the issue of slavery, but he was a practical politician - not an abolitionist.
   
   Lincoln was a staunch Unionist, seeing the gradual solidification of the US state culminate with the ratification of the US Constitution. Any right to leave the Union could only be achieved via constitutional amendment. He regarded the Southern secession as a criminal insurrection. One of the most controversial aspects of Lincoln's presidency was his suspension of writs of habeas corpus in cases where he or his field commanders felt the union's war efforts were being impeded - even via speech. There is no doubt that there was an excess of heavy-handedness in this policy - mindful of many other less than exemplary curtailments of freedom in this country during supposedly times of crisis.
   
   For anyone believing in the purity or idealism of Lincoln's beliefs, this book will let the air out of that notion. On the other hand, the ante-bellum period had become increasingly polarized. For convincing, one need only examine the bloodshed that went on for years in Kansas primarily over the issue of slavery. Lincoln was the moderate compromise candidate among abolitionist Republicans and more conservative ex-Whigs and Democrats. What emerges is that Lincoln was a keen student of the American past. He instinctively knew what was needed and what was possible for his country relative to the times. Perhaps other paths could have been chosen, and the author does speculate on the possibility of other outcomes over the slavery and North/South divide. But finally, the author does hold Lincoln to be deserving as one of the foremost figures from our past in the rise of American democracy, bumpy though it has been.



4. "What Lincoln Believed" is part of a line of recent presidential biographies (Jefferson, Jackson) taking what some readers think is a hypercritical look at some of this country's leading political personalities. It's no exaggeration to say that "What Lincoln Believed" will, for many, be an eye-opener, especially those who haven't focused on our greatest president since high school.
   
   While I had been familiar with some of Lincoln's motivations for the Emancipation Proclamation as well as his Free-Soil views, this remarkable work brought to light numerous other facets of Abe's views on slavery including the relative rights of "free" slaves (his support of the Black Laws) and various details of his support for black colonization in both Africa and the Caribbean.
   
   While some reviewers believe author Lind went out of his way to excoriate Lincoln based on 20th Century views of race, my own belief is that he has very honestly widened the historical record on this shrewd, passionate and courageous man, ultimately paying him the highest tribute by comparing him to the leading figures of his day and explaining how Lincoln was the right man at the right time to preserve the Union and perpetuate the philosophical seeds of democratic republicanism - seeds that could easily have been cast aside as our nation continued to enter the world stage.
   
   "What Lincoln Believed" will make you rethink some of your assumptions about a legendary figure, but you will close the book still knowing that our sixteenth president was the person America needed at its darkest hour.



5. As I read this I found myself thinking of the old saying that you know when a politician is lying because his mouth makes noise. We like to think of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator. Mr. Lind is careful to point out that he was no slouch as a politician. You don't get elected to that office without being an accomplished professional politician. Perhaps the Great Emancipator is a title, a view that we hold of him several generations later.
   
   Mr. Lind spends a good bit of time on the definition of the United States as a nation vs. an alliance of sovereign states. Mr. Lind shows Lincoln's vision of the United States as a model of liberty and democracy for the world. Mr. Lincoln's model seemed to be that a state had the liberty to join the Union, but did not have the liberty to leave.
   
   I greatly enjoyed reading Mr. Lind's book. I do question some of his conclusions. They are based on the thinking of a man raised in a culture offset from Lincoln's by a hundred and fifty years.

No comments about The Life of Abraham Lincoln; from His Birth to His Inauguration as President.