3 comments about The Book of Abigail & John: Selected Letters of the Adams Family 1762-1784.

1. It's very good reading, the letters are really good. I just finsh reading John Adams that's a really good book too. And I just brought John Adams DVD it was on HBO early this spring!!! I'm trying find more books on John and Abigail books and other time period books in the 1700 and other history books. I just can't find any but I keep trying. I know they are there I just have I to looked!!!



2. This collection is the first assemblage of the letters between John and Abigail Adams published by Harvard University Press. Subsequently, in 2007, an expanded collection was published by Harvard, under the editorship of different scholars, with the title of "My Dearest Friend: Letters of Abigail and John Adams" (which I also reviewed on Amazon). While the newer version has more letters (289 v. 226), and covers the period of John's Vice Presidency and Presidency, this earlier edition continues to have value. It includes more editorial material, some correspondence with third parties, and a larger number of illustrations--though not the beautiful color plates found in the newer volume. As I mentioned in my other review, the star of the letters clearly is Abigail, who carried on alone under the most challenging of circumstances while John was absent. She manifests both a literate perspective, as well as a sharp eye for political issues. John's letters afford an invaluable insight into a most critical period of American history; especially perceptive are his assessments of some of the leading political figures of the day. Either volume is well worthy of consideration and study--perusing both is doubly helpful.



3. This was a very interesting book showing the way a women saw the start of a new country. It also shows the sacrifice that both John and Abigail both had to make to still be together while John was helping the colonies. John tells Abigail all of the political happenings that have been going on not including deaths etc... Abigail is very much into politics and reminds John to "remember the ladies" when writing the Declaration of Independence. This is an excellent book for anyone who wants to learn more about the war at a different perspective than what just the history books say.

1 comments about Life of Abraham Lincoln: 1865 Edition.

1. Mr. Barrett, the author, was both a contemporary and strong partisan of his subject. His book is a product of its time, 1865. Nonetheless, it contains many interesting passages about a number of subjects still argued over. As examples, General McCellan is reported on in detail (and excoriated) and the war powers of a president under the U.S. Constitution are discussed in length, given the pointed criticism President Lincoln received for suspending the writ of habeas corpus.
   
   I greatly enjoyed the full text that is often provided of President Lincoln's statements and addresses.
   
   While pages on the detail of certain battles will be wearying for the modern reader, this book should be owned and read by every serious student of Abraham Lincoln.

No comments about People Who Made History - William Shakespeare (hardcover edition) (People Who Made History).

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

5 comments about FDR: The War President, 1940-1943: A History.

1. To the layman, FDR's name is associated with Pearl Harbour dilemma and the consequential entry of USA into WWII.
   We have read the memoirs of Winston Churchill and seen impassioned appeals (some were even desperate) by the Allied player (France's Reynaud and England's WC) to the American President to interfere. Yet the appeals never effectively addressed the American public opinion.
   The French never understood how FDR could be a `leader' in his country and at the same time stood powerless to make decisions.
   The French, in the bloody and crowded events that encroached them in first half of 1940, could not fully appreciate the American System.
   But the British did.
   The public opinion in the USA, during 1939 and 1940, was one that when the allied had an edge in any battle against the Germans `so what, you see anyway they can win without us (USA)' when Germany was winning, the thinking was `Okay, since it's all over we better stay out, there is nothing we can do anymore'.
   American public opinion was divided and pacifists regarded the French appeals to `come to their rescue', emotionally hysterical. The French must have known how far was FDR bound by the congressional limits that formulated USA foreign policies.
   FDR could not have possibly made his decision apart from the American system, based on personal whims, notably when re-elections were due. FDR was bound to make American voters to see how far he was not missing any opportunity-however small- to prevent an all-out war.
   We should remember that before the war FDR had asked the Congress to approve his request for arms embargo to any country in a condition of `aggression' and the Congress refused unless the embargo applied to all countries concerned.
   Many American felt the Nazi had been forced to fight a war they never wanted.
   British propaganda machines were able to convince a big chuck of the public opinion in the USA that the Nazi had actually betrayed the Versailles Treaty (Post WWI). Wall Street and money mongers were also supporting this thesis. When Germany signed non-belligerent pact with USSR, many pacifists in America claimed that the war between the Europeans was imperialist in nature and urged FDR not to enter forcibly into it. FDR was even accused by the very few American Communists that he was indeed planning to do this.
   Although the French wanted them to come sooner than later, Churchill was convinced that in the end America would go to war, and he knew how far FDR depended on the public opinions at home.
   In his memoirs WC recounted that Lord Lothian (British Ambassador to USA) saw FDR and discussed `among other things, the danger facing America if a) some part of the British fleet fell to the Germans hand in the event of Nazi victory and 2) what are the chances of USA `being at war with Hitler' 3) FDR reiterated that `much depended not only on American Public Opinion but also on whether before that time dictators had taken some action which compelled the USA to go to war in self-defence' 4) only Congress could make commitments to war.
   
   Was FDR aware of the Japanese attack (`sudden attack' as the world was led to believe at all times) before it happened?
   Or had someone held from him the intelligence, which was then available that an air strike was forthcoming?
   
   Pearl harbour was the real casus belli that justified to the American public opinion the urgency of their country to enter the war, after all this was the highly coveted compelling opportunity for USA to fight in self-defence.
   
   When will historians be able to access the documents to sort out this inscrutable mystery?
   
   It may remain a mystery though because the worst thing for any leader is to hurt the intelligent minds of his people.



2. I purchased this book in the hopes of finding insight into FDR's disability. This huge volume discusses everything and includes about one page total (if that) about it, providing a look into how FDR did and did not discuss his disability. Interesting how the history books and buffs don't talk about it much, but disappointing also so I only gave it 3. If you're a history buff and reading it to find out about the politics of the day and such, you would like it more.



3. This last of five great volumes continues to look at Roosevelt and his times from the progressive Left. Davis was a liberal New Dealer (with the AAA) and he surveys FDR's third term with a view to what might-have-been through the eyes of one of many who welcomed a more fundamental shift from "selfish materialism" to "selfless ideology" in America. What better perspective to measure this century's greatest Democrat?

   Ignore Michael Lind's NY Times review -- except to get a taste of the reactionary manifesto FDR was up against; he simply trashes Davis's liberalism with a neo-con, op-ed spin piece on commies and big business, and concludes the book to be historical fiction. And why the accusation of "calumny" when Davis posits psychology as one of several possible explanations for FDR's inaction to the final solution? Only last year did we learn of John McCloy's discussion with an irate President about bombing Auschwitz ("Why, the idea! I won't have anything to do with it. We'll be accused of participating in this horrible business."), which was insight kept secret for forty years. With such precious little information about the motives of an aging, instinctive President who was always reluctant to espouse the ideological over the pragmatic, why is it unethical to suppose that he "may" have felt the politics of rescue to be personally overwhelming?

   Don't let one review deter you from a great history and a great story. From the Grand Alliance to Pearl Harbor to Casablanca and the Darlan Deal, the book presents a magnificent frieze. I give it four stars only because, alas, it ends prematurely.




4. Although Davis' book runs 757 pages, it only covers about 4 years real time. If you take the plunge, you will learn much about FDR, the War, and Davis (the author). I have read many books about the military conduct of WWII, from all sides. This was my first book about Great Leaders, Diplomacy, and World War strategy from the "Top." Most of this was new to me and most of the main points in the book don't show Roosevelt in a favorable light. Here are some of the big sins Davis reveals:

   1. FDR was clearly deceptive in his 1940 Campaign. He promised American mothers that he would keep us out of the War but he was already anxious to get us into the European War.

   2. FDR sold out most of his liberal principles in fighting the War. For instance, he placed industrialists in top positions, he put republicans in the cabinet, looked the other way when large firms ignored labor laws during the war, refused to embrace Henry Wallace's "Century of the Common Man." etc. Worst of all, large firms made money on their contracts! There is a long list
   of FDRs actions that show that the FDR's approach to the War effectively ended the New Deal program.

   3. There was much more tension between Americans and English than I realized. As far as military strategy, the Americans wanted to attack the Germans directly, ASAP, whereas the English
   preferred to attack the Germans indirecty, sometime later....
   The English were afraid of the Germans, who had just recently kicked them out of France, Greece, North Africa, etc. At one point in 1942, General Marshall was ready to jettison the English approach, the Torch invasion, and shift US resources to the Pacific. Roosevelt agreed to English strategies....

   4. FDR thought he could charm Stalin, "uncle joe." What a colossal miscalculation of Stalin's character.

   5. FDR did not worry much about civil liberties, authorizing the "evacuation" of the West Coast Japanese, letting the FBI run rampant with wire-tapping, etc.

   6. FDR was an unprincipled man, devious, back-stabbing, disloyal to people who had backed him for decades, such as Hillman, and Farley. Davis claims FDR could turn his emotions on and off to serve practical requirements. He could not be trusted.

   7. And the final, greatest sin; FDR knew much about the Holocaust by 1942 and he refused to shout it from the rooftops.
   FDR was not anti-semitic, but he did not want his legion of enemies to label it "A War to Save Jews" because FDR knew that many American (voters) were anti-semitic.........

   Somehow, Davis is willing to look past all these sins to
   claim that FDR still deserves to be classified as a great president. Apparently FDRs unwavering focus on winning the War can offset even the largest sins.I'm not so sure.

   As for Davis, his absolute hatred for capitalism and big business is reiterated on every other page. He also puts forth
   a vague theory about technology and human welfare that readers can safely ignore. Davis prefers some kind of socialist state.

   All in all, it made me curious to read more about FDR.




5. It's a shame that Professor Davis did not live to complete his massive biography of FDR. But what he left is a most thoughtful and provocative account of how Roosevelt steered a reluctant country into a war it had to wage. Davis is skeptical of FDR's management of the war effort -- the president's compulsive manipulation of his staff, his over-reliance on self-interested industrialists for war production, and, above all, the woeful lack of response to the Holocaust. But Professor Davis is not a revisionist -- he makes it clear that the Americans had to fight World War II to stop Nazi-fascism and preserve Western civilization, and that no one else on the American scene could have taken the country in that direction. In "The War President," Professor Davis builds on the strengths of his previous volumes with his enlightening commentary on the impact of modernity and technology on presidential leadership. And he adds to his sketches of the figures who played a role in FDR's life -- Churchill, Harry Hopkins, Wendell Willkie and many others. I hated to see the book end, but the final scene is very poignant, with the President spending a New Year's Eve watching the film Casablanca as he is sending Americans to fight in North Africa.

No comments about The Papers of Andrew Jackson, Volume 7, 1829 (Utp Papers Andrew Jackson).

No comments about A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the White Hosue: Humor, Blunders, and Other Oddities from the Presidential Campaign Trail (Thorndike Press Large Print Basic Series).

3 comments about Hugo Chavez: The Definitive Biography of Venezuela's Controversial President.

1. this was an interesting biography. the first half of the book does get too involved with names, places, and dates; making it seem like technical reading. however, it does give the impression of an honest attempt to not only portray the man, but to also ponder the question of which way he's taking the country. the authors of the book seem somewhat comfortable with the view that what he says is popularist propaganda in an artistic sense. what hugo does - lives exhorbantly, travels in a giant airbus plane, nepotism for his entire family - leads to the conclusion that the attractions of power and wealth have truly taken over. his friend may be fidel castro, but unlike fidel, he likes money - a whole lot!



2. I bought this book for information for a twenty page college paper on Hugo Chavez, largely on the reccomendation of The Economist. This book was extremely helpful in providing me with an insight into Chavez's personality and potential motives. What I found most interesting was that it demolished the notion of an oil-intoxicated buffoon and replaced it with a shrewd, calculating leader who has mastered the art of theatrics for his own purposes. The authors make a strong case for regarding none of the contreversial president's actions as accidental or the rantings of a madman without sounding like conspiracy types. That being said, they also show a man with a highly unstable personality: volitile, manic,insecure, and in desperate need of affection. Chavez, by their telling, seems to be the product of a brilliant madness, one that produces a control freak who very well knows how to gain the control he needs. The book does not make this argument as carelessly as some; it draws extensively from interviews with those who knew him from childhood, or met him in the army, or through politics. The effect is that the anecdotes vividly potray the transformation from the poor llanero to the conteversial president bashing the rich while dressed in fine Italian suits. As has been stated by a previous reviewer, the book is not a political analysis, but understanding Chavez is crucial to understanding his politics. There is, for him, little seperation between personality and politics. I highly reccomend this book to anyone seeking an in-depth potrayel of the Venezuelan president.



3. This book has been described as an unbiased look at Hugo Chavez but in my opinion it doesn't quite live up to that description. The Authors' Note touches upon the difficulty of such an endeavor, quoting Georg Lichtenberg from the 18th century: "Even impartiality is partial." My impression is that the authors recognized a need for change in Venezuela in the 1990s -- and may even have had sympathy for such change -- but they don't believe Hugo Chavez is the proper man to lead the nation forward.
   
   The authors' overriding point seems to be that Chavez is power mad, driven by an unquenchable desire for ever more power. An example: "He was the man of the hour and he enjoyed it, though he never lost sight of his real goal: power and everything that went with it." But it would be the rare political leader for whom this claim could not be made, especially one seeking such a major shakeup as Chavez. And while there is little doubt that Chavez enjoys being in the spotlight, it's also true that his antics bring worldwide attention to issues he feels need to be addressed. At another point in the book, the authors relate an unflattering personal incident then add, "All of this, however, remains in the murky terrain of speculation," as if the incident was too juicy to leave out, even though it was perhaps unfounded.
   
   Having said that, the bias I perceived did not much interfere with the book. For one thing, not all of Chavez's life story is admirable, such as the years spent plotting the failed 1992 coup while serving in the the military. As you are perhaps aware, in an odd turn of fate, this failed coup -- or more accurately, the televised "for now" speech given after his surrender -- turned Chavez into a folk hero and served as the springboard to his future political success.
   
   It is important to note that the book is much more a personal biography of Chavez than it is an analysis of his policy initiatives. Some of the most interesting information is from his childhood. One incident regarding his first day of school stands out: He and his grandmother were turned away from the schoolhouse because the boy's shoes were too shabby. Such an event leaves a lasting impression and helps explain Chavez's bonds to the nation's poor. As he grew older, Chavez became a voracious reader and read many books from the political left, these books being readily available at the home of two of his friends.
   
   While roughly the first half of the book is chronological, the chapters in the second half are topic oriented, such as the one devoted to Chavez's relationships with women. The departure from chronology is not much of a problem, but it did distract me earlier in the book when his second wife, Marisabel, was mentioned in passing, then mentioned again as an ex-wife -- all before she'd been introduced to the reader. I was suprised so little was written about the actual campaign leading up to the 1998 presidential election. We read that Chavez is polling at only 7% and then, before you know it, he is being sworn into office, his support having somehow risen to 56%. The 2002 coup attempt was of course covered, and here I felt the authors were quite successful in describing it with impartiality.
   
   This book was originally written in Spanish by the two Venezuelan journalists in 2004, updated in December 2006, and translated into English in 2007. It is packed with interesting quotes about Chavez from friends, foes, and family, and the authors took great pains to point out the quotees' biases toward Chavez, often using descriptive phrases such as "friend of Chavez" or "opponent of the Chavez government." The authors also did a nice job selecting the 30+ photos included in the book.
   
   All in all, the authors did a good job of covering Chavez, and I liked the fact that they were Venezuelan and lived through the times and events described in the book.

5 comments about Nixon, Vol. 1: The Education of a Politician 1913-1962.

1. This book is my favorite one on Nixon. Ambrose did a great job on explaining Nixon's early years as a child and a young man. I believe that Ambrose gave Nixon a decent and fair treatment in this book. I would highly recommend the book.



2. NIXON is an exhaustive and in-depth look at the early years of one of America's most notorious politicians -- Stephen Ambrose has really done his homework.
   
   More than the cold hard facts, though, the reader gets up-close and personal with Nixon -- you really understand what makes him tick, which is probably why you decided to pick up the book in the first place. Afterall, who doesn't want to know more about this complex figure? He was so frequently regarded as "uncharismatic," and "untrustworthy," that even the casual observer of history has to wonder how such a person became President.
   
   I was not only compelled to learn how such an unlikely man gained the presidency, but how this man took such a gift, and betrayed it to his flaws. I knew the answer was, simply, in what made him tick as a human being. I found those answers here.
   
   Surprisingly, one also gains in reading this book a broad education in not only Nixon the man, but his era. This is the great thing about a well-written biography; it can be a wonderful cross-section of not only biographical information but historical as well. In reading Ambrose's account, you will learn a thing or two about how our government works, and will walk away with a historical perspective that will help you to understand today's complex and heated political climate all the better.
   
   The one area where NIXON is lacking, however, is in the exploration (or lack thereof) of Nixon's family life. We are constantly reminded that Nixon was "never there," and that despite his absence, his family "loved him" very much, particularly his girls (who adored him, apparently), but why? We don't get many details on Nixon's relationship with his girls, which I thought would have provided an even clearer window into the subject's complicated psyche. I've heard that whatever his public persona, he was a very loving father. In my opinion, the book suffers for not exploring this deeper.
   
   Though Stephen Ambrose, by his own admission, is no Nixon fan, he is to be applauded for his objective effort in analyzing our former President. While he doesn't let him off the hook (no doubt about it, Nixon played political hardball almost unscrupulously), you will --through reading this book-- come to sympathize and perhaps even find respect for Nixon. Believe it or not, he was in many ways a principled man, and had a deep-rooted code of ethics which governed his direction in life (I mean, look at Watergate -- for the terrible deed it was, at least he wasn't trying to line his own pockets or anything). Unfortunately, as you will learn, he was also too ambitious and too insecure, and these flaws would prove to be his undoing, as they sometimes blinded his morals.
   
   NIXON show us that these flaws would, even early in life, lay the foundations for the subject's eventual downfall. However, this book also teaches us something: we all have flaws, and we are all just as capable as giving in to them as he was.
   
   The life of Richard M. Nixon, is, more than anything else, a cautionary tale.
   
   As the fictional President in Oliver Stone's film NIXON comments whilst gazing at a portrait of JFK; "When they looked at you, they saw what they wanted to be...
   
   When they look at ME, they see what they ARE."



3. I was 400 pages into this book when I realized there was no way that Ambrose was going to get through the Nixon Presidency and Watergate in the next 200 pages.
   
   Why is that relevant?
   
   Because the book was so interesting that I never even stopped to realize that it wasn't a single-volume biography. I picked it up used at a local book store and just assumed it was a one-volume bio... shame on me. But, the book was so well written that it just flowed and kept my attention. I didn't even notice I was running out of room.
   
   When I did realize I was running out of space and needed volumes II and III, I went online and ordered the second quickly so my journey into the Nixon presidency would go on without a beat. Volumes II and III are pretty pricy by the way. I bought the second and checked out the third. I'd suggest your local library for all 3.
   
   Of the three, I would say I liked the first the most because it talks about a Nixon that was a good guy. He handled himself with dignity under the worst of circumstances... for instance his VP trip to South America. You like Nixon in the first book. Ambrose paints a portrait of a nerdy guy that just happens to be an extremely gifted politician and is willing to play the cards necessary to make it in Washington.
   
   I liked all 3 volumes, but by far the first of the three in the series is the best. If you want to read all 3 though... brace yourself it adds up to more than 1900 pages on what I would consider one of the most interesting people in American history.
   
   Great job Ambrose... or at least great job to what had to have been a small army of researchers.



4. This is the first volume of Ambrose's three volume work detailing the life of Richard Nixon. From childhood to law school to Congress to the Vice-Presidency, the author explores Nixon's character and personality as well as the influences and experiences that made Nixon the complicated and contradictory individual that he was. While the seeds of his destructive personality are clearly present, the reader is struck by the many positive qualities of Nixon.

   Ambrose paints the portrait of a budding and able politician whose ultimate demise could be foreseen, but need not have happened. This lack of inevitability is explored further in the second volume.

   This first volume can be found at a reasonable price. It should be noted, however, that the second and third volumes are quite rare and expensive.




5. It is always interesting to understand what really
   motivates people. Normally it takes a good deal of
   psychoanalyzing, historical background, family history etc.
   But some people seem to elude even this.
   Nixon is obviously one of those people, who is really
   difficult to figure out. But when all is said and done he
   is also a very interesting character. And after reading
   Stephen Ambroses book I think we are a little closer to
   the real Nixon: Saint, villain, crook, statesman etc.

   His brothers Arthur and Harold died when Nixon was young.
   Which made he determined to have success for three sons.
   In his book "six crisis" he describes leadership as it was
   part of the quaker religious experience: "In a crisis tension
   builds. Breathing gets quicker and the stomach turns,
   but it is through these hardships of the soul that
   true leaders are found." Quake and hear the voice of God?

   But besides all of this psychoanalyzing there is of course
   the fascinating story of Richard M. Nixons rise and fall.
   Starting with his campaign against Jerry Voorhis.
   Followed by his "pink" smear campaign against Helen Douglas.
   His Checkers TV-speech. The lost campaign against JFK.
   His lost campaign against Pat Brown for governor
   of California in 1962, which he ended by saying
   "that reporters wouldn't have Nixon to kick around anymore".
   His "biggest return since Lazarus" to become president
   in 1968.
   And then finally - Watergate.

   Perhaps it was all there in his psyche when he entered
   politics in the first campaign against Voorhis, just waiting
   for the world to see.

   A brilliant book.

   -Simon

No comments about Ronald Reagan - The Great Communicator (Biography).