1 comments about The Life & Times of William Howard Taft, Vol. 2.

1. I have read nearly every book in print about WHT. Pringle's effort is quintessential. Pringle begins his treatment by admitting that his interest in Taft is superficial: He decided to write these books only after completing works on Teddy Roosevelt. Taft is usually treated as a moon to Roosevelt's planet. Pringle typifies this treatment. One gets the impression that Pringle is a lifeguard forced to rescue a man whom he loathes. In the end, the entire effort devolves into an apologia. The lifeguard, after struggling against the currents of his own indifference, pulls his lifeless charge to shore, explaining to a hostile crowd: "Every man, even this loathsome creature, deserves a chance." He then walks away while Taft turns blue. I give this book three stars because it is better than nothing, but just barely.

2 comments about The Jeffersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology.

1. Robert Shalhope in his John Taylor of Caroline:Pastoral Republican talks about the tendency of historians to assert a "single and substantial 'reality' in the period they are studying and then judging individuals...by this standard" (Shalhope, p.8) He might well have added that as readers we tend to do the same thing. Mr. Murphy's review below is a good example of this. For some reason, many people want to beatify certain individuals and trends in our early history and then judge histories of that period by how well they cleave to that reader's historical construction. The best example of this is the way that readers or historians react to Alexander Hamilton.
   The problem with this tendency is that it distorts our reading of the history of that period. Here is a thought. I suggest that few people would be arrogant enough to claim that they had a standard by which the present could be judged. There are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophies and so on. Well here is the Taylor axiom: "If it doesn't work for the present, it doesn't work for the past".
   This is only to claim that we need to start seeing our past as not one reality but many different realities that were experienced by many different types of people. People who were liberal, radical, conservative, Whigs, rational and religious all at the same time. Otherwise, we cheapen them in the name of our pet ideas.
   A case in point. Banning's book while strongly influenced by Pocock's work can be equally said to be as strongly influenced by Bailyn, Wood, Maier,Cunningham, Peterson, Foner and Ketcham. To claim that Banning is just channeling Pocock is to not see Banning through your ideological forest.
   Furthermore to claim, that anyone who "really" knows his Jefferson will see through Banning's argument is a subtle ad hominem. I would appreciate actual quotes or some sort of evidence to back up such a claim. In any case, I am evidently not as knowledgeable as Mr. Murphy in that I am impressed by what Prof. Banning has to offer us.
   Banning's thesis is that the Real Whig (or the "country" ideology) was initially useful to the Revolutionary situation because it helped them to conceptualize and justify their opposition to British policy as a unwilling protest against the corruption of the British regime.
   But later these same arguments became useful to the rising opposition to the Hamiltonian economic program. The arguments proved even more useful in delineating different apporachs to foreigh affairs and central to the fight against the Alien and Sedition Acts.
   Part of the reason the Country ideology fit the Jeffersonian's purposes so well is that their political situation was analogous to that of the Country party. Like Bolinbroke in his struggle with Walpole, John Taylor read the rising opposition not as the beginnings of a "party" (a dirty work for at least another 30 years) but as the reaction of "patriots" who were fighting against degeneracy and ministerial influence peddling (Banning, p. 200). Furthermore the Jeffersonians were initially a minority in Congress. "By nature, criticisim of corruption was a weapon of minorities, who...claim that influence had perverted the expression of the people's will in order to claim that they spoke for the majority" (Banning, p.74).
   Overall, I find Banning's argument for the influence of the Country ideology on the Jeffersonians to be very persuasive.
   Are his arguments flawless? Heck, no. On pp. 138-9, Banning makes an argument that Hamilton "may" have been influenced by a reading of Hume and certain "Court" replies to the Country arguments. By the next page, that "may have been" has become a definite influence. I like to call this particular fault "arguing from wishful evidence". But apart from a few faux pas like that, Banning comes across as learned and judicious.
   This book is well worth the early American history reader's time to explore. And it should also be noted that Banning has published a companion volumn called Liberty and Order which contains many of the original writings that he refers to throughout his book. This brings me to one point in which I am probably in complete agreement with Mr. Murphy. As good as it is to read about these wacky guys and gals, it is even better to read their own writings. It's our history, people. We should own it.



2. Although this work was officially written by Lance Banning, there is no mistake that it is an outgrowth of the theories of J.G.A. Pocock. Essentially, Banning tries to make the case that the Jeffersonian Republicans were the American version of Bolingbroke's "Country Party." Moreover, he tries to demonstrate how the party advocated the classical republican values of "civic humanism." Ultimately, the book falls flat on its face. Anyone acquanted with Jefferson, as well as his party, should be able to see right through Banning's account. Although there certainly were classical republican elements in their thought, these were only secondary and complimentary to the libertarian theories of natural rights and individualism. A more accurate (although still deeply flawed) account is Joyce Appleby's work "Capitalism and a New Social Order:The Republican Vision of the 1790's."

2 comments about Thomas Jefferson Versus Alexander Hamilton: Confrontations that Shaped a Nation (Bedford Series in History and Culture).

1. This book helps give the reader an excellent prespective on how the Federalists and Anti-Federalists helped shape our nation though debate and press.
   
   I enjoyed this book because it is more of a collection of letters, from both Jefferson and Hamilton, leaving it up to you on how to interpret their stances and personalities.



2. This book really gives the reader a sense of what Hamilton and Jefferson were REALLY like. They had disputes and were mistrustful of eachother. There wasn't any school-boy stuff going on here. I recommend this book if you're interested in history and are in college. Good book!

5 comments about The Real Fidel Castro.

1. This year marks the 54th anniversary of the Cuban July 26th movement, the 48th anniversary of the victory of the Cuban Revolution and the 40th anniversary of the execution of Ernesto `Che' Guevara by the Bolivian Army after the defeat of his guerilla forces and his capture in godforsaken rural Bolivia. I have reviewed the life of Che elsewhere in this space (see July archives, dated July 5, 2006). The Cuban Revolution stood for my generation, the Generation of '68, and, hopefully, will for later generations as a symbol of revolutionary intransigence against United States imperialism.
   
   Thus, it is fitting to review a biography of Che's comrade and central leader of that revolution, Fidel Castro. Obviously, it is harder to evaluate the place in history of the disabled, but still living, Fidel than the iconic Che whose place is secured in the revolutionary pantheon. The choice of this biography reflected my desire to review a recent biography. As always one must accept that most Western biographers have various degrees of hostility to the Castro regime and the Cuban Revolution and one would expect that to be particularly true of one written by a former British Ambassador to Cuba (who has since died). After reading this biography I find that it gives a reasonable account of the highlights of Fidel's life thus far and for those not familiar with the Fidel saga a good place to start.
   
   Let us be clear about two things. First, this writer has defended the Cuban revolution since its inception; initially under a liberal- democratic premise of the right of nations, especially applicable to small nations pressed up against the imperialist powers, to self-determination; later under the above-mentioned premise and also that it should be defended on socialist grounds, not my idea of socialism- the Bolshevik, 1917 kind- but as an anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist revolution nevertheless. That prospective continues to be this writer's position today.
   
   Secondly, my conception of revolutionary strategy and thus of world politics has for a long time been far removed from Fidel Castro's (and Che's) strategy, which emphasized military victory by guerrilla forces in the countryside, rather than my position of mass action by the urban proletariat leading the rural masses. That said, despite those strategic political differences this militant can honor the Cuban Revolution as a symbol of a fight all anti-imperialist militants should defend.
   
   The Ambassador obviously differs with my political prospective. Nevertheless he has informative things to say about the highlights of Fidel's career; the early student days struggling for political recognition; the initial fights against Batista; the famous but unsuccessful Moncada attack; the subsequent trial, imprisonment and then exile in Mexico; the return to Cuba and renewed fight under a central strategy of guerilla warfare in the Sierra Maestra rather than urban insurrection; the triumph over Batista in 1959; the struggle against American imperialist intervention and the nationalizations of much of Cuba's economy; the American sponsored Bay of Pigs; the rocky alliance with the Soviet Union and the Cuban Missile Crisis; the various ups and downs in the Cuban economy stemming from reliance on the monoculture of sugar; the various periods of Cuban international revolutionary support activity, including Angola and Nicaragua; the demise of the Soviet Union and the necessity of Cuba to go it alone along with its intendent hardships; and, various other events up until 2002.
   
   There is plenty of material to start with and much to analyze. As mentioned before Che's place is secure and will be a legitimate symbol of rebellion for youth for a long time. Fidel, as a leader of state and a much more mainline Stalinist (although compared with various stodgy Soviet leaderships he must have seemed like their worst Trotsky nightmare) has a much less assured place. Alas, the old truism holds here - revolutionaries should not die in their beds



2. It is hard, writing the biography of one such individual as Fidel castro is. Wheter one likes it or not Fidel Castro is living history, and when dealing with history one has to be extremly careful not to stray too much from path that was laid before him.
   
   Can there exist something what scould be called "true biography"? After all, if entire history is based upon the facts, doesn't that mean that many facts can form an unique and, most important of all, truthfull image of person or event? Indeed it would be so, if it weren't for tiny miscalculation in that plan. And that miscalculation is called - interpretation.
   
   Who is Fidel Castro? Craving lunatic, dictator like Saddam, who kills his people for pure enjoyment in killing and destrucion? One of the last in line of romantical revolutionaires (if that expresseion can exist in reality at all) who would give life fot the thing the he believes is true? Is he a figure that fights the battle against globalisation and American imperialism or he is just old communist who was overrun by time, but still refuses to submit himself to murky shadows of time that has been.
   
   Leycester Coltman, late diplomat on Cuba, tried to answer these questions. Did he succeed, it is hard to say. Starting his portrait from boyhood age, Coltman progresses towards the rise of guerilla leader, guerilla warfare in the mountains, numerous confrontations wit US, hopes and frustrations with SSSR, building his 'not-so-fictional-character' from scratches, presenting him as saviour of some kind (little exaggaration here) towards describing him as strayed from the "true" path and becoming "civic politician".
   
   There are passages in which Coltman openly presents his admiration towards Fidel, and there are those where he swungs at him with all the might of british sarcasm, and sardonic humor. By doing this Coltman doesn't forget his main role, being a biographer, not gossip-maker.
   
   In the vast sea of biographies and "critical overviews" of Fidel Castro Coltmans biographiy reads itself easily, though not being able to resist urge for comments, still it keeps itself on decent distance allowing the reader to form his own oppinion by consulting the facts that are presented in the book.
   
   For all od you out there who are interested into political history of twentieth century this should be very inspiring book, one you should definitely read as a starting point for any further researches



3. This book is a good, broad introduction to the life of Fidel Castro for a reader who does not want to get bogged down in ideological theories or put up with personal attacks on the man and l believe l am much the wiser reading this book.
   
   There is a lot of nonsense written about Fidel Castro by the so called pro and anti Castro forces and this book does not fall into that trap. Coltman has produced an interesting, well balanced book about Castro which is full of sufficient detail and ideas to paint a fair portrait of the man.
   
   Castro is a powerful, dominant man who insists he must always be right and usually gets his way and this fact was evident from his early childhood. He is a brilliant orator with a keenly developed sense of social justice as many incidents this book indicate. His achievement of free and accessible medical care and education for all Cubans is documented in this book.
   
   Coltman does not hide that Castro is a dictator with little regard for free and open elections. He details Castro's use of Cuban troops in fighting civil wars in other countries.
   Coltman makes insufficient mention however of the Cuban secret police and the crushing of internal dissent and he could have clarified and expanded on the role of his ruthless brother Raul Castro who has been central in this internal suppression.



4. Several of the reviewers before me have been critical of this biography written by Leycester Coltman, yet I doubt if Fidel Castro himself wrote an autobiography we would gain any more information. This book portrays an honest outlook, without the propaganda or blatant dislike that usually goes along with mention of the infamous dictator. It is obvious to anyone who reads this (and nobody who has can deny the fact) that Mr. Coltman is incredibly thorough in his research, going to great pains to explain events. This is especially helpful to me, as a high school student, who hadn't much prior knowledge of Cuba and famous events such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Those critical of his work confound me, especially a reviewer who wrote a review ON the reviewers. I wonder how this is possible, even plausible, as they admitted to not having read the book themselves. "Walk a mile in someone else's shoes"- well Leycester Coltman has certainly provided the pathway to doing so.



5. My review is basically a review of the reviewers. In particular I am going to pick on the reviewer who wrote "A substantial and objective view of a Latin American Legend..." February 9, 2004, Matthew Dubuque. Because of that review I decided not to buy the book. (I haven't read it but based on the reviews I've changed my mind about purchasing it). Most reviews listed here whether critical of Castro or critical of his deriders, have really missed the point. It's all about ignorance.
   
   Centralized Power
   What many fail to see is the problem of centralized power found exclusively in the hands of the State. How many times have we heard about how even if Hitler was bad, he had the trains running on time and brought back an economy from the ruins? God forbid something good should happen in a person's life and the government doesn't get credit for it. The friends of Liberty are few indeed. Cuba, at least in our Hemisphere is an example of centralized power destroying life and lying about its success even if it is successfully argued that the individual should take a back seat to the communal good.
   
   Politicians
   If in fact a "conservative" "appointee of Margaret Thatcher" wrote this book it betrays that even the Hawks like the right in the UK and US are way off when it comes to Cuba. If it was "written by an appointee of the free-market heroine Margaret Thatcher" that gives credence to the view that there isn't much difference between political conservatives and modern political liberals: they go about arguing for different roles government should have in a person's life but they both want government in a person's life. They aren't too far from the likes of Castro.
   
   Castro and Latin America
   To say Castro is deserving of praise like that given to Simon Bolivar shows how much ignorance there is of Latin America in the United States. The common view here is that all Latin Americans are either lazy, deserve their governments, come from naturally corrupt countries, and can only be saved by the strong man. It is interesting that those who hold similar views in the States don't prescribe such a government in their own hometowns- different rules for special people, I guess.
   
   Further proof of the mass ignorance in the States about Cuba in particular is seen in the reviewer's statement: "Coming from a decisively Thatcherite background, the author's commentary is neither distorted by the hysterical whiners in Miami nor is it merely pinko propaganda." I can assure you that the Miami whiners are anything but: many have recreated their lives as Americans never to return to Cuba (without any major complaint), never involving themselves in politics or in some cases holding very liberal and pro-government views. Those who have complained and taken action (such as attempting to overthrow the Castro regime) the US has dealt with forcefully. Many of those active whiners now serve life terms in Federal prison for their actions (so much for the US's claim that it fights for the freedom of the oppressed worldwide). The other more peaceful "whiners" in Miami have reasons to protest. Their family members have been: shot by firing squad, drowned by Cuban coast guard, attacked by US coast guard, tortured in Castro's prisons, divided by both the US and Cuban governments, and so on.
   
   Another point of ignorance is the claim that Fidel lost many of his men by massacre during the revolution. This is not the case. The real major bloodletting took place once Castro came to power. Typical of all tyrants, he purged many of his own clan accusing them of conspiring against the revolution (challenging his power, reasoning and/or techniques). Plus, the vast majority of Cuba had no idea who Fidel Castro was. Castro merely appeared stage left, made his entrance and delivered the speeches. The "revolution" against Batista and Cuba's past was largely an action of the political class (those already in power) which of course Castro was not a part of.
   
   Literacy
   Literacy rates never are guaranteed by the government. In Cuba there is no way to cross examine the claims of government as the press does in a free society- such as questioning the claims of a government that states another country had a weapons of mass destruction. Just look at the US. Its literacy rates were highest in the world up until after the Civil War. Decade after decade its own government has kept records showing that the more government involves itself in the education of its citizens (increased spending) the greater the illiteracy (at least since the 1950s). Most students here today cannot even point out their country on a map and know very little about economics (a greater reason for their willingness to depend on government and hate the rich).
   
   Blockade?
   The blockade is another point of contention. The word blockade first of all is a malapropism. There are no war ships blocking the ports of Havana. The embargo against Cuba is a joke. The first supporter of Cuba is Washington. The relationship between Havana and Washington is more that of two former lovers who criticize (directly and indirectly) one another's current lifestyles and actions- calling each other names but also ready to stop the actions of outsiders to the relationship lest it create the impression that the outsider has a stake in the former lovers' relationship- than the relationship of two archenemies. If you don't believe me, take a look at Washington's willingness for regime changes all over the world, its reluctance to take action against Cuba or allow others (the outsiders of the relationship) to take that action and its cozy relationship with Cuban military along Guantanamo base/border.
   
   Prenatal Care, medicine, and homelessness
   If a mother misses a visit to her doctor in Cuba I wouldn't doubt the doctor visits the mother the next day. Undoubtedly since the State is ever present in such a system in every person's life, either the doctor or the mother have a political role in that relationship. And if either fails the State (list Castro here) the State will most assuredly fail them in respective their natural liberty (prison awaits). I doubt that mother would care about doc's visit knowing that the visiting doctor lacks supplies. (I know, its Castro's fault or the embargo's fault. Why can't it be the people's fault? When will they rebel?) This is nonetheless the case even in the US. Soon we will see our dear friend the Nanny Government knocking on the doors of all poor neighborhoods making sure that mothers get their prenatal care they deservedly need for the nurturing of future robots (I'm sorry, I meant to say patriotic citizens). Keep in mind that the medical doctor in the US is in fact an agent of the government. Try getting some medicines you need without a prescription. Said medicines are approved by the government, tested by the government and monitored by the government.
   
   I am also certain that in Cuba there are no homeless because, well, there are no homes to be homeless from. Take a look at photos today of Havana and you'll see why some Cubans might want to be homeless than to live under the roof of a soon to be condemned structure.
   
   After reading this book and writing all the things Dubuque wrote it is hard to believe that one can honestly state that the book is a "balanced examination...".. The reviewer also goes on to say that he goes to the island twice yearly on licensed visits. (Governments love to help one another regardless of their official declarations concerning one another.) The reviewer explicitly states how government supports his trips to Cuba which in turn create his view of Cuba. He states that his visits are "fully authorized", no doubt, with the Treasury department's rubber stamp, Havana's offering of tourist traps and his safe flight back to the US, causing his rose colored lenses to sit firmly on the bridge of his nose as he tells us what he has seen in Cuba.

2 comments about Ronald Reagan: A Life In Politics.

1. I did read the whole book just so I could comment on it. The part about him being docile when visiting his parents home made me throw up. But I persevered and read the rest of it. I just don't understand why the President and Nancy let this book happen. If you hate Reagan and you hate Conservatives, then this book should make you very happy. I threw my copy away. No way was I going to give this to the library like I usually do.



2. I am confused why they sell these books at the Reagan Library. Admittedly they are long, through, and have wonderful cover at. But the content is what disturbs me. Not the entire content, but just three things.
   
   The first snag is that Cannon does not like Reagan. He clearly admits this in-in his footnotes:
   
   "It was the only time Reagan ever complimented me on anything I write." (Governor, 311n)
   
   This quote sums up the books main negative bias. This book is a history of Reagan as filtered through Cannon's philosophical grid. This makes for a tedious read. He takes Reagan on Lou Cannon's terms. Maybe that is why Cannon had a weekly column that included "Reaganisms," (President, 102n).
   
   Cannon is, however, fascinated by him. He freely admits this in the 1991 preface to President Reagan. This provides a positive bias, which saves the book from being a multi-volume hit piece.
   
   The second snag, is the books are almost all context. It is always "Reagan And": Reagan and Unruh, Reagan and Meese, Reagan and Reagan, and Reagan and Nancy. But we never see Reagan as an individual.
   
   The Gipper's tag-line is the Great Communicator, but Cannon rarely quotes him. This sucks the life out of the Regan magic. Read Michael Reagan's quote book on his father and then read this book. It is like seeing two different men. One is a lively and deep thinker; the other is a vague buffoon. But will the real Ronald Regan please stand up?
   
   Reagan also had a gift for humor. Peggy Noonan observed that Reagan had "an encyclopedic memory for jokes." (When Character Was King, 228). However, Cannon, in his chapter on Reagan's humor, talks about his humor in the abstract and recounts his juicier ethnic jokes (President, 101-102).
   
   The last snag is in the area of analogy. The second book is subtitled "The role of a Lifetime." His rhetorical device is to cast Reagan merely as an actor who gets the chance to play a president. This is a combination of "I'm not a president, but I play one on TV" and the plot to the film "Dave."
   
   Hover, this rhetorical device affects his logic. David Hackett Fischer calls this "the fallacy of insidious analogy" ("Historians' Fallacies," 244ff). The problem is that Cannon's analogy takes over his writing. It also become contradictory at times.
   
   For example, Chapter six of the presidential book discuses what Canon calls "the script." What he means by the script is the core philosophical ideas that Reagan had that attracted the voters. Cannon freely admits, "But it was the script that was compelling, and it was Reagan who wrote it." (President, 66). Then in later chapters he speaks of Reagan taking direction and needing a director (President, Chapter 10, p. 25, 32, 116, ).
   
   Cannon may misunderstand the necessity of delegation. The role of the president is to be the leader. That is, he articulates the vision, and then empowers his staff and cabinet to implement the vision. That is why he said, ""Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority and don't interfere as long as the policy you've decided is carried out." (President, 150). Ill timed or not, it is not only sound advice, it is the only way to run a country. A micromanager could not last three second as president.
   
   To be sure, Reagan may not have done follow-up as well as he should have, but he did understand the genius of individual people. He was not just remaking country, but truing everyone into demi-gods by empowering them.
   
   I think I have said enough, but there is one comment that just grates me. In Chapter 9 of the president book, Canon describes the rise and fall of the M/X missile. During one Cabinet meeting, Regan showed up with a cartoon of Uncle Sam playing as hell-game with Brezhnev. This clinched the issue for Reagan. (President, 138). Cannon conclude the chapter saying that Reagan was a "president who skimped on preparation, avoided complexities and news conferences, and depended far too heavily on anecdotes, charts, graphics, and cartoons." (President, 140)
   
   Cannon forgets that Reagan had an intuitive sense of people, and was able to connect without the use of the Cabinet and Bureaucracy (President, 119). One obvious was he did that was by listening to them. Another way was attuning himself to the humor. Cannon forgets the power of humor and that George burns said, "Truth is the basis of all good comedy."(Governor, 107). That one political cartoon illustrated a truth that would do honor to Socrates or Kierkegaard. For Cannon, the medium was the message. End of story.
   
   The gubernatorial book is the better book. Cannon does not feel the need to cover as much as he does in the Presidential book (Some of the material is redundant). The Presidential one has long chapters that sometimes get muddled. Chapter 8 covers Reagan's humor and thought patterns, and Chapter 11 covers Regan's early life-kind of late in the book for that. Also, Hinckley isn't mentioned by name in the narrative about the assassination, which is covered in half a paragraph, and then resumed in the narrative about the melt-down of Alex Haige.
   
   What would have helped this book? First of all, Cannon needs to sort out what he really thinks about Reagan. He is fascinated and even at times charmed by Reagan. But it is a love-hate relationship. Cannon disagrees with Reagan politically and philosophically. It is almost like Canon is afraid of Regan and feels the need to cut him down a notch.
   
   Canon makes the comment that Reagan may have never read E. B. White (President, 97). I suggest the same for Cannon: Remember Strunk and White's first rule of Composition: Place Yourself in the background (Strunk and White, 70).
   
   Secondly, "Check your premises." Figure out why you have this attraction to reign, and name concretes. Both were Irish and had Alcoholic fathers (President, 174n), but there is something deeper.

5 comments about An Honest President: The Life And Presidencies Of Grover Cleveland.

1. H. Paul Jeffers' biography "An Honest President" of President Grover Cleveland is like getting a Diet Pepsi when you ordered a Regular Pepsi. Jeffers concedes as much in the section entitled "Notes on Sources" when he says "I did not wish to write a book that would pass what the late novelist John O'Hara called 'the heft test,' employed by people who believe a book isn't worth buying, or to be taken seriously unless it is thick and heavy in the hand." That may be true, but in the world of biography, it is difficult to write a biography if you fail the "heft test."
   
   Jeffers' biography is largely derivative of the other (larger) biographies out there on Grover Cleveland including Rexford Tugwell's Grover Cleveland, Robert McElroy's Grover Cleveland: (2 Vols) the Man and the Statesman, and Richard Welch's The Presidencies of Grover Cleveland (American Presidency Series).
   
   Jeffers' biography also suffers from interspersed comparisons to Bill Clinton. It is not that such comparisons are not necessarily warranted it is that they detract from the text. Comparisons between Clinton and Cleveland could have been accomplished in an epilogue or legacy chapter. By interspersing the comparisons throughout the text, Jeffers descends to taking potshots at Clinton.
   
   If there is anything that rescues "An Honest President" it is the narration by Raymond Todd. Todd's voice is clear and resonant. Todd provides distinct intonations to handle the multiple speakers that crop up in Jeffers' text.



2. Please keep in mind that I think three stars means "Okay" and that "okay" isn't a bad thing.
   
   I didn't know anything about Grover Cleveland. After reading this book, I found that I liked him far more than most Presidents. However, I wish that the book went into greater depth or analyzed his life a bit deeper.
   
   The author makes various comparisons between Cleveland's sexual behaviors to those of Clinton's, which is fine. But I would have liked to have had other comparisons as well.
   
   This is an interesting book and it left me wanting to know more about its subject.



3. Jeffers provides a painless background on one of the least-remembered Presidents for those who need to fill in the blank spots of their US history timelines. The writing is fluent and the narrative moves quickly. But the book is not for scholars. Important issues of the times, including the Financial Panic of 1893, the free-silver movement, Hawaii and the imperialist impulse, and the growth of organized labor are covered in a few passages or pages. I especially found the discussion of Cleveland's racial attitudes and civil rights policies insufficient; for a President governing during the implementation of Jim Crow, more than a few paragraphs about the issue were warranted. For detailed discussions of those important historical issues, the reader will have to go to more specialized sources.



4. Something is missing from this picture -- a two-time president, three-time presidential nominee and former New York governor who "never, ever" trimmed his sails for expediency, was "always" honest and consistently stuck to his convictions no matter the political cost? Not credible. To read this book one would think that Grover Cleveland was literally the second coming. The portrait is overly worshipful, completely one-sided, and ultimately unpersuasive. In particular, attempts at comparison to Bill Clinton and "Zippergate" (as the author calls it) fall totally flat and are completely gratuitous. There is little real analysis here, and too much regurgitation of what prior biographers have written.

   I don't doubt that Cleveland was a unique politician, a man well-positioned in his time to take advantage of the public's increasing distaste for the spoils system and the fractional and petty squabbles that marked the Republican party from 1868-84 (Stalwarts vs. Half Breeds, Conkling vs. Blaine, Garfield vs. Conkling, etc). The early chapters on Cleveland's meteoric rise from an obscure sheriff to mayor of Buffalo to governor of New York to president in a few short years are fairly interesting. But Cleveland the man, particularly during his two presidential terms, comes across as a wooden, cardboard figure; no real flavor or insight into his personality and character emerges. Some biographies are too heavy on psycho-babble, maybe this book could have used some of that.




5. In a quest to read a biography of every American president, I found this one of Cleveland a satisfying and easy read. Jeffers doesn't seek to make the bio an in-depth study of his personal knowledge of English vocabulaly; thus the easier read, a welcome break from the 600-pagers of some other presidents. Although over 300 pages, this biography goes fast and I didn't find myself wishing it would end. It gave the facts truthfully, thoroughly and precisely; and that's what I needed.

2 comments about JFK (A&E Biography).

1. I try not to read about the Kennedys. There is just way too much material out there relating the story of America's royalty. I thought I would read this short book to get greater insight into the Kennedy family and the book holds up. Not only is it concise, but it is packed with information both on the family and President Kennedy. Also, I feel it is very balanced in showing both the weaknesses and strenghts of this President and his family. It is probably one of the better short biographies of this President.
   I recommend this book to anyone wanting a snapshot of this President. As with all short books, it doesn't delve into great detail about JFK and his family. However it serves up enough of the dirt about the family and JFK. Such dirt as the adulteries of both Joe Senior (Gloria Swanson) and Jack (Marilyn Monroe, and many others). It also shows the family and JFKs strength. A nice portrait of the family and JFK.



2. This is one of the best movie about JFK, it's very complete, and we can see him young. It's narrated by people who know him best. There are a lot of photos and films. The film speak not enough of his youth and too much about the Cuban missiles crisis but I recommended it too all people. I very enjoyed it.

5 comments about Jack Kennedy: The Education of a Statesman.

1. You'll find Barbara Leaming's marvelous book very difficult to put down. Somehow she has uncovered entirely new source material which sheds light on Kennedy's early years in Great Britain when his father Joe was Ambassador to the Court of St. James. Introduced by his sister Kick to a circle of bright young aristocrats, the connections made in these early years would last a lifetime and shape his world view in a dangerous time for the US and for the world. What struck me particularly in the book was how much of what Kennedy learns is still enormously relevant in today's world. This book should be required reading for our leaders in Washington and especially our Presidential candidates for 2008! I cannot wait to see what subject Ms. Leaming takes on next.



2. everything about this transaction was first class.



3. The is a marvelous blow by blow description of how WWII statred
   
   Also a wondreful blow by blow of the Cuban Missle crisis
   
   The research was fantastic



4. A child when Kennedy was assassinated, I grew up with a mix of fact and mystique in what I knew of President Kennedy. Barbara Leaming's book introduces me to a Kennedy not unrecognizable from the Kennedy I was aware of growing up, without whitewashing his actions.
   
   I really enjoy the way she brings across Jack Kennedy in the various points of his life. It does seem to dwell a little overlong on his sister Kick's story, but it's a really satisfying read and she really brings historical moments of the time to life and shows them in relation to Kennedy's life.



5. What a clever idea Barbara Leaming has for a re-examination of John F. Kennedy's life. She explores the impact of his relationship with movers-and-shakers in England, concentrating on David Ormsby-Gore, one of Kennedy's sister Kathleen's Smart Set in pre-World War II London.
   As a long-term Kennedy biography reader, it's fascinating to revisit experiences in his life from a new richly-textured perspective. The meatiest part of the book is easily Kennedy's introduction to Ormsby-Gore and friends, when Kennedy's father is appointed Ambassador to Great Britain. Reporting becomes thin in the last year of Kennedy's presidency.
   Chapters dealing on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would have been greatly improved by stitching in some primary sourcework on Nikita Kruschev, perhaps from his son's biographies of him. Another help might have been incorporating Schlesinger's or Bundy's perspectives on the British influence on Kennedy on these issues. More voices, more analysis might have mitigated the ping-pong like effect in these chapters --- Kennedy said, Ormsby-Gore said, Macmillan said.
   Also, perhaps because Leaming's indebtedness to British peerage for valuable first-person accounts of what JFK was like at the time, reader is shorted in several respects. Scant mention or analysis of Kathleen Kennedy's infatuation with another British peer, married with a child, after her first husband dies. There's some insinuation that Fitzwilliam, the second peer, was randy, representing another type of British upperclassman. But, there's nothing to indicate why the sister would embrace the darker side of British Aristocracy nor what impact this had on Kennedy himself. Ditto scant info at the end about Ormsby-Gore and wife, post Kennedy, other than mention that they're killed in separate auto accidents. That said, an engrossing read. A must for Kennedy biography fans.

5 comments about The Sage of Monticello (Jefferson and His Time).

1. When I recently finally finished the 6th and final volume of this set, I realized that I knew more about Thomas Jefferson than I do about some of my friends. There is an incredible amount of information here. Although the Sally Hemings story is barely mentioned in these books because so much information has come out since the books were written, everything else is covered in great detail.
   
   I reviewed the first 3 books as a whole under the third volume, and I'll do the same here on the final 3. I believed that the two hardest books to read were the volumes on Jefferson's presidency. Malone covered eight years in about 1,000 pages, and he went into such detail that it was actually hard to follow at times. By the time I finished reading about the Embargo Act, there was no way I could summarize it; he had written about it so much, and it was spread out throughout the volume. The same can be said, to some extent, with the Burr conspiracy.
   
   The final book was better, even though he exhaustingly covered the establishment of the University of Virginia, probably more than necessary. I would have preferred more on the correspondence with John Adams. And while Malone gets into Jefferson's family relationships here, he was, as a writer, a better presenter of facts than he is a story teller. Nothing about this series is "narrative."
   
   I would recommend the books to a very serious lover of history, and I suggest the audio book as a way of speeding up what will otherwise be a very slow read. But to one with casual interest in history who admires Jefferson, I'd suggest one of the many one-volume biographies.



2. This book is the sixth and final volume in Dumas Malone's six volume biography called "Jefferson and His Time" covering the period from the end of Jefferson's presidency to his death (1809-1826)
   
   Mr. Malone truly saved the best for last in this series resulting in the best of the six volumes, quite an achievement considering he completed this volume when he was 89 years old. This volume successfuly covers in thorough detail the most important parts of Jefferson's late life including the founding of the University of Virginia, his friendship with John Adams, his thoughts on the political issues after his presidency, and his personal and family life including his increasingly difficult situation regarding his debts. While maintaining the scholarly level of detail in the previous volumes, Malone's writing style is his most enjoyable yet.
   
   In conclusion, this volume has my highest recommendation and is perfectly suited to be read as a stand alone volume, even without reading the the rest of the series.



3. Despite his clear sympathy for the late 'sage', Dumas Malone did a better job on this book, when compared to his efforts on "Jefferson and the Rights of Man".
   This book, ("The Sage of Monticello"), centered on the ex-president's life after retiring to his grand plantation. It is a well-written account, although that I disagreed with the author on certain issues.
   Yes, I may seem stubborn, but I will always like to be conscientious: I refuse to agree that a man who was a slave-holder was at the same time, the champion who fought for the rights of men. It is simply contradictory!



4. What can be said about this monument to Jefferson scholarship? I am sure that somewhere in universities around the United States there are "scholar squirrels who want to put down this invaluable resource in Jefferson studies. It is always the way that mice attempt to gnaw at lions. This is not a perfect work (and my remarks refer to all of the books in the series as a whole), there are somethings, namely Sally Hemmings references which are wrong and will not sit well with American 21st century mores. There is the issue of slavery which was handled much differently 50 years ago than it is now.
   Jefferson is not worthy of our interest because of Sally Hemmings and because he kept slaves. Jefferson is great because of the Declaration of Independence and his fight for the rights of man. While it may have been hypocritical to preach liberty and keep slaves, it is doubtful that slavery ever would have been abolished if Jefferson had never gained the prominence that he did. This book and the others that follow show why we should continue to honor the public man even though his private side may have been wanting.



5. Jefferson and His Time: The Sage of Monticello is the crowning jewel of this sixth out of six volume set. This Pulitzer Prize winning series about Thomas Jefferson took the author (Dumas Malone) a lifetime to write, as he started it in 1943 and finished it in 1981.

   This volume takes us from the end of Jefferson's second term as President to his death. But these times are Jefferson's best in terms of his satisfaction with his immediate family, even though at times were a bit rocky, Jefferson longed of retirement from public life. Long ago friendship of John Adams was rekindled with frequent correspondence... James Madison not living too far away from Jefferson was a frequent correspondent.

   Jefferson's talent wasn't wasted as he worked on the establishment and founding of the University of Virginia. He proved himself as one of the preeminent force for public education. But, Jefferson's personal debt played a role in Jefferson's energy and dreams.

   We really get to see Jefferson as a man in this volume and his works for the public good emerge here. Also, we see Jefferson's health deminish and his battle for life play a part. This volume is masterfully engaging and well written. Impeccable scholarship and a life long dedication are very apparent.

   If you like to read history and biographical history in particular and want to read about Thomas Jefferson, this series has to be on your short list.

   I highly recommend reading this series. It has been an honor reading about one of America's most extraordinary men.

No comments about The Three Kentucky Presidents: Lincoln, Taylor, Davis.