2 comments about The White House Looks South: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson (Walter Lynwood Fleming Lectures in Southern History).

1. William E. Leuchtenburg is the preeminent historian of America in the twentieth century. Based on research in 400 manuscript collections, together with 200 oral histories, his The White House Looks South is both highly original and beautifully written. It ranks with the very best of Leuchtenburg's previous works, yet is different from any of them.
   Through incisive biographies, the book establishes the relationship of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson to the South of the early-to-mid-twentieth century. Leuchtenburg argues that politics, together with the influence of individual politicians, remains central to an understanding of the broader sweep of American history, and that place and section are central to an understanding of politics. Certain presidents take the helm of change, altering through governmental action the individual lives of millions. Judging from the remarkable popularity of presidential biography, most Americans seem to comprehend at least some of these points, but they have been unfashionable among professional historians for a long generation. The White House Looks South is, in effect, a timely invitation to the historical profession to return to once-established precepts. As if to nail down the point, the book takes as its central theme the three presidents' transformation of civil rights from the 1930s through the 1960s.
   Like all of Leuchtenburg's books, The White House Looks South makes splendid reading. Its pages sparkle with anecdotes as well as pithy (and often astonishingly revealing) quotes. Both a master political analyst and a master storyteller, never has Leuchtenburg produced a work so richly combining both.



2. Essentially, this book is a history of the political relationship between three presidents and the South (FDR, Truman, and LBJ). The book also focuses a great deal of attention on the attitude of each president on civil rights and the plight of black people in the South. Leuchtenburg does a good job of pointing out the ambivalence of each of these presidents towards civil rights juxtaposed against bold actions they took (mostly for political reasons) that ended up helping black people in Southern states and advancing the cause of civil rights. The book is full of fascinating aspects of each president's regional identity, including FDR's second "home" in Warm Springs and the struggle of both Truman and LBJ to truly identify with a particular section of the country (whether it be West, Midwest, or South). The book also serves as a fascinating history of the shift of strength within the Democratic Party away from the Solid South and towards liberals in the North. In all, this is fantastic historical research and writing that I would highly recommend.

5 comments about We Are Lincoln Men : Abraham Lincoln and His Friends.

1. This was an interesting book. Every historian has a favorite story about one of the greatest American presidents-Abraham Lincoln. He talked plain, told funny stories, and acted like a relative of the family. However, Lincoln had few friends in his life. You can actually count the number on a pair of hands. The reason was Lincoln's upbringing in very isolated areas of Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky. The death of his mother at an early age also stunted his development. Except for two individuals (Speed and Herndon), Lincoln had few long term friends.
   
   Professor Donald goes into all the close friends Lincoln had. He examines the relationship with Speed, and lays the fact that Lincoln had a really close relationship with Speed.
   He also examines his relationship with Browning, Herndon, Seward, his two presidential aides, and a bodyguard. Many others may have known Lincoln, but few knew him in a personal way. Lincoln was a very lonely man with plenty of burdens on him. It is a wonder he managed to guide the country through the Civil War without many personal relationships.
   
   Donald examines all of Lincoln's close personal relationships. He disputes the present accusations that Lincoln was gay with good historical facts. This is a good read for those interested in the Civil War.



2. Donald's book "Lincoln" is incredible. So maybe I was unfairly expecting too much.
   
   But I didn't learn much from this book. He makes the point that Lincoln did not have any very close friends and therefore there was no one that could truly speak of what Lincoln was thinking.
   
   Much of this book discusses the relationship Lincoln had with each of the people involved. And it then talks some (not a lot) about that those people wrote or said.
   
   But to me, Lincoln did not come out of what was said. I didn't find myself seeing anything new.
   
   Get his book "Lincoln" instead.



3. David's confusion about Lincoln's sexuality is shown by his going back and forth on the question of whether Abe was in love with Anne Rutledge. At present he seems to deny the legend, which he endorsed a few years ago when Douglas Wilson revived it, having previously followed his mentor J. G. Randall in denying it. Talk about Senator Kerry-like flip-flopping. David, to all appearance a Kinsey "O," is obviously even more at sea about homosexuality. He quoted the obnoxious remark made by Charles B. Strozier (a type who would have fascinated Cesare Lombroso) that a homosexual (or bisexual, in the case of Lincoln) couldn't have led the war or even gone into politics. Have they forgotten Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar? Did they never hear about their bisexuality? But Donald did for a time acknowledge a homoerotic bond between Abe and Joshua; though he has made the outrageous claim to me that no single American president ever had sex with another male.
   When I put C.A. Tripp in contact with David Donald, whom I described to Tripp as the leading Lincoln scholar, I warned him that however much he might learn from David, he could not even hope that David would accept the thesis that Abe had homosexual experiences, and I predicted that David would write a preemptive strike. It duly appeared: We Are Lincoln Men: Abraham Lincoln and His Friends.
   John Lauritsen, an aesthete of unrivaled sensitivity, tells me that in We Are Lincoln Men David writes on two levels: one for the public ("the great unwashed"), who couldn't bear to learn that some presidents were gay; and on another for the initiates, when he describes the banter between Abe and his hardened male secretaries, which borders on camp. At any rate, David certainly notes the electric homoeroticism.



4. David Herbert Donald has produced an interesting portrait of Abraham Lincoln through the eyes of those who can claim to have known him best. By taking a "friend's eye" view of our sixteenth President, Donald peels back some of the mystery surrounding this very private and guarded man. Some, but not all. As Donald demonstrates, Lincoln was unusually adept of shielding much of his inner self even from most of his close associates. Whether by insecurity at his humble origins and self-taught manner or, (as I am more prone to think), by the design of a very focused ambition which was early on and constantly navigating his life's journey, Lincoln only let those he knew intimately get so close.
   
   The friends (some early life companions, young adulthood companion Joshua Speed, law partner William Herndon, some-time political ally Orville Browning, rival and then acolyte Secretary of State William Seward, and private secretaries John Hay and John Nicolay), give portrayal of Lincoln at every stage of his life. Most give testimony to Lincoln's ultimate reserve, but all have insights, shared thoughts and anecdotes that provide a great depth of understanding at what formed the man and to some extent what made him tick.
   
   Although Donald has a minor psychological theme of motherless-children (Lincoln's mother died at an early age; he benefited from a loving step-mother who he gave great credit to), and the nature of friendships running through the book, most of this is good, solid history. I personally thought the psychological stream could have been left out of this book, but it only occasionally intrudes and never surfaces enough to dominate any chapter of Lincoln's life.
   
   It is instructive to view Lincoln through the lens of those who know Lincoln best, particularly those who knew Lincoln before he was great. Donald has added another valuable work on this most significant and interesting of Americans.



5. Luckily, I was able to find the Large Print edition at the public library. Written in the modern history style, forming opinions instead of using factual information, he even changes his mind from his earlier writings, LINCOLN'S HERNDON (his law partner), saying he has grown "skeptical" about what he had passed on as facts. Feelings don't matter in factual history.
   
   He intimates that Abraham Lincolnn had "questionable" relationships with Joshua Speed with whom he boarded and shared a room and Ann Rutledge, though Lincoln seemed to have avoided becoming involved with women. He quotes Stephen Ambrose whose opinion was that presidents need a confidant "who can be trusted absolutely never to divulge a secret."
   
   These six spotlighted as "intimate friends" to Lincoln all divulged the letters and confidences they were trusted to keep secure! They profited from the assassination by writing books. His personal secretaries, the two Johns: Hay and Nicolay were no exceptions.
   
   For a private, "close-mouthed," self-educated, diversive president, he had no real friends as a youth, nor as President. He enjoyed his sons, playing on the White House lawn with goats and other farm animals. You can take the boy out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy. Did Mark Twain say that?
   
   Since his orations were considered on a par with Shakespeare, I am wondering if they had speech writers for the presidents back in the 1800s. Are those really his words and beliefs? Did JFK really come up with the "Ask not what your country can do for you" or was that also phrased by some speechwriter? Lincoln was a good actor, sought public influence with his Civil War addresses.
   
   Mr. Donald has won two Pulitzer prizes for his earlier books about Lincoln and many concerning aspects of the Civil War. But I would not call him an expert like Geoffrey C. Ward or William Davis. He is a good researcher.

1 comments about Andrew Jackson and the Constitution: The Rise and Fall of Generational Regimes.

1. Gerard Macgliocca's book is an important contribution to our understanding of constitutional history. It is a remarkable concise essay that tries to reestablish the importance of the Jacksonians and the Taney Court in our legal history while presenting a theory of the rise and fall of constitutional "generations".
   Magliocca sees each constitutional generation as being "formed" by shared collective experiences that cause them to largely share political and legal beliefs. The experiences that Magliocca is talking about can be things like 9-11, the Great Depression, the Civil War, etc. (pp.2-3). Obviously he is talking about a tendency of a majority as opposed to the views of any one individual. These generations are also reflected in the political domination of one party, e.g., the Jacksonians, FDR Democrats, etc.. The great eras of our constitutional history can thus be seen as a period when one generation held sway. At that moment, another generation is always beginning to develope in response to real injustices that are ignored (or condoned) by the dominant generation.
   Magliocca throughout his book lists patterns of change that every rising generation follows. This is where my comparison to the I Ching comes in. I am being somewhat tongue-in-cheek in making that comparison but Magliocca invites that sort of response with statements like the following: "Reform leads to resistance, and resistance leads to reform. That is a central theme of the constitutional cycle" (p.112). Fortunately, Magliocca has some very powerful ideas to offer us about some of these patterns of change. For example, he believes that as a rising generation rises to power through Congress and the Presidency, that the older generation still dominant on the Supreme Court begins to escalate their resistance. At this point, the older generation is likely to start to hand down "preemptive opinions". These rulings utilize three tactics:
   1. The Justices will decide every issue instead of following the usual practice of avoiding major constitutional issues. They are trying to create landmark rulings.
   2. The Court will try to undermine the rising generations thought in the strongest possible way. They want to attack its basic principles and rule them invalid.
   3. Since this is usually very difficult to do with established doctrine, the Court will invent some "new theory of equality or fairness" to ground their ruling on. (p.43)
   Magliocca believes that both Worcester v. Georgia in 1832 and Dred Scott v. Sanford are examples of such decisions. It is worth the reading of Magliocca's book for his reading of these two cases alone.
   The Kuhnian thrust of Magliocca's argument (that I allude to in my review title) is that Magliocca believes that these "generational" conflicts are fought out politically and not through contests of reasoning. His history of the Taney court and of the rise and fall of the Jacksonians provides strong evidence for his belief. Magliocca also makes room for the role of chance events (the death of William Henry Harrison and the subsequent Tyler presidency, the assassination of Lincoln, etc.)
   Overall, this is, as stated, a very impressive essay. My problem with Magliocca is hinted at by my use of the word essay. This books needs expansion. As it is, it is only 129 pages long. He should have continued the story through both the rise of the Progressive and the New Deal generation. Magliocca is claiming universal validity for his thesis with its individual patterns of change.
   Here is another example:
   "Rising movements are filled with a righteous belief that the voters have give them a mandate for constitutional reform. On the other side, the justices generally believe that they represent the true voice of the people as set forth in the text of the Constitution and decades of precedent." (p. 37)
   This seems true enough but it needs to be shown to be a truly universal pattern. Show me how it worked in the switch to the Progressives or to the New Deal. Applying his concepts to more historical examples would allow them to be further refined.
   This is especially true of his concept of preemptive opinion. I would love to have seen an Appendix with a listing of all the cases that Magliocca suspected could be considered as such. I would love to read what Magliocca would have to say about a case like Buck v. Bell in 1935? It would seem to be a good candidate for preemptive status except for the third tactic. Indeed, Justice Roberts seems to reach back to fairness standards of a generation or two earlier in that one. (See the second chapter of Leuchtenburg's, The Supreme Court Reborn, for a good discussion).
   So my complaint is that the current book feels more like a precise for a reasearch program to be completed. Magliocca may be on to an essential way of understanding major changes in our constitutional history. He hasn't convinced me that it is applicable to that larger history as yet. He has provided us, however, with a very fine and subtle reading to the Jacksonian period. I do not want to minimize that. For example, be makes a subtle and important point about how the beliefs of the abolitionist evolved as a result of watching the Jacksonian treatment of the Cherokees. His book is well worth reading for the period history alone.
   But I, for one, am waiting for the rest of the history.

1 comments about Conflict and Crisis: The Presidency of Harry S. Truman, 1945-1948 (Give 'em Hell Harry Series).

1. While David McCullough's more recent biography of Harry Truman has received widespread recent attention, Robert J. Donovan's earlier biography published in 1977 has much to recommend it. Whereas McCullough's extensive volume covers Truman's entire life, Donovan zeroes in on the pivotal period of a pivotal presidency. Donovan begins as Truman takes over the awesome responsibility of the presidency after Franklin D. Roosevelt's death. Donovan covers in perceptive detail Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan as a means of ending World War Two. Donovan follows the war to its conclusion, and also focuses carefully on the exciting 1948 presidential campaign, when Truman scored one of the greatest upsets in American political history by defeating heavily favored Republican nominee Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York.

   Donovan turns an astute eye as well on Truman's great foreign policy accomplishments of the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, and the creation of NATO. As a Middle East historian, I was benefitted by his thorough presentation of the controversy leading up to the granting of recognition to the new nation of Israel, and how Truman's decision was crafted.

   I would urge that any dedicated Truman scholar should read both the McCullough and Donovan volumes. McCullough covers a wider perspective, while Donovan, on the other hand, gives broader coverage to the pivotal foreign policy events from 1945 to 1948, as well as Truman's sensational upset victory over Dewey.

5 comments about Nancy LP: A Portrait of My Years with Nancy Reagan.

1. I sometimes remind myself of Mel Gibson's character, Jerry Fletcher, in the movie "Conspiracy Theory," who couldn't pass up a copy of "Catcher in the Rye" without buying it. But in my case, I can't seem to pass up a book about Ronald Reagan, his family, or his administration. By my count, this is the forty-sixth such book that I have read. Perhaps that's why I was so surprised to read in the "Booklist" blurb, above, that in this book "his [Deaver's] portrait [of Nancy Reagan] comes across mostly as stale rehash."
   
   Strangely enough, despite all the books which I have read before, I found this one to be like a breath of fresh air, a long overdue breath of fresh air. For it wasn't long ago that there was a cottage industry in the liberal media centers of America doggedly cranking out one negative story about Nancy Reagan after another. No matter what she did or how she did it; what she said, or even how she looked; she was reviled for it. Unlike Jacqueline Kennedy, who in the eyes of the media could do no wrong, Nancy could do no right.
   
   This book, then, struck me as truly refreshing and it made delightful reading. For, in it a long time close associate and friend revealed a side of Nancy Reagan that few have bothered to try and understand and which I had not seen before. Perhaps she simply tried too hard and loved too much. So, to all those who have written so disparagingly about Nancy over the years, I say: put down your spears, daggers, and pens, pack up your PCs and take a chance. Perhaps if you tried to understand the lady, you might have some second thoughts. To all others, I say: I think you'll enjoy reading this book. I did.



2. forget. Nancy Reagan was so much more than a first lady...she was Ronnie's first lady and he always came first in her eyes.
   
   Deaver tells so much of her life, feelings, ardent admiration and deep love for her husband and an insight into the man himself..our President Reagan.
   
   It left me hungry for more and so I ordered A DIFFERENT DRUMMER from the same author. His style is so impressive in it's simplicity (do not take that the wrong way) that I read this book over a days' time. I liked the way he told all...the good and the bad and did not try to explain away anything about NANCY, but did explain some misconceptions.
   
   A marvelous, resiliant woman that any man would be proud to have as his wife, on his side and at his side. And we know now how she truly did protect and stand by her man. It was not political...just human and entirely focused on Nancy Reagan; the woman, the wife, the partner.
   
   Whatever tempted me to buy this book, which is not something I would normally read; I am grateful that I did for it was truly a wonderful experience and has opened a whole new genre for me and showed me another aspect of myself.



3. Mike Deaver was able to explain the relationship that Nancy and Ronald Reagan had from an insiders view. So little was ever written about the private side of Nancy Reagan, and he captures some of those moments very well. It was a pleasure to read also about their relationship then and even now. The public knew that they stood by each other no matter what, but I think Mike took care of both of them. He was as concerned about the President as he was the First Lady. I'm so glad to have read this book about a truly beautiful married couple, written by someone who has known them for 30 some years.



4. Although too young to vote for him in either election Ronald Reagon was one of the best presidents this nation ever had. The book "Nancy" opened my eyes in so many ways. No matter what she was always right by his side every step of the way! They had the kind of marriage and relationship that was and still is an example to us all. I remember it like it was yesterday....the day Ronald Reagon almost left us due to John Hinkley's bullet. This book shows just how much she loved the man and would do anything for her and he for her. I thank God for people like Ronald and Nancy Reagon. Although the book is called "Nancy" you'll learn quite a bit about the "gipper" as well!



5. If I wanted to read a biography about Michael Deaver I would have bought his autobiography. Extremely full of himself and his feelings, accomplishments, etc.... I felt it seriously lacked the biography part for Nancy. Although occassionally he would throw something in about her. I was very disappointed.

5 comments about George Washington: A Life (Galahad Edition).

1. Everyone in business can take lessons from politics. This is where great leaders are made. The life of George Washington is fascinating!



2. This is an excellent, one volume, scholarly approach to the life of George Washington. Writing about Washington, and even reading about him, has its difficulties. You immediately are confronted with the myth of the man, THE founder, who seemingly overlooks the shoulder of every leader since then. You are also confronted with the idea that maybe he is not as great as he has been described, that Washington was simply a poor military leader, slave owner, who happened to be at the right place at the right time.
   
   What this 450+ page biography attempts to do is to show why and how Washington became the singular colossus of the United States, while showing him as a complex individual. In this sense, what makes this book different is that Randall has come up with a third way to understand Washington. He shows why some of the early biographers would write of Washington in almost mythological terms, for what he achieved, both personally and professional was so unique. And Randall shows why some of the 20th century's early biographers would have an interest in de-mythologizing Washington.
   
   What Randall pieces together, with a fine, and inviting writing style, is a study of who Washington was, in as close a portrait as possible. He does this by relying heavily on primary sources such as letters, to and from Washington. So the reader will get a fair representation of what Washington was like, put into context of his time, his family, the social expectations on him, and as much as can possibly be ascertained, what Washington's views of himself were. Washington was a very private individual. This made the type of leadership that he wanted to project: quiet, calm, confident and organized; easier to follow and to believe in. Unfortunately, Washington's private personality has made interpreting him much harder for the generations that have passed, hence why he has been mythologized into someone greater than he could be, and at times, debunked by critical scholars. Randall simply, and effectively writes of a man, above his peers, of his time.
   
   This book was written in 1997. Since 1969, the University of Virginia has been editing Washington's papers. As of 2008, most of Washington's post Revolutionary papers, including his two terms as President, have not been edited. Because Randall's book relies heavily on primary sources, the reader will be able to tell a marked difference in the quality of the sections dealing with Washington's early adult hood and as a General, than his later life. So in many ways, this is half a book, a great detailed, one volume account of Washington's early life. But because the biographical community is still years away from having access to much of the primary sources of Washington's later life, the important Presidential years in this book have little to add to a general understanding of his life.
   
   That said, this is a fine, one-volume biography for the general reader who especially wants to understand why Washington's leadership worked so effectively. The reader will come away with a greater understanding of Washington as a driven businessman, military leader, politician, and family man; in many ways ashamed of his lack of formal education compared to his peers; but with unique character and understanding of his age, meshed with his personality, that no one else was capable of putting together on a personal level. The reader will see, probably because of the importance that Washington placed on personal character, why he picked subordinates so poorly at times, either in the military or in politics, for at times Washington valued loyalty over competence or trustworthiness. But Randall also does an effective job of telling why Washington's early life, his development of self control and work to understand and respect so many different types of people made him uniquely qualified to lead the first real Republic in nearly 2000 years.



3. The Angel Hunter
   From a purely entertaining position I enjoyed this book. I was not looking for piles of facts that I could attempt to verify and decide if I had caught the author in a mistake. I couldn't care less about such trite. I wanted to be entertained by the story of our first president.
   
   There are many subtle inferences where Washington is portrayed as an almost metaphysical figure. He seems, from what is written in this book, to realize that his sole purpose on this earth was to lead David to slay Goliath. I will not say this book is the last one you'll ever want to read about the good General; however, if you are willing to spend some time contemplating the long term historical impact of the actions of George Washington this book is for you. If you want a deluge of dates and accurate accountings of personal, lineages, and politics from this period in US history look elsewhere. This book is about a man. And if you allow him, Willard Sterne Randall, will inspire you with the life of George Washington.



4. Recently I have decided to learn about U.S. history by reading a biography of every President. My goal was to find a single volume biography of George Washington that was historically rigorous enough to be worthy of an academic course on the subject, but also written in an engaging manner. While Willard Sterne Randall's offering is more or less satisfactory based on these objectives, I finished the book believing that there must certainly be a better single volume biography on Washington available.
   
   The strength of the biography is that it does a good job conveying a real sense of Washington's life up to the Revolution. A generous use of quotes from Washington and his contemporaries are well placed, to not only provide a historical biography, but to give the reader a real sense of Washington's personality, character, and the issues that ultimately led to him leading the Continental Army. Mr. Randall is also successful at providing a balanced look at George Washington, and the reader gets a real sense not only of Washington's strengths, but also of his surprising weaknesses and failures that seem forgotten in the mythical image the majority of Americans have of the first President.
   
   Unfortunately, these strengths do not continue throughout the entire work. The presentation of the Revolution and Washington's presidency lapses into more of an overall American history than a biography, often bogged down in forgettable facts that do not aid in a better understanding of George Washington, the man. Those looking for an in depth look into Washington's presidency will also be dissappointed, as the information provided is little more than what would be included in a high school American History course.
   
   Ultimately Mr. Randall's attempt is only satisfactory and it would certainly not be my first recommendation for a one volume history of George Washington. Those interested in the early life of Washington will be pleased, but those more specifically interested in the Revolution and his Presidency should look elsewhere. Mr. Randall probably should have made this into a two volume effort and maintained the strengths of the first part of the book throughout the entire biography.



5. Willard Sterne Randall's "George Washington" is a well researched and written one-volume biography of America's first Commander-in-Chief and President.
   
   To his credit, Randall provides considerable insight into those aspects of his life that made Washington such a driven man and compelled him to succeed later in his life. There is no mythologizing here and the author shows the young Washington to have been an extremely ambitious, driven and almost greedy young man, hungry for fortune and fame. Of particular interest is Washington's strained relationship with his mother.
   
   Randall also reveals that Washington treated his slaves poorly, failing to properly clothe and house them, causing some to run away. Returned to their owner after a reward was posted, they were punished, only to run away again, for Washington did not consider them as living human beings but rather as his property. Furthermore, as Commander-in-Chief he initially refused to allow African-Americans to serve in the ranks of the Continental Army, despite the fact that a good had been serving since the beginning of the war.
   
   To his credit, however, Washington later reversed this decision and allowed African-Americans to fight for Independence. And he eventually freed his slaves, although Randall shows that this was more from economic rather than moral considerations.
   
   Randall's biography shows how Washington evolved in an extremely competent military commander with considerable expertise in all aspects of the Continental Army and military operations. Of particular note is the Commander-in-Chief's devotion to building a military intelligence apparatus that served him and America well during the war.
   
   The author also reveals the immense obstacles Washington faced in first trying to build an army, second trying to maintain it in the field, and finally bringing it to battle against the British. Certainly there was little love lost between Washington and the Continental Congress, which not only interferred in all aspects of military operations to the detriment of the war effort, but failed to keep the Army paid and supplied for much of the war.
   
   Randall's "George Washington" is not, however, with shortcomings. Despite his research the book contains a number of factual errors. Furthermore, the author has a tendency to repeat himself, often on the same page, causing the reader frustration and even a bit of confusion. Finally, the bulk of the book is spent on Washington's formative years and the Revolutionary War, with only four of twenty-one chapters devoted to his post-war years. Still, an author cannot please everyone.
   
   Nonetheless, this is a very good one-volume biography of Washington and well worth reading.

3 comments about The Reagans: Portrait of a Marriage.

1. The title of this book should be, "Nancy Gets Her Man and the White House Too." It's a chick-book chocked full of minutia such as, "She loved the peach-and-white, totally feminine boudoir...", and, "Nancy dressed in a comfortable Adolfo wool ensemble...".
   
   The author, Ms. Edwards, scolds Nancy for being a bad mother, and tells us that Ronald was not a bright man. Yet Ronald Reagan rose from poverty to President, writing and delivering stunning public speeches, ended the cold war and protected us from communists and terrorist who knew he meant business when he told them to back off. And as Cyrano might say, he was a poet.
   
   The book is filled with ambiguous antecedents which make speed reading difficult. However, if you like this sort of drivel, I have seen copies of the book on sale here for a penny!



2. This book takes a look at the lives of Nancy and Ronald Reagan both while in and out of political life with emphasis on the Reagans, themselves, rather than on the political events of which they were a part. The book clearly reflects the time and effort expended by the author in researching and writing it and appears to contain a great deal of authoritative information concerning the Reagans. Much of it is in the form of quotes from those who worked with or for the Reagans or otherwise interacted with them. These are woven into a fairly comprehensive and persuasive story.
   
   Even so, the book seems to fall short of its title. It is not so much a "portrait" of the Reagans' "marriage" as it is a "connect the dots picture" of the Reagans life together as seen by those outside the marriage. Unfortunately, there are many missing dots and those are the ones which would reveal the more human side of the Reagans and the personal relationships and interactions between them. Clearly, there are enough dots (observations of Nancy or Ron, made by those who knew or worked with either one or both of them) but most bear little or no relationship to their marriage. Only in the final chapter does one finally get to see the true depth of their feelings for one another. In my view, rather than being a "team" comprised of:1) a husband who because of his Christian upbringing and his mother's teachings is desperately trying to hold onto his second wife, and 2) a cold calculating wife willing to do anything to advance herself through her husband's achievements; theirs was one of America's great love stories.
   
   However, with all the information presented to the reader, each reader can easily form his or her own mental image of what the Reagan's married life may have been like. The problem is that from all accounts Nancy was an entirely different person in the eyes of Ronald Reagan than she was to virtually everyone else. And the opposite, in many cases, is also true. So if this is all there is, we may never be able to get a true portrait of the Reagan marriage. Nice try though.



3. First, let me start off by saying that Anne Edwards "Early Reagan" is one of my favorite books about Reagan. Her latest, The Reagans: Portrait of a Marriage" is a good read but there really isn't much new information Reagan fans and scholars don't already know about these remarkable people. My biggest criticism of this book is that I believe Edwards overdoes the old stereotype that Nancy wore the pants and was the brains behind the man and his rise to power and what a dragon lady she was. Parts of the book are very unfair, in my opinion, to Nancy and come pretty close to doing a hack job. In that regard, it's disappointing. Still, Edwards knows her subjects very well and the book is very easy to read and uncluttered. The last chapter does bring the story of Reagan's life up to date with his struggle with Alzheimers. Overall, a good read about two fascinating people and their loving relationship.

2 comments about Napoleon.

1. The editorial review of "Napoleon" reveals much about the author of this excellent and informative work. "David Chandler has long been regarded as the greatest interpreter in modern times of the Napoleonic Era. His studies of the campaigns and tactics of Napoleon Bonaparte have set the standard for all subsequent writers."
   
   As I look at my wall, I notice a certificate signed by David from the International Napoleonic Society in Canada. David, a Fellow of the noted Royal Historical Society at the University of London, has devoted much of his life to the study and research of Napoleon.
   
   The 208 page book by Dr. Chandler is concerned in part with the sixty battles which Napoleon was engaged in from his early years in Corsica to his final military battle years later. Each battle is scientifically covered with an emphasis on their impact on later historical development and the character of Napoleon both in his personal and military life.
   
   The work is a masterpiece of clear and concise research which seems to place the reader beside Napoleon in all his vivid exploits. I have been fortunate to use this text in my teaching and have yet to find a student who does not praise the exceptional volume.
   
   David has written over 27 books on Napoleonic studies, the Marlburian Period and World War II. For his exceptional work in the field of history and literature, he has been awarded the Gold Cross of Merit of Poland.
   
   In 1991 he was awarded the Doctorate of Letters by Oxford University. Only five such degrees have been awarded by Oxford in military history since 1900. "He has [also] held three Visiting Professorships in the USA - at Ohio State (1970), at the VMI (1988) and US Marine Corps University (1991).
   
   This work is a must for any military historian and war scholar. It is also certainly worth the price of $19.95.
   
   Dr. Carl Edwin Lindgren
   Professor of Military History
   Member, Royal Historical Society (London)
   Fellow, International Napoleonic Society



2. One starting out on a study of Napoleon can do no better than this work by the master,
   David Chandler. Clear and concise , well-paced and appropriately sprinkled with art of the era and good solid maps. A short, select bibliography is appended. The author's final chapter, "Napoleon and his Art of War," is well worth the price of the volume alone as it synthesizes his findings from his magnum opus, The CAMPAIGNS of NAPOLEON. I recommend purchasing this book and following it up with Gates' The NAPOLEONIC WARS, Esdaile's The WARS of NAPOLEON, and Connelly's BLUNDERING to GLORY. Afterwards pick up Chandler's lifework CAMPAIGNS.

5 comments about John Adams: A Life.

1. A must read for any one who is interested in what went on behind the scenes during the Delaration of Independence, the
   Constitution the early founding of our country (United States). Every politician should read it, because history does repeat itself!
   Vincent



2. After reading both David McCullough's biography of Adams and now this one, I have concluded that Ferling's is the better of the two. The main reason is that although McCullough's is slightly more extensive, Ferling's book has a much more realistic view of the man. As his book Almost a Miracle shows the many tactical mistakes that Washington made, this book does the same with Adams. It makes sure to reckognize Adam's flaws as well as his virtues. For example, his frequent hypocracy, his recurrent neglect of family, his indecision, his self doubt, and his many political misjudgements are all fully acknowledged. Yet even with these faults, its overall view of Adams is still that of a great man.
   
   In addition, Ferling's writing is practically as good as McCullough's, so read this book.



3. I will echo what others have written. This book gives almost every detail of John Adams life. It is an outstanding biography that I would highly recommend to anyone who enjoys historical books.



4. By the last page of this book you'll feel like you personally know John Adams. You'll know what drove him to succeed, his stregths, his weaknesses, his personality and most everything that can be known about a person.
   
   As a detailed and thorough look at the life of a man, this biography is superb.



5. This is an excellent biography, following Adams from birth to death in one volume, and detailing both the positive and the negative aspects of the man clearly and fairly. I've been fascinated by Adams ever since seeing the movie "1776", which gives a marvellous "based on fact" dramatization of the writing and signing of the Declaration of Independence, and this book gave me a more thorough, more strictly factual look at the man. I wasn't disappointed on that score; he's just as interesting without the dramatic liberties taken by the movie.

   My only quibble with this book is that the editing, at least in the edition that I have, is rather poor. There are numerous errors in grammatical structure and word choice, the kind of errors that I have become accustomed to in mass market paperbacks but refuse to accept in a scholarly historical work. Things like "he requested that the Congress name his successor be named in his place" and "...the British ... was ready" and "the New England sates" (rather than "States") and "the House of Representative" (even back then, there was more than one representative in the House) and "the dreary weather proved not be a herald of the months ahead" and many others. I understand that mistakes happen, and don't demand perfection. But there are just too many of this kind of error in this book for me to say that it is well-written; probably two dozen, if I had to guess.

   Overall, this is a worthwhile biography of a fascinating president. Hopefully, future editions will clean up the writing a bit more.

No comments about Abraham Enloe of Western North Carolina.