No comments about Theodore Roosevelt and the International Rivalries.

No comments about The Papers of Thomas Jefferson.

2 comments about Thirty Days: An Inside Account of Tony Blair at War.

1. I found this book to be an interesting read because it follows the day to day and hour by hour activities of PM Blair. Having said that it lacks a lot of the details and fails to answer some of the pressing questions.
   
   This book does an excellent job of following the daily activities of Blair starting 10 days before the Iraq invasion and for 20 days after that event. It gives an excellent insider's view of what he does during a day, how he handles stress, and living conditions at Number 10. It describes who he talks to, who gives him what advice on what subject, how he handles travel, phone calls, meetings, advisors, etc. It even covers what he eats and his preparations for the question period in parliament.
   
   What it lacked was the definitive comments from Blair why he was going to war. By the time the book starts, Blair has made up his mind to close ranks with Bush and support him with military assistance, and he had decided that was essential to preserve trans Atlantic unity.
   
   So the book is very interesting, very well written, but more about the process than the rational of his activities. I preferred Tony Blair: The Making of a World Leader by Philip Stephens.
   
   So 4 stars.



2. "It's all very well being a pacifist, but to be a pacifist after september 11, that's something different." So says Tony Blair early in this behind-the-scenes look at the office of the British Prime Minister during 4 crucial weeks in march & april of 2003. During this time journalist Peter Stothard follows Mr. Blair to several important summit venues: Brussels for the EU, the Azores for the coalition-of-the-willing vis-a-vis Iraq, Camp David, & Belfast. We are also treated to some of what went on behind closed doors as Mr. Blair submitted his Iraq policy to an up-or-down vote in the House of Commons; which, had he lost, would have necessitated his resignation. That said, this journalistic book is more an agglomeration of snapshots than an accomplished whole. We learn what everyone already knew: that Blair was standing shoulder to shoulder with President Bush over Iraq on principle---Blair's religious side apparent here as well; & because it was in Britain's interest to do so; that the British were far more keen on the UN than Washington; that Mr. Blair relied heavily on his advisor Alastair Campbell, etc. In short, most of this book should already be known to anyone who followed British politics avidly on television and in serious newspapers either at the time and/or since. The value of this book, thus, lies more in the not-so-noteworthy incidental happenings obscured from public view that provide "color"---ie., personalize the individuals herein. Hence, we are treated to numerous occurrences the likes of this: Blair's convoy outside of his Downing Street residence starts off & then abruptly stops. "'He's forgotten his glasses.' 'Where are they?'" an aide in Number 10 asks another aide in the motorcade. "'Somewhere in the den,' she repeats the reply. She pushes open the door, but Jack Straw is already back on the Number 10 front step. Before there is time to ponder whether Lord Carrington would ever have left his car to fetch Margaret Thatcher's glasses, or whether Douglas Hurd would have made the same leap for John Major, Tony Blair's Foreign Secretary is back in the street with the trophy in his hand." Yes, such asides are interesting to characterize personalities and such, but when too numerous to count, can become as satisfying as several appetizers in lieu of dinner. Mind you, I didn't dislike this book. It is a very short read and has its moments. I'm just stating that it isn't as substancial as the above editorials make it out to be. I read its 234 pages in something over 6 hours over two days & enjoyed it. The most interesting thing about the book, I think, was that Mr. Blair wanted to end an important address to the British people---as he committed British forces into combat---with "God Bless You" but his advisors dissuaded him from doing so. I present to you the exchange: "'That's not a good idea.' 'Oh no?' says the Prime Minister, raising his voice. To which they respond, 'You're talking to lots of people who don't want chaplains pushing stuff down their throats.' 'You are the most ungodly lot I have ever...' Tony Blair's words fade away into the make-up artist's flannel. 'Ungodly? Count me out,' complains speechwriter Peter Hyman, who is Jewish and whose plum-coloured neck wound is throbbing hard. 'That's not the same God,' the protesters insist. 'It is the same God,' says the Prime Minister, scribbling fiercely on his text" (pp. 106-107). The author ends the book by saying of Mr. Blair, "but he has changed in the past 30 days"---ie., since the author began to observe him in close quarters, but he is rather vague throughout this book exactly how. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the read & can recommend this book as part of a multi-volume study of Mr. Blair and/or the Iraq War. Cheers!

3 comments about Reagan as President: Contemporary Views of the Man, His Politics, and His Policies.

1. Unlike some of the popular works on Reagan, which are all too often uncritically fawning (Peggy Noonan, Dinesh D'Souza) or overly polemical and extremely critical (Haynes Johnson), Paul Boyer's collection of speeches, articles and essays presents a wonderfully balanced and fair look at Reagan. An excellent text.



2. *Reagan As President* is one of the few works about Ronald Reagan that is written without bias. Though the book is a collection of close to 100 articles and essays that were written by various propents and opponents of the Reagan Presidency, its purpose is to compare different thoughts and ideas. In the beginning of each section, Paul Boyer gives a brief history on the covered topic and then allows the writers to present their views. At the time of the book's publication, Boyer was Merle Curti Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin and a senior member of the Institute for the Research in the Humanities at the school. His work is written in a scholarly manner and will undoubtedly be used as a reference for historians in the years to come. Though not written in a chronological manner, *Reagan As President* begins with Boyer's recount of the 1980 campaign and election, which is followed by the president-elect's acceptance speech at the Republican National Con! vention and Reagan's first innaugural address. The book then covers articles critiquing the Reagan Era, to include the president's persona, his second election victory, economic and tax policies, welfare and the poor, national defense, the Iran-Contra Scandal, Central America and Reagan's relationship and attitudes toward the Soviet Union. For the student of the Reagan Presidency, Paul Boyer's work will eliminate hours of research. Key issues are presented by reprints of various leading journalists and writers of many different newspapers and other media. For the interested reader, *Reagan as President* provides an exellent comprehensive one-stop reading.



3. *Reagan As President* is one of the few works about Ronald Reagan that is written without bias. Though the book is a collection of close to 100 articles and essays that were written by various propents and opponents of the Reagan Presidency, its purpose is to compare different thoughts and ideas. In the beginning of each section, Paul Boyer gives a brief history on the covered topic and then allows the writers to present their views. At the time of the book's publication, Boyer was Merle Curti Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin and a senior member of the Institute for the Research in the Humanities at the school. His work is written in a scholarly manner and will undoubtedly be used as a reference for historians in the years to come. Though not written in a chronological manner, *Reagan As President* begins with Boyer's recount of the 1980 campaign and election, which is followed by the president-elect's acceptance speech at the Republican National Con! vention and Reagan's first innaugural address. The book then covers articles critiquing the Reagan Era, to include the president's persona, his second election victory, economic and tax policies, welfare and the poor, national defense, the Iran-Contra Scandal, Central America and Reagan's relationship and attitudes toward the Soviet Union. For the student of the Reagan Presidency, Paul Boyer's work will eliminate hours of research. Key issues are presented by reprints of various leading journalists and writers of many different newspapers and other media. For the interested reader, *Reagan as President* provides an exellent comprehensive one-stop reading.

2 comments about The Life of Abraham Lincoln.

1. As stated elsewhere, this biography has the asset of being written by a personal friend and colleague of Lincoln. The personal reminscences and portrayal of Lincoln and his characteristics are very good. By knowing and working wth Lincoln during his Presidency as well as in Illinois, the book is much stronger on the Civil War years than HERNDON'S LIFE OF LINCOLN (and thus more knowledgeable of Lincoln's evolution). The book discusses Lincoln's work with Congress to pass the 13th Amendment (outlawing slavery) far more than other bios and though such detail may disinterest the general reader, this accomplishment by Lincoln surpassed the Emancipation Proclamation in results. Surprisingly, though heavier on the politics, the book covers the Civil War's fighting pretty well. Of course, almost all 1 volume Lincoln biographies are noticeably flawed, and in this one, there is a big flop by the book virtually ignoring discussion of Lincoln's family during the White House years (Mary is discussed sympathetically as a widow). But if it is Lincoln the Politician, President, or friend, that interests you, this is pretty good.



2. In Isaac Arnold's book, The Life Of Abraham Lincoln, Mr. Arnold portyays Lincoln how he knew him. Isaac was aquainted with Abe Lincoln for over a quarter century, and that helped him in completing this wonderful biography. It does, however, lack several important facts that have now been discovered. Since Mr. Arnold wrote his book twenty years after Lincoln's death, the United States didnt have time to realize what an amazing and influential person Lincoln was. New data also shows that some of his facts in the book are proven to be wrong. Even with those minor details that are false, it doesnt take away from the intensity of the book. Being able to read his speeches and visualize Lincoln speaking is amazing and Mr. Arnold does a very good job of painting that picture.

2 comments about The Death and Resurrection of Jefferson Davis (American Crisis (Rowman & Littlefield)).

1. Jeff Davis, beloved by many in the South and known as the president of the Confederacy during the Civil War died from heartbreak and mistreatment and looked old in his coffin on Dec. 5, 1889. His funeral train was as popular as Lincoln's removal to his home state of Illinois and much later FDR's train trip back from Georgia to Washington, D. C.
   
   When his body was laid in state in New Orleans, the prominence of the U. S. flags illustrated his burial as an officer in the American Army prior to his notoriety during the Civil War. He was first buried in a tomb of the Army of Northern Virginia in Metairie Cemetery.
   
   In May 28-31, 1893, after it has been displayed in the rotunda of the state capital in Raleigh, North Carolina, it was sent on to Richmond, Virginia. The route of the Jefferson Davis funeral train left New Orleans, stopped in Beavoir, Mobile, Montgomery, Alabama, Atlanta, Georgia, Charlotte, Greensboro, also stopped in Danville, Virginia. The funeral carriage was a remodeled artillery caisson with the U. S. flag prominently displayed. His remains were transferred to Hollywood Cemetery, The Third National Flag of the Confederacy decorated the head of his final resting place, with the Battle Flag at the foot. There is a bronze statute on his grave in the Davis Circle family plot at the Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond, Virginia.
   
   Much maligned after the South lost the war, he was imprisoned in shackles and chains at Fort Monroe. His life and reputation has sunk to a seemingly unredeemable low. During the first three years after his death, his public image was ressurrected to a state of near adulation, and his fellow Southerners recognized him as one of their most important sons. He remains so today.
   
   The reburial three and a half years after his death demonstrated that Southerners increasingly were growing more overtly proud of the Confederacy. On June 3, 1907, a remarkable monument designed by Valentine and Noland was unveiled on what would have been his 99th birthday. It still stands in the park named in his honor in Memphis. It included the Confederate flags and symbols. Let by a group of University of Tennessee professors from the North, they are trying to have his memorial park renamed and the statue removed.
   
   It was a great American and did what he thought was best for the South, his beloved countryside. It's too bad that his life following the Civil War was so harmful to his health and what he had stood for. The flag has been removed from South Carolina's state flag, and Maryville College here in Tennessee can't keep their Rebel flag. What on earth is going on? Do those Northerners want another Civil War? It is best to leave dead dogs buried and the prejudices along with them. We natives of the South will always love Jeff Davis and what he stood for; the flag will never die. Resurrection is at hand.
   
   This historian has also written WAR CRIME OR INJUSTICE? GENERAL GEORGE PICKETT AND THE MASS EXECUTION OF DESERTERS IN CIVIL WAR KINSTON, NORTH CAROLINA and AN UNQUIET TIME: ALABAMA AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, 1950-68, among many other Southern history.



2. I have read many books on the War Between the States and very rarely come across a topic which is new. This book covers a subject that is little known by even culture concious Southerners. A very good read about an event that was pivotal in post war Southern History. If you are a Southerner this is a must. If you have any interest in the post war treatment of the personalities on that conflict, you will enjoy.
   
   Winston Churchill wrote - "Poor is a nation that has no heroes. Poorer still is one that has them and forgets them."
   
   This author has presented us with a way of remembering one of our Southern heroes. I think many readers will be surprised by this work.
   
   Highly recomended to Southerners and anyone who has an interest in the human experience.

5 comments about Harry and Ike: The Partnership That Remade the Postwar World (Lisa Drew Books).

1. I find this book as a dichotomy of political purpose which results in the desired effects for both these rather august politicians.
   Just what does that mean? Both Truman and Eisenhower desired to defeat Communism and further the cause of Democracy. However they did it in very different ways. Truman had a great relationship with Winston Churchill. In fact it was Truman who directed Winston to make the famous "Iron Curtain" speech at Fulton Missouri.
   On the other hand Eisenhower put off meetings with Churchill to seek summit talks on non proliferation with the Soviet Union. Eisenhower was indeed more passive than either Truman or Churchill.
   Both these men were products of a Midwestern upbringing. Mr. Truman gained the Presidency quite by accident. In effect he caught lightning in a bottle. He proceeded to make all the critical hard decisions of the Cold War. The Marshall Plan, The Truman Doctrine, The Berlin Airlift and the Korean War.
   In the Korean Conflict, Truman did a very unpopular thing which in the end cost him a chance at another term as President. He dismissed General Douglas Macarthur. Hence his popularity ratings went South and he could not run.
   Alas, General Eisenhower appears as the Republican nominee and wins the 1952 election. Truman and Ike at this time are political enemies. The rather frigid handing of the baton of the Presidency is stuff of legend. The frost of that meeting of January 20, 1953 can still be felt.
   However, during the 8 years of Ike's reign, the Cold War lingered, but the United States still maintained its dignity.
   It was only through the funerals of George Marshall in 1959 and later JFK in 1963 that Harry and Ike met.
   Finally they did reconcile. Neal tells a good story. Good but not great. These two men were not bosom buddies. But it reflects the actions of 2 politicians trying for the good of the World. I recommend this book.



2. Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower is the partnership that shaped the post World War II world. Their impact is astounding. Steve Neal does a commendable job of charting the friendship that turned sour imcoperating the background material necessary to tell the complete story.
   
   Truman and Eisenhower both started as military man, but it became a career for Eisenhower. Truman returned home after World War I to work in the government through a political machine eventually landing in the senate. From the senate he filled a void of urgency, FDR's vice president in his final term. It was somewhat expected that FDR would not finish the term so it would important for FDR to have a capable repalcement waiting. Truman would serve little more than two months as VP before leading the country through the completion and rebuilding of World War II.
   
   Eisenhower would never reach the battle lines of World War I, but he commanded the allied forces of Europe. Eisenhower won great public approval for his victory over the Nazis at home and abroad. Even in 1948, there was popular sentiment that he should run for president. Eisenhower had no desire to run for political office, instead he supervised the rebuilding of Europe. He felt his work was of far to great importance to abandon at that time.
   
   Eisenhower work so closely with Truman during this time, most people assumed he was a Democrat. However, Eisenhower never declared a party. It strained the friendship when Eisenhower ran on the Republican ticket in 1952. It strained their friendship even more when Eisenhower shared a political platform with Senator Joe McCarthy, head of the communist witch hunt. In addition to McCarthy's open criticism of Truman, Eisenhower's political maneuver caused Truman and Eisenhower not to speak for most of the Eisenhower's presidency. Partisan bickering continued throughout most of Eisenhower's term.
   
   It was only through the tragic events on November 22, 1963 that their friendship was renewed. As both men survived through the end of the decade, their correspondence would continue. While the book starts slow and burried in fact, the middle and end of the book finish strong. Toward the end, I could not put the book down.



3. The title of Steve Neal's book is a bit misleading. The working relationship between America's 33rd and 34th presidents, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, wasn't quite a first-name buddy relationship or one between close comrades (although they collaborated on the Marshall Plan and key initiatives of the first Cold War years.) But assembling formal documents, letters, speeches, telegrams, and even early TV appearances, Neal accurately if dryly (few personal interviews) charts 15 years' key dialogue between two of America's revered post-war figures.
   
   Neal successfully shows how key events of 1945-60 (culminating in JFK's election) serve to unite, than divide the men. Truman admires Eisenhower's early work helping rebuild Germany's economy, while Eisenhower supports formation of NATO and SHAPE, (buttress against post-war Communist aggression.) Both agree on early attempts to mitigate Soviet and Chinese threats, leading to histories of 1950-53's Korean war and Douglas MacArthur's controversial dismissal (with both men agreeing on their dim view of the revered military figure).
   
   Neal also makes the case for Senators Joe McCarthy and William Jenner's divisive Senate tenures changing Truman and Eisenhower's relationship, in Neal's words, "from one of bitter words into one of mutual contempt." Eisenhower enters 1952's campaign election after years' reluctance as a stand against US isolationism, only finding himself supporting unpopular senators along party lines and not fully supporting Truman cabinet members (such as Gen. George Marshall) against McCarthy's attacks. But Neal also shows Truman's political expediency as he first dismisses the younger John Kennedy in 1960 before endorsing his candidacy more enthusiastically than Eisenhower did his vice president, Richard Nixon.
   
   You sense the awe in which Neal holds both men, honoring their respective contributions to society. He spends Chapter 29's first paragraphs explaining how each administration's agendas (for national security, infrastructure, and economic growth) blended into each other, thus turning making their eventual quarrel more personal. (It was notable enough then to receive media coverage and even a quip from David Brinkley.) This chill slowly thaws after 1960 to warm greetings between both men and their wives in the aftershock of John Kennedy's 1963 funeral.
   
   The book could have used more personal reflections; admittedly few may have been actively available for discussion, but only Eisenhower's son John is extensively quoted apart from written correspondence. Nonetheless, "Harry and Ike" is worthwhile reading for anyone interested in the key post-war years, allowing us another look at the seismic events of the early Cold War through the eyes of two of America's most beloved presidents. Recommended.



4. Steve Neal's historical biography "Harry and Ike" nearly fails right from the start by building on a premise that is non-existent: the `close' relationship between Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. It's well known that Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower were never close working partners, even prior to the epic, decade-long feud that began during the 1952 election. It's a stretch to building a book on the premise of such a partnership and Neal does very little support his theory. Harry and Ike were two men who initially had great respect for each other and occasionally worked together on issues of common interest, but otherwise had little to do with one another. The failure to make a case otherwise should have torpedoed this book. What saves it, however, is that, even with the flawed premise, it is a fascinating historical record.
   
   While Neal is unable support his premise, he does an excellent job and revealing the histories and backgrounds of these titans among men. He tracks their lives and developments independently until their disparate paths crossed during the last, mad days of World War II. From there, Neal uses the framework of this supposed friendship to provide informative and interesting accounts of history as it happened during that era. He covers moments like Truman offering to step aside and run as Eisenhower's Vice President in 1948 if Ike were to run as a Democrat (possibly the foundation of Neal's assertion of a `close' relationship). He covers the major events like the hostile 1952 Presidential election, the beginning of the Korean War, and firing of General Douglas MacArthur. Neal uses these events to show the impact it had on each man and the reactions it prompted.
   
   "Harry and Ike" serves as a good primer for studying the historical events of that time. It has the effect of making the reader want to probe deeper into those events. Reading this book led me to seek out and read the incredible Douglas MacArthur biography "American Caesar". Given that strong historical narrative of "Harry and Ike", Steve Neal should not be penalized too much for his flimsy premise. There's no doubting that it still serves as an effective historical record.



5. Harry was wild about Ike, until Ike gave him hell, sending Harry on a crusade in Illinois. I have read a dozen or so books by and about Harry and Ike, none of which adequately explained the root causes of their falling out or their eventual reconciliation. This book fills that gap. Ike was politically naive, as Harry feared. I agree with the author that Ike would have been a better President if he had followed the advice of more of his friends, including HST, and less advice from his political handlers. This is an excellent book.

1 comments about La revolucion de la esperanza/ Revolution of Hope: The Life, Faith, and Dreams of a Mexican President.

1. This book was in Spanish and it was not clear that the book was not issued in English. Now I have to learn to read Spanish. Thanks alot.

4 comments about My Last Chance to Be a Boy: Theodore Roosevelt's South American Expedition of 1913-1914.

1. Within the span of two months, Theodore Roosevelt's "last chance to be a boy," as he dubbed his South American adventure, permanently broke his health, and transformed him from a person of vigorous middle age into an old man.
   
   The 1914 journey of exploration that he and his companions made by paddling down what had been called "the River of Doubt" in dugout canoes quickly became an unrelenting exercise in exhaustion, pain, disease and near starvation. Roosevelt wrote of the experience, "Under such conditions whatever is evil in men's natures comes to the front." By journey's end, the river had been rechristened "The Rio Roosevelt" and the former president was no longer capable of seriously seeking another term as chief executive.
   
   Joseph Ornig's "My Last Chance to be a Boy" describes this excruciating odyssey from origins to aftermath. It makes a fine companion piece to Theodore Roosevelt's own account of his journey, "Through the Brazilian Wilderness." Mr. Ornig's story is strengthened by adding the perspectives of other voyagers, including T.R.'s son Kermit Roosevelt. It also describes the trip preparations and T.R.'s South American city tour which preceded the jungle adventure.
   
   Surprisingly, some of the comments T.R. made in speeches during that progression touched on what are today still hot-button issues. In Buenos Aires, for instance, he counseled against judges acting as lawmakers.
   
   Mr. Ornig also gives us a look at the kinds of contributions T.R's second wife, Edith, made to the success of the enterprise. It was she, according to the author, who encouraged Kermit to accompany his father into the wilderness. It was fortunate that she did. Kermit's Portuguese fluency and wilderness savvy contributed materially to the party's survival. By inference, we also see just how useful to T.R. Edith must have been during her husband's political career.
   
   The book is filled with facts, descriptions and quotes. Fortunately, the writing is conversational, without wasting words. The story lifts effortlessly from the page to the reader's mind. Mr. Ornig's research for the story at hand is scrupulous, but his work also gives the impression of his being a Roosevelt scholar in a broader context. He mentions, for example, T.R.'s use of the expression "black care" to describe what we would today probably call depression.
   
   T.R's great grandson, Tweed Roosevelt's foreword and the comprehensive photo section both contribute to an already first rate account. This is a story which should jack up the adrenalin level of armchair adventurers and T.R. aficionados alike.



2. Ornig's book is the first full account of this amazing adventure since Theodore Roosevelt was alive to tell it himself. Thanks to the author's years of meticulous research, we get to see the ex-president up close as every ounce of courage and determination that can possibly be required of a human being is exacted by this perilous expedition. Why would a man, having already carved his name in history, literally risk his life in service to exploration? The book title is informative; it was the kind of thing he loved to do. Roosevelt's passion for for life was abundantly demonstrated on the River of Doubt as he and his party encountered one life-threatening obstacle after another. If it wasn't the hostile natives who tracked them, it was the piranhas. If it wasn't a lack of food and supplies, it was flesh-eating disease.... As if fighting just to survive the forces of nature weren't enough, there was also the recklessness of some, including his own son. And there were personal conflicts among the explorers--disagreements, arguments, theft--and a murder. This wilderness adventure had it all--and it wasn't reality TV. No camera crew, no global positioning system, no one to bail them out at any point. In this age of apathy and plasticized existence, this story is all the more striking.
   
   Thus, out of this book emerges a fresh portrait of Theodore Roosevelt. We learn a great deal about him under conditions of maximum stress. We also get to know the group of explorers who accompanied him. And the generous 48 pages of maps and photographs are a real plus. Many thanks to the author for rediscovering this story and dusting it off for us with such literary finesse. For a non-fiction history work, it reads like a novel.



3. TR's 1913-1914 expedition down the River of Doubt (subsequently renamed Rio Teodoro in his honor, and later Rio Roosevelt) is an astonishing piece of history - one often refered to in passing by other TR biographers, but not often fully explored, as it here. Author Ornig tells an exciting tale well, from the multitudious details of planning and executing a massive exploring expedition in the early 20th century, to vivid portraits of the characters involved. This book would be a wonderful companion for any adventure traveller (or even armchair adventurers).

   Best of all, Ornig is no run-of-the-mill TR hagiographer (and there are plenty of them out there), nor is he interested in taking unfair potshots at the great man (plenty of those folks out there, too). Ornig simply relates events as they occured, and doesn't care a whit whether they cast TR in a favorable or unfavorable light: TR was a poor shot (due to his poor eyesight) and became grumpy and embarassed when he missed easy targets. TR was delighted with the impact on his waistline when the expedition was forced to subsist on reduced rations -- and argued against the restoration of full rations even though others were suffering. Do these facts detract from the TR legend, or add to it? I have never been a fan of Marble Men, and found that I loved TR even more after glimpsing some of his human flaws in MY LAST CHANCE TO BE A BOY. No student of TR should be without this volume.




4. Ornig provides the first detailed account of one of the most exciting adventure stories of the 20th century -- Theodore Roosevelt's exploration of the River of Doubt in Brazil's Amazon. The story is more incredible when you think that Roosevelt was a 55-year old former President at the time of the expedition. As we approach the 100th anniversary of Roosevelt's presidency, and as we consider our relationship with the earth, it is worth taking another look at this great outdoorsman. Ornig weaves together the political and diplomatic origins of the expedition and how Roosevelt, his son Kermit, and the rest of the expedition got much more than they bargained for. There's murder, there's drowning (and a question of whether Kermit Roosevelt was accountable), there's frustration, and there's a former President on the brink of death. After you read it, you'll want to read Roosevelt's account, "Through the Brazilian Wilderness." You'll enjoy that one too

2 comments about George Washington: A Biography (Southern Biography Series).

1. Washington. This is a pretty good one. It's value to me was Washington as a colonial officer under British generals during the French-Indian War. It is essential as this was the making of the man & frames everything that comes after.
   A stupid blunder, of so many by the British after defeating the French was the denial of Washington a generalship in the regular British military establishment. It was the one thing that he wanted or ever would want more in his whole life. Mr. Alden explains why Washington or any colonial could not hope for a career in the regular army. It chilled me to think of the course of American history & world history if Washington had remained a loyal British subject. Our history without Washington is hard to imagine. There was no one even close to his stature in America. So he did become a general after all. The rest of the book is well done. Good reading for someone not too familiar with the first president, with a little revolutionary era history thrown in.



2. A brisk, but not too brief account of Washington and the times surrounding him. Alden touches on most every event and aspect concerning the subject: from Shay's Rebellion to Martha's disposition, from the Hamilton-Jefferson Feud to his agricultural experiments. It is objective without trying to debunk a great man. Only the cursory discussion on slavery does the junvenile yankee condescention surface (Whose ships were involved in the slave trade even after the Virginians pushed through its ban via the Constitution? Yankees ie the Great Hypocrites of All Time.) It is, however, a thorough and interesting biography and highly recommended.