No comments about Zachary Taylor: The 12th President, 1849-1850 (The American Presidents).

4 comments about Mr. Jefferson's Women.

1. I really enjoyed reading this book. The author wrote it in a way that both educates and compells you to read more. I found it hard to put down. My favorite parts were very personal, real-life events that made Mr. Jefferson even more real to me. My favorite is, during his presidency, an account of his chosen attire while welcoming a Rep. of the British King. He was wearing well worn slippers that he tossed around on his toes (priceless!). I also found the additional quotes and excerpts of letters from people such as Abigail Adams and others a welcome addition. Kudos to the author for such an insighful, wonderful, well thought out book about Jefferson and the various forms of relationships with women during his life.



2. Just when you thought you had read everything...Jon Kukla presents a very readable portrait of Jefferson's "relationships" with women--which leads to new insights about this great man--and, more interestingly, his attitudes towards women in general. The final chapters about his broader view of women as a threat to republican government place Jefferson in the context of his time. There is a remarkable discussion of Jefferson and Abigail Adams' letters. The book is eminently fair about Sally Hemings and gives a new meaning to the notion that "all men are created equal". Thank you, Jon Kukla, for beginning a lively conversation that is well worth your engagement.



3. Why does even the prospect that Jefferson was with Sally Hemings bother you so much ?



4. There is not a scintilla of evidence linking Thomas Jefferson with Sally Hemings and her brood.Nature magazine TIMIDLY "corrected" itself for its faux pas in 1999, however, the media has continued to ignore the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE.Kukla just capitalizes on the public's juvenille tendency to support these ficto-spectacles,P.T.Barnum was correct about "suckers."

5 comments about Lincoln's Melancholy: How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled His Greatness.

1. Carl Becker said that every man is his own historian, and so it seems fitting that Lincoln be reinterpreted in the light of modern approaches to depression and mental illness. What is most admirable about this book is the author's respectful approach to Lincoln and the past; he insists on viewing Lincoln's behaviors in the context of the mores and culture of his time, which were far different from those prevailing today. The author persuasively argues that there was a romantic connotation to melancholy back then. This, combined with the cultural acceptance of greater emotion from single young men, explains some of Lincoln's publicly expressed emotional troubles as a young man
   
   On the other hand, the author insists on defining Lincoln as suffering two "breakdowns." It's not clear what relevance this modern term has, nor can the author distinguish between mental illness and the culturally acceptable level of melancholy and love-sickness a young man was permitted to manifest at the time.
   
   In short, given the lack of data (most notably the inability to interview the subject, Mr. Lincoln) and the different culture back then, why even try to import these modern day notions of depression to the 1830's-1860's?
   
   Still, the book does make three points exceptionally well, which makes this a very worthwhile effort.
   
   First, he destroys the idiotic notions that Lincoln was gay by virtue of close emotional relationships with men that were permitted and encouraged by the culture back then. Superficial modern day notions of sexual identity have no place in a different time with different (and perhaps healthier) approaches toward the permissibility of emotional intimacy between men.
   
   Second, he argues that Lincoln's struggles with melancholy were part of his larger struggles against adversity that toughened him up for the greatest trial faced by any American President since Washington. This is an old theme, but it is well constructed here. On paper, hugely successful men like Buchanan, Jefferson Davis, and General McClellan should have been the ones to lead successfully during this crisis. But in some ways their previous success was a curse. The depressive's realism and ability to solider on during adversity is perhaps far better preparation. A fascinating point and one that is completley lost in modern Presidential races.
   
   Third, the author argues that Lincoln's mental makeup allowed him to resist the compromises and stop gap measures that seduced men like Buchanan, Douglas, and Crittenden. Lincoln saw that the country had to recognize the evil of slavery and put it on the path to ultimate extinction. This was, of course, Lincoln's greatest insight, though I'm not convinced that his melancholia necessarily predisposed him to accept it. But there is some appeal in the contention that depressives can be curiously more disposed to realism in a world that is frequently evil and unfair.
   
   This is an insightful book, though the ability to analyze Lincoln's psyche given the absence of data and intervening culutural changes is, of course, a doomed venture.



2. Shenk's study of Lincoln and depression is fascinating, and Richard Davidson does an excellent narration. I found the audiobook entertaining and thought-provoking.
   
   Shenk provides a detailed biography of Lincoln interspersed with musings on psychology and related topics. He points out that modern culture has unfairly criticized depressives as negative people, with only a minority of scientists pointing out that depressed people may actually be more realistic than optimists. In light of the threats facing mid-19th century America, Lincoln was more in touch with what was likely to happen than his happier peers. Shenk also shows that Lincoln's long-standing depression contributed to some of his outstanding character traits, such as his desire to be of service to his country and an unwavering determination to complete necessary tasks, no matter how unpleasant. This made him strong enough to lead his country through an incredibly bloody war.
   
   Shenk finishes the book with a discussion on Lincoln's biographers and how historians inject their own prejudices into published research. The final CD concludes with an interesting interview with the author.



3. This is a beautifully written book about Lincoln--the complete man. Joshua Wolf Shank does a lovely job of describing how Lincoln learned from his bouts with depression and could only have persevered through his difficult, war-time presidency with the wisdom he gained from his melancholy. We often think of Lincoln solely as a pillar of strength; seeing him at his weakest paradoxically deepens his image of strength.



4. Over the years, Abraham Lincoln's story has been told so many times in a reverential, almost worshipful, way that he has come down to us as more of a larger-than-life demigod than as a living, breathing, human being. Putting all the tales together, one might easily conclude that Lincoln was simply a great leader; a brilliant orator; a humble humanitarian; and a man with few, if any, faults. But Abraham Lincoln was much more than that. He was once one of us: a man whose thoughts, feelings, fears, troubles and concerns were much like ours and, like us, he had to live his life day-to-day struggling with his own personal demons.
   
   This author takes us inside the living Lincoln and, based upon the recollections of those who knew him both intimately and casually, lets us see a side of Lincoln which is largely unknown today. To some extent, we get to see Lincoln as he saw himself and as he saw the world around him, much of it long before he came to national prominence. In a sense, we get to glimpse the real Abraham Lincoln up close and personal, warts and all.
   
   According to this author: Virtually all of Lincoln's friends, associates, and acquaintances perceived him as a man suffering from a deep sadness which most termed a "melancholy," but melancholy as the term was understood in the mid-19th century. According to the evidence, this melancholy often overwhelmed Lincoln, sometimes to the point that he locked himself away and at times considered suicide. This may, in part, be due to the fact that for most of his life Lincoln considered himself an abject failure and struggled mightily to overcome what we might now call depression.
   
   What appears to have kept him going was that he felt he had to do something worthwhile for mankind, although he had no idea what that something might be. Of course, as we all know, he eventually concluded that to save the Union slavery had to be eliminated one way or another. He hoped that this could be done peacefully over time, but his actions and words created an impression of him among Southerners which, upon his election as America's 16th President, precipitated America's Civil War.
   
   I truly enjoyed this book and learned a lot more about Lincoln, his life and times, and the sequence of events which brought about the Civil War. I must admit, however, that I found the book to be something of a difficult read, primarily because it cloaked Lincoln's mental illness in the language of the past rather than in modern day terminology and, as a result, would frequently would go off on lengthy explanations in relation to more modern theories. In my view, the book would be much more lay-reader friendly if the differences in language were explained up front and modern terminology then used throughout.
   
   In any event, although I don't think this book is for the casual reader, I feel it is a work which may very well help shape the way Lincoln is viewed in the future. So, if you are interested in Abraham Lincoln, I highly recommend it.



5. Lincoln's Melancholy is one of the best studies of the mental depression that troubled Lincoln throughout his life. Author Joshua Wolf Shenk draws on both scholarship and personal experience with depression to produce a sensitive and insightful account of Lincoln's struggles.
   
   Shenk's research is so deep that he even examined changes in Lincoln's penmanship to reveal a mood shift while Lincoln was writing a letter. Such care is evident throughout Shenk's book.
   
   Readers interested in Lincoln's personality should find Lincoln's Melancholy rewarding. The book documents that depression is unpleasant but, in one case history at least, was no barrier to a productive and fulfilling life.

5 comments about Consuelo and Alva Vanderbilt: The Story of a Daughter and a Mother in the Gilded Age (P.S.).

1. A fascinating glimpse into New York and European society at the turn of the century. I kept wanting to shout to Consuelo, "Run! Run as fast as you can away from your control-freak mother!"



2. In Consuelo and Alva Vanderbilt, Amanda Mackenzie Stuart gives her reader a glimpse into the lives of two fascinating women: Alva, the daughter of a less-than-400-family married into the fabulously wealthy Vanderbilt clan and made them into what they became. She was a forcefully dynamic woman who encouraged her children to be independent, yet stifled them. Consuelo, on the other hand, emerges as a more sympathetic character; married to the Duke of Marlborough at age 18, she was forced to give up the man she loved so that her mother's ambitions could be realized.
   
   The subject matter is fascinating, but I thought that the book was a little too dense at times; I thought that the author tried to bite off too much at once. Her original intent had been to make this book solely into a biography of Consuelo, but was misguidedly advised to include Alva as well. The result is that the book covers a large period of time and tends to wander a bit. Also, Consuelo's story covers about ¾ of the book, while Alva, who was probably a more interesting woman, is left in the background.
   
   There were little things that I didn't like about this book as well. First there were too many French words that were left untranslated. Second the author goes into meticulous and I might even add sleep-inducing detail over every. Single. Little. Thing, which took away from my enjoyment of the book.
   
   However, I truly enjoyed the subject matter. And I thought it was well-researched; it turns out that the mag rag Town Topics (an early precursor to the tabloid magazine) had a lot to say about the Vanderbilts, and believe it or not, sometimes their information was actually correct. I thought it was interesting, too, how society doyennes created the idea of a press agency, working the press according to their own agendas. It was kind of a Catch-22, in its own way.



3. Fascinating story well presented. This well-researched book has clarified several misconceptions about the Consuelo and Alva story.



4. I liked the book, some of what the author had placed in her book was from other books.



5. I didn't read this book for a while after I bought it, as I found its heft daunting. However, once I started it, I was totally absorbed. Mackenzie Stuart combines two stories in one. I refer not to the stories of the mother and daughter, but the combination of describing lifestyles that seem almost medieval and then telling the story of the women's suffrage movements in the US and UK from Alva and Consuelo's vantage points.
   
   I can't speak to the few factual errors pointed out by one of the earlier reviewers. However, as for the subejct-verb error cited, although the phrase is incorrect in American usage, I believe it is correct in British usage.
   
   I strongly recommend this to anyone interested in 20th-century social (in both senses of the word) history in the US and UK.

5 comments about The Most Famous Man in America: The Biography of Henry Ward Beecher.

1. Applegate's biography on Henry Ward Beecher is very readable, but too short. Some things are covered very well, and others almost ignored by comparison.
   
   You learn alot about his relationship with his father and siblings, but very little about his wife and children. His thoughts and actions regarding slavery are well fleshed out, but I wish word one had been said about his opinions regarding other controversies of the time. What did Beecher make of Mormonism, for example? Applegate doesn't have much to say about Beecher's theology either, after he breaks with his father - at least not enough to satisfy me. She prefers to pay attention to the intrigues and finances of his congregation (which, by all means, is worth while).
   
   In other words: I was left wanting more.



2. A remarkable read for its insight into the America of the 1850s and 1860s and into the America of the 2000s. The only real difference is that the Evangelists of 1850-60 are now tele-evangelists, still raising money, still getting involved in politics, and still dabbling in sins of the flesh to one degree or another. The more things change, the more they remaint the same.
   
   A thoroughly fascinating read for the information it imparts about that time and the similarities to the times in which we live.
   
   Helps the reader understand in new and different ways some of the causes of the Civil War and puts those reasons in in very human terms. Politics and Religion were entangled then, as now....
   
   Henry Ward Beecher would be as much at home now, just as rich, just as popular and probably just as promiscious as he was in his day. By understanding his day, we have a better, cleaner understanding of this day.
   
   In other words, Men of God can accomplish good, sometimes great things without being perfect people.



3. This book was really great. You feel like you are alive at the time of Beecher. You watch as he emerges from his father's formidable shadow to become the most popular American preacher of his day.
   
   But in the process, you will also see Beecher jettison virtually every doctrine of Christinaity save the doctrine of love for God and for others. Unfortunately, it appears that Henry took the "love for others" part a bit too literally, as he was a very flirtatious and apparently adulterous man.
   
   It is amazing to see how he skirts out of trouble time and again. He somehow has his wife convinced that he is a man of high virtue, and he is also able to convince a number of his mistresses that their affairs with him are higher forms of love, even religious love.
   
   And yet in spite of his peccadilloes, Henry Ward Beecher was an indispuably great orator, a man who had his congregation eating out of his hand. Henry loved to preach about the pressing issues of his day, although one could accuse him of waffling on issues when the boat was rocked. He was at first neutral on the slavery issue, then he was a cautious abolitionist, then he even came to the point of advocating violence if necessary.
   
   Perhaps his most shining moment was in 1863 while preaching in England. His stirring speeches about America convinced the British not to lend their support to the South, and this may have helped Lincoln to preserve the Union.
   
   You will learn not only about Beecher's relationships with women (his wife Eunice, Elizabeth Thornton, Edna Proctor, Chloe Beach), but you will also get to know the New York newspaperman Henry Bowen, who convinced Henry to come to New York. You will also meet the complex Theodore Tilton, who goes from being a star struck Beecher fan to being a jealous husband who wants to see Beecher fall from grace.
   
   Debby Applegate writes in a stirring style, and you will want to drop everything else and keep reading. You learn a lot about history along the way.
   
   The only complaint I have is that Applegate slams Calvinism way too much. She treats it as if it is a terrible system of belief and that it makes happy people dour. She seems to think that Lyman Beecher (Henry's father) was a much better man than his theological system would allow.
   
   I am not a Calvinist, but I respect Calvinism as a viable and reasonable expression of Christian faith. The book would have been just as great without the anti-Calvinist bias.



4. I am an author, a Christian, and a Calvinist. I love good history. However, after the deep prejudice against, and misunderstanding of Calvinism portrayed in the first two chapters, I almost put the book down.
   
   Despite these reservations, I am glad I persevered. Applegate writes in an engaging, entertaining style. I finished with fresh incite into the political machinations of early 19th century America, especialy New York, New England, and the history of the early abolitionist movement.
   
   I also concluded down deeply disturbed and distressed by the subject of the book, Henry Ward Beecher. Applegate repeatedly stresses two attributes of Beecher's moral character. The first was his lust for fame and popularity. The second is his continual compromise of conscience to obtain that popularity. These compromises ruined his life and the lives of many associated with him. She closes by comparing him to Dr. Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton, all good comparisons, and in my opinion, all deeply distressing hypocrites like Beecher.
   
   I finished the book with mixed feelings of revulsion and empathy for Beecher. He was a first class hypocrite. He continually preached love, but abused and used his wife, his congregation, his business associates and the women with whom he comitted adultery. He pretended to be one thing, but in reality was the exact opposite. Was he weak? Yes, like all of us he was weak. But was he sincere? It doesn't appear that he was. A sincere man seeks help. He wants to change. He humbles himself and exposes his weakness. Beecher did none of these Instead, continually and habitually covered up the damning evidence that pointed to his sins. That is not the definition of a good person.
   
   Did he do some good? Yes. He was a key figure in the abolitionist movement. But, in other respects he was much like the men exposed in Paul Johnson's insightful book, "Intellectuals." He was a man who loved the world in general, but was incapable of loving those closest to himself.
   
   Despite these facts, the author was unwilling to call Beecher what he really was, "a wolf in sheeps clothing." She concludes, "His painful awareness of his own weakness and his ongoing battle to overcome them were the wellspring of his great and lasting contribution to American life: the all forgiving Gospel of Love. As Beecher would have said, without sin there can be no saving grace."
   
   It appears that Applegate, like Beecher, is in love with love, but not real virtue. True loves serves, expends itself, humbles itself, and dies that other might live. But Applegate's conclusion spins evil, refusing to come to grips with it or condemn it. Yes God is love, but He is also justice. The two cannot be separated.
   
   This is not the definition of a good man. I expected Applegate to draw this clear conclusion. I was disappointed.
   
   In short, Applegate writes well. I am thankful for her research, and the volumes of excellent information on Beecher and his times. I am deeply disturbed by her conclusions. They express the same loss of moral compass as the man she writes about, Henry Ward Beecher



5. This book is the excellent product of twenty years of research and documentation by many people. The data upon which the book is based comes from the letters and diaries of the individuals portrayed and from the newspaper accounts about them at the time. The author skillfully weaves the data into a picture spanning from the 1820s to the 1880s.
   
   Reading this book is like sitting before a window and peering into the life of an amazingly charismatic individual and those upon whom he had a great impact. You see his gradual escape from the extremities of religious fundamentalism to an extremity on the other end of the religious spectrum. Along the way he succumbed to his human weaknesses. His temptations were made more potent due to absolute adoration by his followers and his spontaneous and haphazard personality. Perhaps, in this country, he was the most skillful speaker of his century in spite of his inconsistent message. Without him England might have intervened in our civil war on the side of the South profoundly changing our history.
   
   You get, not only, a view of their lives, but also of their hearts, minds and emotions because you read their diaries and most personal letters which were concealed from others at the time. Many are famous people such as Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Mark Twain and his sibling Harriet Beecher Stowe among many others.
   
   As you read this book you begin to understand nuances of the late colonial and early Victorian era that history books miss. You see the holes in the stereotypes of the time. You see similarities to current times and you will see profound differences. You see how lack of modern medical technology and birth control put intense pressure on women. The divisive issues of the day like abortion, promiscuity, drugs (including alcohol) and religious extremes are all still issues today. They addressed them in a different manner and with a different perspective.
   
   I don't read much fiction because it is just fiction and based upon the author's perception of reality at best. This book interests me because it portrays many people's perception of the reality of their time based upon their own written records.
   
   Jim Fuqua

5 comments about The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave (Barnes & Noble Classics Series): An American Slave (Barnes & Noble Classics).

1. This is one of the most violent books (an autobiography!) I ever read. It illustrates horrifyingly `that crime of crimes: making man the property of his fellow man.' It shows the horrendous `playing' field of blood and blasphemy, of flogging and callous skins, of hunger and nakedness, and even premeditated murder. `It was a common saying that it was worth a half-cent to kill a n.gger, and a half-cent to bury one.'
   
   system: mental darkness, hypocritical religion
   Forcing them to live in appalling living conditions (`nothing but a coarse tow linen shirt, reaching only to my knees, sleeping on a cold, damp, clay floor.'), the aim of the white man was to keep his slaves in mental darkness: `to make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken his moral and mental vision and to annihilate the power of reason.'
   The white man's barbaric behavior was justified by unacceptable religious Phariseism: `the religion of the south is a mere covering for the most horrid crimes, a dark shelter under which the darkest, foulest, grossest, and most infernal deeds of slaveholders find the strongest protection.'
   F. Douglass poses the right question: `Does a righteous God govern the universe?' `He who proclaims it a religious duty to read the Bible denies me the right to read the name of God.'
   
   freedom
   All slaves dreamed of escaping to the free north, even at the risk of their lives, in order to earn a salary for themselves, to learn writing and reading and to live in decent living conditions.
   
   This story, of which certain aspects are still very actual, reminds us of one of the darkest chapters in the history of mankind. It is told with unforgettable emotional lucidity and visualized with violent realistic scenes.
   A must read.



2. This is more than an intellectual reading about slavery in America. It is a book that challenges the most basic assumptions we hold about justice, liberty, freedom, living out our faith, respect for human life and dignity. If the reader is honest, they will have to question their own prejudices as Douglass narrates his quest for freedom. Written well over a century ago, it is still essential reading if a white person is to be an educated American citizen. I recommend this book be read along with "Bullwhip Days: The Slaves Remember, An Oral History," by James Mellon.



3. PUCHASED THIS BOOK FOR CLASS BUT IT TURNED OUT TO BE A REAALY INTERESTING READ..



4. This book helped me to see the freedoms that I now have. It also taught me to follow my dreams with all my heart. "Give me liberty or give me death" What a true blessing to read about this great man of GOD.



5. I needed this book for an 11th grade summer assignment so I decided to purchase this version of the book. I loved how the price was good, and I loved the extra bits of information at the beginning of the book (like the timeline). I suggest anyone intrested in reading this book purchase this version...it definately was worth it!

5 comments about 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and the War They Failed to See.

1. Why 1858? I found myself asking that question repeatedly the entire time I was reading this book. What made 1858 THE year to look at in regards to the coming of the Civil War. Author Bruce Chadwick tries (largely unsuccessfully, in my opinion) to argue that 1858 was the year slavery became THE main issue facing the United States and events which occurred in 1858 played a large role in bringing about the war. In his Foreword, Chadwick tells the reader he will attempt to accomplish this by weaving together seven stories of people and events, linking these disparate stories together with looks into James Buchanan's "spectacular failure" as President.
   
   1858 weaves together seven stories all (loosely) tied together by Buchanan's Presidency. These stories are, in no particular order:
   
   1. Jefferson Davis
   2. Robert E. Lee
   3. William T. Sherman
   4. The Oberlin-Wellington Slave Rescue
   5. William H. Seward
   6. John Brown
   7. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates
   
   At first, I was intrigued by the author's decision to abandon a traditional narrative and use what I thought would be an interesting change of pace. The idea works better in theory than in the pages of 1858, however. Stories are broken up into different chapters with little regard for continuity or chronological order. For readers new to the subject, this may very well be misleading as far as a time line of these events goes.
   
   As I stated in my introduction, my main and overriding question while reading the entire book was "Why 1858? What makes this year so special?" Unfortunately, although the author does claim he chose 1858 because it was THE year slavery became the overriding issue facing the United States, he doesn't give nearly enough reason WHY, and thus doesn't really answer my question. In essence, he argues FOR 1858, but he really gives no arguments AGAINST other years. To me, slavery had been THE issue for quite some time. A post concerning the Compromise of 1850 at Elektratig shows that slavery was very much at the forefront of the country's concerns as the 1850s opened, and that the Civil War may well have started a decade earlier had the Compromise of 1850 not happened. I can agree with the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the Oberlin-Wellington Slave rescue as two MAJOR events involving slavery and an acceleration towards war. However, other events outside of this year, especially John Brown's Harpers Ferry Raid in 1859 and obviously the Presidential Election of 1860 were major events which did much to hasten the Civil War. Chadwick does argue that the seeds were sewn for these events in 1858. He stresses that John Brown's raid into Missouri and successful escape with slaves into Canada in 1858 and the Lincoln-Douglas debates led to these other events. That may be true, but the MAIN events happened in years other than 1858. Without belaboring the point too much, I believe you simply cannot make a strong case that 1858 was any more important than many other years in causing the Civil War or having slavery become THE issue facing the country. Chadwick's failure too largely explain WHY or argue against other years only drives home the point for me.
   
   To me, deciding to include William T. Sherman was an odd choice other than to allow the author/publisher to get Ulysses S. Grant's name into the subtitle of the book. Grant is barely mentioned, and Sherman had hardly anything to do with the author's assertion that 1858 was the year slavery became the most important issue in the country. The only reason I can see to include Sherman is to show an example of a Northerner who had no strong feelings towards slavery, much like Robert E. Lee was personally opposed to slavery as a Southerner. In reading the chapters covering Sherman, I was puzzled as to what purpose his antebellum life story served to the narrative as a whole.
   
   The subtitle of the book is especially puzzling to me. U.S. Grant is listed and he is barely mentioned in the book, pretty much only in relation to the Sherman portion of the story. Putting a famous figure into your title or subtitle only to barely mention them isn't going to win points with this reviewer. Another issue I have with the subtitle is "The War They Failed to See." Huh? Lincoln's "House Divided" speech is mentioned. So is Jefferson Davis' ascension in late 1858 as the leader of the Secession Movement. John Brown not only saw war coming, he was determined to start it himself! And lastly, Seward's "Irrepressible Conflict" speech is also stressed. It seems to me these men at least had an inkling that war was at the very least very possible if not imminent if some drastic steps were not taken with regards to slavery. I don't want to pin this on the author at all. Marketing sells books, and the subtitle screams MARKETING from a tall building. Blame the publisher here folks.
   
   If you have lasted this long, you might believe I hated 1858. This is definitely not so. My policy is to get the bad out of the way first and move on to the good. Let's start with the author's style. Bruce Chadwick is definitely a good storyteller. Despite some continuity issues in his narrative choice as mentioned earlier, I read this 300 page book in only two sittings. I could not put it down.
   
   Chadwick's chapters on the gross ineptitude of James Buchanan's Presidency were my favorite portions of the book. Rather than focus on the slavery issue and try to resolve it in some way, Buchanan instead completely ignored slavery when possible and blinded himself to the enormity of the problem the rest of the time. His "Don Quixote-ish schemes", as Chadwick calls them, to annex portions of Central and South America by any means possible while ignoring slavery was just one issue. In addition, Buchanan chose to fight petty feuds with two powerful men, Senator Stephen Douglas and newspaper editor John Forney, and these feuds were disastrous for the Democratic party in the elections of 1858 and the Presidential election of 1860. More than any other man, Buchanan had the power to slow or even prevent radical developments with regards to the slavery situation. Instead, says Chadwick, he did nothing while radicals on both sides led the nation to the brink of war.
   
   I was also pleasantly surprised with the bibliography and notes. Chadwick uses a nice number of endnotes, including 747 in exactly 300 pages of text. He did use quite a few secondary sources, but for what was obviously to me a "pop history" book aimed more at the masses than to deep readers, Chadwick also looked at the papers of many of those involved in the events of the year 1858 and around 90 newspapers published at the time. A serviceable index rounds out the book.
   
   Bruce Chadwick's 1858 sets out to prove that year was the year slavery became THE issue in the United States, but was rather unsuccessful in this regard. His arguments for 1858 as the year were sparse and his arguments against other years were non-existent. The story's continuity suffered somewhat as a result of some conscious choices on the author's part. Despite these flaws, 1858 is an enjoyable read aimed at the masses which I would be happy to recommend to readers new to the subject. Deep readers will find this material covered elsewhere in much greater detail.



2. "1858" is a solid overview of a pivotal year in the run-up to the Civil War. Certainly, this is not an exhaustive treatment, and, as other reviewers have suggested, more in-depth analysis of the year's key personalities and events can be found elsewhere. I agree with previous comments critical of the subtitle. In particular, Grant makes a few fleeting cameos in the narrative, while lengthy chapters are devoted to Seward, Douglas, Sherman and John Brown, all of whom are absent from the subtitle. The book's primary antagonist also escapes mention: James Buchanan. Frequently ranked by historians as our worst president, the flawed and inept Buchanan chose to feud with friends and rivals within his own party and engage in fanciful foreign policy pursuits (like trying to purchase proslavery Cuba) rather than confront the deepening divisions over slavery.
   
   Clearly, this book aims at a mass-market audience. Scholars and aficionados of the period will be disappointed. On the other hand, Average Joe readers like myself will find new information and fresh insights. For example, the friendship between the firebrand abolitionist Seward and the rabidly proslavery Jefferson Davis, or how Buchanan's meddling cost Stephen Douglas the popular vote to Lincoln in their Senate contest, providing Lincoln with the rationale for his subsequent Presidential bid. The anecdote about the slave rescuers in Oberlin, OH was also new to me. For the general reader, "1858" is time well spent.



3. 1858 was an important year in American history. Americans were dealing with such hot button topics as:
   1. The Dred Scott Decision of the Supreme Court in 1857 which ruled that a runaway fugitive slave had to be returned to his/her owner.
   2. The Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854 which stated that territories could vote for or against slavery. This act repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Stephen A. Douglas was the chief architect of the act. Douglas would lose the support of the southern states due to his defense of popular sovereignity. He would also split the Democratic party since President Buchannan approved of the act. This fissure would help elected the Repbulican Abraham Lincoln in 1860.
   2. The Lincoln-Douglas debates in Illinois set the stage for the two men running against each other for US President in 1860.
   3 The raids of John Brown in Kansas led to violence as he sought to free the slaves in that border state. Many of the slaves would escape to Canada. Brown would be hanged for his Harper's Ferry Raid on Dec. 2, 1859.
   4.The Rescuers trial in Cleveland. This trial dealt with the men who had assisted a runaway slave in Oberlin, Ohio. Abolitionists were appalled at their arrest.
   5. Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi becomes the leading spokesman for states rights and southern slavery following the death of John C. Calhoun.
   Chadwick portrays the inept US President James Buchanan who hoped the Kansas-Nebraska act would end talk of slavery and disunion. He foolishly called for the US to invade Cuba and almost led our nation into war against Paraguay in a minor naval dispute incident. Buchanan has to be one of our worst chief executives!
   We see Abraham Lincoln moving from obscurity to center stage in the great national debate over the slavery issue.
   Chadwick devotes a chapter to Robert E. Lee who was trying to get his family out of debt while on a year long furlough at Arlington. We see William Tecumseh Sherman battling debt and trying several frustrating jobs from lawyer, bank president and a prsident of the Louisiana Military Academy. Little did he know he would one day lead Union forces to victory teamed with US Grant.
   Chadwick devotes much of the 300 page book to examining political strategies. William Seward gave several eloquent speeches attacking slavery. The New Yorker thought he would be in good shape to become elected presidient in 1860. Little did he know that Abraham Lincoln would beat him on the fourth ballet of the Republican Convention of 1860.
   My quibbles with Chadwick's book:
   a, The book has many typographical errors.
   b. The book would be best read by a general reader or neophyte in Civil War literature. It contains nothing that can't be found in other and better books.
   c. Chadwick has a chatty style which keeps the book in the reader's hand flipping pages. A fairly good read but not profound or great!



4. There are years in our history that have become the defining periods of events that they preclude. 1858 is one such year.
   
   In his new book 1858, Bruce Chadwick brings to print the defining year in our nation history. In many ways this particular year is not known for what great things were done, but for things that could have been done, but were not.
   
   Chadwick details the political environment of the year in such a way as to provide the reader with a "well that explains that" moment in regards to the cataclysmic events that would take place in the United States of America in the thirty-six short months that followed.
   
   Abraham Lincoln was an unknown state politician in Illinois; Robert E. Lee was facing the largest challenges of his life keeping his family's land holding together. Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecusah Sherman were near destitution. Jefferson Davis nearly died. Yet these men and many others would rise to the forefront of American history in the following two years and shape our country into what it has become today.
   
   1858 was the year of the Kansas/Missouri border clashes, John Brown, and the first year the Republican Party won election in any major political battle. Political infighting between Stephen Douglas and President James Buchanan, indirectly leading to Abraham Lincoln's election win in 1860, leaving Buchanan with the legacy of being the most naïve and least effective president in the history of our country. If not for Buchanan's unethical double-dealings, lack of focus on America's internal troubles and contemptible lack of leadership, the Civil War may not have taken place.
   
   Author Chadwick is to be commended. 1858 is a true literary gem in the American History genre. It should be read by every citizen and shared with generations to come-lest we not forget our mistakes.
   
   Armchair Interviews says: If you love American History, this book is a necessary addition to your library.



5. There are two problems with 1858.
   
   The first is inherent in the structure and that is the books limited range in discussing only the events of 1858, for example it almost completely ignores the panic of 1857, only mentioning it in the rather extensive, and rather solid, biographical sketches. But with these same sketches, 1858, so deviates from the premise, going on at length about events from the 1840s, or in the case of the Oberlin Rescue, well into 1859, this suggests the oversights are not really structural as much as weak history.
   
   The second problem is that only barely is this a chronological discussion of the year 1858, really it is a series of biographical sketches with the addition of three set pieces on the Lincoln Douglas Debates, the Oberlin Raid and John Brown's 1858 adventures. (There is also a discussion of Buchanan's foreign policy which is so US-centric that the Paraguay parts are almost completely inexplicable, this is often typical of American Histiography, but here it is so much worse than usual.) Each of these parts is pretty good, but the end result is less than the sum of its parts. Also it must be mentioned that belying the title, Grant barely figures in the book, and Lincoln is treated as Douglas's foil. Really Sherman, Seward, and Douglas would be better names in the subtitle.
   
   On the plus side it is very readable, and shallowness of treatment aside is not a bad book if you have a good general sense of the issues, and want to read something more general.

5 comments about Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary.

1. I think this book a "must read" for anyone who wants to know the truth about "back in the days" and "Jim Crow" days and such. Thurgood Marshall was the most inportant African-American man of the 20th century and probably of all time! The things he did have never nor will they ever be equaled. I only wish I'd had the pleasure and blessing of meeting this great man and shaking his hand. I recommend this book to everyone.



2. As a review on the back cover states, this book truly "reads like fiction." It gives a fascinating perspective of his life, and although I've read other technical biographies and his opinions, lectures and decisions, I would recommend this as a "first read" for anyone studying Thurgood. You feel as if you know Thurgood after reading this, and knowing his personal background helps you understand his professional background. His role in black freedom is no less than that of Martin Luther King's. (And quite frankly I think he should be revered as such.) The realities of black history nauseate me, and I can't comprehend how people historically treated blacks -- but Thurgood fought, and he fought legally and intelligently. Our children need to learn more about Thurgood and his overcoming adversity and changing the history of our country.



3. As a white man from the deep south, it boggles my mind how a totally free republic could twist the best Constitution ever written to deny a class of people their freedom. Civil right, the Vietnam war, the 1960's in general fascinate me.
   
   Mr. Williams book is particularly good at setting up how Justice Marshall came to his way of thinking. He learned early on how to play the game in the other man's (whites) territory. If you want to know how hard it was to operate during these times, with the threats and bigotry, I suggest this book. I think it is paramount for the younger people in today's society to understand the severity of the risk and opposition that people like Justice Marshall had to deal with. I think it would make them realize that even though progress still needs to be made, these individuals put their lives on the line to advance society to where it is today.



4. Juan Williams' biography of Thurgood Marshall is a worthwhile read. Williams has a great sense of the dramatic story in this man's life and he firmly sets him in the historical context of a nation in turmoil. I went away from this book with a better understanding of Marshall's life, personality and importance in American History. Williams also does a very good job with contrasting Marshall's social and political opinions with those of civil rights leaders in the 60s and 70s, with whom he occasionally butted heads. Williams paints him as the feisty individual that he was but he also does not sugar coat his flaws and mistakes. For me, the most interesting aspects of the autobiography were the accounts of Marshall's trials and travels with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and his inexhaustible energy to confront the laws of the times. If you have any interest in learning about this man and his place both in history and in the Civil Rights Movement, defintely pick up this worthwhile book.



5. Maybe its unfair that I read this book after reading the spectacular autobiography of John Lewis, Walking in the Wind. However, I found that this book was too detached from the man. I did not come away from this book with a better understanding of this man than I did before hand. Thurgood Marshall is one of the most important people of 20th century America but you don't see why in this book.

   The major problem with this book is its writing style which makes reading this book tedious. I found myself bored by page 200. Also, I believe the Brown decision is given 20 pages and his solcitor general appointment is given more.

   If you want to learn more about this guy, study the cases of the era. Sweatt v. painter, Brown of course, etc. Marshall's personal life really is irrelevant towards understanding this man's accomplishments. I would not recommend this book.

5 comments about Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson, and the Opening of the American West (Lewis & Clark Expedition).

1. I got this book for my birthday, picked it up, and enjoyed every page. It is a great way to learn more about the founding fathers of this country and have some real-life adventure as well as tragic thrown in throughout. Those things that we now take for granted once required risk of life to achieve. Great Read!



2. READ DEVOTO'S EDIT OF THE JOURNALS INSTEAD! There is probably a link for it somewhere on your screen. Please get that instead, you will enjoy reading about the trip from Lewis more then from Ambrose.
   
   I read DeVoto's edit of the journals first, and it was great. I could have read a thousand more pages, and I might, by getting a copy of the entire journals. The journals themselves give the best, most exciting, and clearest version of the trip. There really is no comparing the journals themselves to this second hand retelling. Please don't review this critique unless you have read both, because I bet you would agree with me.
   
   It really upsets me that people like this book or think it has any value. It shows how limited peoples understanding of history is. It's completely worthless to Lewis and Clark historiography and is really poorly written. I had a difficult time finishing it. This is a book for people who don't have a history background and don't know any better, for people who read the current best selling fiction books and want to try some non-fiction. It is not for historians or people serious about learning about Lewis and Clark. Historians will read the complete journals and read the various articles about parts of the trip. Serious history fans with time constraints will read an edited version of journals. Unfortunately, most people read this cheap literature and love it.
   
   
   There is, however, an important purpose to secondary accounts of the trip.
   
   When reading the edited journals there will be questions that you want answered that DeVoto either did not put in or they were not yet researched at the time DeVoto edited the journals. Things like why people got sick, or background information about different tribes, ect. Things that the journsls do not themselves explain but that maybe a doctor or a historain could clear up.
   
   An example is the loud noise heard by the party near the mountains. If my memory serves me correctly this is not explained in the Journals or Courage, however after reading a book about David Thompson, who was also in the area at this time, it seems likely that the sound was in fact frequent, intense avalanches. This is what Ambrose is supposed to tell, and in fact he did a respectable job of it. The problem is with the rest of the book.
   
   'Courage' can be divided into three separate parts, though the parts switch back and forth frequently throughout the book.
   
   (1)- the details, info, and unanswered questions that you can't get from the journals themselves but really want to know after reading the journals
   
   (2)- a brief narrative of lewis's life and the trip
   
   (3)- worthless speculation and opinion
   
   
   
   (1) is what we are here for, and there is some good stuff here, but lets be honest, this isn't really Ambrose's work. He is building off the work of many other Lewis and Clark scholars, researches, doctors, ect. who have in numerous other works helped explain many of the events of the trip
   
   (2) Ambrose isn't a great story teller. It's about as exciting and detailed as reading a wikipedia entry. To be fair, I read it right after the journals, so it's hard to compete with the people who actually did it.
   
   (3) I'm not sure why Ambrose would periodically end a chapter or whatever with some worthless hypo about would could of happened if this and this Indian killed Lewis or he fell of this mountain, or whatever. His random speculations about possible out comes or opinions about behavior sound more like a high school teacher, a tour guide, or a jr. history enthusiast, than a historian.
   
   And while I'm at it, what kind of book is this anyway? A history, a biography? I'm not sure Ambrose had decided himself, just look at his long apologia at the beginning. He knew what he was writing didn't really fit into Lewis and Clark scholarship. He was in two minds when he wrote this book. Half of him wanted to tell the story of the trip to his kids around the camp fire, the other half wanted to narrate the life of Lewis. Both came off half cocked.
   
   
   So, 1/3 of the book is good stuff, 1/3 is ok, and 1/3 is worthless.
   
   3/3 of the journals are priceless.
   
   Someone needs to take the info that we all wonder about when we read the DeVoto's journals and put it in foot notes of a re'edited version. When that happens Ambroses book will be 3/3 worthless. This is POP HISTORY and it sucks. Read the Journals.



3. A River Calling: A Christian Father and His Sons; A Canoe Adventure; A Spiritual Journey That Would Last a Lifetime Having canoed the length of the Missouri river from Three Forks, MT to St. Louis, MO back in 1979, I became hooked on the Lewis and Clark expedition. Ambrose does a great job of putting the reader right there on the expedition. In fact, when I returned to the river in 2002 with my two sons, I ran into a few folks who said it was this book that motivated them to canoe the Missouri in MT. For Lewis and Clark fans out there that are also Christian dads, I have written a book not only about my 1979 trip but also my 3 day trip with the boys 23 years later. If you're looking for a book on Christian fatherhood and raising godly sons along with travelling the river, you might like it. See "A River Calling".



4. Historian Stephen Ambrose pens a compelling tale of great adventure, featuring the exploring tandem of Lewis and Clark venturing into the great Northwest, mapping the newly purchased Louisiana territory. It is a story of great courage, privation and leadership.
   
   Sadly, juxtaposed with the story of survival and heroism is the tale of Meriwether Lewis' life after his successful expedition. The same man who had steely resolve to lead his party thousands of miles and back found himself unable to manage his own life and personal affairs in the aftermath. Addiction to alcohol, financial mismanagement, petty feuds, bureaucratic skirmishes over undocumented expenditures, indolence in not preparing his journal for much longed for publication and the inability to find a wife plunged Lewis into a spiral of despair.
   
   Add to this a pinch of bipolar disorder, which Ambrose theorizes Lewis had. He could not keep his act together and ended up taking his own life. Though some argue that Lewis was murdered, Ambrose makes short work of this notion.
   
   The contrast between the Lewis of the expedition and the Lewis in its aftermath is a cautionary tale of "the curse of success" and how great beginnings can derail and produce melancholy endings.



5. Mr. Ambrose makes the observation that Meriweather Lewis had bow legs as a child. This would be an indication of ricketts. Some people are born with the inability to convert Vitamin D from the sun which not only can cause fragile bones (osteomalacia) with the accompany pain syndrome but also severe mental depression. The modern tendency to label all mental afflictions to Psychiatry is highly over used. Many of these ailments can be linked to basic nutrition or the lack thereof due to heriditary influences. If ML had been able to receive massive doses of Vitamin D his death at his own hands may have been prevented.

5 comments about Shiloh and the Western Campaign of 1862.

1. According to the introduction to this wonderful book, the editors, Gary Joiner and Timothy Smith, more or less saved O. Edward Cunningham's book from forever being a dog-eared samizdat available only to the tour guides at the Shiloh battlefield. I for one am grateful that they did. This is a terrefic book that really educates the reader about what went on during the battle of Shiloh. Cunningham has covered the battlefield, before and after the battle, in such detail that it's hard to imagine finding a better, or at least more informed, work. The research that went into the book is evident on every page. Also, thanks to the editors, a second set of research is available in the form of copius footnotes. All of this combines to make one of the most informative books on a battle in the Civil War that I've read. Unfortunately, sometimes the detail can be a bit overwhelming, more in the way that it's presented than in the sheer volume. The volume of detail is what makes the book such a wonderful read. The writing is just a tad too structural in parts and doesn't flow well. Maybe if the author had lived to publish the work himself these rough spots would have been smoothed down. Either way, this is a fantastic read and will help expert or beginner alike achieve a much higher level of understanding about this pivotal Civil War battle.
   
   The maps were well done and helped illustrate the narrative very well. The photos in the appendix of the battle field today helped set to the scene a bit too.
   
   Finally, and most importantly for me, I didn't detect any bias in the writing. Sometimes, especially in Civil War history, the authors bias, pro or anti whatever side he's pro or anti about, comes out in the writing. I find that can seriously detract from otherwise very good books. None of this was evident here, again, making this a book worth reading.



2. This is a very good book to read about one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War.The author does a very good job in his research about everything that happened those 2 days on April 1862.I especially liked to read about details regarding the soldiers, the way the fought, their strategies, the way they reacted to the chaos around them.This book should be in the shelves of all us who like to read about the Civil War.Also the book analyzes the big questions of that war. Why Beauregard didnt press his attack on the Landing? Why Halleck didnt attack Corinth when he had the chance? These questions will remain without answer but due to those situations the War was prolonged.The only thing i didnt like about the book was that the author gives you too many details that sometimes made the reading a little dry.But, otherwise, a very good book



3. When this book was written, it was a new vision of the battle of Shiloh. The editors considered it important enough to resurrect from the Shiloh NMP archives and bring to a wider audience. The book was very easy to read and follow. The book moved quickly through the movements and battles of the first major Union campaign in the Western Theater. The centerpiece is a detailed account of the battle of Shiloh and finally, a brief account of Halleck's capture of Corinth. Footnotes on the page with the citation were appreciated and the editors did an excellent job pointing out where they had changed the original account and why.
   This book reevaluated the significance of many events at Shiloh. The author rejected the importance of traditional turning points; Hornet's Nest, Johnston's death, and correctly points out that battles are contingent and are the result of many events involving all the participants. No single event determines the outcome; it is the sum of all the actions like a series of dominos.
   The editors made excellent use of numerous good maps to allow the reader to follow the campaign and the action at Shiloh. There were 18 pages of photos of the leaders (4 per page) on both sides, some familiar and others that I had not seen before. After the Order of Battle for the armies (thank you), there is a photographic tour of the Shiloh battlefield park and a map showing the location and direction of the photo. This gave the reader an excellent sense of the terrain and action.
   I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the Western Theater.



4. I would highly recommend this book. Being a novice at Civil War history this one opened my eyes on this little reported or storied second large battle of the War of the Rebellion. One can find many parallels on events of present day. Such as what happened to the major players (generals) after the battle. Had leaders listened to the likes of the newspaper reporters of the day (substitute NY Times for NY Herald) reporter who had an agenda (where have we seen that one?) or traitorous politicians with their own self serving agendas, the war would have turned out MUCH differently than it did! Grant and a few others would have been back benched for good along with much of the Confederate generals as well.
   
   The personal stories even though they are a sentence long on virtually each one make the battle more personalized than any before that I have read. I really felt like I was there smelling the gun-smoke and feeling the cold rain, muddy conditions, and gut wrenching hunger for proper food on both sides!
   
   
   If I had one negative comment it would be the use of Maps. The book needs better, more detailed maps in legend reference to feet-miles and naming of creeks and roads. This battlefield is MUCH smaller than I ever expected (using the internet and discussions with people who have actually been there)
   
   Yes I recommend the book and will keep my copy as a reference for the future discussions on Shiloh.



5. I was excited to read this book, based in no small part on the many good reviews it has received. Unfortunately, it was very disappointing. I have no doubt that the scholarship is unmatched...the editors did a fine job in not being "intrusive" while correcting mistakes and updating the various footnotes with more recent scholarship...The first few chapters were actually quite enlightening and well-written: I learned a lot about the "big picture" of the war in the West and the gathering of the armies at Shiloh.
   
   However, the rest of the book is - in a word - *unreadable*. The title of this review gives the main problem: there is so much company-level and regimental detail on each page that it becomes a chore to slog through.
   
   In writing a battle narrative, there is a way to combine scholarship (in which Cunningham excelled) with readibility...Stephen Sears and Gordon Rhea are expert at it...unfortunately, the late Dr. Cunningham failed in this regard.
   
   If the publisher and editors intended only to make this research material - originally a PhD dissertation - more accessible, they succeeded admirably...if they intended it to be a readable and enjoyable account of the Battle of Shiloh, we are still waiting.