5 comments about John Adams: A Life.

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



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



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



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

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

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




5. The first book I read about the times surrounding the American Revolution was "John Adams A Life" by John Ferling. It had the effect of tuning me in to the enormous impact the Adams had during that time. David McCullough has written an equally glorious work on the man who many are unaware of his historical relevance. There is no other American - no other patriot- with the exception of George Washington, who did more toward winning the Revolution and establishing our republican form of government than John Adams. I will go on record as saying that I believe Adams impact on the success of the revolution to be unparalleled. Yes, even George Washington's contribution cannot supplant Adams' role in history. Although Washington's work in the battlefield approaches genius, the key to the victory was Adams' diligent and selfless role in bringing the budding nation's leaders together for the common cause. Without his leadership, the likelihood of victory in the war would have been much more difficult for Washington. Although Adams was admittedly overly concerned with his place in history, his actions were selfless and directed to a single noble cause. Adams could very well have authored the Declaration of Independance but deferred to Jefferson as he knew that his value on the floor of the Continental Congress was much more important. His oratory skills were far superior to Jeffersons and they both knew it. Moreover, much of the verbage in the document came from Adams pen. Adams was a man with many personal flaws, but what makes him so interesting to study is his awareness of these flaws and his honesty in his personal documentation. Reading Jefferson's writings on the contrary seem to be made for the public. Jefferson was also one to avoid conflict while Adams had no fear. If the CC was filled with men like Jefferson, the revolution would surely have been relegated to the next generation. It is unfortunate that Jefferson has received more repute than Adams and hopefully books such as these will change this. Adams wrote to his beloved wife Abagail, "Yesterday the greatest Question was decided, which ever was debated in America, and a greater perhaps, never was or will be decided among Men". He may have been correct, but this question would not have been decided if not for his leadership. He also wrote "Mausoleums, statues, monuments will never be erected to me". Hopefullly this statement is not correct and the nation will more fully give him his appropraite due.

No comments about The Life, Crime & Capture of John Wilkes Booth.

1 comments about Escape from Andersonville.

1. Well-written and authentic recounting of this soldiers imprisonment in and escape from Andersonville Prison during the civil war. He puts the reader in this hellish prison on a day by day basis. His escape, along with three other soldiers, are the stuff that nightmares are made of! This is one civil war book that has the ring of truth and of history.

2 comments about Tales of Alaska's Bush Rat Governor: The Extraordinary Autobiography of Jay. S. Hammond....

1. This autobiography written by former Alaska governor, Jay Hammond proves to be a superbly entertaining book about his life - both personal and political. Hammond writes in a very easy going style as if he was sitting right next to you talking about his life story.
   
   As a politican, Hammond reflects a classical Alaskan character. Conservative with liberal bias. I found some of his accounts as our governor to be quite interesting. Especially how he dealt with the pipeline and the Permanent Fund. His personal life also reflects a great deal of adventures as he made his way to Alaska. He must have been very lucky to survived all these plane clashes!!
   
   Can't go wrong reading this book.



2. This is an autobiography of a fascinating Alaskan who, among other things, was also a US Marine, a bush pilot, a fisherman and Governor of the State. Jay has a clever, self-deprecating and iconoclastic view of Alaska and Alaska politics. He was truly a unique cross of being a conservative with paradoxically strong liberal stances on the environment and "development" in general. Jay was governor during one of the most polarized times in Alaska's history so you can be sure he had his detractors as well as his loyalists. The book is fortunately not all about his tenure as Governor; his earlier years as a trapper and guide were equally interesting to this reviewer. This book is an easy read and will leave you smiling. If only we could all have such a rich life.

1 comments about Sam Bass & Gang.

1. The book has great detail and many photos. I believe it to be a very good book and I enoyed it very much.

No comments about Lee's Adjutant: The Wartime Letters of Colonel Walter Herron Taylor, 1862-1865.

3 comments about The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic.

1. Lance Banning passed away on Jan. 31 of this year. When I learned this I decided to change the focus of my review a little.
   First, what do I mean by the hermeneutics of generosity? By hermeneutics I mean a scheme or method of interpretation. An intellectual biographer who uses a hermeneutics of generosity starts off with certain assumptions. Everything people do they do for reasons. From the point of view of the biographical subject they are always good reasons.
   If you believe your subject to be a person of exacting moral standards and exceptional intelligence, then you assume that everything they have done can be back up by compelling arguments that have been long considered.
   This style of hermeneutics is obvious in two ways in Banning's work. Obviously, in the way he approaches Madison. But the first thing I want to talk about is the way Banning reacts to other scholars. His notes are extraordinary. Banning read everyone who had written on Madison and located his interpretations in relation to that of others. He not only carefully explains the differences between his interpretations and those of others (e.g., Martin Diamond, Gordon Woods, Paul Rahe and Jennifer Nedelsky among others) but he also points out the strengths of their alternatives. This was a man who knew how to listen to his sources and not just to one up them.
   But it is really in regard to James Madison that Banning's approach shines through in all its humanity. Banning believes that there is a standard version of Madion's intellectual biography that is largely wrong. That standard version is based on the biographies of Irving Brant and Ralph Ketcham and the intellectual histories of Gordon Woods and Martin Diamond. In the standard version, James Madison (JM) started off as a strong nationalist in the early 1780s. He was part of the movement at that time to modify the Articles or to change them completely. JM's method of constitutional interpretation at that time is usually considered to have been expansive or willing to loosely construe the document so as to justify non-explicit central government powers (e.g., Morris' national bank).
   JM's nationalistic period continued all the way through his work at the Constitutional Convention, the writing of The Federalist and his first year in the new Congress. However, when Hamilton's economic programs began to unfold during the second and third terms of Congress, JM began to backpedal on his nationalism and his expansive constructionism. By the mid-1790s, JM is usually seen as a strict constructionist and a states rights theorist who would remain so all his life. Thus the standard version gives us two Madisons, who can only be connected by various versions of the Madison as practical or conniving politician who changed his stripes due to the political winds of the moment.
   Banning will have none of this. He believes the standard version misrepresents all aspects of JM's career. Banning believes that if we take JM's writings throughout his life seriously, then he clearly see a very consistent thinker whose whole career is centered around the dynamic problem of how to ground government on the people without being exposed to the inconveniences or "excesses" of democratic rule. I will limit my discussion of Banning's revisionism (his term) to his interpretation of two aspects of JM's career that are essential to his argument.
   The first is JM's career in the Continental Congress of the early 1780s. The democratic excesses were showing up in the Confederation period in the behavior of the states.
   Banning shows that in the early 1780s that JM was indeed a nationalist but a qualified one. JM read the national scene from the point of view of Virginia and from his understanding of revolutionary politics. Any national measure that wasn't good for Virginia was unlikely to be favored by JM. As for the Conferderation, the problem was the weakness of the federal Union. If the structural flaws of the Articles could be amended, the misbehavior of the states could be controlled. Thus, at this point in his career, Madison was not part of the movement that wanted to jettison the Articles. He merely wanted to amend them to make implicit powers explicit. That point is very important. Banning argues forcefully from JM's writings that even at this point, JM was a strict constructionist. So the standard version is wrong in two ways about the early Madison.
   The other central moment in Banning's revision is the aftermath of the Constitutional Convention, especially, the writing of The Federalist. This is usually seen as one of the strongest arguments for the standard view. It is well known that Madison expressed dismay after the Convention about the prospects for the longevity of the new government should it be ratified. He was upset that his suggestion for a national veto of the laws of the individual states had not been written into the finished document. He also was dismayed that the representation in the Senate was equal for each state. He thought this repeated a fundamental flaw in the Articles.
   And yet, within two months, JM was well into writing The Federalist where he explicitly agreed with both of these decisions by the Convention. Most readers, including myself, find this to be a little disingenuous on Madison's part. But for Banning, this was indicative of JM having changed his mind. According to Banning, during the course of reflecting on the work of the Convention and of writing The Federalist, JM must have realized that his opponents in the Convention had compelling reasons for doing what they did and he therefore changed his mind. Banning states that anyone who has written out a long argument is familiar with changing their mind during the course of the writing. Fair enough.
   But this brings me to the two main issues that I had with Banning's whole thesis.
   As proof that JM accepted the counterarguments against his idea of a national government veto, Banning claims that JM never tried to push that idea again after his writing of The Federalist. In this, I think he can be shown to be, at least, partially wrong. When JM first introduced his Bill of Rights proposal to the first Congress, his fifth Amendment stated "No state shall violate the equal rights of conscious, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." It seems to me to be arguable that JM was trying to get through as much of a national veto as he thought possible. The theoretician was trimming his sails to the political winds. This is not a bad thing. Most any reasonable reformer will take what they can get.
   But it speaks to one of the central tensions in JM's thought and Banning's revisionism. JM obviously believed that any government, to be legitimate, had to be founded on the people. But he did not trust the people to behave, to not become a "factious" majority willing to strip the rights
   of some minority. As far as I can read, JM or Banning's version thereof never gives us a definition of what sets off a "factious" majority from a majority pursuing the true interests of the country. This is where Madison the politician enters. I often feel that JM, like Jefferson, was willing to take advantage of political changes and that they were more than willing to alter or bend their philosophies to do so. When they were out of power, it was easy to be consistent theorists. Once in power, it turned out that there were more things to deal with than dreamed of in their philosophies. Unlike Prof. Banning, I am okay with that. I do not feel that Banning succeeds in explaining away this tendency of JM's. I suggest that when you read this book that you keep a copy of the Library of America's edition of Madison's Writings near to hand. It contains most of the papers that JM wrote which Banning uses. Read each one before you read the corresponding section of Banning and see if you always agree with what Banning makes of that particular writing. I did not.
   Have I learned from the reading of this book? Yes, yes, O my yes. This is an extraordinarily learned book written with a generous and respectful scholastic spirit. Banning has changed much of how I read Madison if not as much as he might have wished. But the real pleasures of this book have to do as much with spending time with Lance Banning's intellect and spirit as those of JM.
   In fact, perhaps the highest compliment I can pay the author is that I think that James Madison would have found him a kindred spirit.
   One final note: the Liberty Fund is publishing a volume this summer edited by David Womersley entitled Liberty and American Experience in the Eighteenth Century. It will contain what is probably Banning's last publication- an article entitle, "Federalism, Constitutionalism, and Republican Liberty: The First Constructions of the Constitution". I plan to be among the first to read it. Do I have my geek on or what?



2. Lance Bannings book is excellent, and long ovedue. History has left us a view of Madison that suggested he was Jefferson's lieutenant, an apostate to his nationilistic views in the 1790's, one view even diminished him to a 'trimmer' of ideas. The average person knows little of the Father of the Constituion, and as Jack Rakove stated at Princeton this February passed, we are learning what Madison always knew. Most views of Madison are not the result of individual study and research, many opinions of Madison arise from previous treatments. Banning began with the exchanges of Madison and found the consistency Madison always claimed. The actual history of Madison reveals an enormously capacious, hard working force behind the Constituion, Bill of Rights,The Federalist Papers, 41 years of public service, and the workings and definition of goverment. Viewed by friend and political foes as, brilliant and ' one adept at committee work and reasoned argument, one who could be depended on to speak and write with precision and force what others could express but vauely and in part.' Banning has surpassed those before him in Madisonian scholarship, by ardously discovering The Real Madison. The attention to detail is excellent, and the scholarship is not self defending just revealing. As Madison's true nature unfolds the consistency is revealed, from lieutenant to an independent thinker, and finally to the proper position of one the key thinkers behind American government. Being one dependent on scholars for my view of history, and granting then occaisonally the keepers of arcanum a merit they do not deserve, it is refreshing to have Lance Bannings contribution not only to Madisonian scholarship, but also to American History. The ongoing efforts by Dave Mattern and the Papers of James Madison have brought enormous information to light in the last few years, and it appears the work of Banning may be the beginning of Madison taking his deserved place in our history and common parlance, a parlance altered by the independent and ardous study this book represents.



3. Banning's book is a repetative, prolonged and far too lengthy an essay. He imaginatively and masterfully reinteprets Madison's ideas and actions as a member of several deliberative bodies that preceeded and followed the writing and ratification of the Constitution, finding him to be consistent throughout in his views on a central government and the powers of the states. The reading can be somewhat tedious for its redundancies, but worth the effort. Bannings scholarship is impecable, yet the book ought to be only an article in a scholarly journal.

4 comments about Noah Webster : The Life and Times of an American Patriot.

1. I found this fantastic book on the clearance stack at Border's. I became aware of Webster's importance from references to him in other books on the Founding Fathers. However, it wasn't until I read Unger's work that I fully appreciate how important Webster really was. Soon after graduating from Yale, the Connecticut native embarked on a lifelong dream of improving the educational system of the fledgling country to both unify it and to instill the young with the moral and intellectual virtues necessary to maintain a free republic.
   
   The first step was to have America adopt an agreed upon spelling convention tailored to the US to replace the current chaotic spellings borrowed from Britain. After years of hard work, he succeeded in getting his spelling books adopted in practically all schools within the US. The book later was nicknamed The Blue-Backed Speller and was the standard in American schoolrooms throughout the 19th century. To protect his creation, he successfully petitioned national leaders and all state legislatures to enact America's first copyright protection laws. In the course of his campaign he befriended George Washington, Ben Franklin, James Madison, and John Jay. An ardent nationalist, Webster wrote a widely read political tract in 1785, Sketches, calling for a strong national government to replace the Articles of Confederation. This work would have a powerful impact on the Convention of 1787 as Washington summoned Webster to Philadelphia to meet nightly with him and other attendees to solicit his views on how to craft the new constitution.
   
   In 1793, he returned to the national political scene to take the lead in countering the French representative Citizen Genet, who, on behalf of the revolutionary government, actively attempted to convince the American citizenry to overthrow President Washington in order for the US to support France in its struggle against Britain. (France's malevolent intentions included having the US become a French vassal state. ) Couching his speeches in the ideals of the American revolution, Genet gained quite a bit of popular support. However, Webster exposed the ruse and denounced American supporters for Genet as dupes. He publicly defended Washington and his administration's stand on neutrality against the onslaught of the anti-Federalist press, who sympathized with Genet.
   
   Besides serving in local politics, Webster led scientific inquiries with help from Benjamin Rush to combat infectious diseases (a world first) and to abolish slavery. Toward the end of his life, he embarked on his greatest achievement: a new, comprehensive dictionary of the English language. His endeavor comprised decades of research which included his learning several languages, both old and new, and traveling to the national libraries of France and Britain for etymological histories of words. His achievement won him stunning praise from the world over.
   
   A family man, Webster's indomitable character was forged by his strong Calvinist beliefs. This book traces the life of a most remarkable individual and too sadly neglected Founding Father. The book is written in an easy style and an obvious result of a great deal of research. A must for those seeking to appreciate the reason behind America's success over the last two centuries.



2. This is an outstanding biography of a person who, because he never held high political office, is less well known than he deserves to be. In reading about Webster's life, one also learns much about the political controversies of the early United States--how many know, for example, that George Washington had bitter political enemies while President, or that the War of 1812 was so unpopular in New England that it prompted many there (including Webster) to discuss seceding from the Union? This biography deserves to be widely read.



3. In his preface, the author notes that Noah Webster is so famous for his dictionary that it's overshadowed his many other achievements. Too true! I was amazed to learn of Mr. Webster's achievements in politics and education reform, particularly the influential role he played in shaping the U.S. Constitution. This book is a Must Read for anyone who wants a deeper and more accurate view into early American history.



4. If you're ready for a reprieve from contemporary biographical sleaze, read this fine biography of Noah Webster, a good and moral man who held his family and country in balanced respect. You have lots to learn from this book if all you know about Webster is the dictionary. What surprised me was a life that spanned the years from colonial times to the mid-19th century. This was a man who never held high elective office but was an influential friend of those who did -- Washington, Franklin, John Adams and Madison. He spent months traveling up and down the East coast, espousing his beliefs in the ideals of Federalism. He advocated tirelessly for an American language and literature independent of the British tradition. To protect himself against piracy of his highly popular reader for schoolchildren, he campaigned successfully for copywright legislation. For this reader, whose last course in American History is a blurred memory, the "times" part of this story was as fascinating as the "life." I was reminded of the chaos of the country in the interim between the Revolution and Constitutional Convention, of Shay's Rebellion, of the acrimonious regionalism that nearly tore apart the young country, of the XYZ affair, and the threat to a fragile democracy of the War of 1812. I was made to recall the inadequacies of early American education and the perils of public health before urban sanitation systems. In this carefully-researched portrait, Unger presents Webster sympathetically as an American Renaissance man, curious and informed in fields from law to medicine to philosophy to lexicography. One of Yale University's early graduates, he spent his life educating himself. Because Webster was such an assiduous diarist and letter-writer, the book also provides a rich portrait of his family and private life -- his devotion to his wife and children, his frustration with a ne'er-do-well son, his financial concerns, and his delight in hearth and home. The culmination of the story is the dictionary, the product of a lifelong belief in the necessity of a uniform American language to unify the disparate voices of a young nation. Webster the scholar devoted years of careful research to this project, both at home and in Europe. His efforts secured his mention in history books. Harlow Unger's book fleshes out the man and his times with substance and grace.

5 comments about Jack and Jackie: Portrait of an American Marriage.

1. This is a little light and PEOPLE magazine-y in parts. But every now and then the author slips the needle in and lets you know he knows more than he's letting on. The catty remarks by Gore Vidal spice things up. I particularly liked the account of Kennedy's personal physician, Dr. Max Jacobson -- the legendary "Dr. Feelgood." Four times a week, right up until the assassination, the Doc was shooting Kennedy up with a special concoction; 25% vitamins and 75% pure dexedrine. Isn't it nice to know we had a speed-freak tweaker in the White House with his twitching fingers on The Button? (Funny how they didn't teach me these stuff in 6th grade History class.) Beneath Jack Kennedy's "vigorous, youthful" facade was a sickly man. And the same can be said for the whole shiney, air-brushed "Kennedy myth" and the rot just underneath the surface. They don't call it "the Kennedy curse" for nothing. Truly, the Kennedys are one of the sickest families to ever inflict themselves on the American body.



2. A fast read. Many details and secrets that probably would not have been published if either of them were alive.



3. This book brought to light so many things that I never really knew. Concerning, love, drugs, children and affairs. It was a great book, but I found the last 20 pages or so to be the most captivating. This book left me with a sad feeling, because the Kennedy's were finally beginning to truly love each other when JFK was shot. This just goes to show that life isn't always fair. This was a great book that I would recommend for anyone to read.



4. A fabulous account of the childhoods and marriage of Jack and Jackie Kennedy. Fantastic pictures of the famous couple. A Wonderful read!!!! FOR QUESTIONS OR DICUSSIONS ON JACKIE ONASSIS, PLEASE E-MAIL ME AT MellissaLD@aol.com. HPOE TO HEAR FROM YOU!!!!!!!!!!



5. As someone who was born in 1977, all that I know of the "Camelot" era has come to me second and thirdhand. This book was great at setting to rest some of the myths surrounding this famous couple and also presented some information I hadn't seen anywhere else about their private lives in the White House. I discovered many things about Jackie's life growing up that I did not know previously, and how those events factored into her decision to marry JFK.

   Sometimes the author's narrative style can be jarring ("'And what would be wrong with,' she asked coyly, 'that?'") but I do not find the dialogues related to be unrealistic. It was rather like reading a transcript of an extra-long episode of A & E's "Biography" television show. The book is an engaging account of a typical high-society marriage with a tragic "what might have been in this marriage" twist resulting from Mr. Kennedy's assasination so soon after the death of their baby brought the two much closer together.

2 comments about Forty Years a Gambler on the Mississippi.

1. Loved the book, understand why the author has such a big ego- He lived in an awsome time and was at the top. Historic details filled in alot of gaps to my understanding of the mid 1800's. learned many things about the lives of people living in the Steamboat Era and was grandly entertained. laughed outloud.



2. Highly entertaining stories about gambling
   in the mid 1800's on the Mississippi River.
   The life of George Devol as gambler,fighter
   & con artist & his insights into the men &
   their character is also an insight into the
   man himself. He was a master at
   manipulating mens greed & vanity.The
   accounts of his bare knuckle fights were
   truly amazing