No comments about H. Beam Piper: A Biography (Critical Explorations in Science Fiction and Fantasy) (Critical Explorations in Science Fiction and Fantasy).

4 comments about Albert Pike: The Man Behind the Monument.

1. Scottish Rite Masons, Civil War buffs, historians, and the curious alike will enjoy this readable book. At first I was concerned that a tale about Mr. Pike would be a tough read full of lofty verbiage and abstract concepts, but this narrative is well presented and full of anectdotes which bring Brother Pike to life as a real man, practical jokes and all. The author stays focused on the humanity of Pike and his contributions without going off on "scholarly" tangents about Pike's sister's neighbor's dog, and keeping the book to a manageable size. A well done biography.



2. Tresner's knowledge of Pike is amazing. This book will hold your interest and is written in an east to understand manner. If you have ever wondered about Pike this book is for you.



3. Pike's Morals & Dogma stands as an unequalled classic to those for whom esotericism is a serious pursuit. One wonders how a man in a single lifetime could have come to amass such vast knowledge. In reading his biography, it's obvious. This is a man whose appetite for life & learning was voracious. This is a man whose capacity for action knew no bounds. He was patriot, mystic, adventurer, philosopher, writer, prankster, & pioneer. This is his story, much of it told in his own words.



4. As the author points out, most Scottish Rite masons are almost afraid to approach the subject of Albert Pike. Many find that his writings, written in the verbose victorian style of the 19th century, are beyond their comprehension. And the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry hasn't helped matters any by turning Pike into an almost mythological figure. As a result, most of us have been overwhelmed by him and have not felt worthy enough to approach the subject of so much awe and mystery. Tresner does an amazing job in showing us all that Pike is indeed approachable. He peels away the mythology and shows us that, while worthy of our respect and admiration, Pike was indeed as human as any of us. Tresner fleshes out this character that has been cast in stone for the last hundred years, thus making both the man and his writings more accessible to us today. Even if you are not a mason and don't know anything about the Scottish Rite, you will still enjoy this look at one of the most amazing figures of the 19th century. He was a lawyer, a civil war general, an author, an explorer, a musician and an early advocate of native American rights. He wrote about philosophy and religion and updated the rituals of the Scottish Rite. It is a shame that more attention hasn't been paid to the amazing life of this individual. This book is very readable, as it is written in down to earth language. The author is not out to impress anybody with multi-syllabic language. He is not a scholar trying to impress other scholars. Neither does he insult your intelligence by writing underneath you. He is a writer who truly admires his subject and will share that admiration with anyone who will spare a few minutes to listen. Besides it's easy to comprehend language, one thing that makes this book so enjoyable is it's layout. Unlike most biographies, which start at the subject's birth and chronologically list his achievements until death, Tresner devotes each chapter to a separate aspect of Pike's life. There is a chapter devoted to his relationship with the American Indians, one devoted to his lifelong pursuit of knowledge in Freemasonry, even one about his collection of pipes. Thus we can truly appreciate not only Pike's incredible achievements but those small character traits and quirks which made him so likable to those who knew him. By learning more about Pike, we learn about ourselves and about the infinite possibilities which life has to offer. It would be very difficult for someone to read this book and not want to start living life to it's absolute fullest as Pike did. Carpe Diem!

5 comments about Empire Statesman: The Rise and Redemption of Al Smith.

1. In his short 1958 study of Al Smith, Oscar Handlin noted that "[t]he written word did not come as easily to Al Smith as the spoken word." Because of this, there it no great body of correspondence or private papers for Smith biographers to consult, ultimately hampering any effort to understand "the Happy Warrior." In this respect, Robert Slayton's book stands as a major achievement. Having conducted extensive archival research and interviewed the children and grandchildren of many of the key figures, he presents what is the most thoroughly researched work on Smith that we are likely to have, and easily the most definitive one currently available.
   
   Slayton uses this material to present a compelling interpretive portrait of his subject. Tracing his idealistic, even naive view of America to his upbringing, Slayton argues that Smith never grew beyond viewing the world through the prism of the lower East Side. This was not a problem in the context of New York state politics, where he rode the crest of a wave of change in the state, one which brought him into the governor's office as the first holder representing the urban immigrants who were to plan an increasingly important role in politics during the twentieth century. When Smith ventured onto the national stage in 1928, however, his naivete about America's essential decency and tolerance crashed up against the prejudices of an America still dominated culturally by rural Protestant values. Slayton sees Smith's defeat as a decisive event transforming his character, leaving a streak of bitterness that only grew as he saw Franklin Roosevelt - a man he dismissed as his political junior - capture the prize that Smith would never obtain.
   
   Yet for all of its strengths of research and analysis, Slayton's book suffers is in its writing. Throughout much of the book Slayton peppers his text with unnecessary slang, and at points such as when he is discussing Tammany or Smith's old neighborhood he adopts a more casual, colloquial tone. The effort jars with the more readable narrative of the rest of the text, appearing as if he were attempting to evoke the conversational style with which Smith was most comfortable. Instead of appearing atmospheric and creative, however, it comes across as amateurish and ham-handed, hobbling rather than helping the rest of the work.
   
   These compositional gaffes can distract from the overall quality of this book. Slayton as provided a biography of Smith filled with insight into his character and his times. It is a book, however, that doesn't quite embody the legendary nature of this political figure, who dominated Democratic politics in the 1920s and who heralded many of the changes that America would undergo. Until the book that can capture this is written, Slayton's biography is the best work available for anyone seeking to understand this fascinating individual.



2. Growing up in New York, it was hard to avoid the name Alfred E. Smith. The huge housing development on the Lower East Side is just one structure that bears his name. But it wasn't until I had read Leon Stein's "Traingle Fire" (for a college paper), when I learned something about the man himself. Later, as another reviewer mentioned, Al Smith was highlighted in the Ric Burns "New York" documentary. Intrigued, I picked up Christopher Finan's "Happy Warrior", which was a very good introduction. However, Professor Robert Slayton's "Empire Statesman: The Rise and Redemption of Al Smith" has completed the picture for me.
   
   Slayton painstakingly examines the complex relationships between Smith and many of the players in his political spectrum, especially FDR. How this contrasts with the simple but deep relationships he had with friends and family is astounding. One of Professor Slayton's main theses--that Smith embodied the best qualities of turn-of-the century immigrant New York--is smoothly argued. For New York, Smith was the right man at the right time. But then Slayton switches gears, with convincing authority, that Smith was the wrong man at wrong time for 1928 America. It is a devestating irony, and grippingly described.
   
   I found the final sections about Smith's reconciliation with FDR and America extremely moving. The entire "Finale" section, including the deaths and funerals of Smith's wife, Katie, and then Smith himself, had me choking back the tears. Finally, there is Professor Slayton's reminder of the legacy that Al Smith left behind, both for New York City and the nation. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.
   
   Rocco Dormarunno
   Author of The Five Points



3. The election of John F. Kennedy to the presidency occurred when I was in the seventh grade of my local parochial school. In the Catholic/Democratic atmosphere of East Buffalo, and probably in Tim Russert's South Buffalo as well, the resulting ascendancy of a Catholic to the White House was a vindication. We knew that a Catholic had run once before; in fact, he had been governor of our own state. The popular wisdom of the Catholic grass roots held that the first intrepid candidate had lost because he was a Catholic, and a lot of America did not like Catholics. It did not occur to a seventh grader that people vote for lots of reasons, and that this was true in 1928 as in 1960.
   
   Alfred E. Smith, a man of no small accomplishment, lost miserably to Herbert Hoover in a 1928 presidential election that added little to the American character. It may be true that his Catholicism was a major factor in his defeat, but biographer Robert A. Slayton provides a balanced study of Smith that gives reason to pause. We see early in this work that Smith [particularly when compared to Hoover] suffered from major deficiencies in his political upbringing that affected his judgment and contributed to a naiveté about the nature of the American electorate.
   
   Born in 1873 in New York's infamous Fourth Ward, there was no way that young Smith would not be baptized into the two religions of his neighborhood: the Roman Catholic Church and Tammany Hall. At his local St. James Parish he received his elementary school education from the Christian Brothers. It is doubtful that he absorbed any particularly subversive tendencies of church and state at St. James. Catholic schools of the time were a laborious financial undertaking for Catholic bishops of the day, who considered them a necessary refuge against the virulent anti-Catholic attitudes of many public school curriculums. What Smith certainly absorbed from his Catholic upbringing was New York's multiculturalism, a phenomenon not understood and generally feared in the predominantly agricultural and Protestant Middle America.
   
   Tammany Hall, one of America's most notorious yet beneficent Democratic political machines, would also demonstrate in Smith's day that same ability to adapt to cultural diversity despite its Irish heritage. Tammany was the incarnation of Tip O'Neill's dictum that "all politics is local." Slayton has no argument with this philosophy except to note that it is notorious bad presidential politics. Thus from the formative years Smith emerges as the Catholic/Tammany wounded duck.
   
   But Smith postponed his inevitable denouement for a long time. For much of his life his personality, loyalty, affability and attention to detail, not to mention his "made man" status with the Tammany war horses, were enough to see him through his political climb. Despite its size and stature, New York State government was Byzantine and unwieldy. The legislature itself was a purgatory for a man without some kind of particular agenda, and Smith found his in the very organization of state government. With little to do, he became that body's best studied member and probably the best informed of the lot; he had something of Bob Taft's feel for the paper of legislation but with a much more extroverted personality. His counsel became cherished and his respect among his peers flourished.
   
   And, he was lucky, though it is also true that men can make their own luck through hard work. On March 25, 1911 a fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Company Fire in New York killed 146 workers. The dimensions of this tragedy and the accompanying neglect of worker safety made labor reform a statewide issue, allowing Smith to conduct emotional public hearings throughout the state. This exposure, and his public advocacy for a popular issue, put him into the New York State governor's mansion in 1919. With the invaluable help of Belle Moskowitz, Frances Perkins, and Robert Moses, among others, Smith continued his program of reform of the state constitution and generally pleased voters enough to maintain office more often than not in the dreadful decade of 1920's national Democratic defeats.
   
   When William McAdoo declined to seek the presidential nomination in 1928, Governor Smith was virtually unopposed within his party. Suffice to say that once he stepped onto the national stage, however, all of his assets of many years became liabilities. His New York bonhomie, his Catholicism, his parochial accent, and his enjoyment of spirits in the age of the Volstead Act doomed his campaign from the start. He was running against the extremely popular Coolidge legacy, against a candidate who knew how to avoid mistakes. To borrow a metaphor from this century, the "red states" were really red, and there were many more of them in 1928.
   
   Having said that, there is no denying that the 1928 campaign set the twentieth century low water mark for bigotry and ugliness. Slayton points out that the KKK of the 1920's was primarily an anti-Catholic movement; Jim Crow laws made Negro intimidation relatively unnecessary at the time. Catholicism was understood as a foreign invasion of lower class degenerates who drank excessively and usurped the jobs of present American citizens. The Democratic ticket was seen as an endorsement of this demographic shift, and voters turned upon the top of the ticket with a particular vehemence. Smith's parochialism had not prepared him for this, and the intensity of feeling against him, along with the size of the defeat, seems to have left psychological scars that remained with Smith for the rest of his life.
   
   After this grueling ordeal, it galled Smith all the more that the perceived savior of his party was a man he considered a political lightweight, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. As long as FDR lived, Smith would never get his electoral revenge. Coupled with the debacle of managing the day's tallest white elephant, the new Empire State Building, Smith's "redemption" makes only a cameo appearance in this work.



4. The book does a very nice job of describing one of the more important, but forgotten, figures in US political history. Smith's role as governor of New York and the various groundbreaking reforms he introduced, his mentorship of various figures from FDR to Robert Moses, and of course being the first Catholic to run for President would be enough to rank him right up there with some of the more widely written about icons of America. When you consider two of his top four advisers were women (this is the 1920's, mind you), his role in building the nation's tallest building at the time, his emergence as a spokesperson for the immigrant masses who became a political force during his era (and the subsequent, seismic shift this caused in the nation's political landscape - he was the first Democrat to lose the Solid South since the Civil War), his being one of the first politicians to speak out against Hitler, and that he did all this without even attending high school, Al not only deserves a high quality biography but perhaps a major motion picture as well. John Cusack in the lead!

   The book is occasionally "cheerleady" - superlatives come landing out of left field in the midst of other, more traditional descriptions of events. It is, however, critical and frank in other areas of Smiths career, so it reads in a balanced fashion overall. It is a great read and one that should be read by anyone interested in the US political landscape and how it got to what it is today.




5. there is a largely-forgotten statue of al smith on the lower east side at the corner of monroe & catherine streets, but i like to think of the empire state building as the true monument to al smith. at the time perhaps the building was a financial failure, but it was simultaneously a symbol of hope even during the depression when it was being built. only a man like al smith had the vision to help create a monument of such optimism during such bleak times - but more importantly, he did so with the intention of providing a symbol of hope to his fellow nyers. (a symbol, i might add, that has renewed importance in post-9/11 ny.)

   i appreciate & love the fact that reading lists in nyc have been expanded to include the writings & histories of all the races & creeds & cultures that have come to nyc. but as a white, working-class, catholic nyer, i have noticed a real lack of identity awareness or cultural heritage. this biography of al smith fills that void: by presenting al smith and his beliefs, it not only describes the immigrant experience of catholics at the turn of the century, but shows too how great men like al smith were key in helping the various catholic immigrant groups (irish, italian, polish, etc) to become mainstream, integrated americans in this formerly predominantly-protestant country. the anti-catholic impulse in america is largely forgotten, & in fact it is also forgotten that there was a time when white catholic americans were certainly not considered part of the white ruling class.

   in addition, i love the fact that al smith's life & legacy point to another subculture: the progressive catholics. this term is not an oxymoron; at one point in american history, catholics were on the frontlines of many progessive agendas. this book provides an insight into a church that might have been.

   i strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in american history or politics, but moreso to anyone who wants to examine the relationship of ny to the rest of america or how the aspects of class and religion (& not just race) influenced the poltical and cultural climate of america in the 20th century.

   al smith was a hero of the working class, a hero of immigrant groups, a hero for catholics, for liberals, for new deal democrats, and ultimately for all americans. it is a shame that most people - even nyers - don't even know his name. this book is a huge step toward remedying that tragedy.

   very highly recommended!

1 comments about Indian Trader: The Life and Times of J.L. Hubbell.

1. This new book by Ms Blue is a fascinating read for anyone interested in the Indian trader of the Southwest or indeed of the Southwest itself or of the Navajo people. For anyone who has visited the Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site, at Ganado, you will feel as if you can indentify with the places mentioned. Ms Blue's long connection with the Navajo people gives her a great viewpoint from which to approach this subject.

5 comments about The Man Who Would Be King: The First American in Afghanistan.

1. In Rudyard Kipling's The Man Who Would Be King, a young adventurer named Daniel Dravot penetrates feudal Afghanistan disguised as a cleric. In this nonfiction account with a similar title, MacIntyre, a columnist for The Times of London, tells the story of the real life adventurer who may have been Kipling's inspiration. He describes the life and adventures of Josiah Harlan (1799-1871), a young Quaker from Chester County, Pennsylvania, who set sail for China in 1822, telling his fiancée that they would marry when he returned. Upon reaching Calcutta, Harlan received a letter announcing that she was marrying another man. He resolved never to return home.
   
   So began his adventures. After a failed stint in the Indian army--an action for which the Quakers excommunicated him--Harlan met Shujah al-Mulk (1792-1842), an Afghan king exiled to India in 1809 after just six years on the throne. Harlan offered a deal: he would raise an army, subdue Kabul, and restore the kingdom. In exchange, he would become vizier, the equivalent of prime minister. The deal struck, Harlan began recruiting native troops, using the U.S. flag as his own. In 1827, he and his army began their long march. But he soon had second thoughts about his army's loyalty. He picked a trusted team, paid severance to the others, and launched his Plan B: dressed as a dervish, he made his way to Kabul, arriving in 1828 just as an epidemic of cholera ravaged the city. Years passed and Harlan changed his allegiance to Shujah's rival, King Dost Muhammad Khan (1793-1863), to whom he became aide-de-camp. This Afghan king granted Harlan's wish for power. The itinerant Pennsylvania Quaker and stilted lover became prince of Ghor, today a province in central Afghanistan.
   
   Harlan's story is riveting. MacIntyre describes his adventures, disillusionments, and eventual return to the United States as the only Afghan general to serve in the U.S. Civil War.
   
   Harlan was not alone in his adventures. In the nineteenth century, a handful of men made dangerous journeys through Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Tibet. Not all survived. Author Peter Hopkirk has chronicled their stories.[1] But it is rare that so much new material surfaces in one book, and for this MacIntyre deserves special credit. After learning of this curious American from cursory references and footnotes in old travelogues gathering dust in the British Library, MacIntyre made it his mission to uncover the saga of this historical Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern. His quest took him to Punjab and Pennsylvania, Kabul and California. He scoured through the official records of the Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Lahore and poured over the intelligence archives of imperial India, whose agents were suspicious of Harlan's plots and schemes. Finally, in a Chester County museum, MacIntyre found a long-lost manuscript replete with love letters and sketches. Explanations of historical and cultural context weave together in his fluid prose. The result is impressive and well-worth reading.
   
   Note
   
   1. See for example, Great Game (London: Murray, 1990); On Secret Service East of Constantinople (London: Murray, 1994); Trespassers on the Roof of the World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)
   
   Michael Rubin
   Middle East Quarterly
   Fall 2006



2. A fascinating read in every respect. Macintyre is a fluid writer and the book is a real page turner. Apart from vivid details of the remarkable adventures of the first American in Afghanistan; the intrigues, machinations and sheer depravity of virtually all the players in the great game are in plain sight. The book also provides rare insights - via Josiah Harlan's prism - of British mendacity, misrule and astounding arrogance. Harlan's account of British shenanigans may have a tinge of exaggeration owing to his eventual deep hatred of the Empire and many of its emissaries but the substance of Harlan's writings can be corroborrated in other accounts such as the Great Hedge of India by Roy Moxham (another British author) and in more substantive form with relevant data in Angus Maddison's The World Economy. Macintyre deserves considerable praise for presenting the unvarnished truth, albeit through Harlan's pen, about the largely negative legacy of the British Empire. It is a shame that Harlan's story, despite this wonderful book, remains largely unknown both in the US and the East.



3. Most people who pick up this book will already have read some of the travelogues of the "mad dogs and Englishmen" who wandered through Central Asia in the 19th and early 20th century: Burnaby and Nazaroff's memoirs, as well as any of Peter Hopkirk's books on the era.
   
   But here we have a real fish out of water story, and a fascinating one at that: an American Quaker leading, or joining, armies through Afghanistan and elsewhere in the name of, variously: the sitting ruler of Afghanistan, the deposed predecessor, his Sikh neighbor, the British Empire, and arguably himself as "Prince of Ghor."
   
   The tale is fascinating because it's so poorly-known, despite the fact that Kipling's fiction, which I understand to be inspired by Harlan and other adventurers of the time, is so well-known.
   
   Undoubtedly, Harlan's own financial misfortune and quiet death contributed to the obscurity of the narrative, but Macintyre does a great job of weaving the scraps together, and keeping the story's pace. An interesting read, and a bit of history which has earned its place in Central Asian lore.



4. Considering all that's happening in Afghanistan today, this is a timely and fascinating story of an American who travled there in the early 1800's. Fast paced book that's hard to put down and it gives a glimpse into early 1800's life in a country that most people still don't understand today.



5. If you enjoy history, especially military history, then you will enjoy this book. Written in much the same style as Byron Falwell's "Armies of the Raj," this amazingly true yarn about a Quaker who becomes, if not a king, the Prince of Ghor will keep you wondering just what is going to happen next. I absolutely enjoyed the book. My only negative comment is that the later years of his life are glossed over rather quickly, but, that is understandable since the last years were no where near as exciting as the first 40. I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys history or biographies. Enjoy.

1 comments about Ernest Hemingway: An Illustrated Biography.

1. Sandison is capitalizing on the rush for books on the 100th anniversary of Hemingway's birth. If you know nothing about Hemingway, the book is valuable, but Sandison's account of the life is a mechanical recitation of facts gleaned from the Lynn and Mellow biographies. Many of the well-reproduced photos lose their effect because of a faux sepia tone or a blue tint. The prose is often turgid, suggesting that Sandison would do well to reread and imitate Hemingway. Authorial or editorial errors abound. To cite from pages 77-80 only, Bumby's nanny is spelled "Rorbach" and "Rohrbach," the Fitzgeralds' daughter is "Scoltie," and "pseudonymous"--difficult enough to pronounce--gets orthographically spanked as "pseudonomymous." The book is good for bedtime reading, but it is not scholarly by a long stretch.

5 comments about Woodrow Wilson (Penguin Lives).

1. In the annals of American history, few presidents have a more interesting story to tell than Woodrow Wilson. Despite this truth, Wilson's legacy has produced such a terrible collection of biographies. This book is a continuation of that standard of trampling the legacy of the greatest idealist to reside in the White House.
   
   While this book is intended to be a brief biography of Wilson, this characteristic would seem to cause more focus on landmarks in Wilson's life. This does not stop Louis Auchincloss from going off topic for pages at a time. The author repeatedly references Bill Clinton, whose most striking similarity is being a democrat. There also seems to be a lot of speculation on the part of the author, such as speculating that Wilson's childhood illnesses were psychosomatic (p. 7). Like the original source of this fact, he lacks tangible support for his agrument. It is nothing more than an educated guess. Just like the guess that Wilson suffered from dyslexia (p. 6). The chapters on World War I are clumsy because of the digressions. The better chapters focus on Wilson's first and second wives, as well as his years at Princeton.
   
   I initially thought the author loathed Woodrow Wilson, but softened in this stance as the book progressed. Still I wondered why one would write a book about a seemingly undesirable topic? Not that I expected much from this book, but I, like many readers of history, am still waiting for an outstanding biography on Woodrow Wilson.



2. Enjoyed the taped version of WOODROW WILSON by
   Louis Auchincloss . . . it is a brief account of our 28th President
   that gave me insight into how a professor and then college
   administrator could make the leap into politics . . . hearing it
   reminded me a bit the Classic Comics that I read when
   younger, in that much detail was left out . . . however, you
   got just enough information . . . I'd recommend this book
   by Auchincloss, especially for the fascinating tale it told
   of how when Wilson became sick, his wife practically ran the nation.



3. Of all the men who have tried to fill the shoes of Washington and Jefferson, who was the worst? Our current crop of "Hallmarxist" professors consider anyone who would assign Wilson and FDR to the lower depths as deserving a quick commitment with Ezra Pound into loony bin of St. Elizabeth's, and for anyone to hold Lincoln among the worst invites being regarded a simple crank. But Thomas DiLorenzo's _The Real Lincoln_ has finally exposed Old Abe as well worthy of infamy, and Jim Powell's _FDR's Folly_ has corrected the omission of Murray Rothbard's _America's Great Depression_ by exposing FDR as really nothing more than - pardon the pun - Hoover on wheels.
   
   This leaves only Wilson, the man whom Mencken denominated _Doctor Dulciferous_ for his cooing blovations. The lack of a good biography of Wilson that reveals him for what he was - our worst president - or at least a book as good as DiLorenzo's on Lincoln- is not remedied by Louis Auchincloss (hereafter LA).
   
   LA for the first 64 pages gets his facts roughly right and his conclusions quite wrong. For example:
   - LA calls Wilson's claims to being a Southerner "factitious". This is putting it mildly: Wilson in his heart was an utter New England barn burner and witch-hunter, oblivious to the positive achievements of Calvinism (Milton, Rembrandt, and the Jansenist Pascal) and a perfect specimen of non-conformism's worst faults: obstinacy, a cocksure belief in one's moral correctness, a deluded sense that he was the agent of the Almighty, and that his opponents were tools of the Devil.
   -- Wilson's view of blacks can only be called sheer racist, even in a time when "racist" has become a word of cultural socialist McCarthyism - yet LA offers the lame excuse that everyone else from his background thought the same.
   - LA faults Wilson for appointing an Anglophile to the Court of St. James, yet LA's own facts prove Wilson the most Anglophilic of all. He tried to remake Princeton into the image of Oxford and Cambridge. He wanted American government to resemble Westminster, knowing full well that in Britain today the Prime Minister is a dictator, free of any checks. Wilson wanted the same for the President in a manner that would make even a Gaullist blush. Indeed, one of Wilson's many bad legacies is a chief executive out of control. Mencken was right to observe that the US State Dept. was simply an antechamber to the Foreign Office in Whitehall.
   - LA mentions Wilson's stokes, one after another it seems, and tries to blame them, wrongly, for his manifold shortcomings. In fact, I have yet to see in print what seems quite possible: That Wilson - and for that matter Theodore Roosevelt - were really unhinged.
   
   Wilson's 2nd worst foreign policy blunder was his treatment of Latin Americas - a treatment inept when it wasn't contemptible. LA tries to make Bryan the fall guy for Wilson's folly, and considers the Villa fiasco as "necessitated". I pray the Mexicans now flooding into the country have short memories. When it comes to economics, LA really shows himself wanting. He considers the Federal Reserve Act a "great success", giving us an "elastic currency", when in fact the fiscal solvency of the US -- relatively sound after Hamilton's schemes were put down and prior to Wilson - has been a shambles ever since. Need proof? Check the inflation monitor at the Commerce Dept website and see what a dollar in 1950 is worth now. And thank Woodrow Wilson. Desperate for something good to say about Wilson's domestic turn at the helm, LA chooses his tariff reduction - only on the same page to state, rightly, that the taxpayer was now to be equally robbed by the new Federal Income Tax (also a Wilson deed), that tariff reform was aborted by the Great War, and that it was repealed in 1922.
   
   LA never mentions Wilson's lasting effect on domestic US politics: Completing the work of Lincoln in the destruction of the Jeffersonian party in the US (I'm grateful to Thomas Dilorenzo and Clyde Wilson for this insight). Prior to Wilson, we had such a party, the Democrat Party - with support for minimal government, subsidiarily, states' rights, low tariffs, originalist construction of the Constitution, Anglophobia, gold standard (at least until Bryan), staying out of European affairs, and a healthy suspicion of banks. Wilson turned this party into a socialist party. In fact, now we really only have the choice between two socialist parties: The Hamiltonian version of the Republicans, and the 100 proof offered by the Dimmycrats.
   
   After page 64, LA offers a complete whitewash. Wilson's utter disaster - still visited upon all of us, and re-uttered in the inaugural addresses of Kennedy I and Bush II - was, or course, his entry into World War I, with all the suffering that this decision caused. LA can only find sympathy for Wilson's views, and wastes a whole chapter of this short book demonizing Lodge. I am reminded by the estimable Clyde Wilson (no relation, certainly!) that Woodrow Wilson was our only Ph. D. president. LA offers nothing better than the socialist and PHuddy-Duddy camorra presiding in our Potemkin universities
   
   So, as we wait for a good biography, anyone who really wants to know the truth of the Old Fool should save his money and buy instead Jim Powell, _Wilson's War_, and Thomas Fleming, _The Illusion of Victory_.
   
   Two stars for being mercifully brief with readable prose.



4. This is a reasonable brief introduction to the career of Woodrow Wilson. His upbringing and early academic career are disposed of in short order in the first chapter. Then one chapter deals with his presidency of Princeton, one deals with (or covers the same time period as) his governorship of New Jersey, and the remaining seven cover his Presidency, all in an engaging and chatty style.

   The book's strongest point is describing what happened, although even here there are some strange omissions. It mentions his break with Hibben in Princeton without describing the circumstances, noting that Hibben went on to succeed Wilson as President of the university, or exploring the parallels with his later breaks with House and Tumulty. All of this could have been covered in a single paragraph. In addition, there is no mention of the country's Caribbean adventures in 1915; none of the Red Scare of 1919; and, probably worst of all, nothing about the Sedition Acts and the imprisonment of Eugene Debs, and no discussion of why America behaved worse towards its own citizens during and after the war than either Britain or France did. The first time the book mentions the League of Nations, it doesn't clearly describe what its purpose was (and it would have been nice if it had mentioned that it was actually the idea of the British Foreign Secretary, not Wilson). Still, as an overview of the events of Wilson's life it hits most of the main points.

   The book has less to offer on why things happened. In trying to explain why Colonel Harvey picked Wilson for Governor of New Jersey, it gives two pages on what Harvey got wrong about Wilson, but nothing on what he got right. It also takes at face value the idea that Wilson was offered the governorship "without ... even lifting a hand". It describes Wilson's feeling of betrayal by House when he returned to Paris in March 1919, but not what House had actually done!

   As noted by another reviewer, the book also fails to put Wilson's international achievements in a broader context. His aim of a just, lasing peace with Germany failed; his aim of encouraging self-determination among smaller nations succeeded, and he is still looked on as a hero in many smaller nations of Europe. Some more insight and context, and a more detailed assessment of his legacy, would have been welcome.

   Woodrow Wilson was a fascinating and controversial President. This book helps explain -- and to an extent shares -- the fascination, but it doesn't do enough to help the reader assess the controversies. Still, it's an reasonable starting point for people who know little about Wilson.

   One final comment: I'd also have been interested to know how the author is related to the Gordon Auchincloss who attended the Versailles conference -- it's not that common a name, after all.




5. If you don't know much more about Woodrow Wilson than an overview of the important events of his life, this book isn't going to help much. There's very little political analysis, almost no attempt to portray what diffiulties Wilson needed to overcome, and no passion at all in the writing. Actually this book feels a lot like a high school term paper that someone knew they had to write and just wanted to turn in for a passing grade. Auchincloss talks a bit about the two Wilsons (one good one bad) and hints at Wilson's dependance on women, but neither of these positions is fleshed out or used consistently. Maybe Woodrow Wilson's life is just too large for a book this small.

5 comments about Years of Renewal.

1. kissinger details how the white house was run after nixon resigned and ford came into power--the photographs are excellent and the text is inciteful----kissinger has been accused of some very bad decisions inhis time that caused many innocent lives--this book gives the reader for why he made those decisions



2. Henry Kissinger's book, "Years of Renewal," is a complete review of U.S. foreign policy initiatives while he was Secretary of State under President Gerald R. Ford. In it, he details how they built upon the foreign policy successes of the Nixon Administration and laid the foundation for the resurgence of the American spirit seen during the Reagan Administration. From a diplomatic standpoint, this may have been America's finest hour.

   With the possible exception of Lincoln, no U.S. president has inherited a nation as severely divided as Gerald R. Ford. Immediately after assuming office, he faced one international crisis after another with a hostile, "McGovernite Congress," and an emasculated intelligence gathering system that made effective response to even the most extreme provocations virtually impossible. Kissinger says throughout, Ford made decisions solely on what was best for the nation, not on what was politically expedient. His reward for such selfless service: defeat in the next election.

   Like Kissinger's other works, this book can be read either in individual chapters or be taken as a whole. In each segment he details, what they did, what their options were, the assumptions their actions were based upon, and if unsuccessful, what their fall back plan was to be. In spite of seemingly insurmountable odds, they were able to hold the Atlantic Alliance together, strengthen our ties to the Peoples Republic of China, and keep the Soviets out of both the Middle East and Africa.

   The Chinese war philosopher, Sun Tsu said, "In the moment of victory, button your chin strap." History has proven the Soviets should have listened. Given our national paralysis following Vietnam/Watergate, it seemed they could not be stopped. In the international chess game--that is diplomacy at the highest levels--they were stopped through the efforts of a few, dedicated statesmen who blocked them at every turn. The fall of the Soviet Union and Communism was the ultimate result.

   This book is a textbook on how to conduct foreign policy. Enlightening and informative, it has inspired me to read Kissinger's other works, "White House Years," and "Years of Upheaval." I highly recommend it to any serious student of the era.




3. I have admired Henry Kissinger for many years. I think he is one of those limited intellectual diplomacies who really have, not only limited to one's word, a long term vision. It's really enjoyable when you read his book and share his thoughts.



4. Dr. Kissinger, for all of his hubris and arrogance will truly go down in history as a great statesman. His intimate and sometimes self-deprecating writing style will keep the reader at the edge of their seat especially during the end of the Vietnam War and the crisis with Cyprus. All three volumes could very well serve as textbooks for anyone interested in the finer points of statecraft.



5. The book does not mention the effect that many of his decisions had on the "little" people , the common , insignificant people , the families destroyed in the blaze of war as a result of many of his decisions while playing geopolitical chess games with the Russians and the British and the Chinese. During his reign as secretary of state , antiamerican feeligs soared in Cyprus .A folk song was being played on the radio right after the 1974 war there. It talked about the great powers of the world who treat people's lives as a whim of the moment. It said that the singer wanted to set the "Embassy of Death" on fire.Can you imagine? The American embassy won the nickname Embassy of Death! .It should have been embassy of life . What Mr.Kissinger forgets to mention in his book is that he masterminded a coup d'etat in Cyprus , installed a dictator , and then invited the Turks to invade there and capture half the island because he did not like the elected democratic president.(He thought that being a non-aligned country was like inviting the communists to take control of a crucially strategic island ). The horror of that war was beyond imagination. Mr. Kissinger is still afraid to visit either Greece or Cyprus because the people with missing parents or children might lynch him.There were many demonstrations agaist his person , which surprised and brought him down to reality as to what happenned to real people with every decision he made. Even now as we speak ,25 years after the events , an American forensic team is unearthing and DNA identifying missing persons bodies .Cyprus had more missing persons than the USA had in the Vietnam war. Unfortunately the American people have absolutely no idea how many people died or lost their homes so that the multinational companies would have more oil , more control ,more raw materials, more wealth etc.They see what Hollywood shows them .

5 comments about Grant (Great Generals).

1. I admire Washington, Lincoln and Grant. While the former two have garnered numerous accolades, Grant has been unjustifiably denigrated personally (alcoholic, fool, depressed) and professionally (butcher). His presidency has been unappreciated. Mosier makes a persuasive case that General Grant was probably a genius. In the final chapter, he briefly discusses Grant's undervalued presidency. I would highly recommend two other brief succinct biographies one by Korda and another by Bunting both of which explore Grant's presidency.
   
   Mosier dispels many Grant myths. He was not an alcoholic in a medical sense. He was self-taught in algebra. He entered West Point which was one of the best educational institutions in the world. West Point entrance examination had a 50% failure rate. He graduated 21st in a class of 39 but 40 of them failed to graduate so he was in the top 25%. He was a good artist with a great 3-D vision which was essential for a commander during battle. He was a great horseman.
   In the Mexican war, Grant was a quartermaster who demonstrated tremendous skill in logistics. This experience was vital when he commanded the Union armies and he made sure his men got enough ammunition, food etc. He displayed tremendous personal courage during the Mexican war (riding away to get ammunition) and ingenuity (dragging cannon to a church steeple).
   
   Mosier compares U.S. Grant favorably with other great generals, namely Wellington, Napoleon and Foch. He finds Grant to be superior all of them. Without him, the North would have lost the war. Grant never lost a battle. Mosier defends Grant against charges of butchery by comparing Civil War casualties with those suffered by the British and French in World War I. Robert E. Lee said, "I have carefully searched the military records of ancient and modern history, and have never found Grant's superior as a general". Grant's magnanimity in victory is still an American tradition.
   
   The book contains some historical errors which other reviewers have pointed out and I will not belabor here. This prevents me from awarding 5 stars. I am happy to find a book that appreciates this good, decent, honest everyman, great general and undervalued president.



2. In GRANT by John Mosier, the accomplished military historian and author of The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War I, the author posits that Ulysses S. Grant (1822-1885) is "one of history's greatest captains" (xi). This volume of Palgrave Macmillan's Great Generals Series, effectively validates this claim. The limber prose is illuminating, succinct, and decisive; plus, the presentation of facts is exact and thorough. Being a historian, ROTC cadet, and espoused Grant admirer; I must note that this is the best study of Grant since Flood's Grant and Sherman: The Friendship That Won the Civil War, and one of the most hagiographical on Grant (a positive since the rise of Revisionist History). I was surprised and delighted by the level of intellectual thought, study, and research that was compiled in only 199 pages.
   
   This book is a valuable addition to the study of such an illusive and grossly misunderstood man. Mosier captures the inalienable quality of Grant that many biographers have missed: true genius. I do not understand why men like McFeely in Grant: A Biography, who won an undeserved Pulitzer for his bilge about Grant, and many other biographers have interpreted Grant as an inebriate, ignoramus, depressed fool and butcher. The proof against these fallacies are within Mosier's text. Mosier convinces the reader, and supports my long held hypothesis, that Grant was not an alcoholic in the medical sense of the term and that he possessed inherent genius. I have always admired Grant and considered him my foremost hero but this text radically altered my opinion to the highest degree. I have nothing but the utmost esteem and veneration for this great captain.
   
   Mosier says of Grant that he was "a world class strategist whose achievements left a lasting imprint on the American military, and his unbroken string of victories make him unique" (1). In supporting this claim Mosier refrains from "conjecture and inference" and instead finds support from fact (10). One such poignant quote from the text was, "The most important part of Grant's significance as a military leader...is his attitude, his calm steadiness, together with his unwavering confidence in his men...has become what we might call the signature of the American commander" (166). Indeed, one might infer that this is also an American quality: the everyman quietly and diligently working for himself and posterity. It is the legacy of Grant that Robert E. Lee summed up best, "I have carefully searched the military records of ancient and modern history, and have never found Grant's superior as a general" (164). Grant the man is an enigma, for he is often described as "taciturn and imperturbable" but I feel Mosier reveals more details on this illusive subject (10).
   
   Overall I would give this book 5 stars for high quality prose, superior insight, hagiography, and excellent readability. The general reader will also delight in this study of Grant for Mosier provides essential information for any laymen not familiar with the military world about campaigns, theory and Grant's peers. While nothing will compare to Grant's own Ulysses S. Grant : Memoirs and Selected Letters : Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant / Selected Letters, 1839-1865 (Library of America), a masterpiece of American prose, Mosier's book provides rich detail to the spectacular life of the man. A companion piece would be Josiah Bunting's Ulysses S. Grant (The American Presidents), another equally readable and great addition to Grant knowledge. Let me be brief: I recommend this book for anyone interested in Grant, military history, and the American Civil War.



3. In my humble opinion, while Mosier has written a book with interesting insights and conclusions about Grant's ability as a general, I feel that he got too much into analysis of his personality and why he did what he did. I say this because at the beginning of the book, Mosier admits that he does not have much information on Grant the man. So why draw all of these conclusions if you do not know much of the man's personality? Why not just instead analyze his successes and failures?
   
   Another point of contention I have are the lack of good maps. While Mosier does have some good descriptions of Grant's campaigns, there are not nearly enough maps to detail his Civil War movements.
   
   Granted, while I am a lifelong Civil War buff, I am by no means and expert on the period. However, I do believe readers will get more out of reading other titles on Grant, specficially: "Grant" by Jean Smith, "Grant and Lee" by JFC Fuller, or the titles by Bruce Catton (Grant Moves South, Grant Takes Command).
   
   Complaints aside, I do believe that Mosier has written a book that will challenge the reader to further assess Grant's ability as a general and president.



4. I wish that I read these reviews before purchasing this book and hope that a few will save their dough by reading this. Not only is the book filled with basic factual errors it paints such a saintly figure of General Grant that one would suspect Mosier is related. From the author's perspective, Grant is not only a genius but his alchoholism and depression were actually assets! U.S. Grant was an excellent commander, far better on the offense than on the defense but Mosier's treatment would lead one to believe that he won the war single handedly. Again, I urge you to save your time and money, and find a good copy of Grant's Memoirs.



5. Have to concur that the book abounds in factual errors and this is a shame because the overall approach and observations about Grant's genius are sound. Mosier dispels the myth that Grant was a dullard at West Point (not challenged enough) or a chronic alcoholic-- more likely an "episodic alcohol abuser" who had it under control by war. Other points: Casualties were as great, and often greater, in the Napoleonic Wars but armies were made up of the dregs of society and most of the dead weren't missed--harsh but probably some truth in that. So Grant wasn't a "butcher" but all strata of society was now represented even in the lower ranks and, coupled with a literate society and a lively press, deaths shook the nation, especially starting with Shiloh. Halleck comes off even worse than in most works: he set Grant up for Shiloh. Anyway, the novice really needs to get his facts elsewhere--and some decent maps--elsewhere but should eventually read this book.

No comments about Lincoln And His World: Prairie Politician, 1834-1842.