5 comments about The Vanderbilts.

1. If the colorful and less than admirable qualities of the illiterate 'Commodore' Vanderbilt and his brood are of interest add "Fortune's Children" to your list of books. The old man owned the New York Central Railroad, and his office was in New York's Grand Central Terminal ( It is NOT a station ). How he made, by borrowing a hundred dollars from his mother while on their farm on Staten Island, a fortune that ended at his grave on Staten Island is a tale worthy of outlandish fiction worthy of a few years of Soap Opera episodes. The story is filled with back stabbing Business deals, a man more concerned with the future of his money than his family, gold digging hoes, and how this fabulous fortune vanished in 3 generations of the wildest most wasteful spending one could imagine. I highly recommend 'Fortune's Children'. the book offered here is a teaser to that book, and it has a lot of excellent illustrations.



2. This is a very informative book about a self-made family that became very wealthy and well known. This was a great buy. $20.00 cheaper than I could get it at the Builtmore Estate.
   Thank you Amazon!



3. This book is wonderful, I really could not put it down. The pictures are exquisite and the text is highly informative. The Vanderbilts may have not always been happy, but by God they did enjoy their money. Unlike many of the Gilded Age American aristocrats, like the Rockefeller's and Carnegie, the Vanderbilts where not ashamed of their money and they wanted to show it off...granted they do not have the lofty philanthropic legacy of the Rockefeller's or Andrew Carnegie, but they did give us wonderful estates and a taste of what it was like to be fabulously wealthy at this amazing time, they lived like French nobility before the Revolution, and to this day when you list the ten greatest American mansions, you can bet that the Vanderbilts will be well represented. This book captures all of this and more...if you have any interest in this Age or this family or quite frankly interesting people and good writing then you will enjoy this book, it really is a five star book.



4. If you are a fan of the Vanderbilts or of the Gilded Era, this book is a must. I have to admitt that I own lots of coffee table books. Usually, I just look at the pictures, read the captions, but never a word of the text. This book caught my attention from the start. It's a wonderful history of the Vanderbilt family, although not too heavily involved. I found that the family tree charts were loads of help while reading the book ... with such a large family it would be easy to forget who's who.
   The pictures are exquisite, they bring the Vanderbilts and their fabulous homes to life. There are 291 illustrations, 92 of them are in full color.
   I bought this book on a visit to George Vanderbilt's Biltmore Estate in the mountains of North Carolina. If you live any where near the area, I highly recommend a visit. The house, gardens and winery are out of this world!



5. This book serves a myriad of purposes. If you are interested in turn of the century architecture, this book is for you. If you are interested in the social mores of the day, this book is for you. If you are interested in the Vanderbilt familiy in particular, and America's aristocracy in general, this book is for you. With hundreds of wonderful photos and illustrations, and an objective account of the history of one of America's richest families, "The Vanderbilts" takes the reader back to an era of nonchalant decadence. A time when prosperity was the plaything of the gods, and the gods were called Vanderbilt, and were lead by "The Commodore". America today is enriched by the spoils of their success, boasting some of the best in arcitecture and art collections. The family who gave us Grand Central Station, The Metropolitan Opera, and a good deal of the exhibited contents of the Met Museum also provide us with a fascinating tale of the rise and reign (and stumbles and pratfalls along the way) of American royalty.

5 comments about Douglass and Lincoln: How a Revolutionary Black Leader and a Reluctant Liberator Struggled to End Slavery and Save the Union.

1. As the Kendrick's stated at a recent book talk on their new work: 'we often approach this war [Civil War] through the lens of its ending...but it wasn't like this at all at the time.' This book chronicles, in a very enjoyable novel-like way, the constantly shifting dynamics of the War as reflected in the personal relationship of two great men. Not afraid to tackle the folklore that surrounds each man, Paul and Stephen Kendrick provide helpful insight into a profound relationship.



2. Having read both Oakes' Radical and the Republican and the Kendrick's new book on Lincoln and Douglass (the Abolishionist, not the rival Senator), it seems to me that this recent book gives a much fuller human dimension to the relationship. Though this is an amazing political story (one Americans should know more about), Douglass and Lincoln offers a more vivid, personal insight into these very complicated, indeed enigmatic, men. All told, I enjoyed the book, and have no hesitancy in giving it the full five star treatment. In the current deluge of Lincoln books leading up to the 200th anniversery, this is one book that truly has a fresh angle on a well-worn topic. To see the struggle of the Civil War through Frederick Douglass' eyes makes it all seem new, even surprising. A wonderful read even for people tired of the Civil War.



3. As a student of history, I found this a compelling look at two towering figures and a cogent study of their rarely-explored relationship through the Civil War. Approaching the subject with subtlety and sensitivity, Kendrick and Kendrick make a case for the mutual influence of their dialogue. It was this force that ultimately cemented Lincoln's conviction to continue the war, not just his aversion to breaking the Union. Through new primary sources--unpublished letters, black abolitionist papers--the book provides critical background which gives abolition new resonance.



4. This is a truly fascinating book and an exciting story.
   The Kendricks' use letters, articles and mountains of other research to bring these men and their struggles to life. I found myself seeing them not as icons, but as people. It is an exciting story to follow Douglass' mission to make the Civil War about freedom, his son's perilous experiences as soldiers and the Kendricks' interesting take on Lincoln's evolution.
   Watching Lincoln through Douglass' gave me a Lincoln I had never seen before. While they do not hold back with aspects of Lincoln on race that may surprise you, he emerges as great because he is not paralyzed by his prejudices as he rises to monumental deeds.
   I cannot recommend this book highly enough. These two have a true gift for making history interesting and inspiring.



5. The Kendrick's have composed a compelling and engaging tale of the relationship between Fredrick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln shared during the Civil War period. After reading the novel, my knowledge of the main characters was broadened and I gained a deeper insight into the uniqueness of their bond. As a person who has read a number of Lincoln books, I was most suprised by the excitement with which the author's tell the story. I found myself invested in the outcome of the characters and how they affected each other through the times. Most importantly, the Kendricks wrote a book that is not only intelligently written and important to American history, but one that I could not put down.

5 comments about Mary Todd Lincoln: A Biography.

1. Mary Todd Lincoln had a rough life. From the early death of her mother to the treatment she recieved from her stepmother, to her husband's assissination and was committed to an asylum by her own son. Reading the biography it was hard not to feel sorry for her. I knew naturally (as everyone) about her husband's assissination but I was surprised about how hard the rest of her life was. Her son Robert committed and she had to fight to get out of the asylum. Her early years Mary spent having to put up with a stepmother who wanted her husband's first set of children completely forgotten. Poor girl.



2. very comprehensive study of a woman who began life as a spoiled child, but got kicked in the butt by life. she sedated herself with extravagance and meaninglessness. one of the most tragic things in her life was the betrayal by her son, who used his influence to have her declared insane so that he could obtain control over her money. that had to be as painful to endure as the assassination of her husband and the deaths of her two younger sons. i feel nothing but empathy for this poor woman.



3. This is the seminal biography for Mary Todd Lincoln and one of the best biographies you will ever read. After reading dozens of books about Mrs. Lincoln to write my novel about her insanity trial (A Warrant For Mrs. Lincoln), I always came back to Jean Baker's book for information and insight into the Lincoln family. If you have an endless fascination for the Lincoln family, this book is a must.



4. Couldn't put this book down.....Jean Baker wrote a truly remarkable narrative non-fiction. I had previously read another fictional "Mary" book and was surprised to see that both books were similar in historical data surrounding her (Mary's) life. One can only imagine losing so many children and then one's husband, and NOT being driven to doing odd things. The psyche is a strange science marked by extraordinary and mysterious sensivities to outside pressures.



5. This book supercedes all previous treatments and will likely remain the definitive account for decades. The author's grasp of the topic is masterful, her prose highly readable. Her usage of documents from Mary Todd Lincoln's era is particularly impressive. Both the specialist and the general reader will find the book rewarding.

5 comments about Jesse James: Last Rebel of the Civil War.

1. This book explains how the Civil War gave birth to outlaws like Jesse James. It is very well researched, detailed and interesting. A must for historians.



2. 
   This is a fascinating work on Jesse James. It is not so much a standard biography as a "political history" of James. And that makes this an interesting read. The question animating this book is (page4): "Why should one set of criminals be so much more memorable than another?" The answer (page 6): " [Jesse James] was a major force in the attempt to create a Confederate identity for Missouri, a political and cultural offensive waged by the defeated rebels to undo the triumph of the Radical Republicans in the Civil War." Hence, his Confederate background resonated strongly with the politics of Missouri.
   
   The book itself follows a chronological organization, beginning with Jesse's father, a preacher. It also describes his mother, a most formidable person, who remained an important part of his life over the years--and a strong advocate for her sons. The Civil War was critical for the family. Frank James rode with some of the Confederate irregulars, such as William Quantrill and Bloody Bill Anderson. Jesse was too young at the outset of the Civil War to be involved, but he rode with his brother, later on, with the partisans. When the war ended, the rage continued for the James brothers (especially Jesse).
   
   The book contends (and it is a reasonable case as made by the author, although I'm not sure that all readers will be convinced) that James' outlaw exploits after the war were a continuation of that conflict by other means. He was, in the eyes of the author, something of a guerilla; he is also termed a "terrorist," in the sense of using violence to try to advance a political cause (this case may not be convincing to readers; I have my doubts that the case is very strong to adopt this language).
   
   There follows an outline of his many robberies, the violence associated with them, the various members of his gang over time (including the Younger brothers), the ups and downs of their brigandage, and the political context in which their actions occurred. The political discussion appears to be done pretty well, placing the James' gang's depredations in a larger perspective.
   
   Then, they detail nicely the disastrous Northfield, Minnesota raid (disastrous from the James' gang's perspective--not from those who wanted to hunt them down). Frank and Jesse escaped, Jesse (and later Frank) to rob another day. Then, Jesse's demise. The book ends with a quick summary of the fates of key players from this volume, and provides some satisfaction in bringing things to a close.
   
   The political aspect to James, as argued by T. J. Stiles, the author, is very interesting and makes this an intriguing work. I am not sure that all elements of this work successfully (e.g., the use of the term terrorist). But the book provides a nice spin on the life and times of Jesse James.



3. I picked this book up, like everyone else, as I was curious about the man behind the legend. Well, I never really learned all that much about Jesse James. I certainly learned about Missouri, Kansas, the civil war, bushwackers and the like, but not a whole lot about James.
   
   It seemed well researched and Stiles writes in a readable style but it was not the book I thought it would be.



4. Jesse James has led a life that is shrouded in mystery. Stiles tries to put a perceptive that shows him as carrying on the civil war and fighting the style against the industrialized north that was popular at the time. It is an interesting biography and takes several different perspectives that are hard to find. There are few good James biographies out there and this is basically the best. For those looking for more on the outlaw group there are several about the whole gang but for those who just want one book about the robbers this is by far the best choice. It is thorough and gives enough information without being overbearing. Highly recommend for any civil war library as well.



5. Stiles' book is a well written, well researched, and informative exploration of violence in Missouri in the Civil War era. The biggest problem, however, is that only the last few chapters focus on Jesse James. Because James did not leave behind many documents detailing his actions and motivations, Stiles provides lengthy context about the political and social environment in which James lived. Far too much context, in my opinion. The focus of his book is often far away from James's and his gang's actions. Although a historical figure cannot be divorced from the context of his/her times, a historian should not stray too far from the central figure of a biography. A more accurate title of this book would be "Jesse James's Missouri." Page after page passes with little or no reference to James or his gang. Only after Reconstruction ends does the author focus on Jesse and his crimes.
   
   Stiles faces a problem in convincing the reader that Jesse was a diehard Confederate. Although James came from a slaveholding family and seemed to have no sympathy toward Yankees and Northern Reconstruction policies, James's Confederate identity seemed the brainchild of his greatest defender, the newspaper man John Edwards. Stiles provides little information about James's racial views, which were central to Confederate and post-war Southern politics. Although James no doubt shared the racist convictions of his day, he seemed to act with no clear idea of how his crimes would undermine Republican political aims: civil rights legislation and fiscal/state activism. Since Missouri was never officially a Confederate state, it was not occupied in the way the Deep South states were. Nor was there a large black population in Missouri. James seemed not to have directed attacks at black men or women or their white Republican allies, the people who were the targets of ex-Confederate violence in other states. Many of James's victims were Unionists. Although Unionists certainly were not liked by Confederates, James lived in a very different environment than say, South Carolina, where one's Unionist past was less important than the color of one's skin. One should also be very cautious of Stiles labeling James a "terrorist." Although there are some similarities between nineteenth century bushwhackers and present-day terrorists, the term bushwhacker or bandit for James and his gang seems sufficient.

5 comments about Lion in the White House: A Life of Theodore Roosevelt.

1. I recently finished "Lion in the White House", referring to President Theodore Roosevelt.
   While I have read many other books about this fascinating man, "Lion in the White House" is a compilation of other books and extensive research. It is an excellent and concise documentary of events and personalities of the time. A very easy read.



2. It would be pointless for me to criticize this book for being too short, because it was obviously intended to be a quick read that provided an overview of Teddy Roosevelt's life. And it did that. Yes I would have liked to hear more about Roosevelt's insatiable oldest daughter, among other topics, but for the most part, I got what I wanted out of the book.
   
   I had never read a TR book before, and I want to read McCullough's "Mornings on Horseback" at some point soon. I felt that to prepare for that book, which does not cover TR's entire life, I needed some background on the man. And "Lion in The White House" provided that.
   
   This is the kind of book that you can read in a week and get an understanding of what Roosevelt's goals were as a politician, and what drove him to be as progressive as he was. It did whet my appetite for a more detailed study of the man. But this time, I wasn't looking for a 700-page or multi-volume monstrosity, so I'm glad Donald's book was on the shelf. As long as your expectations are for a short overview of TR, you will be pleased with this book. If you're looking for great depth and detail, you should look elsewhere.



3. This is not my period so I cannot attest to any of the specific details. I was simply looking at background on Roosevelt as a writer of American History. Besides Winston Churchill I can think of no easier subject for a short biography and the book does capture many of Roosevelt's accomplishments. However, this book is stunningly badly written and edited. And this is not simply the gratuitous digs at today's Republicans as noted by other reviewers. I cannot figure out how it received so many endorsements from renowned History professors. I understand that a short book on such a rich subject may lead to gaps - but there are so many gaps, jumps, incomplete thoughts and non sequiturs that it makes reading the book a jarring experience. In addition, Donald has a quirky and idiosyncratic way with the language.
   Such criticisms clearly require supportive examples.
   In terms of key issues being broached but never explored, Donald describes Roosevelt's run for Governor as follows: "Besides the trial with Platt as an obstacle to his progress, there was Edith's reluctance to re-enter public life. She soon became enthusiastic and even went to the State convention, held in Saratoga, New York, on September 27." P107 The phrasing of the first sentence is decidedly odd. Then we find that Edith's reluctance miraculously disappears though previously it was an obstacle on a level with the opposition of apparently the most powerful political boss in the New York Republican Party.
   Other examples of Donald's odd phrasing include: "The new president did not throw caution to the winds, but boldly tacked in domestic and foreign afairs." P134
   Then there is repetition: On pages 131 and 155, where Dr. Donald uses exactly the same quotes about lynching.
   Then there is the sheer lack of clarity when Donald describes the complexities of New York politics and Roosevelt's need for support for his re-election as President:
   "He(Roosevelt) also watched as two rival Republicans, Boss Platt and Benjamin Barker Odell, a rising politician, fought for control of the Republican Party. Odell found that Platt had lied to him and would not be his ally.
   "During the struggle, Platt told Roosevelt that he would favor him continuing on as president, but Roosevelt did not put much stock in this because he thought Platt, who was not well, would be more likely to follow him than would Roosevelt." Page 141
   Clearly there is something wrong here. An editor would have helped clear it up!!
   Another disappointment was cursory examination of how and why Roosevelt ran again for President. But perhaps by then I was too jarred to follow Dr. Donald's line of reasoning.
   Fortunately for Dr. Donald, her book is saved by the brilliance of Roosevelt.



4. When one writes a book or an article, one must first decide the audience for that work. The serious student of Theodore Roosevelt will be disappointed with this book as it contains nothing new. It is merely a precis of TR's life, from beginning to end. While reading this book the question "Why?" entered my mind many times. Why was it written? Why were certain parts highlighted and others ignored?
   
   For example, when Roosevelt returned from Cuba after the Spanish-American War, he flirted with the idea of running for governor of New York. His wife did not relish the idea. She eventually changed her mind, but the reader is not told why: "Besides his trial with [Thomas C.]Platt as an obstacle to his progress [in gaining the nomination], there was Edith's reluctance to reenter public life. She soon became enthusiastic and even went to the state convention..." (107). Were bargains made with Edith? Why did she change her mind? If that fact is important enough to mention, a better explanation as to her turnaround should have been forthcoming. There was also a lack of credit for some quotes in the book. Mark Hanna, the Ohio senator who was against TR becoming vice-president, was mentioned in several places. Yet, his most famous quote, "Now that damned cowboy is in the White House!" (after McKinley's assassination) is merely credited to "...an anti-Roosevelt Republican" (130).
   
   In a book filled with excerpts from Roosevelt letters and speeches, some of his best speeches and quotes are left out. His 1915 speech to the NYC Knights of Columbus where he dismisses "hyphenated Americans," is not mentioned. For a book published in 2007, one could argue for inclusion of the entire text of that speech. Also, while discussing the assassination attempt on TR during the 1912 presidential campaign, his famous line, "It takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose," is also omitted.
   
   Clearly this is an abbreviated history of a long, event-filled life. This work does not do that life justice. Considering the lifetime of work by the author, one has to wonder if she penned the book only to add to the list of her accomplishments. Moreover, the lack of a serious bibliography and the absence of notes calls into question the academic validity of this work. It would have been better had it not been written in the first place.
   
   It was awarded three stars because it would be fitting as an introduction to the twenty-sixth president. Its prose flows well and is easy to read. Since the curious reader will want to find out more about Roosevelt, it would be recommended to a middle school student as a way to become familiar with one of America's great icons. Those who are beyond that stage should look to other sources for an in-depth education about Theodore Roosevelt.



5. For the many people who admire Theodore Rossevelt for his belief that corporations have a civic responsiblity to American citizens, new books on this icon of progressivism are always welcome. It is important, however, to temper one's affection for TR with expectations of scholarship, and when one does so, Donald's book fails to satisfy. Compared to the Morris two-volume biography, Donald's book lacks sufficient detail to be classified as a legitimate biography; instead, it seems to be a simple encomium. Serious readers will not learn anything that they did not already know about TR, and they may be offended by the book's shallow treatment. This book might be suitable for a junior high student as an introduction to TR, but it has little merit for a more adult audience.

5 comments about Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley.

1. What can i say about this book well written another great by: Peter Guralnick again every Elvis fan needs this in there library. I don't buy just any book that is written about Elvis i only purchase books by authors that is not going to be misleading and tell untrue things just to make the book sell. Mr. Guralnick tells the truth because he researches his material before writing anything about Elvis if you don't have this book you need to purchase it.



2. I have finished reading Last Train To Memphis. I really enjoyed learning more about Elvis' early years. Just makes me realize what I already knew. Elvis Presley is a wonderful man, very professional. I would have loved to been there with him. The Author Peter Guralnick is very detailed in his writings. I highly rate this book. Now I'm reading Careless Love by Peter Guralnick.



3. I just finished reading this book and am amazed at the insights into Elvis' life that the author showed. He covered a lot of things that have been covered ad nauseum by others yet made it read like a novel. And, he adds so much more detail to the day-to-day life of Elvis that provide a much fuller description of his life. Even reading the footnotes is fascinating.
   For a true Elvis fan, this is a must have for your collection. I could hardly put it down and this is not trivial reading, given that the book is more than 500 pages. Mr. Guralinick's 2nd book on Elvis ("Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley) is a must read also.



4. If you want to step inside the life of Elvis, these are the books. Peter makes it a very personal reading. So much so, that after 2 years I haven't finished reading the second book.
   Not because of disinterest, but just because it's so personal. I just wish that the ending could be different.



5. I thought Elvis was the Golden gift from God until I read this book.
   I can't give it a 5 because I had such a hard time keeping up with who did or said what. I found the book very hard to read. Some sentences were paragraphs long and so botched up that I had to read them over and over just to finally understand what he was trying to say. (When a person gets at a certain stage in his/her life, things wear out, ie, memory.) Time and again I had to revert back to even 2 or 3 pages ago to find out who said what, ie. "who did he say was talking here?" I asked myself.
   And further, not the author's fault, of course, but if what he's written was true, then Elvis was not, per his professed church's teachings, the type of good Christian that we were taught to be. I come from that same type of church. Holiness. We did not use profanity. It was very much a no-no. And it is written somewhere in the bible to not resort to swearwords/bywords. And using God's name in vain is very much a sin per our teachers. Elvis took God's name in vain on at least two occasions that I remember. And then reprimanded one of the "guys", "don't ever take the Lord's name in vain around me again".
   And he was constantly using that other most vile word -- the "f" word. I finally was able to skip over those, but not until I had seen them and too late. They embarrass me even as I'm reading them to myself and there's not another soul in the room with me. I know that God knows that I've read them to myself, and I have to just say, "Forgive me God". Makes my skin crawl to hear those awful words. It use to be said that people who resort to swearing were illiterate/uneducated and couldn't make any other type of sentence. Not so these days, at least it doesn't seem to be. I hear some very well placed and educated people resorting to it. It's a crying shame. I can't even watch movies anymore, and it's getting so on TV, and now in THIS book about one of the people I use to admire. My husband and I were sweethearts when Elvis put out that first record, and we really loved his singing. Today is our 51st wedding anniversary. We loved Elvis back in those days for who we thought he was. And, in the coming years, I didn't believe much of the stuff we heard about him. I still thought he was an outstanding person. After all, my own mother told me that a man who loved his mother and treated her good, would love his wife and treat her right. I believed it. My husband and his mom were very much like Elvis and Gladys. Neither thought the other could do any wrong. He's treated me very well over the years. And I will never EVER forget when my husband's mom died. He was as devastated, and more so, than Elvis was, I'll bet. I had never seen him even close to crying before that day. And I have only one more time since then. I have no doubt that Elvis loved his mom. I don't have any issues with him over that. Because I have first hand knowledge of a scenario in that. But, I just don't understand how he could be so loving and devoted to his mom and do some of the things he did.
   And about sleeping around as much as he did: He was taught, if he actually did belong to the Assembly of God Church and attended it regularly, he was taught that one doesn't sleep around with persons to whom that person is not married. That's called "fornication", and in the case of when he was married, it's also called "adultery". He should have been studying his bible more, because those words are well defined in any bible.
   Call me a prude or whatever you want to, but I was raised in that Holiness church to be as righteous as I could and the way God intended for me to be. I know at times it's hard and I won't say that I don't stray from my teachings, but Elvis didn't seem to be concerned with it.
   Then there he is saying that "nobody tells him what to do". Yet, every time Tom Parker or RCA dictated that he do something, he was right there, running his friends (hangers-on, some might say), running them off, and doing whatever would make "Kernel", and RCA happy. For instance, one of his good friends came by to see him, and Parker came by and called Elvis out of the room and told him to send the guy home. Did Elvis say "NO, You don't tell me what to do. I want him here and he's staying"? No he did not. He came back in the room and said "Kernel (that's what I call him since that's what he wanted to be called, but he was NOT a Colonel. That's an insult to even military people, of which I am married to one). Elvis told him "Kernel doesn't want you here so I guess you have to leave". How cruel. Elvis was the one who invited the guy to visit in the first place. Had to be humiliating to the man.
   And I'm concerned as well that he didn't seem to show very much loyalty or "payback" to those at the very beginning - from that first record: Sam, Scotty, Bill and Dewey. It doesn't say, though. I wondered all the way through the book, "did he ever do anything nice for them like he did the hangers-on? Giving them cars and houses and such. Maybe if he'd shown a little gratuity towards Dewey, Dewey wouldn't have stiffed him with that song, I've forgotten which one, by playing it too early before it's official release. After all he's the first one to play Elvis's first record so that it got heard by hoards. And he was always mentioning it and Elvis and pushing it. I've heard that it's great publicity and PR.
   And there's poor Sam, the guy who knew he couldn't do enough to help Elvis with his music, as much as he'd like to, and as much as Elvis deserved. He faced the fact that he'd done as much as he could do for Elvis due to lack of funds and lack of connections that Parker had, of which Elvis had NONE. And Sam in dire financial straits, about to lose his business, etc. I know he got $35,000 for Elvis's contract; however, look how much Elvis made from that deal. It wasn't enough to save Sam's business. I feel that he owed a heck of a lot of it to Sam and Dewey, even though they both had that "potty mouth syndrome."
   And then, poor Scotty and Bill. There they were from the beginninig as well. A TRIO. Just because Elvis twisted his pelvis around, he got all of the attention. Later on after they resigned, he realized that he really needed them. And that's where I am in the book right now. I just had to come and write this stuff down while it's fresh in my mind. And I'm about seething at Elvis. I know I shouldn't have hard feelings about the dead, but he did these things when he was alive. And I'M not dead. YET.
   I hope to read that he's going to share a little more of the wealth with them. Scotty was married (children? I've forgotten) but was terribly in debt due to making such low wages with Elvis, even for those days. $100/wk, only when he worked, while Elvis was making thousands???? And spending thousands on his friends???? UNREAL.
   One of OUR (in the Holiness Church) 10 Commandments is "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto YOU". I wonder how Elvis would have felt if the shoe were on the other foot. If the band had hired him as their "insignificant" boy singer.
   My final thought right at this moment is that old adage "be careful who you trample on your way to the top, because you could fall right on your face on the way down." Or something to that effect. I'd like to have been a fly in that bathroom where Elvis died. On his way out of this world, did he think of those people he didn't treat right? And ask forgiveness. Only God knows.
   Oh I know he passed out a lot of charity and stuff, but he neglected at least those 4 I mention. And in comparison with how much he had, the charity wasn't all that significant. Just one of those Cadilacs, or Lincolns or houses or jewels or vacations he was always treating to first one and then another, could have supported an orphanage for a whole year. Or an old person's retirement home. I do remember that he gave 900 DOLLARS to a boys outfit of some kind, and a TV to one of the teachers. BIG DEAL. In retrospect, no, I don't think he was all that generous. I wonder did he give 10% to the church? Like he was taught to do in the HOLINESS Church. That could count as some redemption for him. But I'm afraid not enough. I hope he's up there, for he surely knew the way he was suppose to live his life. I just don't believe he practiced it as well as he should have. In his case, it's good that I'm not one of the judges at The Gate.
   And if he made it to heaven, I still feel like I've got a chance, if that same judge will be my judge and forgive me for having such horrible thoughts about another soul.

5 comments about Co. Aytch: A Confederate Memoir of the Civil War.

1. Interest in this particular Civil War memoir increased due to its being frequently quoted and referred to in the documentary series on "The Civil War" that aired on PBS stations almost twenty years ago. Thankfully, the success of the series caused "Company Aytch, or a Side Show of the Big Show" to be reprinted.
   
   As a narrative device, film maker Ken Burns compared and contrasted the recollections of Samuel R. Watkins, a Confederate soldier who served in the Western theater of operations (principally in Tennessee and Georgia), with the diary entries of Elisha Hunt Rhodes, a Union soldier from Rhode Island. Both men saw significant combat action and both survived the war.
   
   Although Rhodes recorded his immediate observations, Watkins began his memoirs after the war had ended and his book was published seventeen years after the Army of the Tennessee had surrendered. He had the advantage of being able to meditate on his experiences and I found his book to be of greater interest as a result.
   
   I have read both "All for the Union" (Rhodes) and "Company Aytch" (Watkins). While both books have much to recommend them, I am partial to the latter. As a writer, Watkins produced more profound opinions. There seemed to be more color, humor, poetry and reflection in his prose. Rhodes seemed dull and factual in his summaries which often culminated with the slogan "All for the Union." I do not mean to diminish Rhodes or his military service in any manner, but Watkins is simply a better writer.
   
   The conclusion of Watkins book is quite moving. It was memorable when broadcast on television and it is no less memorable when read from the printed page.



2. Mr. Watkins tells a humble and epic story. A confederate private shares his unique perspective. Reveals the grim realities of a glorious cause going from bad to worse and back again. It is truly amazing he survived four years of warfare. Most often death was easier than survival. General Bragg routinely court martialed his troops with a firing squad for deserters. Further punishments like barreling, whippings and deprevations were routine. It got better under General Johnston and worse again under General Hood. The soldiers alternatively cursed and praised the war, its' cause and the Generals. Yet like in all wars, the men fought for each other. So many soldiers met their Maker, whereby Watkins extolls their virtues and praises. Eloquently written and graphically descriptive. Sam's survival is a testimonial to God's protection. Written in the 1880's.
   READ the book and you will find a friend from the ages.



3. Sam Watkins himself describes it best himself,A Side Show to the Big Show. This Book describes the War For Southern Independence, from the eyes of a common Private in the Confederate Army. He was in it from the Start to the End. I've read it 5 times, I enjoy it more each time!! A MUST for anyone studying the WAR!!



4. Surely themost informing view of the pasr is the personal diary or even memoir. Often in the military genre we find that what is written in a diary after the battle offers a ver different view than the mrmoir written some time later. Sam Watkins's memoir is the exception. I doubt a diary wou read substantially different from this book. Sam is a mature man who sees through the gloss and temporary glory of the moment both on the field and from his armchair. If you forget the name on the cover, you can believe the person responsible for it goes by the nom de plume of Mark Twain. This is not a book for the military library, it bellongs in every library.



5. There are seveal diary books which are like Co. Aytch however for some reason I could relate to Sam Watkins. When I'm asked about the Civil War/War of Nothern Aggression, I tell them to start their study of that time with two books: Co. Aytch and Testament:A Soldier's Story of the CIvil War by Bobrick. Both books are a 5 star in my humble opinion. After reading those two then go on and read whatever you want.

5 comments about Robert Kennedy : His Life.

1. Although I was only 7 years old when he died I have talked to many people about the passion they felt for Bobby. Boy, could we use someone like that now. Although the book does not shy away from his sometime machiavellian tactics, it shows a person who was so affected by tragedy that he really cared. I see film clips of when he visited Buffalo, and the entire Niagara Square was packed with tens of thousands of people. I cannot think of anyone, short of the Bills after a super bowl win, that would garner that much enthusiasm. Evan Thomas captures that and draws the reader in. I actually felt empty when finishing the book and sad that I could think of no one today that could fill that void. Thomas also through thorough research seems to dispel the popular myth of Bobby as a womanizer. He was actually a devoted family man haunted by his brothers death but loyal to wife and children. Not so with Jack. When Bobby was in Indianapolis about to speak before a black audience it was announced that Martin Luther King had just been killed. He discarded his planned speech and relayed his own feelings of how he felt when his brother Jack was killed. It was totally ad-libbed and from the heart. Indianapolis was one of the few major cities not to erupt in violence. I wonder how different this country might be had he the opportunity to serve us.



2. Evan offers much insight into an unfinished life. He meets the mark of a good biographer; as a history this is a well-balanced read. But he fails to give us what we crave: perpective into how the world might have been different had Bobby survived.
   
   Bobby once famously said: "Progress is a nice word. But change is its motivator. And change has its enemies". Mr. Thomas has done a commendable job of tracking that change, speaking to the better known facets of Bobby's personal as well as political evolution. Evan's book captures the antecedents: his awkwardness as a young Kennedy; the shadow, and then death of, his brother Jack; the opportunities to question the rigidity of his Catholic faith; his decision to align himself with McCarthy (Joe not Gene). These alternately help set the foundation for the evolution of Bobby from FDR politician to modern-day progressive. These help explain what caused a 1950's era government attorney concerned about Comintern penetration of the State Department to become a proponent of the United Farmworkers in its most radical years. Or those changes that caused the one-time skeptic of Martin Luther King to become one of his most ardent political champions.
   
   Evans provides the rationale for the enmity shared by various mobsters, LBJ, and even Roy Cohn. His rationale is this: Bobby cared. Evans touches us when he describes Bobby as a man who strived to live lives as others did. The description of Bobby's pain witnessing the utter poverty of rural blacks in the 1960's Mississippi delta is palpable and authentic. But Bobby was also a shrewd strategist, adapting to a time when the solid south was no longer the dependable, conservative counterweight of the Democratic Party fulcrum, and the campus was no longer the only forum in America for frank discussion of problems in America. Bobby was not an opportunist, but he was a political realist, and in the days leading up to the '68 convention Bobby reflected not simply the changes occurring within the antiwar movement or the modern-day Democratic Party, but also those changes occurring all across America at that time.
   
   Would Bobby have turned around a country that was heading down a path of "secret plans" to end the Vietnam War, Watergate, "Trickle Down" economics and South American puppeteering? Evan Thomas to his credit wrote a book about an unfinished life, and a good one at that. But for those interested in what might have been, we'll have to continue to wonder.



3. The life and times of Robert Kennedy beg for a coherent and in depth book .... unfortunately this is not it. Living in the shadow of his presidential brother, the shadow of his oldest brother killed in WWII and the all encompassing shadow of his father, RFK was able to chisel out an identity of his own in US history before his tragic death. Hoping to gain some understanding/insight of/into this man's character and evolution from a sullen child to presidential candidate and everything in between, and a chonology of such things as his involvement in the US civil rights movement, McCarthyism, Cuba (Bay of Pigs and The Missle Crisis) and his relationship in the White House with his brother JFK... I was greatly disappointed. A glaring hole in this book is any serious treatment of RFK and Vietnam. What the book does contain are snippets, quotes and anecdotes, some mildly interesting, (i.e. RFK's role in the release of Martin Luther King from prison), without any cohesiveness and very little context. And although many of the conclusions reached in this volume are valid they are simply not borne out here. The book's attempt to cover significant parallel events is at best confusing and there is also an alarming amount of armchair psychology. I hate to be so hard nosed but the subject deserves much better than this book.



4. Evan Thomas writes like who he is: a good reporter who realizes that what he's writing is history. He adds little sentimentality because he doesn't have to. He has framed his subject in an interesting way (Bobby's alienated childhood left him with empathy for underdogs and outsiders, as well as an outsized loyalty to the family's whose acceptance he craved) that just giving us the facts, just telling us the story, packs an emotional punch.
   
   Knowing how this story ends makes everything about it more powerful. Again, Thomas isn't maudlin because he doesn't have to be. When the Kennedy Brothers are dealing with Dr. King, all three of them making compromises because they are confident that they have time to accomplish their individual agendas, you shake your head because of what was lost. As Bobby moves to the head of the family, finally getting the respect he craved his whole life, you are overwhelmed with sadness and dread.
   
   Most of all, as you watch RFK change, learn and grow as a man and a politician and statesman, you ache for what we lost as a country. Today it seems that being completely intractable is viewed as a positive thing in our leaders. Bobby proved we have the capacity to evolve, to take our experiences and better ourselves. Imagine what a President like that could have accomplished!



5. This was a good read but it left me wanting to know more. Bobby Kennedy was an enigma but the book could have told me more about him. This book is definitely worth reading but it should only be the beginning of getting to know RFK.

5 comments about Gone Native: An NCO's Story.

1. A well-written document by one of the troops on the ground. Crazy moments of a GI under stress, a good feel for the local hill people, and remembrances of buddies in the field. Some of the actions and soldiers described by Cornett have been written about by others and it is always good to see another version of events, not for differences but for shades and nuances to flavor the stories.
   
   A personal growth story: A boy does good, does bad, then good again and manages to live through the process in a war that featured so many wrong decisions from higher and so many incompetent lower and mid-level officers more concerned with careers than with their men.



2. This was a good book to read. It gave a new perspective from "pre-military to post. I considered giving it 4 stars, but for an overall score, I thought 3 stars was more justified.
   
   I can recommend Gone Native to anyone who is thinking about purchasing this book, but it is not a page burner and it seemed to ramble a little towards the end. But in no way would I want a perspective purchaser of this book to think it's not a good one. It is. He is frank and honest and what landed him in the stockade was quite refreshing. (You always hear about the other guy. Well, Cornett was the other guy. Thank you for your honesty.)



3. Once I started reading the book, I could not put it down. I kept coming across places and people I knew and it brought back a lot of memories. I eventually supported several of his units with intelligence and map overlays for "sensitive" operations, and was in-country myself for six years. I had several run-ins with jerk officers but thankfully they were rare. But I did pull my .45 on three Pentagon O-6s at a SOG briefing when they refused to assist us. Luckily, an SF 1SG Deluca grabbed me and said they were not worth killing as they ran from the room. A couple of weeks later I was jerked out of VN and sent to Germany. I recommend this book to everyone who wants to know how close many of us got to the Vietnamese and the war, and I would very much like to be in contact with the author.



4. This was one of those books I didn't want to put down until I was done.



5. I have read hundreds of Vietnam nonfiction books and this is in the top 15 for sure. Great book and flows great, did not want it to end...

5 comments about The Catcher Was a Spy: The Mysterious Life of Moe Berg.

1. I felt like I was reading the sports pages for the first 140 pages. Too many stats, facts and figures. The storyline didn't flow, the plot was sluggish and languished for the most part. The story of Moe Berg's life should have packed some punch! I expected more pizazz. His life warranted it, but the book didn't deliver.



2. This interesting biography covers a most unusual person. Moe Berg (1902-1972) was a talented linguist, ballplayer, and U.S. espionage agent for the OSS (forerunner of the CIA) before and during World War II and briefly for the CIA after the war. Author Nicholas Dawidoff describes Berg's mysterious life, including New Jersey boyhood, studies at Princeton and Columbia, and years as a second-string catcher for the Dodgers, White Sox, Indians, Senators and Red Sox. Even as a player Berg was better know for his linguistic skills and stealth than for his baseball exploits. Then readers learn of Berg's years as a spy, which probably began when Berg toured Japan with other big leaguers in 1934. The author describes Berg's secret wartime activities, including his 1944-45 mission to ascertain the status of Nazi nuclear research. We also read of his later years, when except for brief CIA assignments, Berg chose to freeload off relatives and friends rather than employ his superb linguistic and legal talents (he had a law degree). A Overall, Berg was an enigmatic man, and this biography, written two decades after his passing, fails to uncover much about him - perhaps Berg would have wanted it that way. Still, this is an interesting and nicely researched biography.



3. Moe Berg was completely unpleasant. I found myself wondering why I should care about his life. He was a mediocre ballplayer, a mediocre scholar and a mediocre spy. His talent was that he was pleasant to be around. Why write a book about him?
   
   Why read about him? I wondered that. My reaction was, "So what?"



4. Moe Berg is truly one of the most interesting, and enigmatic, characters in sports history. What always fascinated me was how, after WWII and no longer in baseball, Berg never worked. He would stay at friends and relatives' homes throughout the country, reading multiple newspapers, and maintaining strict control of those papers. My guess, and this would make for an interesting investigative study, is that he stayed on the OSS/CIA payroll and was working for them, in some capacity: Dissecting the news, dealing with Communist espionage - or who knows, maybe he was working with foreign elemnets. Berg was something. He has to be considered a major hero. Surely the fact that he was an ex-ballplayer makes him stand out from the other heroes under "Wild Bill" Donovan, as does the fact that a Jew was sent to Nazi-controlled Finland to get German scientists. This is a terrific story. (...)



5. I'd been anticipating reading this book for some time, but getting through it was a chore. Dawidoff's writing and research are thorough. Berg left behind a wealth of personal material and many who knew him were still alive and available by phone or personal interview to Dawidoff. Hundreds of anecdotes and details about Berg's life emerge from these resources, and Dawidoff marches them all past the reader. The question is "Why?" Berg never becomes very interesting. It is well-known that he was a mediocre major league catcher. He was not much better as a spy, excelling mostly at running up large expense accounts. His tradecraft was abysmal; making and keeping notes to himself about briefings he received is such a fundamental error as to be ludicrous. After more than 300 pages it remained hard for me to take Berg seriously in any of his endeavors. In the end this is the biography of a moderately interesting obsessive dilettante, whose avoidance of normal human contact except on his own often strange terms seems almost pathological. Dawidoff tries valiantly but a New Yorker profile of about one-tenth this length would have been a sufficient account of Moe Berg's mildly curious life.